|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
I would be curious what your definition of a leak is? For most people it involves somebody like Rove or Libby meeting with reporters & speaking off the record about things they're not supposed to.
Well, then. Lets see teh indictment.
Why? We have several leakers. Apparently an indictment isn't required for both of us to acknowledge that Armitage leaked.
Again what is your definition of leaking?
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
the G-man said in November 2005:In their zeal to tie Libby to Cheney to Bush to "Bush LIED," these partisans have already begun taking great pains to portray Fitzgerald as an honest, steadfast, "just the facts," prosecutor. And he probably is.
With a New York Times story hinting at the possibility of prosecutorial misconduct in the Valerie Plame case, I'm starting to feel like Fitzgerald is less interested in the facts than feathering his own cap:
An enduring mystery of the C.I.A. leak case has been solved in recent days, but with a new twist: Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, knew the identity of the leaker from his very first day in the special counsel's chair, but kept the inquiry open for nearly two more years before indicting I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, on obstruction charges.
Now, the question of whether Mr. Fitzgerald properly exercised his prosecutorial discretion in continuing to pursue possible wrongdoing in the case has become the subject of rich debate on editorial pages and in legal and political circles. . . .
Mr. Fitzgerald's defenders point out that the revelation about Mr. Armitage did not rule out a White House effort because officials like Mr. Libby and Karl Rove, the senior white House adviser, had spoken about Ms. Wilson with other journalists. Even so, the Fitzgerald critics say, the prosecutor behaved much as did the independent counsels of the 1980's and 1990's who often failed to bring down their quarry on official misconduct charges but pursued highly nuanced accusations of a cover-up.
The Times suggests that there was a coverup of sorts:
On Oct. 1, 2003, Mr. Armitage was up at 4 a.m. for a predawn workout when he read a second article by Mr. Novak in which he described his primary source for his earlier column about Ms. Wilson as "no partisan gunslinger." Mr. Armitage realized with alarm that that could only be a reference to him, according to people familiar with his role. He waited until Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, an old friend, was awake, then telephoned him. They discussed the matter with the top State Department lawyer, William H. Taft IV.
Mr. Armitage had prepared a resignation letter, his associates said. But he stayed on the job because State Department officials advised that his sudden departure could lead to the disclosure of his role in the leak, the people aware of his actions said.
According to the Times, "Mr. Armitage kept his actions secret, not even telling President Bush because the prosecutor asked him not to divulge it, the people ['who are familiar with his role and actions in the case'] said."
It seems that Fitzgerald and the State Department covered up a noncrime, and the effect was to keep alive the illusion that it was a crime.
Maybe Fitzgerald had pure motives, but the more I hear about the case, the more it looks like the whole thing stinks.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Robert Novak on Armitage: An accurate depiction of what Armitage actually said deepens the irony of his being my source. He was a foremost internal skeptic of the administration's war policy, and I had long opposed military intervention in Iraq. Zealous foes of George W. Bush ...cannot fit Armitage into the left-wing fantasy of a well-crafted White House conspiracy to destroy Joe and Valerie Wilson. The news that he, and not Karl Rove, was the leaker was devastating for the left.
Late in my hour-long interview with Armitage, I asked why the CIA had sent Wilson -- who lacked intelligence experience, nuclear policy expertise or recent contact with Niger -- on the African mission.
He had told me unequivocally that Mrs. Wilson worked in the CIA's Counterproliferation Division and that she had suggested her husband's mission. As for his current implication that he never expected this to be published, he noted that the story of Mrs. Wilson's role fit the style of the old Evans-Novak column -- implying to me that it continued reporting Washington inside information.
Armitage's silence for the next 2 1/2 years caused intense pain for his colleagues in government and enabled partisan Democrats in Congress to falsely accuse Rove of being my primary source. When Armitage now says he was mute because of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's request, that does not explain his silent three months between his claimed first realization that he was the source and Fitzgerald's appointment on Dec. 30, 2003. Armitage's tardy self-disclosure is tainted because it is deceptive. It seems to me that both Plame and Rove ought to be after Armitage.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41 |
This goes back to Novak not being consistent with what he's said previously in his columns.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
 Keep hope alive!
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
MSNBC News: The judge in the CIA leak case ruled Thursday that if Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald feels that admitting certain classified documents at the upcoming trial of I Lewis "Scooter" Libby can jeopardize national security, Fitzgerald can move to dismiss the perjury charges against Libby. This could very well mean that the judge is telling Fitzgerald he doesn't have a case, and if he wants to save face, he'd better drop the charges. It could also mean that Fitzgerald may have realized his case is going nowhere and that he can invoke "national security" as a pretext for dropping itl, again to save face.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Federal prosecutors said Tuesday they have spent $1.44 million so far investigating the leak.
How much of that should Armitage be responsible for?
Furthermore, since Armitage says that Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald knew he was the leaker, how much of that should Fitzgerald be responsible for?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41 |
If Libby is guilty of what he's been indicted for then does Libby need to pony up some loot? Or perhaps the Bush administration owes some money for obviously having somebody unqualified in such a high position in the first place who gets "confused" so easily.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
I've mentioned in the past that I have no problem with Libby being suitably punished if found guilty.
But that in no way explains why the investigation even got to Libby if, as reported, Armitage told his superiors, and Fitizgerald knew early on, that Armitage was the leaker.
What was left to investigate?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41 |
Quote:
In the Libby Case, A Grilling to Remember
Friday, October 27, 2006; A21
With withering and methodical dispatch, White House nemesis and prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald yesterday sliced up the first person called to the stand on behalf of the vice president's former chief of staff.
If I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was not afraid of the special counsel before, the former Cheney aide, who will face Fitzgerald in a trial beginning Jan. 11, had ample reason to start quaking after yesterday's Ginsu-like legal performance.
Fitzgerald's target in the witness box was Elizabeth F. Loftus, a professor of criminology and psychology at the University of California at Irvine. For more than an hour of the pretrial hearing, Loftus calmly explained to Judge Reggie B. Walton her three decades of expertise in human memory and witness testimony. Loftus asserted that, after copious scientific research, she has found that many potential jurors do not understand the limits of memory and that Libby should be allowed to call an expert to make that clear to them.
But when Fitzgerald got his chance to cross-examine Loftus about her findings, he had her stuttering to explain her own writings and backpedaling from her earlier assertions. Citing several of her publications, footnotes and the work of her peers, Fitzgerald got Loftus to acknowledge that the methodology she had used at times in her long academic career was not that scientific, that her conclusions about memory were conflicting, and that she had exaggerated a figure and a statement from her survey of D.C. jurors that favored the defense.
Her defense-paid visit to the federal court was crucial because Libby is relying on the "memory defense" against Fitzgerald's charges that he obstructed justice and lied to investigators about his role in the leaking of a CIA operative's identity to the media. Libby's attorneys argue that he did not lie -- that he was just really busy with national security matters and forgot some of his conversations.
...
RAW
Last edited by Matter-eater Man; 2006-10-27 2:34 PM.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41 |
Quote:
Libby Heads to Trial in CIA Leak Case
Jan 13, 11:40 AM (ET)
By MATT APUZZO and MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN
WASHINGTON (AP) - Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby goes on trial Tuesday over the administration's response to one critic who questioned assertions President Bush made four years ago to justify waging war against Iraq.
Once the right-hand man to Vice President Dick Cheney, Libby faces charges of perjury and obstruction of an investigation into the leak of a CIA officer's identity to reporters.
Libby joins a long list of presidents' men to face charges in the federal courthouse in the nation's capital - Bob Haldeman and John Ehrlichman in Watergate, Adm. John Poindexter and Marine Col. Oliver North in Iran-Contra.
...
RAW
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
I've mentioned in the past that I have no problem with Libby being suitably punished if found guilty.
But that in no way explains why the investigation even got to Libby if, as reported, Armitage told his superiors, and Fitizgerald knew early on, that Armitage was the leaker.
What was left to investigate?
The Wall St. Journal seems to agree, noting that the case against Libby goes to trial "seemingly weakened by revelations that Mr. Fitzgerald knew early in his CIA-leak probe that the ex-White House official wasn't the original source of news-media disclosures."
Those disclosures, and the search for their source, were the reason Mr. Fitzgerald was ordered to launch an investigation in the first place...
Perjury prosecutions are notably difficult with a high rate of failure. In this case, prosecutors have the added challenge of navigating a minefield of extraneous issues while asking jurors to interpret Mr. Libby's state of mind when he talked to investigators.
Prosecutors suggest Mr. Libby, then Mr. Cheney's chief of staff, lied to investigators to conceal a White House campaign to leak Ms. Plame's identity in retaliation for her husband's criticism of the administration's war plans.
But allegations of a cover-up motivation appear to be undercut by recent news that former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, not Mr. Libby, was the source of the leak of Ms. Plame's name to reporters.
Another problem for Mr. Fitzgerald: At the end of his two-year investigation, during which he fought high-profile battles to get reporters to reveal their secret sources, he didn't bring charges on the leak itself and instead brought the Libby perjury case.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41 |
None of which voids what Mr. Libby is going to trial for though.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Isn't there like some sort of official-sounding name for the habitual practice of beating dead horses? Some people get their jollies offa really weird shit! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
Isn't there like some sort of official-sounding name for the habitual practice of beating dead horses?
Yes. Libralism.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41 |
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
Isn't there like some sort of official-sounding name for the habitual practice of beating dead horses? Some people get their jollies offa really weird shit!
The case hasn't even started yet so how is it a "dead horse"?
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Because it's already been established that apart from you not many people here seem to care about this.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41 |
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
Because it's already been established that apart from you not many people here seem to care about this.
Guess we're pretty different. When I don't care about a thread I just ignore it. It's a big court case with somebody high up in the Bush administration Cap, you may want to avoid TV for a while.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
I don't watch a lot of TV in any case. And it's hard for me to ignore a thread.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
No, Sammitch, don't you get it?
Libby is going to be found guilty of perjury for lying about something the Special Prosecutor already knew wasn't a crime.
Then he's going to save his own skin by turning state's evidence against Cheney, who will be forced to fake a heart attack and resign.
Then, with Cheney gone, there's nothing stopping Nanci Pelosi from impeaching Bush and taking the reigns of the White House for herself.
Then, MEM can do his happy dance, because the Republikkkans will have been routed forevah.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
He's so easily pleased. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41 |
Quote:
Video: Leak trial lawyers 'can't find' twelve who like Cheney
David Edwards and Ron Brynaert
Published: Thursday January 18, 2007
Observers of the CIA leak case trial may be asking themselves one question: 'Are there twelve people in America that don't dislike the Bush Adminstration?'
Because, after reading several media and blogger reports, it seems that "legal eagles" working on the trial for former Bush and Cheney aide I. Lewis Libby are having problems finding them.
According to CNN, after potential jurors were interviewed by lawyers Thursday, "several were disqualified by midday after voicing negative feelings" about the administration. Of 25 potential jurors, CNN reports that "fourteen have been excused."
...
RAW
That was pretty much a given.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Yes, because fourteen residents of the Washington DC area is a representative sample of "everybody."  No comment on other news stories that have indicated that the special prosecutor is trying to put people on the jury who are biased against Cheney and Republicans?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41 |
I'm sure Libby will get a very fair trial & probably a very unfair parden by Bush later on.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Okay, you don't want to seriously comment. I will.
According to the Associated Press, Fitzgerald is not content to have in the jury pool seven people who admit to a strong prejudice against the Bush administration but who say they can still adjudge the facts dispassionately.
Fitzgerald and defense attorneys spent more than 15 minutes Thursday morning arguing privately with U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton over whether to dismiss one potential juror, a management consultant. She said her feelings about the administration could spill over into the trial.
"My personal feeling is the Iraq war was a tremendous, terrible mistake. It's quite a horrendous thing," she said. "Whether any one person or the administration is responsible for that is quite a complex question."
The woman was ultimately dismissed but Fitzgerald's fight to keep her was his strongest effort yet during the politically charged hearings
Read that again. This is a woman who acknowledges that she may not be able to look at the facts objectively. But Fitzgerald still wanted to keep this woman in the jury pool. Even in traffic court that would be outrageous.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1
We already are 15000+ posts
|
|
We already are 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
I'm sure Libby will get a very fair trial & probably a very unfair parden by Bush later on.
*cough marc rich cough*
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1
We already are 15000+ posts
|
|
We already are 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1 |
Oh and they probably would have pardoned Vince Foster if they didn't murder him in his office.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Now, now, PJ, that hasn't been proven.
(Of course, the fact that allegations against Republicans are unproven has never stopped MEM)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,063 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,063 Likes: 31 |
Quote:
PJP said:
Oh and they probably would have pardoned Vince Foster if they didn't murder him in his office.
The same can be said of then-DNC-Chairman Ron Brown, who died in a plane crash over Bosnia. Right after he was in danger of being indicted, and said: "If I'm going down, I'm not going down alone."
Quote:
the G-man said:
Now, now, PJ, that hasn't been proven.
(Of course, the fact that allegations against Republicans are unproven has never stopped MEM)
Pretty much. Although it's not proven in a court of law, it is annoying that Dems hold Republicans to a higher standard than they hold their own to.
Any conspiracy theory about Republicans is always assumed to be fact by liberals.
But if Republicans even mention the possibility that liberals are involved in conspiracies, it's considered malicious and right-wing-whacko.
When I mention these conspiracy theories about Democrats (Vince Foster, Ron Brown, etc.) I at least do it in the context that while I beleive it to be true, it hasn't been proven.
Would that liberals here and elsewhere would do the same, when attacking Republicans.
Instead, they just repeat the allegation, until sheer repetition makes the average person on the street believe it's absolute fact.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41 |
Same old same old from the Bush pom pom squad. One minute so rightous about "Republicans do it to" until it's conveniant to trot out "Dems do it to". Plus the usual BS allegations. tsk tsk.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Wait...a...minute.
I was talking about Fitzgerald's alleged prosecutorial misconduct. That has nothing to do with "democrats do it too."
Apparently, however, you were unable to defend that, so you pretended I wrote about something else.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
Wait...a...minute.
I was talking about Fitzgerald's alleged prosecutorial misconduct. That has nothing to do with "democrats do it too."
Apparently, however, you were unable to defend that, so you pretended I wrote about something else.
big words for a man with no avatar.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,063 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,063 Likes: 31 |
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
Quote:
PJP said:
Oh and they probably would have pardoned Vince Foster if they didn't murder him in his office.
The same can be said of then-DNC-Chairman Ron Brown, who died in a plane crash over Bosnia. Right after he was in danger of being indicted, and said: "If I'm going down, I'm not going down alone."
Quote:
the G-man said:
Now, now, PJ, that hasn't been proven.
(Of course, the fact that allegations against Republicans are unproven has never stopped MEM)
Pretty much. Although it's not proven in a court of law, it is annoying that Dems hold Republicans to a higher standard than they hold their own to.
Any conspiracy theory about Republicans is always assumed to be fact by liberals.
But if Republicans even mention the possibility that liberals are involved in conspiracies, it's considered malicious and right-wing-whacko.
When I mention these conspiracy theories about Democrats (Vince Foster, Ron Brown, etc.) I at least do it in the context that while I beleive it to be true, it hasn't been proven.
Would that liberals here and elsewhere would do the same, when attacking Republicans.
Instead, they just repeat the allegation, until sheer repetition makes the average person on the street believe it's absolute fact.
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Same old same old from the Bush pom pom squad. One minute so righteous about "Republicans do it too" until it's convenient to trot out "Dems do it too". Plus the usual BS allegations. tsk tsk.
Maybe you were addressing someone else, MEM, because I never mentioned George W. Bush in my quoted comments. My comments were about Clinton, and the standard of evidence, of both parties, during Clinton's administration.
I simply pointed out that these are allegations against Democrats (the deaths of Ron Brown and Vince Foster, that conveniently prevented the Clintons from being indicted or implicated). I (and other conservatives) made clear the difference between proven and un-proven, allegations, and that while I believe the allegations, I can (and clearly did) acknowledge and make clear that they are not proven.
What you label as "B.S. allegations" are clearly defined by me as allegations (and not proven in court or evidence).
But where you spin it as B.S., I make clear that while the crimes cannot be proven, I don't believe Clinton and his administration are innocent. Just that conclusive evidence of their crimes does not exist.
And I didn't play ambiguous "Republicans/Dems do it too" games.
Both sides do play their dirty tricks.
But I find the Democrat side much more cynical and malicious, in their repeating unprovenallegations about Republicans as if they were fact.
("Bush knew", "blood for oil", "October surprise"...)
And repeating them relentlessly, through sheer repetition of the allegation, to the point that all but the most informed accept these unproven allegations as if they were proven.
To some degree, both sides play the same rhetorical political games.
But the Democrats are far more prone to vicious personal attacks, and smearing their opposition with unproven allegations.
You should tsk tsk yourself.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41 |
Yeah I was responding to you WB. You had commented earlier in another thread that I use the "Republicans do it to" bit. It's just funny that you or G-man would even have a problem with that because if there is a Republican in some type of scandal or legal trouble, you guys are there to discuss some similar/percieved/made up thing by a Dem. That is fine of course, lots of times it gives perspective. I just point out that you guys do it to  As for the issue of jury selection, isn't the Defense also looking for jurers who would be more sympathetic towards Libby? This jury selection process doesn't seem to be different than any other.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,063 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,063 Likes: 31 |
HERE's the post of mine you mention, criticizing the equivalency defense of "well, Republicans do it too".
What I criticize is that Democrats use it to hide that their guy is wrong.
In the same situation, Republicans admit that the offending conservative is a scumbag, as they point out Democrats who did the same thing. That's acknowledgement as well as equivalency.
Whereas Democrats tend to use the equivalency argument to hide that their guy did anything wrong.
And when a Dem is caught (Clinton: perjury, Monica Lewinsky, for example) it's characterized as "picking on" Clinton, and Hilary gets her talking points out that it's part of a "vast right-wing conspiracy".
So even when a Democrat does something wrong, they're absolved of guilt and the Republicans are blamed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
As for the issue of jury selection, isn't the Defense also looking for jurers who would be more sympathetic towards Libby? This jury selection process doesn't seem to be different than any other.
The prosecution, as an agent of the state, is generally given less leeway in litigation because of the need to safeguard the rights of the accused.
Furthermore, under the code of legal ethics, while a defense attorney is required to advocate for his or her client, a prosecutor is expected to act in the interests of justice even if it means he or she might lose the case.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41 |
Quote:
...But the Democrats are far more prone to vicious personal attacks, and smearing their opposition with unproven allegations.
...
Serious question WB, who's to blame for Libby being where he is right now?
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289 |
Liberals!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41 |
Quote:
Opening statement in Libby trial: 'The defendant lied.'
Michael Roston
Published: Tuesday January 23, 2007
The opening statements in the trial against former Bush administration official I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby kicked off today. Federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald revealed that Libby may have destroyed a note written by Vice President Dick Cheney with instructions on how he should deal with federal investigators, while Libby's defense attonrey maintained that he was a "sacrificial lamb."
A broadcast on MSNBC described Fitzgerald's opening statement, in which he challenged Libby's defense against perjury and obstruction of justice, notably that he didn't remember what he had said because he was busy dealing with national security issues:
Fitzgerald alleged that Libby in September 2003 “destroyed” a Cheney note just before Libby's first FBI interview when he said he learned about Wilson from reporters, not the vice president.
I. Lewis Libby is charged with perjury and obstruction. He told investigators he was surprised to learn Wilson’s wife’s identity from NBC News reporter Tim Russert.
But Fitzgerald told jurors that was clearly a lie because Libby had already been discussing the matter inside and outside of the White House. “You can’t learn something on Thursday that you’re giving out on Monday,” Fitzgerald said.
..
RAW
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
