Posted on 03/06/2007 8:34:59 AM PST by Dog
Breaking on MSNBC
We shall see.
I do think Russert is in professional trouble if another trial or an appeal goes forward.
It's a more friendly way of calling someone a MORON, you macho lady.
Hume is absolutely right. First the investigation began, and then, later, Libby lied (if that's what he did). It wasn't the other way around.
You cannot say the crime preceded the investigation. It obviously didn't.
after some of these posts, we all ought to cut to the chase and if we mean moron, say it
Howlin, normally I'd agree. But after this judicial travesty today, I frankly don't have confidence that a republican will get a fair shake in ANY case or even court for that matter.
I'm off to shake off some irritation and the rid my nostrils of the stench of trolls from this thread.
Thick as flies on s**t.
Odd how not a single soul said "Joe told me" until it was pointed out that no one had come forward and said so, and then only a couple of fringe commentators said so. If Joe told everyone in Washington, how come Novak didn't know? Or Woodward?
Don't bother answering, because you don't have an answer. You just have spin.
Its a MORON like ...
Where in the testimony does it say that Libby asked Fleischer to leak Plame's identity? I've been reviewing the government's exhibits, and most of them look like exhibits for the defense. I see nothing incriminating in them. They show that Libby was interested in pushing back the Wilson story BECAUSE IT WASN'T TRUE. I see little if any emphasis on Plame, none of the "obsession" with Plame that Fitz lied to the jury about. In the last hour since the verdict, the Dems have done more lying about this case than anything Libby did.
"Yep, lol, as if Libby, a lawyer, would lie over and over and over to numerous law enforcement, about conversations with his enemies, the MSM, knowing those dozens of people who could testify against him? When he could have taken the 5th?"
Yep, because as we all know, lawyers never ever lie.
Who was that lawyer who lied about getting a blowjob from a fat chick, oh right, Bill Clinton.
**yawn** yet another sad cornball remark that evades my simple question. I served, what can you say?
If Fleischer had done something illegal, resigning his position as press secretary wouldn't have protected him from prosecution.
So I have noticed.
Nasty little piece of trash, aren't you?
I believe the term is "reasonable" not rational. Frankly I don't believe that any reasonable jury could determine guilt in this case. I do not believe that the jury was reasonable or rational. And on top of that the judge has "discretion" to overrule the jury. He may be reversed on appeal, but he need only determine in his own mind that the evidence did not support the verdict. And it didn't.
Honestly jude, is this the kind of prosecution that you like to see? There was no underlying crime so techically any misstatement or false statement was not material. If there were an underlying crime involved, then Richard Armitage should have been the man on trial. He was never charged with any crime.
This prosecution and conviction scares the heck out of me. It is the moral equivalent of the Duke LaCross prosecution. now don't tell me that you think that Nifong is a saint.
the problem is - the Bush administration has done nothing to explain to americans what this case was all about all along, other then it being "a serious investigation". And its not going to be possible to turn public opinion around now.
"Libs overplaying their hand again, they sound juvenile."
Overplaying their hand implies that there are some sort of consequences for acting the way they are. I'm sure they don't really care if they sound juvenile to people on FR.
"The CIA had to assert that Plame was covert in order for there to be an investigation in the first place."
There's any number of things the CIA could allege that would get an investigation started. It would be very easy for a CIA attorney to figure out whether Plame was "covert", as of July 14th, 2003, or not. All they would have to do is look at the statute.
The fact that no one is being indicted under this statute suggests that Plame was not a "covert" agent, as that term is used in the statute.
Go back and read the record. FBI was already investigating but he wanted a special prosecutor. He was tired of all the accusations being thrown at his administration over leaking the Plame identity for revenge that he asked Fitzgerald to investigate and he required all his wife house staff to answer any and all questions truthfully.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.