I think he has done what he wanted to do. Not what he thought was right.
On 7/4/07, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Exactly my point. hell, lots of people are unhappy with the current state of
> affairs, but since Bush isn't going to run for office again, he can just do
> what he thinks i
they may simply have been trying for the Scottish verdict.
> That's genius, all this time I thought OJ actually did it, but how can
> a jury possibly be wrong or misled?
~|
Macromedia ColdFusion MX7
Upgrade to MX7 & experience ti
> > So you're saying the Constitution is flawed by allowing presidential
> > pardons?
> >
>
> Yes. It's an archaic custom that's no longer needed and simply serves
> to be a vehicle for gross miscarriage of justice
Pardons are an EXECUTIVE privelige, not just presedential. Govenors
have the pow
I'll be the first to admit- it takes a little work sometimes.
But you don't gotta strain yourself, I'm not required reading.
Nay, the opposite! Avert yo eyes, Samstar!
Or not. Your choice.
__
Free will, etc..
On 7/4/07, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> you understand him
>
> On 7/4/07,
you understand him
On 7/4/07, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/4/07, Dinner wrote:
~|
Upgrade to Adobe ColdFusion MX7
Experience Flex 2 & MX7 integration & create powerful cross-platform RIAs
http://www.adobe.co
Whether you feel it is a miscarriage of justice or not depends entirely on
your point of view. conservatives believe it was a miscarriage of justice
that Fitzgerald proceeded with the investigation when he already knew the
identity of the leaker and knew that it was not a criminal act.
On 7/4/07,
On 7/4/07, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Exactly my point. hell, lots of people are unhappy with the current state
> of
> affairs, but since Bush isn't going to run for office again, he can just
> do
> what he thinks is right, which is what I think he has done here.
I don't think the
> RoMunn wrote:
> Ah, the conspiracy theorist at work!
Did you read that?Bush is not in the habit of commuting sentences
nor feeling "bad for his family" so he must've had a special reason
here. He even wrote in his book that he'd only do this in extreme
cases of a miscarriage of justice.
Si
> RoMunn wrote:
> you are smoking crack , put down the pipe and step away
>
ROTFL! THat was funny ...
~|
Upgrade to Adobe ColdFusion MX7
Experience Flex 2 & MX7 integration & create powerful cross-platform RIAs
http://www.adobe.
Exactly my point. hell, lots of people are unhappy with the current state of
affairs, but since Bush isn't going to run for office again, he can just do
what he thinks is right, which is what I think he has done here.
On 7/4/07, Dinner wrote:
>
> Sorry. Bit peeved at the current state of affairs.
On 7/4/07, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:...
> This is a political case. It has always been a political case. Liberals
> are
> outraged that Bush commuted his sentence. Conservatives are upset that he
> didn't issue a full pardon. They can all go screw themselves. Bush is the
> President,
Ah, the conspiracy theorist at work! I love it! You just hate the guy so
much you can't see past your own anger.
This is a political case. It has always been a political case. Liberals are
outraged that Bush commuted his sentence. Conservatives are upset that he
didn't issue a full pardon. They ca
you are smoking crack , put down the pipe and step away
On 7/3/07, Gruss wrote:
>
> > RoMunn wrote:
> > i'll let you in on a little secret- life isn't fair.
> >
>
> Platitudes are the last stage of denial before enlightenment.You're
> welcome.
>
~~
I love this argument. Like saying Ken Lay (sp?) shouldn't be punished,
since
we can't punish everyone else who did bad too.
It's BS. Punish them all. I want more enron related court battles and
whatnot.
Rabble rabble rabble
~~~
On 7/4/07, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> the thing I find fascinating about this thread is that people who
> spend a lot of time yelling about what the law does not require in
> ohter context seem to feel that the principle of the jury as finders
> of fact is insufficent when they do not like t
the thing I find fascinating about this thread is that people who
spend a lot of time yelling about what the law does not require in
ohter context seem to feel that the principle of the jury as finders
of fact is insufficent when they do not like the outcome.
By the way,Hatton, thank you for your
> Sam wrote:
> So you're saying the Constitution is flawed by allowing presidential pardons?
>
Yes. It's an archaic custom that's no longer needed and simply serves
to be a vehicle for gross miscarriage of justice.
"Pardoning is the devil's work"
-- Gruss Gott
But maybe you're right ... maybe M
> Sam wrote:
> Libby had nothing to do with the leak, it was Armitage, and Fitzgerald
> wouldn't say if a law was even broken,
Too much Rush has turned your brain to mush. Here are the facts of
the case - and they're simple:
(1.) The CIA requested that the Justice dept look into the outing of
on
On 7/3/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > RoMunn wrote:
> > Pardon power is a function of the executive branch
>
> (1.) Fibby never asked for the commutation, Bush just up and gave it
> to him, and commuted his entire jail term rather than part.
Every sane person in America asked for a
He was convicted because the Jury was convinced he made up the story
about Russert telling him so he could throw off the investigation. Why
would Libby do that knowing he wasn't the one that leaked to Novak?
Meanwhile, Russert lied under oath about when he knew about Plame and
he's a hero. Makes yo
yes yes we are all fully aware of the Clinton did it too defense. It's
gotten a lot of use the past few years. But leaving aside whether the
president legally CAN do this.. is it the right thing to do, do you
think?
On 7/3/07, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pardon power is a function of
> RoMunn wrote:
> i'll let you in on a little secret- life isn't fair.
>
Platitudes are the last stage of denial before enlightenment.You're welcome.
~|
ColdFusion MX7 by Adobe®
Dyncamically transform webcontent into Adobe PD
i'll let you in on a little secret- life isn't fair.
--
---
Robert Munn
www.emergentpath.com
~|
ColdFusion 8 beta â Build next generation applications today.
Free beta download on Labs
http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/
> RoMunn wrote:
> Pardon power is a function of the executive branch
(1.) Fibby never asked for the commutation, Bush just up and gave it
to him, and commuted his entire jail term rather than part.
(2.) The entire justice system, including 3 Bush appointed judges, has
not only found him guilty,
Pardon power is a function of the executive branch, i.e. the branch of
government that enforces the laws that the legislative branch passes. Pretty
standard "separation of powers" doctrine there. I would much rather have
that power in the hands of one person than in the hands of an entire
Congress.
> Sam wrote:
> Russert is a respected journalist jurors see on TV all the time.
So your theory is that FItzgerald, a grand jury, a jury, and multiple
judges were all duped by Russert?
You'd say that the judge, who called Libby "overwhelmingly guilty",
was basing that opinion solely on Russert's
On 7/3/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However since it's left to the prosecutor's judgment on who to pursue
> and to the Grand Jury on who to indict, you have to be comfortable
> that the prosecutor is making the right decisions. With a guy
> appointed by Bush and judge appointed by
Russert is a respected journalist jurors see on TV all the time. Libby
is a republican they know little about. Libby was convicted because
they trusted Russert more than Libby. We know Russert lied, Andrea
Mitchell told us.
On 7/3/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then how would you exp
> cHat wrote:
> Libby's case he has been found guilty... he's just not the only one!
>
Yeah, you're right.
I guess I just find it despicable for Bush to step in - I don't agree
with the pardon process be it for Clinton or Bush or any president. I
can see giving the Congress the power to do it, b
> That certainly didn't happen with Nifong; he's the poster boy for
> malicious prosecution and uniformly beat up by all - he was disbarred.
>
> In this case, should there have been holes in the facts or should the
> facts not have supported the prosecution ... well I can't believe that
> people wo
> cHat wrote:
> Good concept, however the problem with it is that all that would
> happen in the media would be a bloodbath on whoever brought on the
> investigator, calling it retaliatory in nature.
>
That certainly didn't happen with Nifong; he's the poster boy for
malicious prosecution and unif
On 7/3/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > cHat wrote:
> > See, the case isn't, "Libby is innocent and these others are guilty,"
> > it's, "these guys all lied to a grand jury and should face the same
> > charges and sentence as Libby."
>
> Now THAT makes sense.
>
> I would think that if
> cHat wrote:
> See, the case isn't, "Libby is innocent and these others are guilty,"
> it's, "these guys all lied to a grand jury and should face the same
> charges and sentence as Libby."
>
Now THAT makes sense.
However since it's left to the prosecutor's judgment on who to pursue
and to the Gr
> Then how would you explain that a a grand jury, a jury, and multiple
> Bush-appointed judges ALL have said that Libbey is "overwhelmingly
> guilty"?
>
> How do you explain that?
Simple: He may be guilty but he's not the only one that is guilty...
and some of those that are guilty (or at the very
Didn't he also pardon his brother who was convicted of influence peddling?
>Oh, save it. That's a presidential prerogative. Remember when Clinton
>pardoned Marc Rich, the multi-millionaire thief who evaded the Justice
>Department for almost twenty years by living in Switzerland? And Bush didn't
>e
> Sam wrote:
> he didn't obstruct justice because Fitzgerald knew from the start it
> was Armitage.
>
Just to entertain your delusions, let's forget Fitzgerald and say he's
part of your liberal conspiracy.
Then how would you explain that a a grand jury, a jury, and multiple
Bush-appointed judges
On 7/2/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The problem is that Plame is totally irrelevant to Libbey. He lied
> and obstructed justice.
She actually lied but you don't seem to care. He got his dates wrong,
he didn't obstruct justice because Fitzgerald knew from the start it
was Armitage
> Sam wrote:
> Yes, that's it :)
> Thanks
>
The problem is that Plame is totally irrelevant to Libbey. He lied
and obstructed justice. He was indicted by Bush's own appointee,
convicted by his peers, sentenced by another Bush appointee, and had
his jail stay rejected by yet more Bush appointees.
Yes, that's it :)
Thanks
On 7/2/07, C. Hatton Humphrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > What are your thoughts on Valerie Plame committing perjury during the
> > > trial?
> > >
> > valerie plame committing perjury? Do tell. I am always amazed at the
> > rationalizations of neo-cons.
>
> You may n
U... If it ain't illegal it is ok... Legally speaking. Whether or not
you disagree is your opinion, but that won't hold up in a court of law.
-Original Message-
From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 8:00 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject:
> RoMunn wrote:
> Oh, save it. That's a presidential prerogative.
Ah, the old "if it ain't illegal it must be ok" that this
administration is famous for! So why is adultery wrong again ... ?
~|
Macromedia ColdFusion MX7
Upgrade
> > What are your thoughts on Valerie Plame committing perjury during the trial?
> >
> valerie plame committing perjury? Do tell. I am always amazed at the
> rationalizations of neo-cons.
You may not like the source I'm going to cite so I'll take out any
potential offensive language and lay the fa
valerie plame committing perjury? Do tell. I am always amazed at the
rationalizations of neo-cons.
On 7/2/07, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What are your thoughts on Valerie Plame committing perjury during the trial?
>
> On 7/2/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > A guy is indicted by
Oh, save it. That's a presidential prerogative. Remember when Clinton
pardoned Marc Rich, the multi-millionaire thief who evaded the Justice
Department for almost twenty years by living in Switzerland? And Bush didn't
even pardon Libby, which he could have done anytime during the case.
On 7/2/07,
What are your thoughts on Valerie Plame committing perjury during the trial?
On 7/2/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A guy is indicted by a Bush appointed prosecutor, convicted
> unanimously by 12 jurors of obstruction of justice and perjury,
> sentenced by a Bush appointed judge who ca
A guy is indicted by a Bush appointed prosecutor, convicted
unanimously by 12 jurors of obstruction of justice and perjury,
sentenced by a Bush appointed judge who called him "overwhelmingly
guilty", and had his jail stay rejected by more Bush appointed judges.
It's hard, if not impossible, to see
46 matches
Mail list logo
