uscitizen
Villified User
start digging the bush Admin is full of both Iran contra and watergate types.
Cheny for one, Rummy was another....
And our current president is the son of the Iran contra ringleader.
Pleading the 5th
- Thread starter Cancel7
- Start date
start digging the bush Admin is full of both Iran contra and watergate types.
Cheny for one, Rummy was another....
And our current president is the son of the Iran contra ringleader.
It's why I ask the questions that I do. I find it interesting.
He was originally convicted, and it was overturned on appeal, on the grounds that it was immunized testimony. So because he was under an immunity agreement, the appeal panel ruled that the statements he made to congress were unfairly used against him at his trial, because the statements to congress were made under the immunity agreement! Talk about your, "off on a technicality"! Gosh, conservatives just hate when black people get off on things like that.
Be that as it may, he's a liar, and he obstructed justice. Here is his own admittance of such, the man was proud of it:
(testifying in 1987, from "When President's Lie") "I will tell you right now, counsel, and all of the members here gathered, that I misled Congress....I participated in preparation of documents for Congress that were erroneous, misleading, evasive, and wrong, and I did it again here when I appeared before the committee convened in the White House Situation Room and I make no excuses for what I did."
And what gets over looked in all of this, is the many thousands of innocent people who were slaughtered in Central America because of these bastards. They were raped, tortured, and slaughtered.
And no technicality can ever wash that blood off the hands of North, Reagan, and the rest of those goons. And though they may prance around in front of right-wing audiences, and be applauded as "patriots", I would not want to face whatever creator one might believe in, with their sins on my hands.
May they one day dance for right wing audiences, in hell.
Yeah, I always like to read Jarod's take on these sort of things, and I'm almost always left saying "ohhh". Because you know, I know jack-shit about the law.
Thanks, Physically my Dad is doing pretty good. He is having episodes of pain which is controlled by Vicadin. Mostly he feels pretty good. I spent last weekend with him at the beach and he was well most of the time. If we did not already know he was sick I would never have guessed it.
Obviously he is having a hard time with the diagnosis and prognisis. He started Chemotherapy last week with the hopes that it will extend his life. I spoke with the Doctor last week who told me the outside stretch of his life span, even if the Chemo works very well, is 18 months.
He is comming to visit me this weekend for my son's first birthday.
Oh, I'm really very sorry. I hope you and he both find peace and joy in the time you get to spend together between now and then.
Thanks.
My wife and I are currently struggling with the idea of moving to Tampa to be closer to him for the next year or so. WE are currently about a 4 hour drive away.
uscitizen
Villified User
umm several in the current administration were involved as well...
My step-father had much the same prognosis, about 3 years ago he was told he would only live 6 months. Somehow his metastic cancer simply stopped.
My step-father had much the same prognosis, about 3 years ago he was told he would only live 6 months. Somehow his metastic cancer simply stopped.
I really enjoy hearing stories like this one. Thanks Damo. What kind of Cancer was it? My fathers is Metastic from the Panciras into the liver and bowel.
The Chemo is relativly new, only approved for the past 2 years, but they say it works to extend the life and comfort of about 60% of those who take it.
It was skin cancer that spread to the lungs/prostate.
T
TRGLDTE
Guest
DO IT! The time together is irreplacable.
Melanoma?
Dunno...
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
This is one instance where I have to agree with Damo. Although it's inevitable that publicly invoking the right to avoid self-incrimination always looks bad, legally it can't be taken as an admission of guilt.
Face it: we just don't know why someone might choose to invoke that right. We can speculate, which we all do with gleeful abandon, but speculation is only speculation.
Suppose she's doing it to protect someone else? Suppose she's doing it in defense of some -- undoubtedly misguided -- principle? We don't really know, and never will, like as not.
She should not be allowed to do it to protect others. Its a right against SELF incrimination. The defendant can be forced to testify in civil cases, unless that testamony could expose the person to criminal liability.
This is why a judge would need to view her profferd testamony, (basically a statement saying what she would say if called to testify), if that proffer (which could not be used against her) showed no likelyhood of exposing her to criminal liability the judge should then force her to testify.
Or she could be offered duratitive use immunity, then she could be forced to testify, but prosecutors could not use that testamony against her or use that testamony to find other evidence. Example, if she were given duratitive use immunity and testified that she used a gun to kill someone and that gun was under her bed. Prosecutors could not use the admission or, if that testamony was the only way they could find the gun, they could not use the gun. Now if later someone came forward, unrelated to the testamony, and claimed to be an eye witness to the murder, prosecutors could use that eyewitness testamony as evidence to prosecute the person for the murder.