He did not obstruct justice. ------------- So you have no confidence in the justice system - even when Bush was President and Congress is in the hands of Republicans. The Taliban is emboldened by your cynicism.
On Jun 21, 8:31 am, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > Why was the investigation going on. He did not obstruct justice. He > was not permitted to check his day book during the grand jury trial. > Had he been allowed to do that he could have answered the questions. > He was, unlike Fitz and the Dems and Plame, trying to be truthful. > Novel idea. Would be an original for the Dems. They should try it > sometime. > > > > euwe 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. > > -------- > > 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...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.
