To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
what caused Clinton's impeachment "wasn't that he had an affair with Monica Lewinsky but he lied about it." Wow! How did THIS get by the AP editors?
2 posted on
10/28/2005 1:51:17 PM PDT by
Izzy Dunne
(Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
What? A correct headline?
3 posted on
10/28/2005 1:51:22 PM PDT by
sam_paine
(X .................................)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
AP: Charges Don't Directly Address CIA Leak They are correct; Joseph Wilson was not indicted today.
4 posted on
10/28/2005 1:52:15 PM PDT by
Gondring
(I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
What I will remember about today---
David Gergen said, just a short time ago, (on CNN or MSNBC) that the White House can't blame it's troubles on an overzealous prosecutor or on being "kn*cked-up" by the press.
I think he meant "knocked-about."
5 posted on
10/28/2005 1:52:29 PM PDT by
syriacus
(Bush hasn't done a bad job, all things (WOT, vagaries of Nature, Lib lies + obstruction) considered)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
WOW! Someone in the press is suggesting this is political?
Get ready, this reporter is going to be dragged to the woodshed by the rest of the "unbiased" reporters in the biz....
7 posted on
10/28/2005 1:53:19 PM PDT by
Tzimisce
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Levy said the indictment is "very narrow, very focused: it follows, very provable." Until you look at the indictment itself and see it is about he said, he said situations.
8 posted on
10/28/2005 1:53:48 PM PDT by
dirtboy
(Drool overflowed my buffer...)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
there wasn't a crime until there was an investigation.
9 posted on
10/28/2005 1:55:36 PM PDT by
smonk
To: All; NormsRevenge; Grampa Dave; SierraWasp; Marine_Uncle; Mo1; tubebender
Hat tip to Drudge on this one, by the way!
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Scooter was indicted on five counts of contradicting a reporter...
At least that's all I could garner from reading the indictment.
13 posted on
10/28/2005 1:58:34 PM PDT by
telebob
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Once again, and now after seeing this jacka@@ on TV, Fitzzzzzzzz is an lame excuse for a prosecutor. I've been in the Court system for 27 years, and I know a nut when I see one. Doesn't take much to pass the bar now days, just dumb every exercise with memory with no solid intelligence. Lawyers, salt of the earth, sure, sure, sure. Takes ten to screw in a light bulb, but they have a time finding the burned our bulb, and then looses the socket.
15 posted on
10/28/2005 2:02:09 PM PDT by
Logical me
(Oh, well!!!)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
D.C. jury
D.C. jury
D.C. jury
D.C. jury
D.C. jury
D.C. jury
19 posted on
10/28/2005 2:04:41 PM PDT by
Jeff Chandler
(Peace Begins in the Womb)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
That is correct, Fitzgerald did not charge anyone with the crime of "outing" a covert agent. Is he required to? Of course not. If the evidence doesn't meet the requirements of the statute, he's not going to charge anyone.
I note that the news media still can't get this straight. ABC Radio News led off with, "Valerie Plame was a covert agent."
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
We can thank the useless coward Ashcroft for unleashing this democrat power hungry career and media whore fritzgerald on the Bush Administration.
The only good thing about Ashcroft is that he quit, that was the only good thing he ever did as AG. All he had to do was announce that obviously no crime was committed in outing a covert CIA agent because she was not such, and the whole BS thing would have been over in 5 minutes.
I hope that dickweed is happy with himself today.
21 posted on
10/28/2005 2:05:29 PM PDT by
Berlin_Freeper
(Liberalism is a downward spiral to becoming soulless.)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Someone, please answer me this: If a crime had never been committed, how can one lie about it?
25 posted on
10/28/2005 2:12:41 PM PDT by
Road Warrior ‘04
(Kill 'em til they're dead! Then, kill 'em again!)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Steven Reich, a New York attorney and former senior associate counsel to President Bill Clinton, said Fitzgerald has his reasons for not charging anyone with the leak. "Either he thought there was not a crime, or he thought he couldn't prove it. No one will know which but him," he said
What the hell kind of idiotic statement is that?
We are paying Fitzgerald to do this job. That would imply a certain obligation that he let us know whether or not a crime was committed prior to the time he started gathering evidence in the case.
36 posted on
10/28/2005 2:19:32 PM PDT by
dead
(I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
I believe Wilson, his wife and whoever else are the culprits here.
When I heard Wilson had not signed a confidentiality agreement; I went WHAT? Most companies request of whoever works with or for them do.
This is a red flag and it makes me wonder if this obvious set up for whatever reason did not come from Wilson, his wife and whoever backed them. People sign confidentiality agreements or whatever especially when dealing with high sensitivty issues as Wilson has been spouting off to the world he was involved in. If they don't you have to wonder WHY?
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Two lessons here!!! Never trust a reporter and never lie to a GJ.
47 posted on
10/28/2005 2:33:32 PM PDT by
jec41
(Screaming Eagle)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
"Fitzgerald has his reasons for not charging anyone with the leak. "Either he thought there was not a crime, or he thought he couldn't prove it."If it isn't a crime then what in the world is the point????
64 posted on
10/28/2005 3:44:59 PM PDT by
BenLurkin
(O beautiful for patriot dream - that sees beyond the years)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
"Either he thought there was not a crime, or he thought he couldn't prove it. Either way, he had an obligation to the taxpayers to drop the case. Tricking Scooter into perjury over a trivial matter was not worth $750,000.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson