At the time of the trial Congress was in the hands of the Dems. ----------- was the Justice department?
On Jun 21, 9:07 am, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > At the time of the trial Congress was in the hands of the Dems. The > Taliban is emboldened by the rules of engagement set forth by this admin. > > > > euwe wrote: > > 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...- > > >>>>>>>> - 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.
