So should Libby be pardoned?

[Corbett]

Just wondering. Seems like most of the people here who were screaming for Bush/Rove/Cheney to be overthrown because of their outright lieing about the CIA leak have suddently gone silent on this one.

Once again, a non issue is turned into a huge issue by the anti-Bush crowd and made to look like it is Bush's fault. It never fails.

Personally, I would like to see Schumer in front of a grand jury now explainging his actions in the whole sharade.

 

[Pens1566]

Should he be pardoned for lying to the grand jury? No. Will he? Most likely.

 

[theeedude]

Why does he need to be pardoned? Are you saying he's guilty? Because if he isn't then he'll be acquitted.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Why does he need to be pardoned? Are you saying he's guilty? Because if he isn't then he'll be acquitted.

Those damn activist judges will convict him anyway.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Corbett
Just wondering. Seems like most of the people here who were screaming for Bush/Rove/Cheney to be overthrown because of their outright lieing about the CIA leak have suddently gone silent on this one.

Once again, a non issue is turned into a huge issue by the anti-Bush crowd and made to look like it is Bush's fault. It never fails.

Personally, I would like to see Schumer in front of a grand jury now explainging his actions in the whole sharade.

So there were potentially illegal activities coming from some unknown person in the executive branch, and you claim the libs blew it all out of proportion by demanding it be investigated? Now I realize it's difficult to understand, but that's USUALLY how this kind of thing works...the only way this would have been a "non-issue" is if we decided that the Bush administration is so trustworthy that we shouldn't even bother to invesitage potential wrongdoing.

Just so I understand, are you REALLY suggesting that thinking that a leak from the executive branch might involve the President is somehow a strange case of partisan idiocy? Because, no offense, that's just dumb.

 

[Pens1566]

Not to mention the "If any member of my administration leaked this info, they'll be fired" promise. Or the fake "hunt for the leakers" conducted by the admin when he knew almost immdediately who was involved.

 

[dahunan]

Anyone who exposes the identity of a CIA Agent should be given a life sentence in Leavenworth.. no questions asked.. no passing go.

CIA Agents are there to protect us all.. regardless of our party affiliation.. this politician put party affiliation and love of war and war profits above Americas safety

 

[Aisengard]

What does Schumer have to do with any of this, besides being a leading figure calling for an investigation? Or should those types of people be thrown into jail for daring to question the Bush Monar...er, Administration?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Corbett
Just wondering. Seems like most of the people here who were screaming for Bush/Rove/Cheney to be overthrown because of their outright lieing about the CIA leak have suddently gone silent on this one.

Once again, a non issue is turned into a huge issue by the anti-Bush crowd and made to look like it is Bush's fault. It never fails.

Personally, I would like to see Schumer in front of a grand jury now explainging his actions in the whole sharade.

:thumbsup:

And you're right. The silence is deafening.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Corbett
Just wondering. Seems like most of the people here who were screaming for Bush/Rove/Cheney to be overthrown because of their outright lieing about the CIA leak have suddently gone silent on this one.

Once again, a non issue is turned into a huge issue by the anti-Bush crowd and made to look like it is Bush's fault. It never fails.

Personally, I would like to see Schumer in front of a grand jury now explainging his actions in the whole sharade.

:thumbsup:

And you're right. The silence is deafening.

Why? Libby wasn't charged with leaking information.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: dahunan
Anyone who exposes the identity of a CIA Agent should be given a life sentence in Leavenworth.. no questions asked.. no passing go.

CIA Agents are there to protect us all.. regardless of our party affiliation.. this politician put party affiliation and love of war and war profits above Americas safety

:thumbsup:

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Corbett
Just wondering. Seems like most of the people here who were screaming for Bush/Rove/Cheney to be overthrown because of their outright lieing about the CIA leak have suddently gone silent on this one.

Once again, a non issue is turned into a huge issue by the anti-Bush crowd and made to look like it is Bush's fault. It never fails.

Personally, I would like to see Schumer in front of a grand jury now explainging his actions in the whole sharade.

:thumbsup:

And you're right. The silence is deafening.

Ah, now I understand the source of the confusion and subsequent attempts by you guys at sounding clever...let me help you out.

For the majority of us in the "anti-Bush crowd", these things we call "facts" take on an almost mystical significance in determining what really happened in any given situation. This concept may prove confusing, so just think of our "facts" as, say, things Bill O'Reilly tells you to think. When confronted with an unknown situation, OUR natural inclination is to uncover the truth of the matter. Our experience with the Bush administration has been that "truth" is not something they are quite familiar with, it's like some sort of intellectual novelty that they dimly recall through the coke induced haze of their college experience. Naturally, when we were confronted with potentially illegal action by someone in the administration and the executive branch acting even more suspicious than usual, we made a few assumptions about how the situation would eventually play itself out. The fact that Bush supporters spent a great deal of time digging into legal hairsplitting to "prove" that exposing the cover of former CIA operatives wasn't illegal tended to support our judgements rather than disprove them. After all, if nobody leaked it in the first place, who cares whether or not this hypothetical leak broke the law? The loud assertations coming from Bush and his supporters that nobody did anything wrong was viewed as particularly unconvincing, as weak points are almost always the loudest (especially when discussing things with Republicans).

So imagine our surprise when, apparently, Rove, Bush and Cheney were cleared (at least as far as the lawyers are concerned). The facts, as it turned out, were NOT quite as we assumed them to be. So we dropped it, we were wrong. I imagine this is the confusing part for you two, but think of this as science, instead of religion. Our initial judgements were based on facts and reason, so when we get new information, it's perfectly natural to revise those judgements. Had we started from a position based on "faith" and partisan bias, it would certainly be understandable that we'd refuse to back down, even after we've been disproven. You think we think like you do, but really we don't. We are not "anti-Bush" because it's part of our political religion, most of us are "anti-Bush" because we don't think reality is on his side. The confusion is understandable.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Corbett
Just wondering. Seems like most of the people here who were screaming for Bush/Rove/Cheney to be overthrown because of their outright lieing about the CIA leak have suddently gone silent on this one.

Once again, a non issue is turned into a huge issue by the anti-Bush crowd and made to look like it is Bush's fault. It never fails.

Personally, I would like to see Schumer in front of a grand jury now explainging his actions in the whole sharade.

:thumbsup:

And you're right. The silence is deafening.

:thumbsdown:

Some of us have more important things to worry about, like young Americans dying everyday because of a lie.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Should he be pardoned for lying to the grand jury? No. Will he? Most likely.

He has to be convicted first. And in light of recent events, that isn't likely to happen.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Should he be pardoned for lying to the grand jury? No. Will he? Most likely.

He has to be convicted first. And in light of recent events, that isn't likely to happen.

Why though? Remember, he isn't being charged with the leak. He's getting the Clinton treatment, I guess (I.e. he may not have done some illegal to begin with, but he eventually did).

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Corbett
Just wondering. Seems like most of the people here who were screaming for Bush/Rove/Cheney to be overthrown because of their outright lieing about the CIA leak have suddently gone silent on this one.

Once again, a non issue is turned into a huge issue by the anti-Bush crowd and made to look like it is Bush's fault. It never fails.

Personally, I would like to see Schumer in front of a grand jury now explainging his actions in the whole sharade.

:thumbsup:

And you're right. The silence is deafening.

Ah, now I understand the source of the confusion and subsequent attempts by you guys at sounding clever...let me help you out.

For the majority of us in the "anti-Bush crowd", these things we call "facts" take on an almost mystical significance in determining what really happened in any given situation. This concept may prove confusing, so just think of our "facts" as, say, things Bill O'Reilly tells you to think. When confronted with an unknown situation, OUR natural inclination is to uncover the truth of the matter. Our experience with the Bush administration has been that "truth" is not something they are quite familiar with, it's like some sort of intellectual novelty that they dimly recall through the coke induced haze of their college experience. Naturally, when we were confronted with potentially illegal action by someone in the administration and the executive branch acting even more suspicious than usual, we made a few assumptions about how the situation would eventually play itself out. The fact that Bush supporters spent a great deal of time digging into legal hairsplitting to "prove" that exposing the cover of former CIA operatives wasn't illegal tended to support our judgements rather than disprove them. After all, if nobody leaked it in the first place, who cares whether or not this hypothetical leak broke the law? The loud assertations coming from Bush and his supporters that nobody did anything wrong was viewed as particularly unconvincing, as weak points are almost always the loudest (especially when discussing things with Republicans).

So imagine our surprise when, apparently, Rove, Bush and Cheney were cleared (at least as far as the lawyers are concerned). The facts, as it turned out, were NOT quite as we assumed them to be. So we dropped it, we were wrong. I imagine this is the confusing part for you two, but think of this as science, instead of religion. Our initial judgements were based on facts and reason, so when we get new information, it's perfectly natural to revise those judgements. Had we started from a position based on "faith" and partisan bias, it would certainly be understandable that we'd refuse to back down, even after we've been disproven. You think we think like you do, but really we don't. We are not "anti-Bush" because it's part of our political religion, most of us are "anti-Bush" because we don't think reality is on his side. The confusion is understandable.

See thats just it. They were never FACTS to begin with. The lefties always take rumors and allegations as fact when in reality they just plain arent. The only FACTS in this case is that the dems smeared Bush/Cheney/Libby/Rove for 3 years over this and then just drop it like a bad habit when they realize they have been barking up the wrong tree the entire time!

Oh well, I guess its on to the next witch hunt for the anti-Bush crowd.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Corbett
Just wondering. Seems like most of the people here who were screaming for Bush/Rove/Cheney to be overthrown because of their outright lieing about the CIA leak have suddently gone silent on this one.

Once again, a non issue is turned into a huge issue by the anti-Bush crowd and made to look like it is Bush's fault. It never fails.

Personally, I would like to see Schumer in front of a grand jury now explainging his actions in the whole sharade.

:thumbsup:

And you're right. The silence is deafening.

Ah, now I understand the source of the confusion and subsequent attempts by you guys at sounding clever...let me help you out.

For the majority of us in the "anti-Bush crowd", these things we call "facts" take on an almost mystical significance in determining what really happened in any given situation. This concept may prove confusing, so just think of our "facts" as, say, things Bill O'Reilly tells you to think. When confronted with an unknown situation, OUR natural inclination is to uncover the truth of the matter. Our experience with the Bush administration has been that "truth" is not something they are quite familiar with, it's like some sort of intellectual novelty that they dimly recall through the coke induced haze of their college experience. Naturally, when we were confronted with potentially illegal action by someone in the administration and the executive branch acting even more suspicious than usual, we made a few assumptions about how the situation would eventually play itself out. The fact that Bush supporters spent a great deal of time digging into legal hairsplitting to "prove" that exposing the cover of former CIA operatives wasn't illegal tended to support our judgements rather than disprove them. After all, if nobody leaked it in the first place, who cares whether or not this hypothetical leak broke the law? The loud assertations coming from Bush and his supporters that nobody did anything wrong was viewed as particularly unconvincing, as weak points are almost always the loudest (especially when discussing things with Republicans).

So imagine our surprise when, apparently, Rove, Bush and Cheney were cleared (at least as far as the lawyers are concerned). The facts, as it turned out, were NOT quite as we assumed them to be. So we dropped it, we were wrong. I imagine this is the confusing part for you two, but think of this as science, instead of religion. Our initial judgements were based on facts and reason, so when we get new information, it's perfectly natural to revise those judgements. Had we started from a position based on "faith" and partisan bias, it would certainly be understandable that we'd refuse to back down, even after we've been disproven. You think we think like you do, but really we don't. We are not "anti-Bush" because it's part of our political religion, most of us are "anti-Bush" because we don't think reality is on his side. The confusion is understandable.

See thats just it. They were never FACTS to begin with. The lefties always take rumors and allegations as fact when in reality they just plain arent. The only FACTS in this case is that the dems smeared Bush/Cheney/Libby/Rove for 3 years over this and then just drop it like a bad habit when they realize they have been barking up the wrong tree the entire time!

Oh well, I guess its on to the next witch hunt for the anti-Bush crowd.

if none of them are guilty then why did they try so hard to cover the issue up?
why couldnt they just say ..listen..here are the facts, this is what happened, theres nothing to hide here..it seems to me that they purposely try to intimidate the public by hiding even the smallest of information

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Should he be pardoned for lying to the grand jury? No. Will he? Most likely.

He has to be convicted first. And in light of recent events, that isn't likely to happen.

Why though? Remember, he isn't being charged with the leak. He's getting the Clinton treatment, I guess (I.e. he may not have done some illegal to begin with, but he eventually did).

The charges have to do with him deliberately misleading the GJ. Deliberately being the operative word. His defense is saying that while he presented testimony to the GJ that was factually incorrect, he didn't do it intentionally.

With the information that is now coming to light; that Fitz knew from day one who spilled the beans and that the administration had knowledge that Armitage was the guy, why would Libby have to lie? Where is the intent?

I'll admit that the administration's actions were certainly odd. Part of me is leaning to the theory that the administration was just paying out as much rope as Fitz and the Left would take knowing full well that there would be a sudden jerk at the end. This administration has a history of doing just that.

 

[308nato]

As a taxpayer I am just happy I paid for a 2 1/2 year investigation to find out who leaked when the prosecutor knew who did it all the time and told him to keep quiet?

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Should he be pardoned for lying to the grand jury? No. Will he? Most likely.

He has to be convicted first. And in light of recent events, that isn't likely to happen.

Why though? Remember, he isn't being charged with the leak. He's getting the Clinton treatment, I guess (I.e. he may not have done some illegal to begin with, but he eventually did).

The charges have to do with him deliberately misleading the GJ. Deliberately being the operative word. His defense is saying that while he presented testimony to the GJ that was factually incorrect, he didn't do it intentionally.

With the information that is now coming to light; that Fitz knew from day one who spilled the beans and that the administration had knowledge that Armitage was the guy, why would Libby have to lie? Where is the intent?

I'll admit that the administration's actions were certainly odd. Part of me is leaning to the theory that the administration was just paying out as much rope as Fitz and the Left would take knowing full well that there would be a sudden jerk at the end. This administration has a history of doing just that.

Misleading and delaying and obstructing should be 70% = to an accomplice. Give him 20 years in prison then..

their behavior was not odd.. They set up this whole show to distract us all from other ****** that was happening.. Bush declassified and rewrote rules so cheney could do with this information as he saw fit..

Freedom of the press should obviously NOT include outing a CIA Agent.. EVER EVER EVER ... How in the hell these so called AMERICANS think they can and should be allowed to get away with this is beyond treasonous

 

[wiin]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Corbett
Just wondering. Seems like most of the people here who were screaming for Bush/Rove/Cheney to be overthrown because of their outright lieing about the CIA leak have suddently gone silent on this one.

Once again, a non issue is turned into a huge issue by the anti-Bush crowd and made to look like it is Bush's fault. It never fails.

Personally, I would like to see Schumer in front of a grand jury now explainging his actions in the whole sharade.

:thumbsup:

And you're right. The silence is deafening.

Ah, now I understand the source of the confusion and subsequent attempts by you guys at sounding clever...let me help you out.

For the majority of us in the "anti-Bush crowd", these things we call "facts" take on an almost mystical significance in determining what really happened in any given situation. This concept may prove confusing, so just think of our "facts" as, say, things Bill O'Reilly tells you to think. When confronted with an unknown situation, OUR natural inclination is to uncover the truth of the matter. Our experience with the Bush administration has been that "truth" is not something they are quite familiar with, it's like some sort of intellectual novelty that they dimly recall through the coke induced haze of their college experience. Naturally, when we were confronted with potentially illegal action by someone in the administration and the executive branch acting even more suspicious than usual, we made a few assumptions about how the situation would eventually play itself out. The fact that Bush supporters spent a great deal of time digging into legal hairsplitting to "prove" that exposing the cover of former CIA operatives wasn't illegal tended to support our judgements rather than disprove them. After all, if nobody leaked it in the first place, who cares whether or not this hypothetical leak broke the law? The loud assertations coming from Bush and his supporters that nobody did anything wrong was viewed as particularly unconvincing, as weak points are almost always the loudest (especially when discussing things with Republicans).

So imagine our surprise when, apparently, Rove, Bush and Cheney were cleared (at least as far as the lawyers are concerned). The facts, as it turned out, were NOT quite as we assumed them to be. So we dropped it, we were wrong. I imagine this is the confusing part for you two, but think of this as science, instead of religion. Our initial judgements were based on facts and reason, so when we get new information, it's perfectly natural to revise those judgements. Had we started from a position based on "faith" and partisan bias, it would certainly be understandable that we'd refuse to back down, even after we've been disproven. You think we think like you do, but really we don't. We are not "anti-Bush" because it's part of our political religion, most of us are "anti-Bush" because we don't think reality is on his side. The confusion is understandable.

See thats just it. They were never FACTS to begin with. The lefties always take rumors and allegations as fact when in reality they just plain arent. The only FACTS in this case is that the dems smeared Bush/Cheney/Libby/Rove for 3 years over this and then just drop it like a bad habit when they realize they have been barking up the wrong tree the entire time!

Oh well, I guess its on to the next witch hunt for the anti-Bush crowd.

if none of them are guilty then why did they try so hard to cover the issue up?
why couldnt they just say ..listen..here are the facts, this is what happened, theres nothing to hide here..it seems to me that they purposely try to intimidate the public by hiding even the smallest of information

Huh? When exactly did this happen?
This case is a total waste of money. The prosecuter knew from the beginning that Libby was not the source. He continued with the case to appease the left. It was the left, after all, who wanted this done. You know, if you don't win the elections, bring them down in any way possible.Yhat is the mantra of the left. Their main target was and still is, the President of the United States of America, the Vice President and The Architech. They would have been happy if they had gotten The Architech. Now they have to deal with The Architech this election and maybe in the 2008 election.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: 308nato
As a taxpayer I am just happy I paid for a 2 1/2 year investigation to find out who leaked when the prosecutor knew who did it all the time and told him to keep quiet?

So true Fitzgerald should be in jail for stringing this out to keep his name in the press for an obvious poltical bid in the future and wasting millions and false imprisoning people when he already had a confession. Too bad it exploded in his face and no futher subterfuge was found in his witchhunt...lets hope people remember.

As far as Armitage sounds like an honest mistake but that's no excuse for breaking the law..but unlike the rest of these chicken hawks I would'nt sentance a former seal to too much time due to his service.

 

[Harvey]

Give him a once in a lifetime, all expenses paid, one way trip to the beautiful Guantanamo Hilton. The same should go for the rest of the Bushwhacko criminals. They're all traitors to the core. :|

 

[Balt]

This case is a total waste of money. The prosecuter knew from the beginning that Libby was not the source. He continued with the case to appease the left. It was the left, after all, who wanted this done. You know, if you don't win the elections, bring them down in any way possible.Yhat is the mantra of the left.

Do you think Monica Lewinksy had anything to do with Whitewater? :roll:

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Should he be pardoned for lying to the grand jury? No. Will he? Most likely.

He has to be convicted first. And in light of recent events, that isn't likely to happen.

(PRESENT) Blanket Pardon like in Ohio? (PAST) Forgot Nixon? Was investigated and then Resigned, wasn't Convicted, and was Pardoooned anyway.