Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Scooter Libby Verdict

Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:10 pm

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 15):
Scooter Libby lied to a grand jury.

Bill Clinton lost his licence to practice law for lying to a grand jury.



Quoting Pope (Reply 19):
Ahhhhhh. The typical liberal hypocrisy.

Yes, when in doubt, to obfuscate conservative misdeeds, try to steer the conversation to someone named "Clinton".

Childish. Utterly childish. You guys can't let go, even 7 years after the man left office.  rotfl 
 
melpax
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 12:13 am

RE: Scooter Libby Verdict

Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:16 pm

Quoting Bill142 (Reply 49):
Just ask Frank Abagnale or Nick Leeson.

LOL!

Frank especially!
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: Scooter Libby Verdict

Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:26 pm

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 44):
Instead he would do it at the last minute where Congress wouldn't have the time or the ability to stop him.



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 44):
(if he somehow doesn't figure out how to stay in a third time or suspend the elections indefinitely)

Unless this is pure satire, you need to take a minute and read the Constitution.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 46):
"THE conviction of the former senior White House official Lewis Libby on four charges of perjury and obstruction of justice has shaken the White House and left a political cloud hanging over the Vice-President, Dick Cheney.

You mean there wasn't an already artificially placed fog bank over their heads, placed there by democrats intent on obscuring the facts?

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 50):
You guys can't let go, even 7 years after the man left office.

In 2015 you will still be proclaiming how something, most likely how the rich are getting some sort of a free ride, is all GWB's fault.
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Scooter Libby Verdict

Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:37 pm

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 52):
In 2015 you will still be proclaiming how something, most likely how the rich are getting some sort of a free ride, is all GWB's fault.

Hardly. He'll have been gone for 7 years. Unlike the right, I can let go of the past better than you guys.  Smile
 
UALPHLCS
Posts: 3232
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2001 5:50 am

RE: Scooter Libby Verdict

Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:38 pm

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 50):
Yes, when in doubt, to obfuscate conservative misdeeds, try to steer the conversation to someone named "Clinton".

I'm just saying that this is not atypical behavior from Washington. Yet Democrats in Congress and the Media want people to think only this administration has people who lie.

Well as much as Democrats want to call Bush and Cheney and Libby liars, Bill Clinton was actually caught in a lie under oath. Yes the highest official in the land lied to a Grand Jury.

But hey that was about sex. And Bill is a Democrat so it doesn't matter.

Libby's lie was about what?

There wasn't even a crime involved over what Libby lied about. But because he's a Republican suddenly it matters.

The problem Falcon84 is that I think BOTH lies matter. Libby lied.. he ought to be punished, Bill Clinton lied and WAS punished. However, Democrats think that Libby should be flayed apparently, while Bill Clinton still walks on water. That is what is meant by Liberal hypocrisy and it is on full display in this thread.
 
TedTAce
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

RE: Scooter Libby Verdict

Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:54 pm

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 54):
There wasn't even a crime involved over what Libby lied about.

Umm if there was no crime; why did he lie?  stirthepot 
 
UALPHLCS
Posts: 3232
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2001 5:50 am

RE: Scooter Libby Verdict

Thu Mar 08, 2007 11:09 pm

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 55):
Umm if there was no crime; why did he lie?

An excellent question.

Another excellent question... if there was a crime why was this the only indictment?
 
TedTAce
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

RE: Scooter Libby Verdict

Thu Mar 08, 2007 11:24 pm

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 56):
if there was a crime why was this the only indictment?

Lack of evidence. Why prosecute when there is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt? But just because this is no proof and there is no primary conviction, doesn't mean it didn't happen, it just means it can't be proved either way.

If a tree falls in the woods it makes a sound, but if no one is able to percieve the sound has the tree fallen? We can dance around this all you want. I think you know as well as everyone else that something did happen. Was this a 'high crime' probably not, but when the chief law enforcment official in the country is two levels away from someone being convicted of breaking the law (no matter which law it is) is that not bad?
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Scooter Libby Verdict

Thu Mar 08, 2007 11:35 pm

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 52):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 46):
"THE conviction of the former senior White House official Lewis Libby on four charges of perjury and obstruction of justice has shaken the White House and left a political cloud hanging over the Vice-President, Dick Cheney.

You mean there wasn't an already artificially placed fog bank over their heads, placed there by democrats intent on obscuring the facts?

Hey RJdxer, nothing would surprise from over here.  angel 

This whole business of there not being a crime or not being able to prove there was a crime seems as likely as there being an artificial fog bank permanently mounted over the whole White Ho.

I mean one time Val was a secret agent, the next day you can read about it in the newspapers. Sounds like a potential crime to me, accepting the degree of paranoia built into most countries laws these days.

Has anyone noticed that the good Ambassador's wife has the initial VP? That is suspicious for a start.
 
UALPHLCS
Posts: 3232
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2001 5:50 am

RE: Scooter Libby Verdict

Thu Mar 08, 2007 11:38 pm

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 57):
Lack of evidence

Interesting way to put it, when the guy at the State Department admitted he was the source of the original leak.

Additionally, the way the law is written the CIA has to speciafically tell the reporter that the name they are going to use is that of an undercover agent and not to use it. If the reporter does then the leaker has broken the law. Novak reported Plames name after his column was vetted by the CIA twice. They made no objection to Plame's name being used. It was her husband who objected NOT the CIA.

According to the law, there was no leak.

So lack of evidence of what Ted? What law was broken?
 
jaysit
Posts: 10185
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: Scooter Libby Verdict

Thu Mar 08, 2007 11:42 pm

Yesterday I read a Cheney quote, describing Scooter Libby as "one of the more honest people I know." It gave me a good chuckle...

Isn't that a bit like saying someone is the world's tallest midget?
 
TedTAce
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

RE: Scooter Libby Verdict

Thu Mar 08, 2007 11:45 pm

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 59):
Interesting way to put it, when the guy at the State Department admitted he was the source of the original leak.

So it was Col. Mustard in the library with the candlestick huh?
 
UALPHLCS
Posts: 3232
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2001 5:50 am

RE: Scooter Libby Verdict

Fri Mar 09, 2007 12:00 am

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 61):

Oh Ted...pick up a magazine and read once in awhile...

Novak had caused a huge stir when he revealed that Valerie Plame, wife of Iraq-war critic Joseph Wilson, was a CIA officer. Ever since, Washington had been trying to find out who leaked the information to Novak. The columnist himself had kept quiet. But now, in a second column, Novak provided a tantalizing clue: his primary source, he wrote, was a "senior administration official" who was "not a partisan gunslinger." Armitage was shaken. After reading the column, he knew immediately who the leaker was. On the phone with Powell that morning, Armitage was "in deep distress," says a source directly familiar with the conversation who asked not to be identified because of legal sensitivities. "I'm sure he's talking about me."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14533384/site/newsweek/

I apologize for blanking on Richard Armitage's name. But since finding out who the real leaker actually was meant very little Fitzgerald, and means even less to the Airnet gang in this thread I didn't think it mattered so much.
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Scooter Libby Verdict

Fri Mar 09, 2007 12:06 am

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 56):
Another excellent question... if there was a crime why was this the only indictment?

Who said there won't be more? That's always possible.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 16055
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Scooter Libby Verdict

Fri Mar 09, 2007 12:21 am

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 56):

Another excellent question... if there was a crime why was this the only indictment?

Do you really want to know the answer to this question? Richard Armitage is a sacred cow and Cheney is sacrosanct until he keels over from natural causes. That about sums it up.
 
TedTAce
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

RE: Scooter Libby Verdict

Fri Mar 09, 2007 12:27 am

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 64):
sacrosanct

Damn, you made me look that up. Good word by the way  Wink
 
UALPHLCS
Posts: 3232
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2001 5:50 am

RE: Scooter Libby Verdict

Fri Mar 09, 2007 12:37 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 63):
Who said there won't be more?

Fitzgerald did.

While I couldn't find a news article with in the front of the article where people might actually read it I did find it in wikipedia. Although whoever wrote the blurb threw in a completely subjective and speculative addition about indictments on Cheney.

While Fitzgerald announced that he "expects" no further charges and that the prosecution will "all return to their day jobs", there is some public sense that Cheney may eventually also face either indictment or be pressured into resignation, as a result of the Plame/Wilson civil suit against the Bush administration; this is particularly suspected since the suit plans to draw on the testimonies from the Libby trial as evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Fitzgerald
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Scooter Libby Verdict

Fri Mar 09, 2007 1:15 am

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 64):
Cheney is sacrosanct

Wonder if you will ever get to correct that to sacrificed?  angel 
 
TedTAce
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

RE: Scooter Libby Verdict

Fri Mar 09, 2007 1:21 am

Quoting Baroque (Reply 67):
Wonder if you will ever get to correct that to sacrificed?

What? The puppet cutting the strings from the puppeteer?  rotfl 
 
UALPHLCS
Posts: 3232
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2001 5:50 am

RE: Scooter Libby Verdict

Fri Mar 09, 2007 1:37 am

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 64):
Richard Armitage is a sacred cow and Cheney is sacrosanct until he keels over from natural causes. That about sums it up.

I summed up the law that was allegedly broken.

Since no one broken the law, not Rove, not Cheney , not even Armitage, and not Libby, in releasing Plame's name in the media, who is sacrosanct? Who is above the law?

Why is anyone in need of some sort of protection from prosecution, as you imply?

Why would Libby be needed to fall on a sword for a lesser "crime" when no crime was committed in the first place.

You seem to be wishfully hoping Cheney committed some crime that Libby fell on his sword to protect him.

Fitzgerald says no there's nothing else. So all of this investigating was about...

Nothing.

Especially when we know Fitzgerald knew who was the leak in the very beginning of his investigation.
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: Scooter Libby Verdict

Fri Mar 09, 2007 2:05 am

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 54):
The problem Falcon84 is that I think BOTH lies matter. Libby lied.. he ought to be punished, Bill Clinton lied and WAS punished. However, Democrats think that Libby should be flayed apparently, while Bill Clinton still walks on water. That is what is meant by Liberal hypocrisy and it is on full display in this thread.

 checkmark 

It's actually always on display but you hit the nail on the head in this matter.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 63):
Who said there won't be more? That's always possible.

Not unless something new comes to light from some other source.


http://www.southernillinoisian.com/a...ticles/2007/03/07/top/19509799.txt

"Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said the verdict closed the nearly four-year investigation into how the name of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, and her classified job at the CIA were leaked to reporters in 2003 - just days after Wilson publicly accused the administration of doctoring prewar intelligence. No one will be charged with the leak itself, which the trial confirmed came first from then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage."
 
AGM100
Posts: 5077
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 2:16 am

RE: Scooter Libby Verdict

Fri Mar 09, 2007 2:17 am

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 69):
Especially when we know Fitzgerald knew who was the leak in the very beginning of his investigation.

It certainly seems to have a taint of "entrapment" to it. It became a simple case of mis statements between who said what first. Libby said that he was asked about it by Russert, Russert says he never said it. At the time their were several reporters talking about it.. no one knows exactly who said what, when.

I have heard some comments of why Libby just did not say "I dont recall" ? If he was trying to cover up why not just pull the old Rose Law firm tactic ...

Any way , it all just stirs the pot and makes the administration look bad. If this is their goal , then its done. The rest of the world here's only one thing.. The US lied to go to war.... Even though Joe Wilson actually did lie his ARS off and covered up what the Nigerian officials told him.
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Scooter Libby Verdict

Fri Mar 09, 2007 2:18 am

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 32):
Yes and OJ is an innocent man, by our legal system too.

...the absence of statutorily-mandated corroboration beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e. a "not guilty" verdict) is a fiercely different element than the reality of being "innocent" of transgression-- lest you forget that that person was indeed found liable 'by our legal system' for multiple deaths.
 
jaysit
Posts: 10185
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: Scooter Libby Verdict

Fri Mar 09, 2007 2:25 am

Libby lied....

But Clinton lied ....

But Nixon lied ...

But LBJ lied ...



But Jefferson lied. He did have sex with that woman, Miss Sally Hennings . . .

But King Tut lied . . . he really didn't dance like an Egyptian.
 
Confuscius
Topic Author
Posts: 3735
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 12:29 am

RE: Scooter Libby Verdict

Fri Mar 09, 2007 2:34 am

But King Tut lied . . . he really didn't dance like an Egyptian.

But he did walked like an...




Why are conservatives having hissy fits? Libby will most likely be pardoned and he has plenty of experience having represented Mark Rich.
 
jaysit
Posts: 10185
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: Scooter Libby Verdict

Fri Mar 09, 2007 2:47 am

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 32):
Quoting MBMBOS (Reply 31):
And yet, despite your contrived theory, Libby still committed perjury and obstructed justice.

Guilty, by a jury of his peers.

Yes and OJ is an innocent man, by our legal system too.

Aaaah. Yes.

The inane selective application of the OJ standard, thereby rendering all justice injustice. I say, lets just shut down the courts, open the jails and free everyone for the coming of Jesus.
 
TedTAce
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

RE: Scooter Libby Verdict

Fri Mar 09, 2007 3:12 am

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 75):
The inane selective application of the OJ standard, thereby rendering all justice injustice. I say, lets just shut down the courts, open the jails and free everyone for the coming of Jesus.

 rotfl  I say we skip the nuclear war and just go mad max  Wink
 
UALPHLCS
Posts: 3232
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2001 5:50 am

RE: Scooter Libby Verdict

Fri Mar 09, 2007 3:54 am

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 75):
The inane selective application of the OJ standard, thereby rendering all justice injustice. I say, lets just shut down the courts, open the jails and free everyone for the coming of Jesus.

Hey I'm just taking MBMBOS's line of reasoning to it's logical conclusion. I'm sorry that the liberal line of reasoning reaches a luaghable conclusion. It typically does.

It's not Me making the inane selective standard. MBMBOS is stating that Libby was truly guilty because he was convicted.

This guy was convicted by a jury of his peers as well:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/24/ny...528&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Liberals think the Jury in the Libby case was infallible yet other liberal decry how many juries put innocent people in jail. Apparently juries are only sacrosanct to liberal when they nail a Republican.

MBMBOS was drawing a political conclusion from a legal decision.

Can't do that I'm afraid. I was pointing out how absurd it is by showing you that Juries of your peers are always reliable.

They are the best we have, but they are capable of making mistakes. Scooter Libby will get a new trial.
 
jaysit
Posts: 10185
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: Scooter Libby Verdict

Fri Mar 09, 2007 4:13 am

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 77):
They are the best we have, but they are capable of making mistakes. Scooter Libby will get a new trial.

He may.

But not because you're an Oracle who says "he will."

The error you make when you compare any trial whose verdict you disagree with to the OJ trial, or some wretched criminal trial in which the defendant was given a poorly trained state attorney is an error of tabloid-ish extremism (and you're not the first one to invoke such cases when they express displeasure at how the wheels of justice turn - your compatriots at the other end of the political spectrum do so as well). But Libby had some of the best attorneys available on God's green earth, and some of the country's finest legal minds were involved in and presided over every aspect of this trial. This wasn't an OJ, Judge Ito, Anna Nicole, bad public defender kind of case. I'm sorry, but your analogy, while a nice political potshot, is a poor one.
 
User avatar
mbmbos
Posts: 2975
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 4:16 am

RE: Scooter Libby Verdict

Fri Mar 09, 2007 5:49 am

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 77):
Hey I'm just taking MBMBOS's line of reasoning to it's logical conclusion. I'm sorry that the liberal line of reasoning reaches a luaghable conclusion. It typically does.

Oh, the "liberal line of reasoning". Once again, I'm a liberal and don't recognize this stereotype you try so desperately to foist upon other people. Got any other labels you'd care to use? They're such timesavers.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 77):
MBMBOS is stating that Libby was truly guilty because he was convicted.

That is a very narrow and self-serving and manipulative interpretation of what I said. Everybody should follow the rule of law or face the consequences.

By the way, you never answered my question. Do you think Libby is innocent of committing perjury?
 
TedTAce
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

RE: Scooter Libby Verdict

Fri Mar 09, 2007 6:33 am

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 81):
Wow Ted didn't take you long to find the gutter.

You mean because I pwn3d you with my royal flush while you were holding a measly 2 duces? Yeah.. the only word that was gutteral was 100% accurate in describing your analogy. Sorry I told the TRUTH.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 81):
I don't know I wasn't in the court room I didn't hear the evidence.

 rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl 

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 81):
I can say however, that based on what we know

That's like me saying 'I know the law because my dad and my uncle are judges' more  redflag  from the rightwing plant er.. schill.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Scooter Libby Verdict

Fri Mar 09, 2007 10:10 am

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 71):
Even though Joe Wilson actually did lie his ARS off and covered up what the Nigerian officials told him.

Please tell, must have missed it in one of the other scandals.  Smile
 
UALPHLCS
Posts: 3232
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2001 5:50 am

RE: Scooter Libby Verdict

Fri Mar 09, 2007 10:19 pm

Quoting MBMBOS (Reply 79):
Once again, I'm a liberal and don't recognize this stereotype you try so desperately to foist upon other people. Got any other labels you'd care to use? They're such timesavers.

First: If you will note I said you were using the "liberal line of reasoning." You even quoted it but you never READ it. It never calls you a liberal specifically. Why do you react as if liberal were a dirty word? You called yourself one so your reasoning is then the liberal line of reasoning isn't it? It's not my line of reasoning.

Nice attempt at redirect.

Second:

Quoting MBMBOS (Reply 31):
Libby still committed perjury and obstructed justice.

Guilty, by a jury of his peers.

Seems pretty clear. I'm not sure how I could have manipulated it to make it seem you meant anything else.

As for your question.

I don't know I wasn't in the court room I didn't hear the evidence.

I can say however, that based on what we know about the Plame case and why Fitzgerald was called to investigate, his whole investigation was a fishing expedition. Fitzgerald knew from day one of his investigation who leaked. Richard Armitage. He also knew from day one that no law had been broken, because the CIA didn't object to Plame's name being used in Novak's column. End of investigation.

Why was Libby even put in the position of testifying? Why was anyone brought in to testify? Fitzgerald had his answers right off the bat. And after wasting everyone's time he comes up with the Libby indictments.

Maybe Libby really does have a bad memory, maybe he did lie, I don't know. But the investigation ought not have ever gotten to Libby in the first place since Fitzgerald had his answer, according to the MSNBC article I posted here, on day one of his investigation. So the whole thing is a load of fetid dingo's kidneys.

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 80):

My post wasn't the one deleted. Are you actually going to post about the Libby trial and add something to the conversation?

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 80):
Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 81):
I can say however, that based on what we know

That's like me saying 'I know the law because my dad and my uncle are judges' more from the rightwing plant er.. schill.

Case in point... I posted an article that proves When Fitzgerald knew about Armitage. Any comments on that? This is an example of how you answer that. WOW how cogent.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dutchy, GalaxyFlyer, GBNLY, hkg82, NIKV69 and 23 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos