• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republicans scold Liz Cheney

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Have I missed this subject matter elsewhere on this message board? When both the right and the left attack the former Vice President's daughter, I am surprised that no one here has posted about this.

Liz Cheney makes me sick, and I am glad that people who served under Bush I and Bush II agree that her attacks are out of line. When Ken Starr shows up on Keith Olbermann, that says a lot about Liz Cheney and Bill Kristol's stupidity.

A group that includes leading conservative lawyers and policy experts, former Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr and several senior officials of the last Bush administration is denouncing as “shameful” Republican attacks on lawyers who came to the Obama Justice Department after representing suspected terrorists.

Senate Republicans have demanded details of the lawyers' past work and Liz Cheney’s group “Keep America Safe” has questioned their “values." A drumbeat of Republican criticism forced the Justice Department reluctantly to identify seven of them last week. But the harshness of the criticism – Keep America Safe labeled a group of them the “Al Qaeda Seven” — has provoked a backlash from across the legal establishment.

“We consider these attacks both unjust to the individuals in question and destructive of any attempt to build lasting mechanisms for counterterrorism adjudications,” wrote the 19 lawyers whose names were attached to the statement as of early Monday.

Republicans scold Liz Cheney - Yahoo! News

I hope her stupid group "Keep America Safe" loses credibility as a result of her foolish statements.
 
when did ken ****ing starr become the standard bearer for moral political activity?
 
when did ken ****ing starr become the standard bearer for moral political activity?

Do you want to discuss the other lawyers who signed the letter?
 
Do you want to discuss the other lawyers who signed the letter?

no, i was focused on the presentation that ken starr is somehow the one who benchmarks the morality of political activity
that is an absurd proposition
but since it is your thread maybe you will be able to explain why he holds that status (in your world view)
 
no, i was focused on the presentation that ken starr is somehow the one who benchmarks the morality of political activity
that is an absurd proposition
but since it is your thread maybe you will be able to explain why he holds that status (in your world view)

If he were the ONLY lawyer on the right attacking Cheney's position, I might question that myself. But that's not the case. But if you want to set your eyes on him, be my guest. I feel confident that Cheney is wrong on this issue whether Ken Starr says so or not.
 
when did ken ****ing starr become the standard bearer for moral political activity?
Ken Star did his job, and damn good job at that given the sensitivity of the issue and viciousness of attacks upon him.
 
no, i was focused on the presentation that ken starr is somehow the one who benchmarks the morality of political activity
that is an absurd proposition
but since it is your thread maybe you will be able to explain why he holds that status (in your world view)
Present your evidence that Ken Starr did anything underhanded ever?
 
What is it Ken Starr did that makes his name familiar? He wasn't the lead investigator into Clinton's sex trails was he?
 
What is it Ken Starr did that makes his name familiar? He wasn't the lead investigator into Clinton's sex trails was he?

That's the guy. He started off chasing another rabbit and eventually found something to go after Clinton with for the high crime of not being a conservative republican. Eventually Clinton got tripped up by the whole thing and performed an actual crime. (For the record, I don't care what he did with Lewinsky since they are both adults and it did not affect his job performance.)

I do not doubt the same thing will happen to Obama if the Republicans get in charge of either the house or the senate.
 
Last edited:
That's the guy. He started off chasing another rabbit and eventually found something to go after Clinton with for the high crime of not being a conservative republican. Eventually Clinton got tripped up by the whole thing and performed an actual crime. (For the record, I don't care what he did with Lewinsky since they are both adults and it did not affect his job performance.)

I do not doubt the same thing will happen to Obama if the Republicans get in charge of either the house or the senate.
All meaningless rhetoric, read about him. All he did was his job. You don't like him because he found out the obvious truth about Clinton and put it in a report.
 
That's the guy. He started off chasing another rabbit and eventually found something to go after Clinton with for the high crime of not being a conservative republican. Eventually Clinton got tripped up by the whole thing and performed an actual crime.

Are you sure you don't have Starr and Clinton mixed up with Fitzgerald and Scooter Libby??
 
That's the guy. He started off chasing another rabbit and eventually found something to go after Clinton with for the high crime of not being a conservative republican. Eventually Clinton got tripped up by the whole thing and performed an actual crime. (For the record, I don't care what he did with Lewinsky since they are both adults and it did not affect his job performance.)

I do not doubt the same thing will happen to Obama if the Republicans get in charge of either the house or the senate.

Well, other than the fact that Clinton was a scumbag - just ask his wife - he did lie to federal investigators and that is impeachable. No question that it was a witchhunt, though. Pretty disgusting all around.

But to this topic...someone wrote, perhaps the article:
Senate Republicans have demanded details of the lawyers' past work and Liz Cheney’s group “Keep America Safe” has questioned their “values." A drumbeat of Republican criticism forced the Justice Department reluctantly to identify seven of them last week. But the harshness of the criticism – Keep America Safe labeled a group of them the “Al Qaeda Seven” — has provoked a backlash from across the legal establishment.

So do I read this correctly that some Republicans AND Liz Cheney's group are questioning Obama lawyers? And Republican lawyers are objecting? The first could be viewed as politics as usual, but the second part is interesting. I guess they want to preempt the idea that a lawyer for a scumbag can't serve in any capacity in the government.
 
Well, it's difficult if not stupid to question values. Lawyers have a job to do and they do it. If they have to defend a scumbag they do so. If the lawyer defending the scumbag finds evidence that the man did what he is accused of, that lawyer can and should provide that evidence to the prosecution. Lawyers VALUES? I wasn't aware lawyers - prosecutors or defense attorneys had them in the first place. I mean, maybe corporate lawyers or contract lawyers... but criminal attorney's?

I would question their ideology and political affiliation before values. If Liz Cheney wants to make an arguement that they're sympathizers and apologists - then show the evidence and let's discuss it.
 
I"m not really sure why we'd want defense attorneys who represented terrorists working as prosecutors for the Dept. of Justice. That makes my eyebrows go up, frankly.

I'll be honest...I'm not a fan of defense attorneys. They have their role. It's a necessary role. However, some of the people they represent are completely despicable, and I'm kind of shocked at the morality of the people who choose to be associated with those types.
 
If he were the ONLY lawyer on the right attacking Cheney's position, I might question that myself. But that's not the case. But if you want to set your eyes on him, be my guest. I feel confident that Cheney is wrong on this issue whether Ken Starr says so or not.
she's not just wrong, she's a repulsive bitch.
 
I"m not really sure why we'd want defense attorneys who represented terrorists working as prosecutors for the Dept. of Justice. That makes my eyebrows go up, frankly.

I'll be honest...I'm not a fan of defense attorneys. They have their role. It's a necessary role. However, some of the people they represent are completely despicable, and I'm kind of shocked at the morality of the people who choose to be associated with those types.
yes, it's a necessary role. let's remember that everyone who goes on trial isn't guilty. there's nothing immoral about these people doing their jobs.
 
Ken Star did his job, and damn good job at that given the sensitivity of the issue and viciousness of attacks upon him.

Damn right. The guy is a hero.
 
she's not just wrong, she's a repulsive bitch.

Why? Because she refused to let the Obama administration keep their lawyer list anonymous?

Yeah! How horrible for her to make sure the lawyers' names are actually known!
 
yes, it's a necessary role. let's remember that everyone who goes on trial isn't guilty. there's nothing immoral about these people doing their jobs.

No its just flat out stupid. Thats like hiring Johnny Cockran to prosecute murderers.
 
No its just flat out stupid. Thats like hiring Johnny Cockran to prosecute murderers.

Exactly. For one thing, we need the prosecutors in federal DOJ to be top notch. They have to work closely with the federal law enforcement agencies, sharing sensitive information on cases. They need to have a strong prosecution background. They need to be the best of the best.

Is this seriously the best we can do???
 
Exactly. For one thing, we need the prosecutors in federal DOJ to be top notch. They have to work closely with the federal law enforcement agencies, sharing sensitive information on cases. They need to have a strong prosecution background. They need to be the best of the best.

Is this seriously the best we can do???

Remember, Holder is a defense attorney from the one law firm with the most lawyers who have defended terrorists in the United States.
 
For the record, I like Eric Holder. Before he worked for a private firm, he had a long and distinguished career at main Justice.

This is what I agree with:

His aim, he wrote, was to push for Justice to release their names and to raise “the question of whether former pro bono lawyers for terrorists should be working on detainee policy for the Justice Department.”

I don't believe that detainee lawyers should be drafting detainee policy.
 
No its just flat out stupid. Thats like hiring Johnny Cockran to prosecute murderers.

Ahhhh, I can tell that those of you who are arguing this point do not understand the advantages that hiring someone who was once on the other side has in these kind of circumstances.

It goes both ways. Many prosecutors go on to be defense lawyers and vice versa. These lawyers have a unique perspective.

I could switch sides in my job and make a killing. I just choose not to.
 
Back
Top Bottom