'A Substantial Confusion'

posted: Tue - March 6, 2007 at 12:50 PM       j$p  send 

average american patriot
WOOOOHOOO!!!
 
>>WASHINGTON - Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was convicted Tuesday of obstruction, perjury and lying to the
FBI in an investigation into the leak of
CIA operative
Valerie Plame's identity to reporters.
March 6, 2007, 1:18:25 PM EST – Like – Reply

---

OWUB
This verdict better be truthfull justice. They waisted so many post it notes and so much time.
March 6, 2007, 4:56:19 PM EST – Like – Reply

---

Fox Fan
The real laugh will be when Libby serves no time during appeals and gets pardoned in Jan. '09.
 
It's also funny that dems are so elated about this but were against the same charges when Clinton lied and perjured. Short memories...
March 6, 2007, 6:52:50 PM EST – Like – Reply

---

Puck
Well I'd like to let the crazies have their day but. It is still not know weather she was an operative or just an employee. So nice try there. I'm no lawyer but, 5 to 1 Democrats in D.C.? Not good odds there.
 
Plus that one guy that was on the jury saying that they wished Rove and Chenney where there, why? Scooter Libby was on trial. Strange? Or Agenda?
 
Look Scooter sort of cooked himself by not going on the stand. A Republican going against a 5 to 1 demo jury and not taking the stand? Not good odds. 
 
Johnny just a sidenote. I turned on MSLSD because I wanted to see who would show up. And we got super ratings challenged Chris Matthews. 
 
Good old Chris trying to get his crazy buds from the left back saying this was all about the war. Nope, Chris, they have left to see their new boy at 8. Once those crazies move, they move!
 
This will get turned on appeal, no doubt. But Scooter's buds better kick in some serious 'jack'. This is going to run him.
 
Look if there is one good thing out of today it's that Fitzgerald guy saying this is as far as it goes.
 
I miss E.D. Hill on Fox and Friends.
March 6, 2007, 7:30:20 PM EST – Like – Reply

---

Ira
Puck: Given the 90% Democrat voter registration plus the demographics of DC, it would have been foolhearty to think that Libby would have been cleared. 
 
Given such a jury pool, Libby's lawyers couldn't throw every prospective juror out. That's why that liberal reporter from the Washington Post who spoke today got on the jury.
March 6, 2007, 8:23:01 PM EST – Like – Reply

---

average american patriot
Sooooo... 
 
Are you going to let the most recent black-eye on the BUSHWIPE administration stand or are you BUSHWIPES going to focus on another non-story?
 
Forget the "Walter Reed" story,
forget Libby... 
Let's focus on EVEEEEL BANCO DE AMERICA!! 
 
Oh, wait... you'll probably delete the whole thread...
 
You BUSHWIPES are sooooo predictable.
 
ALL TORPEDOES SET ON DELETE!!
March 6, 2007, 10:16:19 PM EST – Like – Reply

---

jeff
Silly Fox Fan, don't you know the dems are allowed to commit perjury? When they went after Billyboy, it was nothing but a "witch hunt" remember? This is the biggest "non story" of the decade,but, you wouldn't think that by watching Olby tonight, a whole freakin' hour of a "non story". No harm, no foul, end of story...
March 6, 2007, 11:30:41 PM EST – Like – Reply

---

Fox Fan
Exactly. When a liberal PRESIDENT commits perjury to a grand jury it's a "witch hunt". When some staffer helps another staffer to reveal a CIA secretary it's proof of republican corruption.
 
Where's the fair and balanced? Don't look to 'average american idiot'.
March 7, 2007, 7:08:45 AM EST – Like – Reply

---

Bob Ross
Maybe the guy wished that Rove would be there probably because in the defense's opening statement they promised Rove would testify. Why promise something and not deliver?
 
About the Clinton perjury. Starr had to get clinton to tell a lie about a lie. There is a difference between the Clinton case and this one. Libby was covering up for a possible crime committed. The Clinton case used the Paula Jones case in order to get Clinton to commit a crime. They weren't investigating a crime but rather making a case to get him to commit a crime. Remember the Lewinsky testimony was found not relevant to the Paula Jones case and was tossed out of that case. The Paula Jones case was also dismissed on a 12(b)6 motion. In order to have perjury it must be a lie that the person knows is a lie and it must also be relevant to the case. The Lewinsky information that Clinton lied about had no relevance to the case.
 
Now inversely Fox Fan, speaking of short memories. How many people on the right bitched and moaned saying there was no crime committed, that Fitz was a partisan hack, that he was wasting tax payer money, etc while they said nothing about the Starr Boondoggle that wasted millions of taxpayer dollars just to find that Clinton lied about lying about having oral sex with someone. I'd say you got your priorities messed up there. What's more important someone lying about oral sex when it wasn't relevant to the actual case or someone lying about revealing the identity of an NOC and her front company?
March 7, 2007, 8:46:00 AM EST – Like – Reply

---

Bob Ross
Fox Fan btw how was Clinton Liberal? You can't just label someone because he's on the other side. Clinton was more moderate and bipartisan than anything. Can you agree that this current president is more Partisan than anything?
March 7, 2007, 8:47:21 AM EST – Like – Reply

---

Mags
"Libby was covering up for a possible crime committed." 
 
Incorrect. Fitzgerald admitted that he knew that no crime had been committed before he even interviewed Scooter Libby. Once again for the slow and the stoners: Plame, not covert. Cheney/Rove/Libby never leaked her name. Richard Armitage leaked her name, even though that was not a crime because she was not covert.
March 7, 2007, 11:19:08 AM EST – Like – Reply

---

Bob Ross
Mags you shouldn't talk down to yourself like that. I think you have a misunderstanding of the way the justice system works. Patrick Fitzgerald was unable to determine the extent of the crime because of the obstruction of justice that occurred. That is why Scooter got investigated on those charges.
How can one determine if crimes were committed if you got people covering up during the investigation?
 
Once again for the intellectually dishonest: Plame was Covert. Do you think the CIA just asks for investigations just for the hell of it? If the CIA says she was covert then guess what? She was covert. You have no authority to say otherwise.
 
Where did Fitzgerald say that he knew no crime was committed? I think you misunderstood what he said. He stated the obstruction by Mr. Libby had prevented him and the grand jury from determining whether the leak violated federal law. You're talking about two different things there. He did not say that there was no crime committed but rather he was hindered from investigating if a crime was committed because of the obstruction of justice.
 
Wasn't one of Clinton's charges obstruction of justice? Do you think that Clinton also did not commit a crime and that Kenneth Starr knew he didn't?
 
Yes Libby did leak her name. If you actually followed the case many different officials in the office of the Vice President as well as reporters stated that besides Armitage, Libby also leaked the information. It doesn't matter that Armitage leaked to novak first. Are you saying because he leaked to Novak that somehow suddenly negates the fact that Libby leaked elsewhere. A leak is still a leak and that sort of shoddy explanation on your part would get you fired from any job that requires confidentiality.
 
Richard Armitage was the Deputy Secretary of State in the Bush Administration. So basically a Bush Administration official once again leaked her covert status to the press.
March 7, 2007, 12:39:08 PM EST – Like – Reply

---

Puck
You see this was she covert was she not. Here's two things. Her husband had her in Who's Who, and most of her neighbors knew she worked for the C.I.A.. Covert? There is a timeline there that doesn't add up.
 
Now Clinton the Liberal? That ol boy knew how to walk that line and play too the right crowd at the right time.
Remember when he signed Newt's welfare reform into law? Not many libs were happy about that! Gays in the Military? Yeah, the far right was in a tizzy over that one. MAybe in his bones he was liberal but he knew how to work both sides when he had too. And his crew? almost 99% loyal. Look at that guy that stole those papers and tossed them under that trailer. 
 
Fitzgerald could have called, Rove and Chenney to the stand. He didn't. Fitzgerald had unlimited powers, This was the best he could come up with. Look at last night, where did Wilson end up on, Larry King! Not a high ranking politico news show if you ask me. 
 
This would be like taking Olbermann's show and putting it on the N.B.C. network. How fast would it get yanked for non-viewers? This is a one maybe two day event. Thats it! 
Now Clinton did lie before a grand jury. Should he have been impeached? Even I had a problem with that. But he did lie before a grand jury and don't forget 'wag the finger'.
 
What he got plus extreme embarrassment and look at all the trouble his wife is having right now, she is not a shoe in by any means. And! If Bill would have got the boot, what real damage could have been brought to this country by a REAL LIBERAL algore! Think about it.
 
Fitzgerald said "this is as far as it goes". It's going to get overturned on appeal. Libby is not going to do one day of jail. 
 
But libs, don't keep pressing this. Let it go. Theres an election comming up in 08'. Where the American people got a little sick of what went on with Clinton and the witchunt on him. Pressing this any further could end up costing you your utopia in 08'.
March 7, 2007, 6:21:33 PM EST – Like – Reply

---

Puck
Oh somebody here said Bush is far right?
 
Let me give you too names. Newt, Santorum. 
One more example, Open Borders? Not a welcome topic at most far right dinner tables these days.
 
That ports deal? Funny I don't remember the far right getting in all of a tizzy, because that went down in flames.
 
Has anybody listened to Savage lately?
Not exactly singing the praises of the Bush Administration is he?
March 7, 2007, 6:34:28 PM EST – Like – Reply

---

Puck
And one last thing, I was just over at inside Cable News. And America's new hero Joe Wilson? Didn't get even a million viewers on Larry King last night.
 
In fact compaired to Anna Nicole, it was a ratings tanker.
 
As we use to say when you beat a team you were not supposed to beat. 'Take the win and get out of the building.'
March 7, 2007, 6:48:16 PM EST – Like – Reply

---

Bob Ross
Puck,
No matter how many times you trumpet the same line over and over again it does not make it true. Name which neighbors knew she was covert. Fitz interviewed the neighbors and none of them had any clue until the article by Novak exposed her. 
 
Have you personally seen her husband's whose who list? 
 
Well since you try to act like you've actually seen the entry here it is for you to see:
 
http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/3311/josephwilsonwhoswhofs4.jpg
 
Now where in that entry does it say that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA? 
 
*crickets*
 
It was public knowledge that Valerie Plame was married to Joseph Wilson. BFD. Wow how easy it is to debunk that claim about the whose who entry. Do you not even bother to do any research before spouting such obvious bullshit?
 
Sure it was public knowledge that Valerie Wilson worked for Brewster Jennings. She had been listed as an oil executive. It was not public knowledge that Brewster Jennings was a CIA front organization. So once again her covert status was not public knowledge!
 
Here is a argument your side often uses: Why do you hate america? I can say the same about you. Why do you not give a shit about our national security that you think its okay to out undercover agents who are trying to protect this country?
 
Gays in the military? You call that Clinton being liberal? What was that policy again? Don't ask don't tell? How many gays were kicked out of the military if they told? You call that being liberal? Jesus your priorities are messed up.
 
So you're saying Clinton was only pretending to be moderate? Wow and I can guess you're pretending to be honest as well. Many democrats when they enter office tend to be moderate while the republicans often tend to be conservative through and through. Clinton was bipartisan and had to work with a hostile congress. Once again I ask how Clinton was Liberal?
 
If you're going to label someone at least do it accurately based on their economic or social views and not because you think they are.
 
Ahhh yes the guy who got caught taking copies out of the office remind me how much time he got again?
 
How many former Bush employees are in jail now? I can count a few aides in jail on my fingers because of anywhere from election fraud to corruption charges.
 
Really he could have called them? If the defense couldn't get Rove and Cheney to the stand as promised what makes you think Fitz could have? He had already interviewed them they wouldn't appear under oath.
 
I admit I don't like Larry King much but for some reason many big politicians still go on his show. As for Olbermann complain about him all you want but he's actually gaining an audience as opposed to losing it and most of his viewers don't have one foot already in the grave.
 
Oh yeah Al Gore would not have brought us into an unnessary war, wouldn't have ignored the warning signs of 9/11, wouldn't have privatized Walter Reed, abandoned a wh
March 7, 2007, 6:56:52 PM EST – Like – Reply

---

Bob Ross
Puck do you pay attention to anything you read? No one mentioned him being far right. I asked if you agreed that Bush is more partisan than anything
March 7, 2007, 6:59:15 PM EST – Like – Reply

---

Fox Fan
Welcome to the site, Bob. You are ovbiously intellectually far superior to the OT bomb-throwing, filthy language using regular leftists that troll here. Tom, anonymous, average american patriot; you all have something to learn about having class, being on topic, and sticking to logic from this man.
 
Cheers, Bob!
March 7, 2007, 7:34:19 PM EST – Like – Reply

---

Bob Ross
Plus I'm good at painting happy clouds and happy trees fox
March 7, 2007, 8:16:41 PM EST – Like – Reply

---

Bob Ross
Fox I have seem bomb-throwing on both sides of the aisle. I just try to keep people intellectually honest. As a general rule of thumb if one is to state something so implicitly at least do the research before stating it. Each side throws red herrings at each other accusing the other of doing the same as they themselves are doing
March 7, 2007, 8:20:04 PM EST – Like – Reply

---

Fox Fan
"Plus I'm good at painting happy clouds and happy trees fox"
 
Don't allow sincerity to be overlooked because you are anticipating sarcasm.
 
Sorry Puck, you have to admit he's higher caliber than the usual suspects. Not that anyone has won, so far Napolitano is winning the root argument here.
March 7, 2007, 10:20:12 PM EST – Like – Reply

---