Reply With Quote
Really! How come the guy who charged him didn't stop
when he "solved" the crime, that was no crime.
Got to love the dimm's. They love to post that sign:
"Gone Fishin"
You know, if there was no crime in Libby's case, he'll win on appeal.
If he doesn't win on appeal, then he committed a crime.
Pretty simple stuff.
Really! How come the guy who charged him didn't stop
when he "solved" the crime, that was no crime.
Got to love the dimm's. They love to post that sign:
"Gone Fishin"
Either lying under oath is a crime (the worst crime imaginable according to the Clinton haters) or it isn't. Get back to me when you've made up your mind.
PP you hung up on Clinton. The person known to have
committed the "so called" crime was already know when Libby
was called before a Grand Jury. Therefore, was not the
person in question. Clinton was the focus of the "no sex" blow
job.
Perhaps because he doesn't buy into the Right's spin, actually looked at the law and the facts that he believed he could prove, and decided that he could get a conviction for a real life, honest-to-goodness crime.
Curiously, the judge in the District Court (with, I'm sure many very able law clerks to assist) reached the same conclusion. Somehow, xray, when it comes to knowledge of the law, I'm willing to put more faith in the Judge than I am in Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, or others with political axes to grind. Had the argument you're making been right, the Judge would have been required to throw the case out. He didn't do that.
Whether Mr. Fitzpatrick and the Judge were right or not will be determined, at least in part, by what an appellate court has to say about the whole affair.
So, you have you faith and I have mine.
But back to the original argument. The fifth saves a lot
of wear and tear on the old pocket book. Let the
dimm-o-craps stew in the own juice and prove you did
something wrong. Thinking ant provin.......
Good to know that you're unconcerned about throwing around inapt comparisons.
^^Yeah, that is way I am "unconcerned". Inapt comparisons,
have no idea what you are talking about.
i understand that. the question still remains why worry over committing perjury in the future unless you plan to lie. if you tell the truth, you should be fine. but she's planning to lie? about what in particular, and why would she feel the need to lie? what is she trying to cover up?
gtown =
gonzales doesnt believe in the cons ution
Her plead should not be allowed by law. There are no indictments. She jumped the gun. May have been a suggestion from legal counsultent, but too early to plead the 5th.
Y'Know, if they'd have come out with that? I'm fine. What I'm not fine with is saying that they are fired for poor performance, when three of them had outstanding reviews, and none of them had poor reviews. I'm also not fine with Pistol Pete Domenici directly calling a prosecutor about an investigation that IS in progress, and pressuring him to issue indictments. That IS illegal. Not surprisingly, that prosecutor wound up on the "fired" list.
Gonzo (flips the press off) and flees Chicago
after 3-minute Q&A that was supposed to last 15-minutes
He believes in a special version of the Cons ution that, unlike that "goddamn piece of paper" the rest of us know, renders Habeus Corpus a mere indulgence that exists at the pleasure of the president, and can be taken away at a whim (something even the British monarchy couldn't do).
It doesn't matter if they had rave reviews. They're not serving at the pleasure of some random rating service, but for the president.
And the president can fire them at will.
Those attorneys are appointed politically in the first place and can be fired politically.
Much ado about Nothing.
i understand that. the question still remains why worry over committing perjury in the future unless you plan to lie. if you tell the truth, you should be fine. but she's planning to lie? about what in particular, and why would she feel the need to lie? what is she trying to cover up?
gtown =
Because you're in danger of someone contradicting your story, and can be charged for perjury due to a faulty memory.
It's not so simple. You could go to jail on a technicality.
yeah we know you're hoping.
Implied powers are uncons utional?
it's a big deal when tampering with federal cases is alleged and the firings are accused of being retaliatory for said prosecutors going after republican congressmen instead of democrats (carol lam and duke cunningham).
It is a big deal... to democrats. Nobody else who is informed cares.
We are not in the midst of a civil war, and no foreign army is marching on U.S. soil. This is what happens when you rely on authority-worshiping rightwing blogs for cons utional interpretation.
Last edited by PixelPusher; 03-27-2007 at 11:53 PM.
it's a pretty big deal among republicans as well. and plenty of informed people care. i advise you to check the latest polls concerning this issue.
It's so simple even you might be able to understand it.
Don't lie.
Don't change your story three of four times.
Don't blame everything on Tim Russert.
Why are you so afraid of the truth?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
