er.. Department of Justice. On Jun 21, 11:10 am, euwe <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
