October 20, 2006 9:35 AM
Beauprez: 'Whistleblower' was courageous
Bob Beauprez described the man who leaked the name of a criminal from a federal database as a "whistleblower" and praised his courage, reports Alan Gathright.
At a press conference today, Beauprez said the agent was justified in breaking the law to exposed Ritter's "obscenely lenient" practice of allowing immigrant drug traffickers to plead to felony trespass on farm land, which the congressman claims allowed them to avoid deportation.
PREVIOUSLY
With the source of a leak from a federal crime database to the Bob Beauprez campaign identified as a Colorado-based agent of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, political analysts say Beauprez's campaign is likely to take a substantial hit, report Todd Hartman and Stuart Steers.
The information was used in an attack against against Bill Ritter.
"Anytime you're behind in the polls by double-digits, the clock is fast running out, most of the endorsements are going against you and your name is now attached to the word 'Gate,' you're probably toast," said Eric Sondermann, an unaffiliated campaign consultant. "I don't know that it changes the dynamic as much as cements it."So far, Beauprez has refused to say where the information came from, other than commenting, "We got the information from a credible source. I know that the information is indisputably true."
Talk radio hosts Peter Boyles (KHOW) and Mike Rosen (KOA) cast the story in a different light: the media is fine with leaks that suit its purpose (the Pentagon Papers and the recent wiretapping leaks were cited) but attacks leaks that serve conservative causes.
What do you think? If the leaker had shared the information with the media rather than the Beauprez campaign do you think there would be a rush to identify him? Do you think the leaker's motives were to expose a perceived wrong or to harm a political campaign?
October 19, 2006
8:35 AM
JS writes:
Politics as usual in CO with all the negative campaigning. Looks like this one got caught, maybe. I want to here the issuse, not what dirt on candidate can dig up on the other. And DA are useless anyway. They over charge people in the first place, the double charge people, and go after kyds as adults way to much. There is no such thing as justice in this country anyway. Its a joke!
October 19, 2006
8:47 AM
Anonymous writes:
A little hypocritical for Ritter to assert a legality about the information that ended up hurting his position as a candidate. The involvement of the CBI and FBI are automatic under these circumstances. Too bad our laws didn't force Ritter to incarcerate or make available for deportation the repeat offenders in the first instance.
October 19, 2006
8:47 AM
David Hakala writes:
I'm going to break a funny bone between kamikaze kandidate Beauprez and "for the children" ex-Rep. Mark Foley. ROFLMAO!!
A liberal, a conservative, and a Republican were aboard an airliner when the captain announced that the plane was going down. Naturally, there weren't enough parachutes for everyone.
"Save the children!" cried the lib.
"Screw the children!" cried the con.
"Do we have time?" asked the Repub.
October 19, 2006
9:09 AM
Anonymous writes:
anonymous at 8:47 is probably a worker for the Bopray campaign.
October 19, 2006
9:29 AM
Chris H. writes:
8:47
Having sat on the jury in trial where we convicted an illegal alien of a crime, I can tell you it's not up to the local jurisdictions whether or not illegals get deported.
After the trial, as a jury we specifically asked the judge what would happen to her since we convicted her of a non-violent felony. He said that as part of her sentencing he would order her to leave the country once her time was served and her information would be turned over to the feds for deportation. But then he also told us that sadly, it was unlikely the feds would do anything, and even if she did leave the country, it was probable that she would come back.
One of the witnesses was also an illegal immigrant, whom, as part of his testimony had admitted to being deported twice, and yet returning each time. Ritter isn't the one to blame here - the feds are.
October 19, 2006
9:30 AM
JW writes:
Ritter did his job, and he did it well. The things all you sheep are upset about are normal for any DA. If you have a problem with them, your problem isnt Ritter, its with the system.
But Bobby boy the Republican sheppard said stuff, so you should probably follow, er, vote for him (rolls eyes).
October 19, 2006
9:45 AM
Anonymous writes:
Agreed. Republicans just latch on to anything to support their candidate, regardless of its validity. They could say that Ritter is responsible for the snow on Monday and the Republicans would bite like a fish after a worm.
October 19, 2006
10:20 AM
jay writes:
This wouldn't be an issue if Bob would just stick to running on his record. Unless of course it's not very good.....
October 19, 2006
11:57 AM
Trailhead Group writes:
We are being investigated too.
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4516223
It is almost as if some of you people would rather we not use negative, false campaign tactics!!!
October 19, 2006
12:41 PM
Fred. writes:
I wonder if Bob Beauprez will plea bargain?
ROFLOL
October 19, 2006
1:11 PM
Anonymous writes:
So let me get this straight - Ritter won't admit that the information the Beauprez campaign reported was correct, he just wants to shut that campaign up by accusing them of obtaining truthful information illegally.
Sounds like the same logic Ritter must have used when allowing immigrant felons to plead down and walk. We don't need a Governor who thinks like that.
October 19, 2006
1:13 PM
Anonymous writes:
When cornered by the truth, a lying lawyer will go on the attack using the legal system. Ring a bell?
October 19, 2006
1:15 PM
Anonymous writes:
Denver's Sanctuary Mayor has endorsed the Sanctuary Governor Candidate. Now there's a surprise.
October 19, 2006
1:25 PM
Geof writes:
This incident is a very good example of why we should be concerned about the G.O.P.'s stand on warrentless wire tapping - they try to convince us that they would never misuse the system for political gain. Bob the Bush-Backer didn't seem to have a problem doing that, and in short order, too.
October 19, 2006
1:40 PM
Geof writes:
A coward believes
the blood of others will do
what he would not
George W. Bush did not go to Vietnam and did not fulfill his National Guard commitment
Dick Cheney deferred 5 times during the Vietnam War
No al Qaeda
No W.M.D.
No truth
And Beauprez backs Bush and his policies. What do you think, people? Time to pull back Satan's drapes and start demanding these people be held accountable for their lies and deceptions. Your chance is coming right up.
October 19, 2006
2:05 PM
Anonymous writes:
1:11, 1:13, :1:15... probably the same person, are the type of lemming that believes anything the conservative attack ads say. Yea, blame the one who did his job, and did it well, and then let off the one who potentially broke the law. Sounds like the Foley case... blame the pages, not the perv... or Bush, blame Clinton, not an administration with 6 years of power.... or blame Iraq, not Osama.... little lemmings.....
October 19, 2006
2:28 PM
sick of it in Littleton writes:
Some reasonable posts here today. We should all be concerned by anyone from any party that breaks the law to win political gain. I still don't understand how Gov. Owens can be involved with Trailhead. I am very sick of the politics as usual coming from Washington to Colorado. And the poster who says local officials aren't responsible for deportation is correct.
October 19, 2006
3:20 PM
David Hakala writes:
What did Ritter do, exactly?
He cut a deal that put an accused (but unproven) drug dealer in jail for 63 days, then on probation. That was in 2001. Typically, a misdemeanor draws 6-12 months of probation.
So, for about 8-12 months, the guy was under close supervision. He wasn't arrested again for anything, or he'd have gone back to jail.
Beauprez claims the same guy - under a different name - was arrested in California on suspicion of sexually assaulting a minor - "later". Nobody anywhere mentions even the year in which this arrest allegedly occurred.
Now, if Ritter had prosecuted the guy on the drug charge, the guy might have gone free. Ritter could not deport him, and the feds have not been doing their job along those lines. Or, he might have been sentenced to probation anyway; we don't know if this was his first arrest.
Even if the guy was deported, he would have been back across the border in time for dinner. Happens every day.
Best case, the guy goes into a Colorado prison for X years, and we taxpayers support the illegal immigrant anyhow.
Looks to me as if Ritter got the good people of Colorado a good deal. It's not his fault if California's cops can't keep adults from screwing children.
October 19, 2006
4:36 PM
823 days to go writes:
Beauprez has stepped in it with both feet. First he calls federal officials out by noting the illegal aliens are not being deported by FEDERAL ATHORITIES (How much do you want to bet this is a Bush budget funding issue?). And then Beauprez breaks a federal law by releasing information from a confidential federal database. Republicans seem to be quite unsure how to keep classified and confidential information out of the press. Beauprez should feel lucky if he avoids jail time for this.
October 19, 2006
4:40 PM
Anonymous writes:
I wish he was going to jail, but get thought our of your head, it ain't happening
October 19, 2006
4:55 PM
823 days to go writes:
Do you know the penalties in releasing confidential federal information? You better wait for the FBI before you dismiss jail time. One year is a common minimum for these types of offences. It seems the federal government has lost its sense of humor with identity theft and released a group of laws in FIRPA, HIPPA, and others that make this type of criminal activity a felony.
October 20, 2006
5:25 AM
David Hakala writes:
The most annoying thing about BS is the author's insinuation that his audience is stupid.
From today's Denver Post:
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4519655
" Beauprez also said he had never heard of the NCIC until the current flap erupted."
True or not, that statement is another nail in BS Bob's coffin. Anyone who claims to be a law-and-order candidate but has never heard of the National Crime Information Center is either a liar or an incompetent idiot.
Oh, wait... that adds up to "Republican".
The article goes on to say that Beauprez claims,
"After initial conversations with the source, (Beauprez campaign manager John) Marshall asked (Cory Voorhis, the apparent source of the NCIC info) for more information and asked several 'follow-up' questions before finding all the information used in the ad in public records."
So where are these "public records"? There would be no "flap" if they had been produced a week ago. Bob's been claiming "confidentiality", but public records aren't confidential and they can be revealed without compromising their source.
Voters should turn Bob out of office simply for the crime of "contempt of constituency".
October 20, 2006
7:09 AM
David Hakala writes:
While we're munching popcorn and watching BS Bob commit political seppuku (Japanese ritual belly-slitting), let us also enjoy the self-destruction of his understudy in the role of Kamikaze Kandidate: State Rep. Dave Schultheis, Republican (of course) from Colorado Springs:
http://tinyurl.com/yguvyh
We can stop worrying about retirements from the cast of Saturday Night Live - the GOP will fill the gaps quite nicely! LMAO!
October 20, 2006
7:49 AM
David Hakala writes:
Coloradans can take comfort in knowing that it's not just our Republicans who are committing political masss suicide.
http://tinyurl.com/yb3e9q
"This is the letter that was sent earlier this week to (Orange County, CA) Latino voters telling them that if they are an immigrant, voting could result in jail time. Foreign-born U.S. citizens have the same voting rights as native born citizens.
"... State and federal investigations instead are focusing on the Tan D. Nguyen, Republican candidate in the 47th Congressional District. Thursday Nguyen said a campaign worker sent the letter without his knowledge and that the worker had been fired. Orange County Republican leaders called for Nguyen to step down."
Orange County GOP Chairman Scott Baugh:
"I've learned that Mr. Nguyen was involved in expediting that mailer," Baugh said. "I've had conversations with the attorney general and folks involved with the mail house. He called the mail house himself and told them to expedite the mailing."
Link to PDF of letter:
http://www.ocregister.com/newsimages/news/2006/10/20document.pdf
English translation of letter, extracted from PDF (the last paragraph is particulary ironic):
Greetings - You are being sent this letter because you were recently registered to vote. If you are a citizen of the United States, we ask that you participate in the democratic process of voting.
You are advised that if your residence in this country is illegal or you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that could result in jail time, and you will be deported for voting without having a right to do so.
At the same time, you are advised that the government of the United States is installing a new computer system to verify the names of all new registered voters that vote in the October and November elections. Anti-immigration organizations can ask for information from this new computer system.
Unlike Mexico, here there is no incentive to vote. There is not a voter registration card in the United States. Therefore, it is useless and dangerous to vote in any election if you are not a citizen of the United States.
Do not listen to any politician that tells you the opposite. They are only looking out for their own interests. They only want to win elections without any regard to what happens to you.
Sincerely,
Sergio Ramirez
October 20, 2006
8:46 AM
jay writes:
Speaking of Republican Nguyen...
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/20/immigration.voting.ap/index.html
October 20, 2006
9:10 AM
mk writes:
Bob Beauprez should be thankful the DA's office has a tendency to plea bargain.......He may need it.......
October 20, 2006
9:42 AM
Anonymous writes:
I don't see the harm in warning illegals not to vote.They shouldn't be allowed or encouraged to like La Raza is doing here in Colorado.
October 20, 2006
9:50 AM
jay writes:
The problem is that he warned "immigrants" not to vote...illegal or not.
October 20, 2006
10:19 AM
Anonymous writes:
The letter states if you are a citizen you should vote.It also said if you are illegal or a immigrant you should not vote.There are many immigrants here that are not citizens yet.
There is nothing in that letter that says if you are a legal citizen immigrant you can't vote.
October 20, 2006
10:21 AM
jay writes:
"It also said if you are illegal or a immigrant you should not vote."
That's my point...it plainly states that if you're an IMMIGRANT you should not vote.
October 20, 2006
1:20 PM
Dr. Strangelove For President writes:
David H. (Re: post on 07:49)
I was just reading that Schultheis article, and I couldn't help but notice that one Greeley resident - Joy Breuner or Breuer, I forget which - is sticking up for him big time. I noticed that both of their names are German in origin (Schultheis and Breuer/Breuner). How would they like to have some congressperson or candidate, whatever, make such a call asking if either of them had relatives or ancestors that fought against Americans in World War I or II? Do they have any Nazis in their family tree? Did any member of their families kill any Jews in the camps? Does either of them belong to the Nazi party now?
October 20, 2006
1:22 PM
Hogar De Vuelta writes:
Jay
It is clear that the letter writer is not a native American. They clearly state that if you are a citizen you should vote. I am fairly certain that the term immigrant was meant to refer to the legal term resident alien immigrant, implying one who is not yet naturalized. (I should know, I was one for 40 years. This deserves the red pen of an English teacher, not anything more.
October 20, 2006
1:25 PM
David Hakala writes:
"Mr. Nguyen has no intention of dropping out of the race. He would do the public a disservice if he dropped out," (his attorney) Wiechert said.
Just like the cancellation of "America's Funniest Videos" would! LOL!
October 20, 2006
1:26 PM
Kronos, God of Time for President writes:
Sorry David...I meant 7:09
October 20, 2006
1:31 PM
Scary Spice for Lt. Governor writes:
Contrary to Sergio's letter, the actual "Federal crime" involved would be falsely claiming citizenship in order to register to vote, not the actual voting itself.
Ah yes...fear tactics. The ever-reliable 4th branch of any Republican government
October 20, 2006
1:32 PM
David Hakala writes:
"It is clear that the letter writer is not a native American," says Hogar.
Dave Schultheis wants to know if the letter writer is here legally. If not, why is Nguyen hiring criminals to work on an AMERICAN election campaign?
I am in SUCH good humor today! LMAO!
The text I posted is a translation from Spanish, Hogar. We don't know the syntax of the original.
October 20, 2006
1:39 PM
Hogar De Vuelta writes:
David,
I took it that the original letter was written in English and then translated into Spanish. If I am mistaken, so be it, but I would think that the substance of my comment is still valid. The letter clearly implies their are citizens who should vote, and non-citizens who should not vote. I see nothing wrong with stating that, though I would certainly support greater clarity in the wording.
October 20, 2006
1:45 PM
Slim J. Pickens for President writes:
In regards to Peter "Festering" Boyles' allegation that, to the media (of which he is a member!) anti-GOP leaks are OK while pro-GOP leaks are bad, I must point out that the leaks he's talking about are about hidden wrongdoing coming to light via an informant. Beauprez's connection was deliberately designed to serve his election campaign; it was not a selfless attempt to bring heinous wrongs to light, not even arguably so. Then again, conservatives are notoriously just as biased about the difference between leaks that are perpetrated by them (Plamegate) and leaks that hurt them (Watergate). They try to minimize their own responsibility for their leaks, while attacking the media and liberal agencies for other leaks.
October 20, 2006
1:52 PM
Chris H writes:
It's not so much the contents of the letter that I think are the issue, but the mere fact someone in his campaign sent it (with or without his knowledge).
Right now, with illegal immigration being such a hot button issue, many people are hypersensitive to this kind of thing, particularly those of Hispanic descent who are here legally and are citizens, but are being unfairly targeted as illegals simply because of their ethnicity.
Should they be so hypersensitive? Probably not. But then, so many people these days are being so hypersensitive about anything and everything, it really doesn't matter what you do, you're going to offend someone. You know this aspect of American culture has gotten out of hand when schools ban kids from playing tag...
October 20, 2006
1:58 PM
Chris H. writes:
Slim - to sum up your comment:
Nobody wants to take the blame, but everyone wants to place it.
Goes for both parties and all sides of any issue.
October 20, 2006
2:12 PM
Anonymous writes:
The 2 primary causes for war and genocide throughout human history: racial differences and religious differences
The 2 primary motivators used by Republican candidates to sway their voter base: racial differences (immigration, etc.) and religious differences (abortion, gay marriage, intelligent design, etc.)
Think about it
October 20, 2006
2:17 PM
Stanley Kubrick for President writes:
Well, Chris, that's the egalitarian way to put it. The matter-of-fact way to put it is that all highly visible partisan proponents are viciously hypocritical, Boyles being no exception.
October 20, 2006
2:33 PM
David Hakala writes:
"I took it that the original letter was written in English and then translated into Spanish. If I am mistaken, so be it, but I would think that the substance of my comment is still valid."
You are. So it is, or be. It's not and never was.
The entire intent of the letter was to intimidate the reader. It was mailed exclusively to Hispanic voters.
October 20, 2006
2:56 PM
Anonymous writes:
Good comment 2:12
October 20, 2006
2:58 PM
Hogar De Vuelta writes:
David Hakala
I think that the letter was clearly intended to discourage those who do not have a right to vote from voting. In my opinion the letter is a reaction to those who tell those who are not citizens that they have a right to vote and they should vote. It is also a reaction to the fact that in many places, you need more ID to get a blockbuster card than you do to vote.
October 20, 2006
3:10 PM
Hogar de Vuelta for Chairman of the DNC writes:
And whether he believes it or not, that's Hogar's stance. Best possible intentions on the part of the Republican involved, and all for the sake of offsetting the grievous injury inflicted upon our electoral system by the liberals. Right, Hogar?
When his party is in trouble, Hogar spins like a top, down-playing like crazy. Doesn't all that spinning make you dizzy? I know I'm feeling nauseated...
October 20, 2006
3:19 PM
JW writes:
Bob is now calling a lawbreaker a "wistleblower"? Holy crap. This guy has NO boundries. Talk about corrupt.
October 20, 2006
3:22 PM
Hogar De Vuelta writes:
I am not the one ignoring the overall message of the letter, but rather focusing on what was meant by the single work immigrant, without looking at the context of that one word.
Those who want that one word to overide the many words which convey the obviously intended meaning are the ones who are spinning.
In a growing sea of lawlessness as defined by a flood of illegal aliens, this is obviously a misguided attempt to prevent those illegal aliens from voting and illegally changing the outcome of the election.
It should scare all Americans that if you have enough lawbreakers, they can in effect become the law and overthrow the rightful government. The 400,000 Americans to died to prevent that over 60 years ago are rolling over in their graves.
October 20, 2006
3:26 PM
Both ways Billy? writes:
I am surprised that Ritter suddenly believes that the person responsible should be given jail time. What about a nice PLEA BARGAIN instead?
October 20, 2006
3:26 PM
Chris H. writes:
"Bob Beauprez described the man who leaked the name of a criminal from a federal database as a "whistleblower" and praised his courage, reports Alan Gathright"
What!? Is Bob out of his mind? The guys courageous because he leaked information to a political campaign? Come on Bob - you really expect us to elect a guy who beleives that?
Whatever the guys motives were, I hardly think they were done to serve humanity. First of all, while this tradgedy might have happened because the criminal in question was able to plea bargain, there has been no proof that any of Ritter's actions in this case were out of line or illegal, particularly with the information he had available to him at the time. Secondly, had there been any illegal activity on the part of Ritter regarding this case, the guy who leaked was certainly in a position to bring his evidence to people who could launch an investigation, ALL WITHOUT LEAKING INFO FROM A CONFIDENTIAL DATABASE.
No Bob, you got caught and it's somewhat ironic that the national tendancy of DAs to plea bargain most cases is probably the only thing you can look forward to out of this.
October 20, 2006
3:27 PM
jay writes:
Bob can spin and dance all he wants, but he's still going to lose in two and a half weeks. Sucks for him. buh bye
October 20, 2006
3:27 PM
Anonymous writes:
the answer is to leaglize all wiretaps. everyone can spy on everyone else. that way selected information wont be leaked while other information withheld. only by abolishing all privacy rights will we have a totally pro surveillance society. no more secure data bases. no more national secrets. no more securety in your own home.
October 20, 2006
3:38 PM
Guido the Snitch for President writes:
If an informant has valid information regarding serious wrongs, he/she takes it to the law enforcement agencies or to the newsmedia, so that justice may be served. Taking it to use in a political campaign is perversely unethical...downright Rovelike, really.
October 20, 2006
7:00 PM
Aaron Orlowski writes:
Beauprez's comments are absolutely laughable.. straight up, what an idiot, you've already PROVED you can't be held accountable Beauprez... and he can't speak to ANY issue that is truly important to Coloradans... enough said, vote Ritter all the way!!
October 20, 2006
10:15 PM
Dunno writes:
If the agent is charged with a crime, do you think Beauprez will support offering him a plea bargain?
October 20, 2006
10:16 PM
Dunno writes:
If the agent is charged with a crime, do you think Beauprez will support offering him a plea bargain?
October 20, 2006
11:48 PM
David Hakala writes:
"It should scare all Americans that if you have enough lawbreakers, they can in effect become the law and overthrow the rightful government."
I think they called 'em "Revolutionaries" back around 1776, Hogar.
October 21, 2006
5:21 AM
Gop= Extreme corruption writes:
Both ways Bob sez
he "Did the right thing" ? UNBELIEVABLE!! Committing a crime is the right thing to do?
Bob is looking more like Nixon
Republicans would be better off without Bob, Tom Foley and Hastert
Bob is done
October 21, 2006
11:12 AM
David Hakala writes:
You didn't get the memo? "Both Ways" Bob is now "BS Bob". :-) Scheisskopft Schultheis and he and the comic relief of this election cycle.
October 21, 2006
1:46 PM
David Hakala writes:
Of course, you will. You're part of the problem now.
October 22, 2006
7:44 PM
Liberal Hypocrisy writes:
When Clinton lied under oath, the liberal analysis was "no harm done, it was only about sex" even though a law had been broken. Now, where there is again no harm done, those same liberals are "disgusted", and incredulous that anyone would condone a lawbreaker, even when truth is illuminated instead of lies told.
You guys make my job too easy.
October 22, 2006
10:42 PM
Anonymous writes:
LH
No harm done? A secure data base for law enforcement's use only is compromised, and you say no harm done. Yes, your job is easy because your mission is simplistic. Defend a Republican no matter what.
October 23, 2006
12:35 AM
David Hakala writes:
The liberal analysis was that Clinton lied under oath, several times, and deserved to pay the penalty. But his sexual acts did no harm to the nation.
In this case, a database whose use is restricted to specific law enforcement tasks on a need-to-know basis was used for unauthorized purposes.
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fbi/is/ncic.htm
The act of accessing this database for the purpose of obtaining data for use in a political campaign is the crime. It harms the nation by diminishing the people's faith in the security of this sensitive data, inclining them to press for greater restrictions on its use that may hamper law enforcement efforts.
October 23, 2006
8:56 AM
JW writes:
Actully LH, Bobby is lying by ommision, but you are far too stupid to see it.
And what the hell? Why is it always about the past with you? Why dont you comment on what is going on today? If you think its ok for Bob to do this crap, say so. You dont have to bring Clinton into it. The man hasnt been an elected official for SIX YEARS. Time to let it go. Its got nothing to do with today.
October 23, 2006
9:46 AM
Hogar De Vuelta writes:
I think they called 'em "Revolutionaries" back around 1776, Hogar.
Posted by David Hakala on October 20, 2006 11:48 PM
In 1776 the legal residents of the British colonies, declared independence, formed a government, financed the war and the government, wore uniforms and fought the British government.
Today, there are illegal aliens who hide, have no identity, have no independent government, have no financing, do not have uniforms and are not fighting. They simply want to usurp all the laws of our country and then be granted citizenship for their troubles.
To compare the founding fathers with illegal aliens is simply no reasonable.
October 23, 2006
1:45 PM
history buff writes:
Hogar, I agree with you on that analysis. There is no comparisson. But I think the statement is a form of the Columbus was an invader argument. Once you form a government, issue title to real property, and raise an army to protect your turf, you are officially a sovereign nation. That is why I don't buy the Palastinian argument anymore. Besides, Israel is recognized by other sovereign nations, which seems to the criteria for being a nation. For example, the Brits threatened to recognize the Confederate States of America, but they never did. The CSA was never recognized as a sovereign nation, so they could never base their sovereignty on international law.
October 23, 2006
1:54 PM
Liberal Hypocrisy writes:
My posts have to do with hypocritical behavior. To the anonyous responder - the database was not comprimised. The person accessing it had clearance. The ICE agent did not give out his password to anyone else. He reviewed the information and gave some of it to the Beauprez campaing since it illuminated something improper done by Ritter.
So, the NCIC database remains intact and secure. The only harm done was to Ritter's reputation and all you liberals can do is to try to blow this up to some kind of incredible disaster.
The analogy to Clinton's law breaking is appropriate since liberals downplayed the lies told and the breaking of the law by virtue of the subject. In that regard it is hypocritical now to crow about law breaking where again there was no direct harm done.
And anyone who suggests that the harm done is the people's trust in the federal database having become forever tainted should comment on how the people have been scarred by Clinton's lying and law breaking and why he should have any credibility as a former president.
October 23, 2006
2:06 PM
JW writes:
"My posts have to do with hypocritical behavior. To the anonyous responder - the database was not comprimised. The person accessing it had clearance. The ICE agent did not give out his password to anyone else. He reviewed the information and gave some of it to the Beauprez campaing since it illuminated something improper done by Ritter."
A) Still illegal, no matter how pretty you say it.
B) Doesnt show anything done improperly by Ritter. Same as any DA in the nation. Shows that the feds should have deported the guy, but again, nothing about Ritter.
"So, the NCIC database remains intact and secure. The only harm done was to Ritter's reputation and all you liberals can do is to try to blow this up to some kind of incredible disaster."
A) STILL ILLEGAL.
B) Only people this hurts Ritter's rep with are idiots.
"The analogy to Clinton's law breaking is appropriate since liberals downplayed the lies told and the breaking of the law by virtue of the subject. In that regard it is hypocritical now to crow about law breaking where again there was no direct harm done."
A) Still illegal.
B) Clinton did lie while under oath, 10 years ago. Get over it.
"And anyone who suggests that the harm done is the people's trust in the federal database having become forever tainted should comment on how the people have been scarred by Clinton's lying and law breaking and why he should have any credibility as a former president."
A) STILL ILLEGAL!
B) He lied about a bj. Does that make his analysis of current political debate incorrect?
October 23, 2006
2:28 PM
Hogar De Vuelta writes:
IF the law truly allows a DA to hide behind it while treating illegal aliens leniently, then it needs to be changed immediately.
With regard to the whistleblower, if he broke a bad law, he should be pardoned once the law is changed.
October 23, 2006
2:41 PM
David Hakala writes:
"the database was not comprimised. The person accessing it had clearance. "
He did not have any "clearance" to access that database for the purpose that he had. He violated very explicit need-to-know restrictions.
October 23, 2006
2:43 PM
David Hakala writes:
Furthermore, he gave the information to people who emphastically did NOT have the least shred of authority to have it. That is the very definition of "compromised".
October 23, 2006
2:50 PM
JW writes:
"IF the law truly allows a DA to hide behind it while treating illegal aliens leniently, then it needs to be changed immediately."
WHOA! LOL! Problem with the system Hogar, not the DA. You need to get a grip. This is EVERY DA in the country, Repub or Dem. The way you put it is a nice bit of Anti-Ritter rhetoric though. Well done.
"With regard to the whistleblower, if he broke a bad law, he should be pardoned once the law is changed."
I agree. The law about asking Presidents where they get their BJ's needs to be changed as well, and Clinton pardoned...er, Repubs shut up about it. Plus I want my share of the tax dollars Republicans used for that bs back.
October 23, 2006
3:58 PM
David Hakala writes:
Hogar, when you're President you may pardon whomever you wish. Traditionally, all Presidents do. They needn't even restrict themselves to "bad laws" that have been repealed.
I thought you true-blue patriots knew how these things work?
October 23, 2006
4:12 PM
history buff writes:
Government employees are not supposed to use their Civil Service status to provide information to a partisan political campaign. It is a rule that goes back to the assassination of President Harding and the end of the spoils system. That one is common knowledge.
October 23, 2006
4:13 PM
history buff writes:
Oops. Make that President Garfiedl. Harding died during his scandals. Garfield was murdered at the DC railstation.
October 23, 2006
4:20 PM
Anonymous writes:
Hogar's awfully lenient when it coms to Repubs breaking the law, under any circumstances. You must have gallons of the special Kool Aid in your fridge, man.
October 23, 2006
8:16 PM
Hold me accountable Bob writes:
Yep its that familiar smell this time of year.
It ain't politics
Its BOB
October 23, 2006
9:48 PM
Anonymous writes:
You liberal pinheads still obfuscate the issues about Ritter. The Feds have always noted that they do not pursue low level alien convicts for deportation. This is common knowledge (and known to Ritter).
The defense lawyers for immigrant criminals specifically requested the plea bargain from deportable (in the Fed sense) crimes to non-deportable crimes (again knowing what the Feds will and won't act upon) - they have gone on record with that reasoning.
So Ritter agrees to essentially put these criminals out of reach from the Feds' deportation policy (the actual as opposed to the written) - just what the criminal and his lawyer wanted.
Stop blaming the "system" and start putting responsibility where it is deserved - on Ritter. I have yet to hear him voice his sentiment of "disgust" for the alien criminals he put back on the street who then committed new crimes.
Ritter is a coward, hiding behind statistics and trying to destroy a whistleblower who brought his sloppy lawyering to light.
And as usual JW is a flaming idiot with his sophomoric paste and waste posts - adds absoutely nothing to the debate.
October 23, 2006
9:55 PM
Anonymous writes:
So what harm was done by the ICE agent who already had permission to access the NCIC database?
You numnuts can't stop the talking point regurgitation for a minute to answer a straightforward question, although you twits can easily point out that a sitting president lying under oath is not a big deal.
October 23, 2006
10:05 PM
Anonymous writes:
I would guess that a federal law enforcement employee with clearance to review the federal database does so as a routine part of his job. Know-it-all self important "experts" like Hakala cannot know this person's intent anymore than JW can claim he has had a real education.
October 24, 2006
1:00 AM
David Hakala writes:
"would guess that a federal law enforcement employee with clearance to review the federal database does so as a routine part of his job."
You guess wrong. Law enforcement employees must show a need to know for every single inquiry they make to the NCIC. Also, they are perpetually forbidden to share such information with non-law enforcement persons who have nothing to do with any ongoing criminal investigation.
One needn't "know it all" to know this. It's detailed at the NCIC Web site whose URL I posted earlier.
October 24, 2006
8:30 AM
Chris H writes:
9:48 - You're the one trying to obscure the issue. How is it Ritter's fault that the Fed's don't enforce their own written policies?
Yes, the defence lawyers probably used that knowledge to their advantage in making a plea and Ritter used it to get a conviction he might not have otherwise gotten and for less cost to the taxpayers than a full blown trial. But it isn't his fault the feds won't enforce the law.
So I ask you - how is it Ritter's fault that the Feds don't enforce their own written deportation laws? If anything, his use of these plea-bargains should highlight to the entire state that we have a serious problem with the federal government selectively enforcing laws.
October 24, 2006
8:41 AM
Anonymous writes:
So Ritter knows that the Feds are too overwhelmed to act upon every referral for deportable aliens. The Feds openly state that they will only act upon the more serious felonly convicts. Ritter agrees to plea bargain down deportable aliens and put them out of reach for deportation. That is exactly what the felons and their defense lawyers want specifically because it will help the felon avoid deportation. Very straightforward and out in the open......
Ritter made a choice to do this knowing the outcome. He is responsible for the additional crimes committed by the felons, not the feds.
October 24, 2006
8:49 AM
JW writes:
"And as usual JW is a flaming idiot with his sophomoric paste and waste posts - adds absoutely nothing to the debate."
Hehe, you guys spend an awful lot of time flaming me for posts that add nothing.
"Know-it-all self important "experts" like Hakala cannot know this person's intent anymore than JW can claim he has had a real education. "
If you go get an education, you will be able to recognize others that have one too. AND you will be able to recognize people that DONT have one, just like I recognize you.
"So what harm was done by the ICE agent who already had permission to access the NCIC database?
You numnuts can't stop the talking point regurgitation for a minute to answer a straightforward question, although you twits can easily point out that a sitting president lying under oath is not a big deal."
I love it when you idiots post this kind of thing.
What harm does it do? None really, but its ILLEGAL.
What harm did Clinton lying about a bj do? None really, but he was under oath which made it ILLEGAL.
You idiots just cant get your heads around it. Yes, we all know you hated Clinton, so its easy for you to point out what he did as wrong. But when some conservative prick comes along and does something illegal, you are all over his jock, saying it really didnt matter.
Where is LH when you need him? Hes so good at pointing out hypocracy, its not possible he would miss this one.
October 24, 2006
8:53 AM
JW writes:
Nameless right wing whacko at 8:41
Yet agian, posting your opinion as if it were fact.
But Im feeling charitable today, so Ill make you a deal;
You go find some kind of backup for that statement, and I will actually think about voting for Bob.
October 24, 2006
8:56 AM
Anonymous writes:
I guess once it is proven that Beauprez committed a crime by using some information he obtained indirectly, which turned out to be very true, he is not in an analogous position to a president who lies under oath and directly commits a crime.
Until then JW you are guilty of the conjucture you accuse others.
Big surprise.
October 24, 2006
8:59 AM
miele writes:
Ritter made a choice to make it effectively certain that criminal aliens would not be deported. Too easy to blame the feds when he is directly responsible for that choice.
October 24, 2006
9:35 AM
JW writes:
"I guess once it is proven that Beauprez committed a crime by using some information he obtained indirectly, which turned out to be very true, he is not in an analogous position to a president who lies under oath and directly commits a crime.
Until then JW you are guilty of the conjucture you accuse others.
Big surprise."
No no no. Stay on topic big boy. You werent talking about Bob directly.
You said no harm was done by the ICE agent. You said that since no harm was done, who cares? That is the same as saying lying about a bj shouldnt matter because no harm was done.
"Ritter made a choice to make it effectively certain that criminal aliens would not be deported. Too easy to blame the feds when he is directly responsible for that choice."
Again, Im feeling charitable today. Post some support for this opinion of yours, and Ill think about voting for Bobby.
October 24, 2006
5:22 PM
Anonymous writes:
Contact each and every defense attorney who worked out these deals with the Ripper for their clients and you will find ample support for this opinion.
Are you really this stupid JW?
October 24, 2006
5:46 PM
JW writes:
"Contact each and every defense attorney who worked out these deals with the Ripper for their clients and you will find ample support for this opinion."
Leme help you out here. This is not support for your uninformed opinion. This is just MORE of your uninformed opinion.
"Are you really this stupid JW?"
lol. You got no room to call anyone else stupid, jackass.
October 25, 2006
10:09 AM
Hogar De Vuelta writes:
At least the left is consistent. They want to hide Clinton's failure as well as hiding Ritter's failure. The only time they want anything made public, is if it will undermine a Republican administration.