To: smithone
You mean the same Judge Robertson who turned aside Webb Hubbell's legal troubles? Or was part of a cabal of Clinton appointees who circumvented normal procedure for assigning cases?
Later, zot-bait.
2 posted on
12/21/2005 8:38:51 AM PST by
dirtboy
(Drool overflowed my buffer...)
To: dirtboy
Yes, the same judge that allowed Tyson to walk away from a felony... You got it.
To: dirtboy
I would bet he is the New York Times' leaker.
30 posted on
12/21/2005 8:53:29 AM PST by
Galveston Grl
(Getting angry and abandoning power to the Democrats is not a choice.)
To: dirtboy
Good grief, why should someone be 'zot-bait' simply for posting an article drawing our attention to something? Did the poster say that he or she AGREED with the Judge?
I, for one, am glad this was posted. It brings the situation to my attention, which is why FR is here, to keep us informed.
43 posted on
12/21/2005 9:09:18 AM PST by
SuziQ
To: dirtboy
Bet we've found the leaker.....
48 posted on
12/21/2005 9:12:41 AM PST by
O6ret
To: dirtboy
Hugh Hewitt's website says that 'somehow the news fails to mention' this judge has been actively anti-Bush for years.
57 posted on
12/21/2005 9:33:45 AM PST by
bboop
(Stealth Tutor)
To: dirtboy; All
Zot-bait. I like that!
The President has the constitutional authority to do this. Any attempt by Congress to limit would be as unconstitutional as the Tenure of Office Act. It's called separation of powers.
al_Qaeda loves the Democrat Party. the Dems won't be satisfied until we're hit again, and those left alive will shift to "Bush didn't connect the dots" mode before the corpses of the victims are cold.
69 posted on
12/21/2005 9:49:05 AM PST by
cvq3842
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson