Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Jrabbit
I was hopeful for a while but after hearing him on Greta he did not do better. He needed to argue for a de novo review of disputed facts, as was the clear intent of Congress. Instead he argued weak legal losers. Greer probably followed the law. The problem is he was wrong on the facts and should not be the sole decision maker when a life hangs in the balance. That's what the Congress said. Gibbs did not argue this.
4,228 posted on 03/24/2005 8:10:09 PM PST by SoCar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4108 | View Replies ]


To: SoCar

"I was hopeful for a while but after hearing him on Greta he did not do better. He needed to argue for a de novo review of disputed facts, as was the clear intent of Congress. Instead he argued weak legal losers. Greer probably followed the law. The problem is he was wrong on the facts and should not be the sole decision maker when a life hangs in the balance. That's what the Congress said. Gibbs did not argue this."

Stop criticizing until you actually see the filings, on a talk show Gibbs isn't going to tell you every single thing that was argued...easy for someone to say that has no personal knowledge of the evidence, I am SURE Gibbs knowsthe case alot more than you do.


4,257 posted on 03/24/2005 8:15:31 PM PST by LegalEagle61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4228 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson