About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Crowley accuses Holder of filling Justice Department with "terrorist sympathizers"

February 23, 2010 2:12 pm ET

From the February 23 edition of Fox News' America Live:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Previously:

Doocy: Are DOJ attorneys who represented Gitmo detainees "sympathetic to the Al Qaeda cause?"

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by nerzog (February 23, 2010 2:16 pm ET)
      11  
      Well, this may be the stupidest FOXbot talking point yet.... but the day isn't over yet.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (February 23, 2010 2:18 pm ET)
        3  
        True enough. Seeing as how we just got a guilty plea from one of them, and will have a guilty plea from the underwear guy soon enough. I mean, this is just ridiculous. I'd say there aren't too many real true blue Americans of any ilk that sympathize with terrorists.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by nerzog (February 23, 2010 2:33 pm ET)
          3  
          Agreed. What the Troglodytes have done for years is to denigrate opponents of their war policies as "Terrorist sympathizers". The most egregious example was during the Iraq War. Anyone who opposed that bone-headed invasion was accused of supporting Saddam and terrorism.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by magnolialover (February 23, 2010 2:34 pm ET)
            3  
            This is true, and they did it again during the 2004 election, by telling people that if Kerry were elected President, we would get attacked again, forgetting of course, who was in charge when we were attacked on 9/11.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Bad News (February 23, 2010 2:54 pm ET)
              6  
              Nerzog:

              The way this works is you Spin this to an uneducated class of Heartlanders that never watched one episode of Law & Order.

              The Kind that would call a Rapist's attorney a Scum-Bag.

              The kind of people that claim to love the Constitution but have never actually read it.

              There is no American more dangerous than one that has never read the Constitution and then read it again.

              In the Old West they would Hang a Suspected Horse Thief without a Trial.

              And if some American that had read the Constituion tried to stop the Hanging, he would more than likely end up Hanging right next to the Suspected Horse Thief.

              That is after a "Glenn Beck Type" gave a Speech.


              Mr. News
              Report Abuse
              • Author by nerzog (February 23, 2010 3:17 pm ET)
                4  
                How true. That's why the Teabaggers make me nervous. I support the right to protest, but those crowds are made up of the kind of people who would hang the lawyer you're talking about.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by Bad News (February 23, 2010 3:48 pm ET)
                  4  
                  Nerzog:

                  If a Saudi Prince owned a large block of stock in General Electric would it be Front & Center on Fox News?

                  Al-Waleed bin Talal, Who is this man, has he ever met Osama Bin-Laden?

                  This should be Red Meat for Fox News but they never cover it.

                  Does Al-Waleed bin Talal love America?
                  Does he think women should be treated with equality?
                  Does any of his money ever fall into the hands of Terrorist?
                  Is he a Terrorist Sympathizer?
                  Does he own any Child Slaves that they use to race Camels?

                  Umm Kelly, Why am i a better Journalist than you?


                  Mr. News
                  Report Abuse
      • Author by manndan (February 23, 2010 3:46 pm ET)
        1  
        Beck's TV show isn't even on yet.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Sks1 (February 23, 2010 2:21 pm ET)
      5  
      are we a nation of laws or not?,,,so are we to abandon any sense of decorum because these lawyers took an oath to defend criminals regardless if they're detainees or domestic criminals,,,why the right acts like this hasnt been done before is ridiculous and another lets scare everybody to death because they're coming to get us...the united states have tried many of these so-called enemy cambatants and prosecuted thyem successfully, trhey get on tv and spew this venom knowing full well that its a baseless argument
      Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (February 23, 2010 2:32 pm ET)
        5  
        Since 9/11, we have convicted over 500 terrorist related charges in US federal courts. I think we can handle it.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by SafetyB4CivilLiberties (February 23, 2010 3:00 pm ET)
            6
          It is not the point whether we can handle it or not. The question is how we should handle it. When will people realize that terrorism is not a mere crime like bank robbery. It is a widespread global movement involving millions of people who have training camps, and are being trained to kill US Military personnel as well has civilians both in this country and abroad. They are trained in weaponry, they are driven by religious and political ideology, and are looking to destry as many Americans in one shot as possible. Are we gonna prosecute every one of them like they are common criminals? Or are we going to dedicate the full resources of the US Military in dismantling them?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by soze169880 (February 23, 2010 9:15 pm ET)
            1  
            ...that's the best username ever. You HAVE to be a parody.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by tman418 (February 24, 2010 3:43 pm ET)
            1  
            That's exactly what we're trying to do, dismantle them. Get them to talk (the right way, not with waterboarding). Make them want to talk to us.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by phinphan (February 23, 2010 3:34 pm ET)
          2  
          While the military commissions have had no success at all your numbers are also skewed. The actual number is around 300 tried and convicted in civilian courts.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by temphandle tearfully55timetable (February 23, 2010 2:30 pm ET)
      6  
      I am convinced Crowly eats glass for breakfast.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by pamiety (February 23, 2010 2:48 pm ET)
        4  
        There is something wrong with her. I can't quite put my finger on it. lol
        Report Abuse
        • Author by ilikeike (February 23, 2010 3:18 pm ET)
          2  
          Wanted : Pretty blond lady to read news off of teleprompter. No experience, knowledge or sense of shame required. Apply at foxnews .com
          Report Abuse
        • Author by dogbreath (February 23, 2010 3:41 pm ET)
          3  
          She creeps me out too, but I can't exactly tell you what it is either. You just get the feeling that in another life she was running a Gulag or something.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by blueline99 (February 23, 2010 2:30 pm ET)
      6  
      This is most definitely the dumbest talking point that they ever came up with.

      I'm scared... the rule of law is being applied in this country!!

      The constitution is being followed

      Oh no... what is backwater amurika to think?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (February 23, 2010 2:33 pm ET)
        4  
        This is where they turn around, and say that anyone who is NOT a US Citizen doesn't deserve, or get, protections of our Constitution, which is of course, again false.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by phinphan (February 23, 2010 3:39 pm ET)
            3
          Certain right granted to American Citizens are granted exclusively for Citizens of the US, wether born here or naturalized. It has nothing to do with deserve..It's like being an American Express Card holder, membership has it's privileges.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Johaely (February 23, 2010 8:57 pm ET)
               
            Nowhere in the constitution say that it applies only to americna citizens.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by John Paradox (February 24, 2010 12:58 am ET)
            1  
            Constitution: search term 'citizen': (this is gonna be interesting)

            Section 2 - The House
            No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

            Section 3 - The Senate

            No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

            Article 2
            No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

            Article 4:
            Section 2 - State citizens, Extradition

            The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

            Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits. Ratified 2/7/1795.

            The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

            Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.

            1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

            2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

            Amendment 15 - Race No Bar to Vote. Ratified 2/3/1870.

            1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

            Amendment 19 - Women's Suffrage. Ratified 8/18/1920.

            The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
            Amendment 24 - Poll Tax Barred. Ratified 1/23/1964. History

            1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

            Amendment 26 - Voting Age Set to 18 Years. Ratified 7/1/1971.

            1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

            [also, Article 2, section 2, Trial By Jury included the term 'citizen', but was modified by the 11th Amendment - above]
            Report Abuse
        • Author by dogbreath (February 23, 2010 3:53 pm ET)
          4  
          If they would just bother to READ the document rather than listen to their Dear Leaders they would see that due process is a right of personhood not citizenship(Fifth Amendment).
          Report Abuse
    • Author by epkklk851 (February 23, 2010 2:40 pm ET)
      4  
      Oh gee, what souless lawyers to actually believe that someone is innocent until proven guilty and that the accused should have a day in court with a lawyer! How un-American! I know, why don't we just crush their child's testicles in front of them, and then maybe they will talk. After all, that isn't torture, it's just enhanced interrogation! Creepy Crowley, I hope you receive the same level of treatment that you recommend for others. So which is it that is responsible for your brain damage, the faux tan or the faux blonde or is it a toxic mixture of both?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by wookie (February 23, 2010 2:45 pm ET)
      4  
      "I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Terrorist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the Justice Department."
      Report Abuse
      • Author by dogbreath (February 23, 2010 3:42 pm ET)
        1  
        This is how that crap begins . . . McCarthy is happily rolling in his grave.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (February 23, 2010 2:49 pm ET)
      4  
      I still remember quite distinctly how Republicans at FOX and even on the floor of Congress weeped and wailed and gnashed their teeth over the "Rule of Law" when they caught Bill Clinton in their perjury trap. Troglodytes called in to Rush Limbaugh's show and bemoaned the "loss of decency" in Amurrica... and asked Rush how they could explain to their children why the "rule of law" didn't apply to the President.

      Well, I guess we have to give the Troglodytes a pass on this one. Lying about a BJ is easy for them to understand... Due Process is a little over their heads.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by whatIthink (February 23, 2010 2:50 pm ET)
      3  
      Alright, that's it. Everybody apck up, we're leaving this commie, socialist, marxist, Mao loving country. For the love jeebus, we now have lawyers that are actually doing their jobs and fulfilling their obligations under the constitution. What's next? Healthcare for all those lazy, welfare queens?

      /snark
      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (February 23, 2010 2:58 pm ET)
        3  
        Snark aside, I think you've hit on something here. It's almost as if FOX is a parody of itself which 40% the country takes seriously. The rest of us hear these talking points and think they can't possibly be serious. Hell, I think most of the people working at FOX don't take them seriously; they're just in it for the paycheck.

        Sadly, the FOXbots who live and breath this stuff are too stupid to realize they're being jerked around.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by manndan (February 23, 2010 3:49 pm ET)
          3  
          40%? The Fox News demographic is old cranks. Is that 40% of the American people?
          Report Abuse
    • Author by seahawks123 (February 23, 2010 3:00 pm ET)
        14
      You idiots. This is like Al Copone's lawyer working for the Dept of the Treasury. But you all sympathise with the terrorists anyways.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by all your eyes (February 23, 2010 3:05 pm ET)
        9  
        You dumb lout. Yes, we sympathize with terrorists. Obama sympathizes with terrorists, too. Notice how we're killing terrorists every day in Pakistan and Afghanistan on Obama's orders. Notice how we're locking up terrorists like Zazi and the panties bomber, without violating their constitutional rights in so doing.

        Remember, the right to adequate counsel is the holy grail of American justice. John Adams' shining moment was not during his presidency, it was not in leading the Continental Congress on the eve of revolution: no, it was defending the British soldiers who were accused in the Boston Massacre. But you despise American justice, don't you?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by rms (February 23, 2010 3:18 pm ET)
        6  
        Why do you hate the Constitution?? Why do you have so little faith in that amazing document? You don't feel it is adequate? A second rate piece of parchment, in your eyes? Something that should be discarded/ignored occasionally so we can prove to terrorists that disrupting the moral foundation on which we are based is actually rather easy to do?

        Is that about right, in your eyes?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by roverflash (February 23, 2010 3:19 pm ET)
        3  
        Why should we stoop to their level?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by dogbreath (February 23, 2010 3:45 pm ET)
        4  
        This is a country of laws not ideology, despite the way you and your buddies at FAUX News want to paint it.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (February 23, 2010 4:08 pm ET)
        3  
        How do we sympathize with terrorists? We don't. Nobody really does. Not in the US for the most part. No sir. You are deluded, and wrong again.

        I mean, Obama sympathizes with them SOOOOO much, that he's killed and captured more than Bush did in 8 years.

        Yep, that's some sympathy.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by blueline99 (February 23, 2010 4:24 pm ET)
        2  
        Al Capone's lawyer was Easy Eddie O'Hare who was a criminal just like Al Capone, but eventually turned into an informant for the Feds.

        During the trial his lawyers were Albert Fink, Michael Ahern, and Lawrence Mattingly. None of them were working for the Treasury Dept

        Where did you read this? Wait, I forget, you don't read... Becky must have said it.

        And you call us idiots.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Bongo Fury (February 23, 2010 3:03 pm ET)
      2  
      My post woman brings mail I don't ask for.Therefore,the US goverment is infiltrated with advertising sympathizers.Where does faux find these raving slowed people.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (February 23, 2010 3:07 pm ET)
      2  
      That's a pretty outrageous accusation.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by ilikeike (February 23, 2010 3:16 pm ET)
      1  
      and all criminal defence attorneys are bank robbers and murderers....right. do these guys not understand the legal system or are they just preaching to the choir
      Report Abuse
    • Author by canaanxing9025 (February 23, 2010 3:21 pm ET)
      1  
      Crowley is a beast. In my life, I have yet to meet a sympathetic lawyer.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by clearstate (February 23, 2010 3:22 pm ET)
      3  
      How about we only higher attorneys who think that all terrorists are guilty before hearing any evidence. They should also think that all terrorists should be shot, hung, and watterboarded without trials.

      Will those conditions be alright with Fox???
      Report Abuse
    • Author by rajihammr (February 23, 2010 4:09 pm ET)
      1  
      Probably Commies too.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by pilotx (February 23, 2010 5:15 pm ET)
      1  
      And Murdoch fills Fox News with morons.
      Report Abuse