GGniner Wrote:

OUGwave Wrote:

Now we're both oh so clever. We can do this all day.

Posting a picture of a kool-aid guy is not an argument, its a sign of desperation.

GGniner Wrote:2 Dem strategist on TV tonight even admitted the whole thing was bs and libby should be let off, Kirsten Powers and Laura Swartz... Bob Woodward, even says this is a witch hunt.

the crime being investigated did not happen, it was all a lie. Joseph Wilson is a liar, a proven and documented liar.

quit reading DU, dKos, Chris Matthews and other propaganda websites, they are all still waiting for a 'leaker' to be prosecuted thinking a crime was committed.

they got the guy after they knew no crime related to plame had been committed, and got libby on 'perjury'. How you can lie about a crime that did not happen is beyond me, forgeting things and remembering them differently after being called to testify several times I can see though.

Richard Armitage, the real 'leaker', wasn't even prosecuted.

Scooter Libby was convicted of a felony by a jury of his peers in a criminal court.

All arguments about the trial end there.

OUGwave Wrote:Scooter Libby was convicted of a felony by a jury of his peers in a criminal court.

All arguments about the trial end there.

and you say this in your first post knowing this is a lie

Quote:What is corrupt about it is that the perjury he was convicted of pertained to certain Bush administration secrets that went straight to the heart of how the intelligence was spun that took this country to war.

The president, by law, has the ability to pardon or commute. But the president is trusted to use this authority ethically, and he has failed. Essentially what this says is that the President's staff can commit crimes on his behalf, with no consequences.

please

GGniner Wrote:Joseph Wilson is a liar, a proven and documented liar.

Actually, George Bush is a liar, a proven and documented liar. Now you can add coward and scumbag to his resume.

Those documents were forgeries.

The information was unreliable.

Google "Dr. David Christopher Kelly." The whole justification for invading Iraq was a lie.

GGniner Wrote:How you can lie about a crime that did not happen is beyond me, forgeting things and remembering them differently after being called to testify several times I can see though.

The "Reagan defense" of "I don't remember" doesn't work.

And outing a covert CIA operative is a crime. They just got away with it.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:And outing a covert CIA operative is a crime. They just got away with it.

Oh really? Then why was Richard Armitage never charged with a crime your honor? Especially since he actually admitted to being the one that "outed" Plame?

Everything about this entire episode was political down to the guts. Your "outrage" about it is just further proof.

I would suggest not using Wiki, especially when it involves something that is political...

the British still stand by their report Saddam sent agents to Niger to seek enriched Uranium. Wilson's own report contridicted his NYT editorial.

also, Coalition forces found 1.77 metric tons of Enriched Uranium in iraq

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_...872201.stm

guess what, you can only use Enriched Uranium for one of two things, nuke plants or nukes/dirty bombs....and Saddam didn't have nuke power plants.

I know you guys are still having issues with not 'getting' Karl Rove, and settling for a trumped up charge of 'perjury' on a no-name aid. And it must really drive you nuts that the actual "leaker" of someone who was not covert anyway, was Richard Armitage who is a Bush Critic and war opponent.

When you liberals start getting your thongs in a bunch over the pardoning of Marc Rich or the theft of national security documents by Sandy Berger, then we'll talk. Mkay pumpkins?

When Clinton was being tried in the Senate for perjury, an argument for not removing him from office was that he lied about a non-crime. He gets to stay in office, Libby get 2.5 years in prison, $250,000 fine and a felony conviction and disbarred. Clinton gets suspended by the Arkansas bar for 3 years. So, Bush's reduction in sentence seems appropriate. He honored the jury verdict by not pardoning Libby and he left intact a portion of the penalty. Libby still won't be able to practice law due to the felony conviction for at least 10 years, if ever. So, yeah, the felony conviction is more than just not owning a handgun and getting to vote. So his punishment is still greater than Bill Clinton's for the same crime. And by the way, knowing the DC parole office, he will spend at least one day a week for at least the next year going to the DC parole office to pee in a bottle and if they find that he has more than trace amounts of alcohol, he could be found guilty of a parole violation. And before you wackos ask me how I know, I am a DC attorney and have had a few clients who have had some dealing with that office.

What's the felony conviction for? Richard Armitage is the one who leaked Valerie Plame's CIA connections. This entire trial was bull**** and political as hell from the get go. I disagree with getting the law to go after ANYONE for political reasons. I am on record as saying that I did NOT agree with going after Clinton for getting a BJ and lying about it. It was no one's business.

OUGwave Wrote:

blazr Wrote:The Libby prosecution, and sentence, was spurred by politics. The commutation is a political favor at the discretion of the PotUS. Seems like things are even...

Sorry, he was convicted by a jury of his peers.

All arguments of a witch hunt go out the window at that point. Bush just gave his convicted felon buddy a get out of jail free card. End of Story. One system of justice for them, one system of justice for everyone else.

The case would never have gone to a jury if not for politics...what happened once it got there was moot. That was my point anyway. I don't doubt he was technically guilty of lying, but he was being punished for the suffering (oh, the pain of being on the Vogue cover!!!) that Valerie Plame went through...and that was 100% politics (not to mention that Richard Armitage was the one who actually caused Plame's pain...btw, how the prosecution of Armitage progressing? Anyone know?).

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:And outing a covert CIA operative is a crime. They just got away with it.

Oh really? Then why was Richard Armitage never charged with a crime your honor? Especially since he actually admitted to being the one that "outed" Plame?

Everything about this entire episode was political down to the guts. Your "outrage" about it is just further proof.

Except for the fact that the presiding judge in the Libby case was a Bush appointee, you might have room to make that case.

RebelKev Wrote:When you liberals start getting your thongs in a bunch over the pardoning of Marc Rich or the theft of national security documents by Sandy Berger, then we'll talk. Mkay pumpkins?

Changing the subject still doesn't absolve you of the fact that Bush commuted the sentence of someone who was convicted on 4 felony charges due to a coverup.

EastStang Wrote:When Clinton was being tried in the Senate for perjury, an argument for not removing him from office was that he lied about a non-crime. He gets to stay in office, Libby get 2.5 years in prison, $250,000 fine and a felony conviction and disbarred. Clinton gets suspended by the Arkansas bar for 3 years. So, Bush's reduction in sentence seems appropriate.

Clinton committed perjury. In a deposition. In a civil matter.

Libby was convicted for obstruction of justice, lying to the FBI, and committing perjury in a criminal matter.

Apples and oranges.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:And outing a covert CIA operative is a crime. They just got away with it.

Oh really? Then why was Richard Armitage never charged with a crime your honor? Especially since he actually admitted to being the one that "outed" Plame?

Everything about this entire episode was political down to the guts. Your "outrage" about it is just further proof.

Except for the fact that the presiding judge in the Libby case was a Bush appointee, you might have room to make that case.

What does the judge have to do with the prosecution? The judge has a duty to hear whatever case the federal prosecutor brings before him. Add that this was a jury trial and there are sentencing guidelines, and you could make an argument that the judge was no more involved than you or me.

blazr Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:And outing a covert CIA operative is a crime. They just got away with it.

Oh really? Then why was Richard Armitage never charged with a crime your honor? Especially since he actually admitted to being the one that "outed" Plame?

Everything about this entire episode was political down to the guts. Your "outrage" about it is just further proof.

Except for the fact that the presiding judge in the Libby case was a Bush appointee, you might have room to make that case.

What does the judge have to do with the prosecution? The judge has a duty to hear whatever case the federal prosecutor brings before him. Add that this was a jury trial and there are sentencing guidelines, and you could make an argument that the judge was no more involved than you or me.

The judge has enough power to throw it out.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

blazr Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:And outing a covert CIA operative is a crime. They just got away with it.

Oh really? Then why was Richard Armitage never charged with a crime your honor? Especially since he actually admitted to being the one that "outed" Plame?

Everything about this entire episode was political down to the guts. Your "outrage" about it is just further proof.

Except for the fact that the presiding judge in the Libby case was a Bush appointee, you might have room to make that case.

What does the judge have to do with the prosecution? The judge has a duty to hear whatever case the federal prosecutor brings before him. Add that this was a jury trial and there are sentencing guidelines, and you could make an argument that the judge was no more involved than you or me.

The judge has enough power to throw it out.

Not without cause and you know that. I know this is hard for you to grasp, but even though he was a Bush appointee you don't reach his status by being ham-handed and tossing cases for no reason. Regardless of what you see on TV, a very few cases get rejected in criminal court.

Clinton hasn't killed anyone. More than 3,500 U.S. soldiers, and God knows how many innocent women and children in Iraq, have died because of Bush's lies and his corrupt administration. Bush himself promised anyone involved with the leaking of Plame's identity would be held accountable, and now he proves he lied when he said that, too.

Bush and Cheney should both be impeached for their crimes in office, and then, they should be held accountable in the Hague for their crimes against humanity.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:And outing a covert CIA operative is a crime. They just got away with it.

Oh really? Then why was Richard Armitage never charged with a crime your honor? Especially since he actually admitted to being the one that "outed" Plame?

Everything about this entire episode was political down to the guts. Your "outrage" about it is just further proof.

Except for the fact that the presiding judge in the Libby case was a Bush appointee, you might have room to make that case.

Perhaps you're not familiar with how our justice system works, but judges don't bring charges, prosecutors do.

I'll ask again, if it was a crime to out Plame, why has Armitage not been charged?

And FYI, Libby wasn't charged with outing Plame, he was charged with obstruction of justice. He was charged for lying about something when there was no underlying crime.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:And outing a covert CIA operative is a crime. They just got away with it.

Oh really? Then why was Richard Armitage never charged with a crime your honor? Especially since he actually admitted to being the one that "outed" Plame?

Everything about this entire episode was political down to the guts. Your "outrage" about it is just further proof.

Except for the fact that the presiding judge in the Libby case was a Bush appointee, you might have room to make that case.

Perhaps you're not familiar with how our justice system works, but judges don't bring charges, prosecutors do.

I'll ask again, if it was a crime to out Plame, why has Armitage not been charged?

And FYI, Libby wasn't charged with outing Plame, he was charged with obstruction of justice. He was charged for lying about something when there was no underlying crime.

What difference would it make? Bush would pardon him too.

Heck, pardons for everybody!

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:And outing a covert CIA operative is a crime. They just got away with it.

Oh really? Then why was Richard Armitage never charged with a crime your honor? Especially since he actually admitted to being the one that "outed" Plame?

Everything about this entire episode was political down to the guts. Your "outrage" about it is just further proof.

Except for the fact that the presiding judge in the Libby case was a Bush appointee, you might have room to make that case.

Perhaps you're not familiar with how our justice system works, but judges don't bring charges, prosecutors do.

I'll ask again, if it was a crime to out Plame, why has Armitage not been charged?

And FYI, Libby wasn't charged with outing Plame, he was charged with obstruction of justice. He was charged for lying about something when there was no underlying crime.

What difference would it make? Bush would pardon him too.

Heck, pardons for everybody!

LOL! I guess we've reached the inevitable point with you Greg. You can't back up your point of view, so you just deflect.

Well done.