|
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
seriously, is this a joke? are we gonna argue semantics over the word "distinction"? is what i could tell you about the Clinton impeachment something that you couldn't find out on your f**king own?
|
Ummm no it’s not a joke. And how are we arguing semantics over the word “distinction”? Please spell this out pedantically because I have no idea what you’re talking about. I essentially asked you to elaborate on your position. You responded to my request with a “we don’t care” statement. So retarded responses aside, please answer the question.
| quote: |
ummm, no see, this is the epitomy of the absolute ignorance of the Bush Derangement crowd. Libby's indictment was a result of his his testimony to the FBI and the original Grand Jury. Fitz requested a second grand Jury to further investigate the reporters and their sources resposible for the leak in which he concluded NOTHING.
|
God, the degree to which you’ll obfuscate the issue amazes me. Fitzgerald was investigating the crime of revealing top secret information related to the identity of an undercover CIA agent. This investigation stems from Novak’s story on Plame. While Libby was not the “initial” or “primary” source for Novak’s story that does not equate with him having no role in being one of the sources in the article, Libby is still guilty of disclosing that information to Judith Miller and lying to investigators about his role in the affair.
From Judth Miller:
| quote: |
in an interview with me on June 23 [2003], Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, discussed Mr. Wilson's activities and placed blame for intelligence failures on the C.I.A. In later conversations with me, on July 8 and July 12 [2003], Mr. Libby, ... [at the time] Mr. Cheney's top aide, played down the importance of Mr. Wilson's mission and questioned his performance. ... My notes indicate that well before Mr. Wilson published his critique, Mr. Libby told me that Mr. Wilson's wife may have worked on unconventional weapons at the C.I.A. ...
|
| quote: |
you're missunderstanding the main argument. Rita was the only witness in his very own investigation of the Feds. being he was the one who purchased the gun kit and subsequently obstructed his own investigation and lied about his own involvement with nobody but himself and the gun manufacturer.
Libby was involved in an broad investigation involving everyone from the President to Judy Miller. only Libby was the one who was suspected of anything in that investigation.
|
Libby was one witness in an investigation he was a part of and he was being considered for the crime of leaking classified information to a reporter and subsequently obstructed the investigation by lying about his own involvement with the reporter he leaked classified information to. What’s your point?
| quote: |
wrong again. it's about timing and who knew what when, and how they came about it. and in the end, NOONE was found guilty of outing ANYONE.
|
Armitage was not charged because he willingly came forward, disclosed the truth of his involvement, and Fitzgerald determined that he did not maliciously disclose the identity of an undercover CIA reporter. Libby on the other hand lied about HOW he learned about Plame’s identity via multiple discussions with Cheney, and mislead investigators by claiming he learned about it from Russert. Libby knew with certainty that Plame was employed by the CIA via Cheney and failed to disclose to reporters that he was uncertain of that fact if he were privy to such information via Russert.
[qutoe]
well, honestly, you or i don't know why the Feds didn't charge Rita with any other crime. as a matter of fact, there very well possibly couldn't be an underlying crime with Rita seeing as how the Feds just wanted to know about a particular gun kit he had purchased and it's potential illegality. maybe the the prosecutor felt he couldn't prove one way or another. there can be all sorts of possibilities but "the FACT of the matter is" the cases are dissimilar in sooooo many ways and really you just don't know, do you?
[/quote]
Hehe fantastic. Well honestly you or I don’t know why the Feds didn’t charge libby with any other crime as a matter fact. There very well possibly couldn’t be an underlying crime with Libby seeing as how the feds just wanted to know about a particular occurrence of events and its potential illegality. Maybe the prosecutor felt he couldn’t prove one way or another. There can be all sorts of possibilities. But the “FACT of the matter is” you have no clue what you’re talking about don’t you?
| quote: |
i'm not vindicating anything.
|
Sure you are. The man is guilty of perjury and persistent lies to a grand jury and you’re saying he shouldn’t serve time in jail. Remember Libby is guilty and that verdict is validated by Bush’s commutation as opposed to pardon. Rita is convicted of the same crime and yet the Bush administration is weak on crime when it comes to cronyism.
| quote: |
oh please spare us this faux indignation
this is an accademic discussion about whether illegal firearms and Federal violation of such could be construed as aggravating or mitigating circumstances in the hands most capable of using them.
this isn't an attack on anybody in particular but what can be sufficient evidence in a court of law.
|
Yes it’s “faux” indignation because I couldn’t possibly care about stereotyping our military when it suits a political cause you dick
This is what you said:
| quote: |
an argument can be made that the extenuating circumstances of Libby's past service to his country differ in that Rita's being a former Marine, highly skilled and experienced in firearms, involved repeatedly in Federal firearms violations could be considered aggrivating circumstances.
|
Please explain to me how this is sufficient evidence in any court of law? Yea using the same logic and assumptions, as a lawyer, Libby is quite experienced with people lying and thus his career is an aggravating circumstance in his own potential to lie.
| quote: |
i did and this is sooo stupid you bringing this up BTW. typical of the left and their emotion/facts disconnect
let's put aside the fact that DUI charges are and should be taken very seriously.
Paris was not only in violation of her 36 month probation stemming from her DUI/reckless driving sentence when she was pulled over in January she was pulled over again a month later AND she failed to enroll in achohol ed class as stipulated by her probation.
i don't know if you are aware of the mandatory sentences of DUI probation violators in some states they can be very stiff and most of the time, like i said, judges have very little leeway in those mandatory sentences.
regardless, fact is in LA county most violators like hers, and in a lot of other cases, actually only serve about 10% of their original sentence with good behavior.
|
Yea first I’m not the “left”. But I guess you’re assuming that whoever is not part of the “26%” who still approve of Bush are the “left” so whatever..
Second, I don’t care what you say about paris. Blah blah blah dui … probation … didn’t’ serve sentence … whatever.
Libby leaked [b]classified[/] information to reporters about a CIA agent’s undercover status and potentially played a role in damaging national security even if he did not damage national security via the novak article. Yup. Sounds about right.
| quote: |
whatev. it's about context...and you ain't got none. thanx for playing |
Fine. Give me ANY context whereby you demanded personal accountability from our executive branch that was lacking? I have yet to see you criticize this administration for ANYTHING as memory serves me.
___________________
Retro ...
|
