Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 68 of 68
  1. #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    You could have stopped right there. This is the same unbiased 60 Minutes that ran the forged Air National Guard documents. They have zero credibility.
    When confronted with facts that contradict your beliefs (as you had recently experienced with the survey conducted on behalf of the Britsh Defense Ministry) you deny the facts and adhere to your beliefs. You challenged the reliability of that British survey because you didn't know its methodology.

    Now you question the validity of the 60 minutes story because of what you claim is their bias.

    Were you to have watched the original piece, or read the printed version that I made available, you'd have to accept that bias is not in play there -- its not constructed of unnamed unidentified shadowy "sources".

    The powerful anger and dismay heard in that 60 minutes story comes directly from real CIA agents (retired) -- people who had patriotically and bravely put their own lives at risk on behalf of this country.

    That a group of people you respect and admire have been shown to be both treasonous and cowardly are facts that must be nearly impossible for you to digest.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  2. #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    When confronted with facts that contradict your beliefs (as you had recently experienced with the survey conducted on behalf of the Britsh Defense Ministry) you deny the facts and adhere to your beliefs. You challenged the reliability of that British survey because you didn't know its methodology.

    Now you question the validity of the 60 minutes story because of what you claim is their bias.

    Were you to have watched the original piece, or read the printed version that I made available, you'd have to accept that bias is not in play there -- its not constructed of unnamed unidentified shadowy "sources".

    The powerful anger and dismay heard in that 60 minutes story comes directly from real CIA agents (retired) -- people who had patriotically and bravely put their own lives at risk on behalf of this country.

    That a group of people you respect and admire have been shown to be both treasonous and cowardly are facts that must be nearly impossible for you to digest.
    No. I doubt your sources because they are dubious.

    For example - if this administration had outed an actual real covert agent, that would be bad. That Plame was such an agent is in dispute. Was that point of view portrayed in the 60 Minutes piece? If she was so concerned about her anonymity, why do the Vanity Fair photo shoot? I'd submit she and her husband were more concerned with trying to discredit the administration. Spare me the sob story about how her career is over. She'll write a book, do the leftie speaking tour and make more money than she ever would have as a CIA desk jockey at Langley.

    And as should be clear by now, the 2 year investigation has found no wrongdoing - the entire premise of the 60 Minutes story is wrong. If that changes in the future, I'm prepared to change my mind.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  3. #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    When you say 'technical' do you mean 'unintentional'?
    Yes. That's what his defence will be, anyway.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  4. #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    empaneling a new Grand Jury is not required. -- it is my understanding that Fitzgerald could, if a judge approved, get an existing sitting Grand Jury to hear his evidence and vote for an indictments.

    Presumably since the investigative phase of this process has already been completed by the original GJ, there would be relatively little required now by that second existing GJ.

    And as any half eaten ham sandwich will confess, any prosecutor can get any Grand Jury to indict anything for anything.
    Look - he might or might not be able to this. If so it might or might not be a great big ordeal. Whatever. The fact of the matter is Fitzgerald's realistic opportunity to indict ended last Friday. Again, the facts support that I am correct. When the facts change, so will my opinion.
    Read the timeline of Libby's activities and conversations (its been published in many articles and shown on the news). Libby went to great lengths to construct his fictional explanation for his alibi.

    It was as provably false as was junior's claim's that Sadamm was behind 9/11.
    Maybe. There will be a trial to determine that.

    You throw these outrageous one-liners out there as if everyone accepts they're true. Cite one example of Bush claiming Saddam was behind 9/11. One.
    Libby had with in the Grand Jury room a lawyer -- an ivy leaque educated, exceptionally organized, and highly respected lawyer -- himself.
    You're not suggesting that lawyers should not be able or have need of personal council when their own necks are on the line, are you?
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  5. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    That's why I think it's plausible that he committed "technical" violations (perjury, obstruction).
    This is so bothersome to hear the right saying 'technical' about a cornerstone law of our justice system. This is just a way for you folks to make it look better than it is. Let's put it this way, he "lied under oath". Perjury is a law like any other law, maybe more important, because it is what keeps people from obscuring the truth during an investigation. It is like you calling theft, something you forgot to pay for.
  6. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtreosexual
    Yeah,
    But why was this investigation necessary if there was nocrime committed.It shoudl have been stopped after 1wk.Rather Mr Fitzerald wasted our money and years to tell us there are no charges as far as original crime was committed.
    Had Libby not lied, the investigation would have been over sooner. So why don't you take your frustration out on Libby, not the guy trying to do his job.
  7. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    No. I doubt your sources because they are dubious.

    For example - if this administration had outed an actual real covert agent, that would be bad. That Plame was such an agent is in dispute.
    [Plame's] "association with the CIA was classified," Fitzgerald stated on Friday.


    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Was that point of view portrayed in the 60 Minutes piece?
    You saw where reprensting falsehoods CBS before, so I would suggest they stay away from that angle.

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    And as should be clear by now, the 2 year investigation has found no wrongdoing - the entire premise of the 60 Minutes story is wrong. If that changes in the future, I'm prepared to change my mind.
    You seem to be basing this on your beliefs and not facts.
  8. #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    This is so bothersome to hear the right saying 'technical' about a cornerstone law of our justice system. This is just a way for you folks to make it look better than it is. Let's put it this way, he "lied under oath". Perjury is a law like any other law, maybe more important, because it is what keeps people from obscuring the truth during an investigation. It is like you calling theft, something you forgot to pay for.
    Perjury is an intentional act. If Libby intentionally mislead anyone he should be punished. How many times do I need to say this in order to be heard?

    If he told different stories because he genuinely recalled things differently over time, that's not perjury. That's what the trial will determine.

    I *am not* saying he only committed technical violations of the law. I'm saying that's what his defense will be.

    The sudden importance the left (I'm not referring to you, NRG) is placing on truth-telling in legal proceedings is fascinating.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Posting Permissions