Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 81 to 99 of 99
  1. #81  
    Now I remember why I haven't voted for either of the false dichotomy parties for president since the 80s. "'I believe the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'Well, I believe the puppet on the left is more to my liking.'"
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  2. #82  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Now I remember why I haven't voted for either of the false dichotomy parties for president since the 80s. "'I believe the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'Well, I believe the puppet on the left is more to my liking.'"
    Agreed. Which is why I voted for that crazy little Texan Perot two times!

    That said, I clearly harbor "special" feelings for a party that has so intertwined itself with the religious right and considers itself the "moral majority", yet, can justify Bush's actions recently with a "but Clinton did it too".
    Last edited by moderateinny; 07/05/2007 at 09:33 PM.
  3. #83  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    A pardon does not stop an investigation
    You are confusing the issue. As you know, its not a pardon, which means Libby's testimony remains self-incriminating so he can just keep pleading the 5th.

    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    - the investigation such as this ends when something is either found or not found.
    by ensuring that Libby's lies go unpunished, and Libby's truth remains self-incriminating, Bush is doing his best to ensure that nothing will be found out.

    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    If it reaches the VP, then fine. If he is guilty then he should serve.
    If Libby's punishment, after criminal conviction by a federal jury and sentencing by a (Bush appointed) judge, can be so easily dismissed in your mind, I can't see why you wouldn't want Cheney's actions to be swept under the rug too.

    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Let us look back a few years and remember that not too many in the democrat leadership complained when Clinton held his pardoning parties.
    I agree, I do not condone Clinton's pardons, nor do I condone Bush's actions on Libby. I would have preferred to see them both be punished for their abuse of presidential power in letting criminals off the hook. Bush is in office right now I say lets go after him full bore. If you can think of a way to go after Clinton for what he did, thats fine too - lets nail him.

    But apparently you think bringing up Clinton is a valid excuse for letting Bush off the hook.

    What a pity.

    Cell
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 07/05/2007 at 10:24 PM.
  4. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #84  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    You keep talking about some major crime. Are you talking about the "major crime" that **** Armitage committed by leaking Plame's identity to Robert Novack? Why wasn't he charged with anything? And why would he want to attack her or Joe Wilson?
    How do you know that Armitage was the first to leak it to public domain, yet the prosecutor of the case was not able to make that determination?
    Last edited by NRG; 07/05/2007 at 11:10 PM.
  5. #85  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG View Post
    How do you know that Armitage was the first to leak it to Novak, yet the prosecutor of the case was not able to make that determination?
    I'm sure Fitzgerald knew this from the very beginning. Both Novak and Armitage told all. I don't think there's even any dispute over that.
  6. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #86  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    I'm sure Fitzgerald knew this from the very beginning. Both Novak and Armitage told all. I don't think there's even any dispute over that.
    Really? I am not too sure. I have followed this case pretty closely, and I don't remember Fitz agreeing with Armitage or Novak's assertions that he was the first to leak it to public domain. If you got something that shows otherwise, I would love to see it. I just have a tough time swallowing the bait being fed by Novak (a known Righty, not unlike yourself ) and Armitage a close advisor to Bush, and PNAC member . Excuse my doubts with that group.
    Last edited by NRG; 07/05/2007 at 11:13 PM.
  7. #87  
    Armitage was the first from the reading I have done.

    As for an excuse to do it - no, just that it is done. If you blame one, you just gotta blame the other.

    Ben
  8. #88  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG View Post
    Really? I am not too sure. I have followed this case pretty closely, and I don't remember Fitz agreeing with Armitage or Novak's assertions that he was the first to leak it to public domain. If you got something that shows otherwise, I would love to see it. I just have a tough time swallowing the bait being fed by Novak (a known Righty, not unlike yourself ) and Armitage a close advisor to Bush, and PNAC member . Excuse my doubts with that group.
    Fitzgerald has never issued a final report of his findings, citing grand jury secrecy rules. So the lack of any statement by Fitzgerald confirming this is meaningless. However, no one is really disputing the known timeline. And if Fitzgerald disputed it, we would see more perjury charges filed.

    If you're disputing the known facts, the burden is on you to provide evidence, beyond your own suspicions.

    Btw, I don't know that Armitage was really a "close advisor" to Bush. He seemed more loyal to Powell, and he opposed Bush's war policy.
  9. #89  
    Fitzgerald has never issued a final report of his findings, citing grand jury secrecy rules.
    Which leads me to wonder if congress can demand he issue a final report? And since Ftiz isn't too happy about the commutation either, will he be motivated to help them? I'm just not too sure how much congress can compel him to do anything or even if he can do anything under grand jury secrecy.
  10. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #90  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Fitzgerald has never issued a final report of his findings, citing grand jury secrecy rules. So the lack of any statement by Fitzgerald confirming this is meaningless. However, no one is really disputing the known timeline. And if Fitzgerald disputed it, we would see more perjury charges filed.

    If you're disputing the known facts, the burden is on you to provide evidence, beyond your own suspicions.

    Btw, I don't know that Armitage was really a "close advisor" to Bush. He seemed more loyal to Powell, and he opposed Bush's war policy.
    Morning Sam, My point is this Novak was called to testify, Novak told Fitz Armitage told them, Armitage was called to testify, Armitage told Fitz he heard it from Libby, Armitage was also asked if he knew she was "covert" and Armitage said no. The next step was to Libby, Libby then lied and was charged with the crimes he was charged with. I wonder where Libby learned about Plame?

    What I had meant to say was the first leak of her identity did not come from Armitage, also for Armitage to be charged with the original crime, he would have to have known she "covert" to be charged. In otherwords Armitage was not the original leaker.
  11. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #91  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Btw, I don't know that Armitage was really a "close advisor" to Bush. He seemed more loyal to Powell, and he opposed Bush's war policy.
    He was part of "The Vulcans".
  12. #92  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Which leads me to wonder if congress can demand he issue a final report? And since Ftiz isn't too happy about the commutation either, will he be motivated to help them? I'm just not too sure how much congress can compel him to do anything or even if he can do anything under grand jury secrecy.
    I'm not sure what the point would be. If someone did something wrong, then you get a Special Prosecutor to pursue charges. But this Special Prosecutor found nothing else to pursue. So now he should report on the non-criminal activities that he discovered? That seems more the domain of reporters and gossip columnists.

    As for Fitzgerald's reaction, I believe he acknowledged that it was within the President's powers to issue the commutation, but objected to the characterization of the sentencing as excessive.
  13. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #93  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post

    As for Fitzgerald's reaction, I believe he acknowledged that it was within the President's powers to issue the commutation, but objected to the characterization of the sentencing as excessive.
    That sounds about right.
  14. #94  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG View Post
    Morning Sam, My point is this Novak was called to testify, Novak told Fitz Armitage told them, Armitage was called to testify, Armitage told Fitz he heard it from Libby, Armitage was also asked if he knew she was "covert" and Armitage said no. The next step was to Libby, Libby then lied and was charged with the crimes he was charged with. I wonder where Libby learned about Plame?

    What I had meant to say was the first leak of her identity did not come from Armitage, also for Armitage to be charged with the original crime, he would have to have known she "covert" to be charged. In otherwords Armitage was not the original leaker.
    According to this, Libby learned about Plame from Marc Grossman, an Undersecretary of State.

    Armitage was the first to leak her identity - to Bob Woodward, who did not publish. The second was Libby to Miller, who did not publish. The third was Armitage to Novak, who published.


    After the Novak article, Wilson claimed it was the result of a deliberate attack on him by Rove. (Remember the "frog-march" quip?) But that accusation was unsupported. The consensus now in Washington seems to be that the publication of Plame's identity was more a case of indiscretion than one of vindictiveness. But those who jumped on the Wilson bandwagon early on are reluctant to admit defeat, and are holding onto the notion that there was some sinister plotting going on in Cheney's branch of the government. I think it's true that Libby and others were seeking to discredit Wilson, and part of that was to explain his trip as a boondoggle arranged by his wife. They blundered big-time by outing Plame, but I don't buy Wilson's claim that it was deliberate. And neither, it seems, do the majority of political pundits and reporters.
  15. #95  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG View Post
    He was part of "The Vulcans".
    Ok. I didn't know that.
  16. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #96  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    According to this, Libby learned about Plame from Marc Grossman, an Undersecretary of State.

    Armitage was the first to leak her identity - to Bob Woodward, who did not publish. The second was Libby to Miller, who did not publish. The third was Armitage to Novak, who published.


    After the Novak article, Wilson claimed it was the result of a deliberate attack on him by Rove. (Remember the "frog-march" quip?) But that accusation was unsupported. The consensus now in Washington seems to be that the publication of Plame's identity was more a case of indiscretion than one of vindictiveness. But those who jumped on the Wilson bandwagon early on are reluctant to admit defeat, and are holding onto the notion that there was some sinister plotting going on in Cheney's branch of the government. I think it's true that Libby and others were seeking to discredit Wilson, and part of that was to explain his trip as a boondoggle arranged by his wife. They blundered big-time by outing Plame, but I don't buy Wilson's claim that it was deliberate. And neither, it seems, do the majority of political pundits and reporters.
    From the timeline you provided me, I can't tell if it was Cheney or Groosman who told Libby.

    _June 11 or 12: Grossman tells Libby that Wilson's wife works at the CIA and that State Department personnel are saying Wilson's wife was involved in planning the trip. A senior CIA officer gives him similar information, as does Cheney's top press aide, Cathie Martin, who had learned it from CIA spokesman Bill Harlow.

    _June 11 or 12: Cheney advises Libby that Wilson's wife works at the CIA.
  17. #97  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG View Post
    From the timeline you provided me, I can't tell if it was Cheney or Groosman who told Libby.
    This timeline isn't definitive either, but implies that the Grossman conversation probably came first.
    http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Plame_Leak_timeline

    But I'm not really sure the line of thought here. So what if Cheney told Libby before Grossman did?
  18. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #98  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    This timeline isn't definitive either, but implies that the Grossman conversation probably came first.
    http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Plame_Leak_timeline

    But I'm not really sure the line of thought here. So what if Cheney told Libby before Grossman did?
    My thoughts would be that Cheney would have known she was classified, second there was rumors about Cheney declassifying her status without telling the CIA. Kinda smokey if you ask me.
  19. #99  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Agreed. Which is why I voted for that crazy little Texan Perot two times!

    That said, I clearly harbor "special" feelings for a party that has so intertwined itself with the religious right and considers itself the "moral majority", yet, can justify Bush's actions recently with a "but Clinton did it too".
    I find it somewhat unsurprising. I've long maintained that the Reagan-Bush years grouping is somewhat misleading, and that ultimately, the era should be more viewed as the Bush-Clinton-Bush era. Personal and party differences aside, their policies have been far more in tandem than either of the Bushes with Ronnie Raygun, IMO.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Posting Permissions