why that was nice

[crunktimes.com 5,000+ posts]

Was the deer males or female? Because if it was male that would be a little gay.

 

[adam71 5,000+ posts]

That's the point, Rich B., he didn't lie! That's what you people don't seem to get! They simply took the testimony of reporters like Chris Mathews as fact, without question, and cross examined Libbey for 8 solid hours...trying to get him to make a mistake in his recollection of the timeline events....about a crime that never exhisted in the first place!! It would be like trying to cross examine you for 8 hours about how you slapped me....and you have no arms! Everyone would know you could not have done it, but when you give your testimony 16 times, and change your statement just one time......YOU LIED!!! That's just what happened here. That is exactly what happened in this case. So, please explain to me HOW he could lie about outing Valerie Plame, when it was known that it was Richard Armitage who leaked her name to Bob Novak? Faulkton, so you know what the underlying crime was. Do tell...

You are something else.//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif All I know is it was about as fair of a trial as he could have received and he was convicted. Get over it and move on. But I still don't know what you're pissed about, he's not doing any time. As far as I'm concerned NO ONE that serves with the Bush admin should be able to practice law again.

To you this is about political partisan and NOTHING else. So therefore I don't care what your argument is.

 

[nVRuckus 5,000+ posts]

Was the deer males or female? Because if it was male that would be a little gay.

I think being a *** is the least of his problems.

 

[fwb_1234 10+ year member]

^

^^^lol.

 

[Imtjnotu 5,000+ posts]

****..well atleast he isnt a virgin hhaah

 

[snoopdan 5,000+ posts]

why couldnt he just do some nasty *** chick....there are plenty of those to go around!

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

why couldnt he just do some nasty *** chick....there are plenty of those to go around!

they aren't hairy or rotten enough for him. Also too alive.

 

[jmanpc 5,000+ posts]

they aren't hairy or rotten enough for him. Also too alive.

Plenty of dead beavers around, too.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

they aren't hairy or rotten enough for him. Also too alive.

Perhaps he should look into necrophilia?

 

[blimblam 10+ year member]

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

Perhaps he should look into necrophilia?

from his history with the horse and now the deer it would seem he has already found his niche.... necro-bestiality.

 

[HCCA 10+ year member]

You are something else. All I know is it was about as fair of a trial as he could have received and he was convicted. Get over it and move on. But I still don't know what you're pissed about, he's not doing any time. As far as I'm concerned NO ONE that serves with the Bush admin should be able to practice law again.

All you know is what the media feeds you! You cannot "know" that he received a fair trial. In fact, my last 5 posts are about how this was a travesty of a trial. There was NO underlying crime. How do you get convicted in an investigation of a crime that never happened!?!?

Had the investigation in fact concerned the disclosure of a covert officer's identity, the true target would of course have been Armitage. The lack of prosecutorial interest in Armitage gives the game away.

This was NEVER about finding out who leaked Valerie Plame's name to the media, yet others of your ilk, Adam, think that it's what he was convicted for. Every Lib I bump into thinks that this had to do with Libby being convicted for lying about not leaking her name. This simply illustrates the lack of understanding of the case, by the general public. Most like you, Adam (and Faulkton) are rabid Bush haters who just want to see harm come to this administration....whatever it takes. If someone like me comes along to douse cold water on your dreams, you will fight to be right when you don't even know all the facts of this trial.
Faulkton, you have already exposed yourself as the hipocrite. When Clinton was convicted of Purgery, and Impeached, you said that it was a political Witch Hunt. Well....where were you defending Libby when this was going on?Ummm...cheering for the prosecuter to burn him, I think.

I mean...hey...you were the one who suggested that the two cases were the same thing. So, why didn't you support Libby, the way you did Clinton?

GUYS!!! This is not about a favorite side. This is not the Cubs vs Cards, or Green Bay vs Dallas. This isn't a game. This is real life. Clinton DID lie about what he himself, later admitted to. He was as busted as it gets....he confessed. Libby was charged with a crime of lying during an investigation of a crime that never was! How F'd up is that??? So, no Adam, I don't think he should do any time. He never should have been convicted, because this case should have been dropped as soon as it was known that Richard Armitage was the leaker! It really should have never even gone forward, because V. Plame's status was not covert at the time anyway! How this investigation was ever able to go forward AFTER they had already learned what they needed to know is beyond me. It would be like you being tried for murder a year after someone else already confessed to it!! So, yeah guys, I am glad that the guy will do no time. His conviction was bull! (based on what's right, not on the fact that you guys hate republicans and want to see him burn for that alone.)

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

Faulkton, you have already exposed yourself as the hipocrite. When Clinton was convicted of Purgery, and Impeached, you said that it was a political Witch Hunt. Well....where were you defending Libby when this was going on?Ummm...cheering for the prosecuter to burn him, I think.I mean...hey...you were the one who suggested that the two cases were the same thing. So, why didn't you support Libby, the way you did Clinton?

I didn't support Clinton, i said he should have resigned.

It doesn't matter if there was no underlying crime (which can be debated ad nauseum), he lied under oath and purposely tried to derail the investigation. Just like bill Clinton!. Did you support Bill through his ordeal? It would be pretty hypocritical of you to support Libby and condemn Clinton.
I think Bill should have resigned and i also think Libby should have served at least part of his sentence. Libby is an attorney and certainly should know better than to blatantly lie under oath. This wasn't a simple "i cant remember", it was a total fabrication.

That is what he was tried for and convicted of - and why he should do time.

Maybe 30 months was too severe, but this guy didn't even do 30 minutes!

Bush so much as concedes that Libby broke the law by not granting him a full pardon. If he really thought he was innocent and didn't do anything wrong why is still making him pay the $250K in fines? Why wouldn't he pardon him so he could keep his law license?

Clinton should have resigned and Libby should have served his sentence. I am consistent; however, you are a hypocrite.

How can the sentence be political persecution - the judge in the case is a Bush appointee! The Washington Times, a notoriously conservative paper, came out AGAINST the commutation. Fitzgerald has a history of going after democrats and republicans. He is tough and doesn't back down. He felt his investigation was stifled by Libby and went after Libby for it, as he should have.

I could debate the facts of the trial and investigation with you but it wouldn't be worth my time or effort. You have made up your mind and no amount of debate can convince you otherwise. Lets just leave it at the American legal system agrees with me, and a few hack conservative talk show hosts agree with you.

Also its pretty hard to take anything you say seriously given your creative spelling.

 

[HCCA 10+ year member]

How can the sentence be political persecution - the judge in the case is a Bush appointee!

Being a Bush appointee has nothing to do with the fact that it was the DOJ who BROUGHT this case to trial.
(Disclaimer: this is a C&P)

"I've been puzzling over the circumstances surrounding the referral letter that CIA sent to DoJ in what is commonly referred to as the Plame case. My puzzlement arises particularly in light of what Victoria Toensing wrote in the Washington Post on 02/18/2007. First, here are four statements relating to the referral:

Toensing in WaPo:

THIS GRAND JURY CHARGES THE CIA for making a boilerplate criminal referral to cover its derrierre.

The CIA is well aware of the requirements of the law protecting the identity of covert officers and agents. I know, because in 1982, as chief counsel to the Senate intelligence committee, I negotiated the terms of that legislation between the media and the intelligence community. Even if Plame's status were "classified"--Fitzgerald never introduced one piece of evidence to support such status -- no law would be violated.

There is no better evidence that the CIA was only covering its rear by requesting a Justice Department criminal investigation than the fact that it sent a boiler-plate referral regarding a classified leak and not one addressing the elements of a covert officer's disclosure. [emphasis added]

Judge Reggie Walton to the trial jury:

Walton announced that not only did the jurors not know Mrs. Wilson's status but that he didn't know it, either. "I don't know, based on what has been presented to me in this case, what her status was," Walton said. "It's totally irrelevant to this case." Just so there was no mistake, on January 31 Walton said it again: "I to this day don't know what her actual status was." (From an article by Byron York, NR, 02/05/2007) [emphasis added]

Team Fitzgerald to Team Libby:

But in a letter to the Libby team last Tuesday, Fitzgerald's deputy, Kathleen Kedian, said the special prosecutor will not give up the referral and that Libby simply did not need to know what was in it. "After consultation with the CIA, we advise that we view any such documents in our possession as not discoverable," Kedian wrote. "The documents remain classified and contain information compiled for law enforcement purposes that is neither material to the preparation of the defense, nor exculpatory as to Mr. Libby." (From an article by Byron York, NR, 02/27/2006) [emphasis added]

Deputy AG Comey to Special Counsel Fitzgerald, 12/20/2003:

I hereby delegate to you all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity...

What can we draw from these four statements?

1. I assume that Toensing doesn't just mouth off without knowing basic facts. She asserts as a fact that the referral was for "a boiler-plate referral regarding a classified leak and not one addressing the elements of a covert officer's disclosure." I have to believe she has good information for that assertion, namely that the referral was general in nature and specifically did not address the elements of Plame's status that would allow a reader of the referral to come to preliminary opinion as to whether Plame was "covert" for purposes of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA).

2. Judge Walton's statement to the jury would appear to confirm Toensing's assertion, because if the referral had addressed the question of Plame's covert status he would be unlikely to make such a statement to the jury, nor tell Libby's attorneys that there was no relevant information in the referral that would be of any use to them. It seems unlikely that the CIA could have sent a referral regarding the disclosure of a covert officer's identity without presenting prima facie evidence that that officer did in fact qualify as "covert" under the IIPA--the CIA could hardly have said, hey, we don't know whether our own employee was covert but we want DoJ and the FBI to investigate it. Therefore, again, the referral would seem not to have been based on the IIPA.

3. But, running counter to these indicators is Comey's delegation of "authority" (not of "function" as the statute reads) to Fitzgerald, which specifically states that it relates to "the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity..." What strikes me about this delegation is that it makes no reference to specific criminal statutes that may have been violated. It essentially states: here is a factual situation, investigate it. Now, there was in fact a very public allegation that a specific statute had been violated: the IIPA. Anyone who had followed the whole Plame kerfuffle in the newspapers and on the internet would have expected that the IIPA, which was referenced almost immediately after Robert Novak's article which referenced Plame appeared. Moreover, as Toensing knows better than anyone, that statute was written as a direct response to--as a solution to--the problem of unauthorized disclosures of covert officers' identity. What's going on here?

4. The answer may lie in the wording of Comey's delegation. Rather than referencing "the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a [covert] CIA [officer's] identity..." the delegation only makes a vague reference to an "alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity..." Viewed through this prism, Comey's phrasing may constitute confirmation of Toensing's assertion: the referral makes no reference to covert status but only vaguely suggests that the disclosure of Plame's employment somehow violated a statute prohibiting unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

5. In the event, the investigation disclosed no violations of law whatsoever. Nevertheless, in his closing statement Fitzgerald made repeated references to the possibility that a covert officer's identity had been disclosed maliciously and that people might die as a result--in spite of the fact that the referral letter apparently never referenced covert status as an issue.

6. Beyond pointing up the essentially unethical nature of the Libby prosecution--long obvious--these factors suggest to me that there may have been a type of bait and switch at the heart of the entire investigation. The operation of this bait and switch relied on the public outcry in the MSM about the disclosure of a covert officer's identitity. The reality, if the above analysis is correct, is that the referral letter did not reference such a possibility because it was known that Plame was not "covert" for purposes of the IIPA. The relevant officials at CIA and DoJ knew that this public scenario, replete with images of Administration officials frog marching out of the White house, bore no relation to the reality of the situation--especially in light of what those officials had learned from Richard Armitage. So, the investigation was an open ended warrant to find a violation of any statute or, failing that, to induce a process violation in the course of the investigation. The bait and switch relied on the public hue and cry to provide cover for turning the White House inside out in search of a crime--any crime.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

reread what i said. I made no claim about what instigated the proceedings, just the sentence given.

Again why didn't Bush give a full pardon? According to his statements, because he wanted to let the decision stand. Even bush thinks he was guilty as charged and should be punished with a 250K fine and a lost law license. He just didnt want him to go to prison because he was afraid of what he might say.