If the investigation was to find out who leaked to the media and they already knew weeks and months earlier who leaked to the media, then why was the investigation still going on in the first place. -------- Then why did he obstruct justice? Why not tell them what they already knew? Because that wasn't the truth.
On Jun 21, 8:22 am, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > If the investigation was to find out who leaked to the media and they > already knew weeks and months earlier who leaked to the media, then why > was the investigation still going on in the first place. Fitz just > needed to indict somebody, anybody but Armitage for some reason, and > Libby was linked to the admin, therefore he was the scapegoat for Fitz. > And Fitz had to do what the judge told him specifically not to do and > also have a juror who was linked to Russert andw as writing a book to > leak stuff as well in order for this to work. That juror with any > other judge would have resulted in a mistrial and a do over. Nothing > you can say changes any of this. > > > > euwe wrote: > > But > > ------- > > Libby's sentence was commuted - he refused to comply with the > > investigation. This was a man close to Bush who was spared the > > punishment for obstructing justice in the Plame investigation. Nothing > > you have said changes this fact, or the meaning of it. > > > On Jun 21, 8:07 am, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> But we already know and have known for months who leaked to the media. > >> Armitrage at State did so. That was not what Libby was charged with at > >> all. Neither was Armitage. Fitz never did charge anyone with leaking > >> about Plame. That is why your argument does not work. It boiled down > >> to a Russert remembering and Libby remembering and the FBI conveniently > >> "lost" the interview with Russert and the FBI agent who interviewed > >> Russert was not available for testimony. How interesting and > >> convenient for Fitz. > > >> euwe wrote: > > >>> It isn't a full pardon - it's a commutation of sentence under the > >>> executive clemency law - Bush obviously didn't want Libby upset, so he > >>> didn't make him serve jail time for obstruction of justice - the > >>> refusal to answer questions implicating the one who leaked the > >>> information about Plame to the media. So your whole "it's ok not to > >>> obey laws if the administration doesn't follow the law holds about as > >>> much water as a wet paper sack. > > >>> On Jun 21, 7:22 am, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>> It is not a pardon. A pardon is what Bubba was selling at the end of > >>>> his term for cash and votes for Ms Bubba in the election for NY senator. > > >>>> euwe wrote: > > >>>>> And again he did not pardon Libby > >>>>> =--- > >>>>> he commuted his sentence - that's a form of pardon, but not a full > >>>>> pardon. It is covered under the same Presidential power of executive > >>>>> clemency. He merely didn't clear him of wrong doing - he "just" > >>>>> removed the inconvenience of serving jail time. Bush had a stake in > >>>>> Libby's obstruction of justice, and probably was forced into the > >>>>> compromise by Cheney. After that, they weren't so chummy. > > >>>>> On Jun 20, 9:42 pm, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>>> And again he did not pardon Libby so your whole point is moot. What > >>>>>> you are saying is that in reality you have no leg to stand on so you > >>>>>> are > >>>>>> just flailing around throwing mud but it won't stick. Typical Dem MO. > > >>>>>> euwe wrote: > > >>>>>>> sovereign authority and the respect due. > > >>>>>>> On Jun 20, 7:21 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> Just what does that have to do with the subject at hand. > > >>>>>>>>> or "I pardoned Libby?" > > >>>>>>>>> On Jun 20, 5:39 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> Whatever happened to "Personal Responsibility" ?? These ships were > >>>>>>>>>> not manned by tourists but by seasoned sailors who are just, if not > >>>>>>>>>> more so, concerned with the preservation of their own life as the > >>>>>>>>>> USCG. > > >>>>>>>>>> Just which professional is more correct... the seasoned sailor or > >>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> seasoned sailor commanded by an organization that has never had a > >>>>>>>>>> successful "private or public" enterprise ?? > > >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 4:01 pm, euwe <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> oh, I get it - you're a libertoonian. So have you got your own > >>>>>>>>>>> carpet > >>>>>>>>>>> cleaning business? Or maybe you refinish parking lot blacktops? > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 4:36 pm, bruce majors <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>http://libertarian2010.wordpress.com/2010/06/18/libertarians-say-gove...quoted > >>>>>>>>>>>> text - > > >>>> - Show quoted text - -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
