Libby is Guilty?!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]shamus wrote:
JeffR wrote:
shamus wrote:
Libby should rot in the slammer! He outed a CIA agent! And lied and still is! Clinton lied about a Blowjob!!! Who, in T-Nation, would admit to a BJ if married and questioned about it!? Shit, I’m ashamed to be associated with defender’s of this prick!

And to the Libby supporter’s, if he does go to the pen, Bubba is in a REAL jail, not this Camp Fed shit he’ll go… Eventually, all these Republican’s will be tried. The only problem is, the Dem’s don’t give a shit enough to try the bastards.

shamus,

I’m wondering if you dems will ever get it through your skulls that clinton lied under oath to protect himself against paula jones’ lawsuit.

Unless you think that using his office for sexual harrassment, encouraging his employees to lie, and using taxpayer’s money to fund his activities is cool, you might want to change your tag-line.

Again, most of us Republicans think that breaking marriage vows is unfortunate. However, it pales by a magnitude of 50 in comparison to obstruction of justice and sexual harassment.

Hope your brain can process this. If not, I’ll type it again using smaller words.

JeffR

The only thing I followed was an associate of the Bush regime was prosecuted! After all the millions spent for a hummer. And I was PURE REPUBLICAN until Nov. 2000, when all shit in my county (Palm Beach, FL) went to hell. And I am not democrat either, they are just rich fuckers too afraid to admit that they are as dirty as the other side. And anyone with half a brain could see what has been happening, how and when it all started! So keep thinking you’re above someone else, you are not. And someone at the beginning of this thread mentioned “if this was an average citizen, the case would never have been tried.” Does the same go for the average citizen who gets caught with even one tab of Oxycontin would spend a few years in jail, but your poster-boy Rush gets forgiven, AFTER HE SAID ON ALL HIS RADIO SHOWS “DRUG ADDICTS SHOULD BE THROWN IN THE SLAMMER!” I love the hypocricy of the political “minds” on here. [/quote]

Psychiatry.

Now.

Make the call.

Thanks,

Everyone.

62

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:
Strange how that was not even a deliberated issue in this case, and is a matter of pure speculation…

vroom wrote:
Of course it wasn’t in the case. Holy shit, perhaps you can stop playing lawyer for a moment or two?

Everyone knows, including you, that the executive branch decided to do the normal tactic of discrediting a dissenting voice.

Somewhere in all of this, Libby lied, or was given up as a pawn, and the trial and the rest occurred. I’d be surprised if Bush didn’t issue a pardon near the end of his term.

Ah yes, I forget – it doesn’t have to be part of the topic, pertinent to the point or otherwise related to logical assumptions to be related to your pontifications…

You make it sound as if discrediting a dissenting voice is a criminal act – and sorry, but without some unproved assumptions you’d be incorrect. Those unproved assumptions, by the way, were the basis of the investigation, and were never charged, let alone put up for proof.

Libby lied, as determined by the jury, in his testimony to the grand jury concerning who told him about Valerie Plame.

His crime was the lie under oath.

The rest is pap.

ADDENDUM: Re-read this Washington Post editorial for a nice summary of where we are after the verdict:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/06/AR2007030602020.html[/quote]

Boston,

I’ve had some time to think about this particular case.

I’m becoming more troubled as the days go on.

In your literature, do you have a good lawyer synopsis of the pros and cons of this case?

I know it usually takes a little while to hash out.

Thanks,

JeffR

63

JeffR,

I do not have time, nor the drive to educate you. I am really too busy to find sources and link them for you. Do some research for yourself if you think Iraq pre war intelligence was not data mined.

I have time to help you with this:

“They got em, and they are going to use them against us.” George Bush

But they didn’t “got em” and they couldn’t use what they didn’t have.

Get it?

Democrats= Giovanni crime family

Republican’s= Gambini crime family

They both fight for control, but when something comes along that threatens the criminal syndicate all together, they unite!

Whats worse; lying to go into a war that kills 100’s of thousands and losing sight of the true enemy, or lying about getting a blow job?

Jesus man, come on, use some human decency on this one.

64

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
JeffR wrote:
shamus wrote:
Libby should rot in the slammer! He outed a CIA agent! And lied and still is! Clinton lied about a Blowjob!!! Who, in T-Nation, would admit to a BJ if married and questioned about it!? Shit, I’m ashamed to be associated with defender’s of this prick!

And to the Libby supporter’s, if he does go to the pen, Bubba is in a REAL jail, not this Camp Fed shit he’ll go… Eventually, all these Republican’s will be tried. The only problem is, the Dem’s don’t give a shit enough to try the bastards.

shamus,

I’m wondering if you dems will ever get it through your skulls that clinton lied under oath to protect himself against paula jones’ lawsuit.

Unless you think that using his office for sexual harrassment, encouraging his employees to lie, and using taxpayer’s money to fund his activities is cool, you might want to change your tag-line.

Again, most of us Republicans think that breaking marriage vows is unfortunate. However, it pales by a magnitude of 50 in comparison to obstruction of justice and sexual harassment.

Hope your brain can process this. If not, I’ll type it again using smaller words.

JeffR

Let me first tell you, Shamus is neither Republican nor Democrat.

I agree.

He does need to look into lithium.

Let me second ask you; how do you feel about the current administration data mining in order to deceive the public and congress and go into a war with a nation under false pretenses,

That’s nice. Please provide some proof.

while loosing sight of the real enemy, Osama, and eventually causing the death’s of 100’s of thousands of people?

You do know that bin laden made it into Pakistan long before the invasion of Iraq began.

I’ll play along. If Bush had never removed saddam, had he had unlimited combat brigades, how does he get bin laden?

Think through the sticky soverignty issue.

I am on the side of what is right, I do not profess to be democrat or republican. I did not like Clinton, but he did a hell of a lot more for me, the little man, than our current administration has done.

I’d like to hear what he did for you little guys. I profess I don’t usually pay much attention to you.

Thanks in advance.

JeffR[/quote]

OK Jeff, if you know Bin Laden went to Pakistan before the invasion of Iraq, grow some nuts and join the force and go get him brainy balls! If you believe anything this administration says, you need more than Lithium. And thanks for playing doc for a sec, besides playing with yourself. The same lower IQ assfucks that believe this is a just cause are the same assholes that think their religion is the only reliogion that is correct.

You are a dude that hids behind a keyboard and listens to Rush and Fox News talking shit, when if you would wake up, you would see the state of the world since Nov. 2000. And also, your prez Bush’s daddy supported Bin Laden against the Soviet Union in the 80’s, just as he supported the cocaine manufacturers in Colombia, and Barry Spears was his cocaine runner that flew the coke into the country with daddy Bush’s support and planning.

I could go on for days, but I have to go to the Veteran’s Administration, because I’m a Vet,to get my meds to keep from beating idiots like yourself.

65

[quote]Baba Booey! wrote:
I could go on for days, but I have to go to the Veteran’s Administration, because I’m a Vet,to get my meds to keep from beating idiots like yourself.
[/quote]

I hope Phen phen is one of them.

66

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
vroom wrote:
derek wrote:
Huh? I don’t care who YOU were talking about. What I posted, and you felt the need to comment on, was about Valerie Plame, by name, and only her.

If you can’t keep up, don’t butt in. OK?

I like it. Chide me for not keeping up when you have no clue what I’m talking about.

You are an idiot.

The outing of Valerie Plame was more dangerous to other CIA operatives than it was to her you fool.

Use your brain for once.

She wasn’t covert. You could look her up in a phone book, for crissakes…

[/quote]

Everybody has a phone, everybody is in the phone book you moron.

Now if she was in the yellow pages under the A like in Agent (CIA) or under the C like in CIA-agent, that would mean she wasn’t undercover.
Now was she?

67

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
vroom wrote:
derek wrote:
Huh? I don’t care who YOU were talking about. What I posted, and you felt the need to comment on, was about Valerie Plame, by name, and only her.

If you can’t keep up, don’t butt in. OK?

I like it. Chide me for not keeping up when you have no clue what I’m talking about.

You are an idiot.

The outing of Valerie Plame was more dangerous to other CIA operatives than it was to her you fool.

Use your brain for once.

She wasn’t covert. You could look her up in a phone book, for crissakes…

It was her picking her unqualified husband and her husband writing an OP/Ed that led to her being exposed.

If she was a spy she would fail Spycraft 101 for that alone.[/quote]

No, it was the politicians that gave her name to Novak the Rat that got her exposed. They simply used her.

Like the Republican pigs use the US soldier and then turn their backs on them when they get injured.

And you know she didn’t pick her husband. You just keep repeating the same lies in the hope they stick.

They don’t, they just make you a liar.

68

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
vroom wrote:
derek wrote:
Huh? I don’t care who YOU were talking about. What I posted, and you felt the need to comment on, was about Valerie Plame, by name, and only her.

If you can’t keep up, don’t butt in. OK?

I like it. Chide me for not keeping up when you have no clue what I’m talking about.

You are an idiot.

The outing of Valerie Plame was more dangerous to other CIA operatives than it was to her you fool.

Use your brain for once.

She wasn’t covert. You could look her up in a phone book, for crissakes…

It was her picking her unqualified husband and her husband writing an OP/Ed that led to her being exposed.

If she was a spy she would fail Spycraft 101 for that alone.

No, it was the politicians that gave her name to Novak the Rat that got her exposed. They simply used her.

…[/quote]

Wrong. It was her picking her husband for the mission. If she was covert she would not have let her husband go on the mission and write an OP/ED about it.

69

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Petedacook wrote:

Let me second ask you; how do you feel about the current administration data mining in order to deceive the public and congress and go into a war with a nation under false pretenses,

That’s nice. Please provide some proof.
…
Thanks in advance.

JeffR[/quote]

That’s rich. It’s march 2007 and Effr0 the tool wants proof.

Hey Effr0, how’s the weather on your planet?

70

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
vroom wrote:
derek wrote:
Huh? I don’t care who YOU were talking about. What I posted, and you felt the need to comment on, was about Valerie Plame, by name, and only her.

If you can’t keep up, don’t butt in. OK?

I like it. Chide me for not keeping up when you have no clue what I’m talking about.

You are an idiot.

The outing of Valerie Plame was more dangerous to other CIA operatives than it was to her you fool.

Use your brain for once.

She wasn’t covert. You could look her up in a phone book, for crissakes…

It was her picking her unqualified husband and her husband writing an OP/Ed that led to her being exposed.

If she was a spy she would fail Spycraft 101 for that alone.

No, it was the politicians that gave her name to Novak the Rat that got her exposed. They simply used her.

…

Wrong. It was her picking her husband for the mission. If she was covert she would not have let her husband go on the mission and write an OP/ED about it.[/quote]

Where’s the proof that she picked her husband for the mission?

71

[quote]JeffR wrote:
…

Psychiatry.

Now.

Make the call.

Thanks,

Effr0 from Mars.
[/quote]

Hey Effr0, why don’t you make the call. You’re the one in denial.

72

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
…

You make it sound as if discrediting a dissenting voice is a criminal act – and sorry, but without some unproved assumptions you’d be incorrect.
…[/quote]

And there we have it my friends. It isn’t a criminal act to discredit a dissenting voice.

After all, this is how elections are won.

But, if isn’t a criminal act to put your dick in a womans mouth either.
But he lied about it under oath.
Yes, but the crime is that he was put under oath about such a thing in the first place. You can’t just go around putting people under oath and asking them personal questions. Of course, Bill should have told them to fuck off. Probably his lawyers “advised him against such action”. That’s what lawyers do, they’re morons.

And it IS illegal to rat on an undercover CIA-agent.
Don’t believe the lies that she wans’t undercover. If she wasn’t, why did they make en effort to rat her out?

And Bush will pardon the bastard. Libby knows to much.

73

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
…

You make it sound as if discrediting a dissenting voice is a criminal act – and sorry, but without some unproved assumptions you’d be incorrect.
…

Wreckless wrote:
And there we have it my friends. It isn’t a criminal act to discredit a dissenting voice.

After all, this is how elections are won.[/quote]

Elections, arguments, etc.

It’s not good logic to engage in ad hominem and attack the messenger, but look at how scientists who doubt human-caused global warming are treated.

It’s not illegal. It may or may not be immoral, depending on more facts. It wouldn’t hold up as formal logic.

[quote]
wreckless wrote:
But, if isn’t a criminal act to put your dick in a womans mouth either.[/quote]

This isn’t Jeopardy, and I can’t quite tell why you tried to phrase that as a question…

[quote]
wreckless wrote:
But he lied about it under oath.[/quote]

That is a criminal offense.

[quote]
wreckless wrote:
Yes, but the crime is that he was put under oath about such a thing in the first place. You can’t just go around putting people under oath and asking them personal questions. [/quote]

Actually, it was in the process of being sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress that he was put on the stand. Jones had a lock-solid case for sexual harassment, but the statute of limitations had run out, so she never brought that suit.

So, yes, when you are sued, you can be questioned on subject matter relevant to the suit (as determined by the judge). And you cannot lie about it just because you find it inconvenient or personal, absent some privilege against testimony (Such as the 5th Amendment, or common law privilege such as husband/wife).

It was doubly bad in Clinton’s case because as chief executive he is the head of all federal law enforcement, and thus it was a systemic insult to have him lie under oath in a judicial proceeding.

[quote]
wreckless wrote:
Of course, Bill should have told them to fuck off. Probably his lawyers “advised him against such action”. That’s what lawyers do, they’re morons.[/quote]

Clinton is a lawyer himself, and a law professor of some sort at U. of Arkansas - though I think he was disbarred in certain jurisdictions due to his lying.

[quote]
wreckless wrote:
And it IS illegal to rat on an undercover CIA-agent.
Don’t believe the lies that she wans’t undercover. If she wasn’t, why did they make en effort to rat her out?[/quote]

That was never even charged, let alone determined.

Again, read this Washington Post editorial for a synopsis of what we know now, post conviction:

[quote]
wreckless wrote:
And Bush will pardon the bastard. Libby knows to much. [/quote]

He may pardon him, but not for knowing too much.

74

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:
…

You make it sound as if discrediting a dissenting voice is a criminal act – and sorry, but without some unproved assumptions you’d be incorrect.
…

Wreckless wrote:
And there we have it my friends. It isn’t a criminal act to discredit a dissenting voice.

After all, this is how elections are won.

Elections, arguments, etc.

It’s not good logic to engage in ad hominem and attack the messenger, but look at how scientists who doubt human-caused global warming are treated.

It’s not illegal. It may or may not be immoral, depending on more facts. It wouldn’t hold up as formal logic.

wreckless wrote:
But, if isn’t a criminal act to put your dick in a womans mouth either.

This isn’t Jeopardy, and I can’t quite tell why you tried to phrase that as a question…

wreckless wrote:
But he lied about it under oath.

That is a criminal offense.

wreckless wrote:
Yes, but the crime is that he was put under oath about such a thing in the first place. You can’t just go around putting people under oath and asking them personal questions.

Actually, it was in the process of being sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress that he was put on the stand. Jones had a lock-solid case for sexual harassment, but the statute of limitations had run out, so she never brought that suit.

So, yes, when you are sued, you can be questioned on subject matter relevant to the suit (as determined by the judge). And you cannot lie about it just because you find it inconvenient or personal, absent some privilege against testimony (Such as the 5th Amendment, or common law privilege such as husband/wife).

It was doubly bad in Clinton’s case because as chief executive he is the head of all federal law enforcement, and thus it was a systemic insult to have him lie under oath in a judicial proceeding.

wreckless wrote:
Of course, Bill should have told them to fuck off. Probably his lawyers “advised him against such action”. That’s what lawyers do, they’re morons.

Clinton is a lawyer himself, and a law professor of some sort at U. of Arkansas - though I think he was disbarred in certain jurisdictions due to his lying.

wreckless wrote:
And it IS illegal to rat on an undercover CIA-agent.
Don’t believe the lies that she wans’t undercover. If she wasn’t, why did they make en effort to rat her out?

That was never even charged, let alone determined.

Again, read this Washington Post editorial for a synopsis of what we know now, post conviction:

wreckless wrote:
And Bush will pardon the bastard. Libby knows to much.

He may pardon him, but not for knowing too much.

[/quote]

Wrecless just got OWNED!

75

The Bush supporters are fucking sheep being led to slaughter… Sad.

76

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Let me second ask you; how do you feel about the current administration data mining in order to deceive the public and congress and go into a war with a nation under false pretenses,

That’s nice. Please provide some proof.
[/quote]

Been under a rock?

Saddam, when he had the support of all the West and was armed by you people couldn’t defeat an Iran that has just come out of a revolution which dismantled its officers core. Then you applauded while he was gasing the Kurds.

Then he gets slammed by “Desert storm” and more than a decade of sanctions. He wasn’t a threat. But that everybody knew.

So you needed the WMD act to justify a murderous war that destabilized the world. I mean, even Israeli intelligence (and they know their business down there!) warned against action and refuted the WMD claims.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7664.p2.doc.htm

The war was unlawfull, unnecessary and malicious. In a better world, Bush and friends should be tried for war crimes!

77

[quote]lixy wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Let me second ask you; how do you feel about the current administration data mining in order to deceive the public and congress and go into a war with a nation under false pretenses,

That’s nice. Please provide some proof.

Been under a rock?[/quote]

No.

[quote]Saddam, when he had the support of all the West and was armed by you people couldn’t defeat an Iran that has just come out of a revolution which dismantled its officers core. Then you applauded while he was gasing the Kurds.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq24.pdf[/quote]

I read the interesting pdf file you sent.

Thanks for linking that. Unfortunately for your argument, you can see clearly that the U.S. was seeking ways to stop the chemical weapon usage. There was nothing in that link that even hints at “applause.” Please make sure to amend that “applause” remark on your next pose.

That’s tantamount to making us accomplices. If you don’t change that “applause” crap, I hope you are banned from this site and your IP address noted so you can’t change your name.

Totally false.

You do run on so. In your mind, you choose the one area that we came up short with our predictions. I know it’s part and parcel of manipulating the facts to suit your theory of “America is out to get everyone because they support Israel” crap. It does get rather boring.

Your brain cannot process the myriad of other reasons to take out saddam. I refuse to link another 2003 W. speech because you won’t read it.

[quote]I mean, even Israeli intelligence (and they know their business down there!) warned against action and refuted the WMD claims.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7664.p2.doc.htm[/quote]

Now you are quoting the Israeli’s!?!

Seriously, cut it out. I can’t believe you have the gall. So, in essence, you believe the Israeli’s ONLY when they toe your line? You vehemently refute their assessment of hamas’ intentions, iranian ties, etc… Pretty sick if you give it more than 1 second of thought.

Get serious. You do know that we have the right to defend against an aggressive dictator who fires on our planes, provides free advertising to our most hated enemy, bin laden, lied about his wmd, worked to circumvent the cease fire agreement, paid palestinian terrorist families to attack our allies. On and on and on.

I’m not going to link more than one article per discussion as I know you won’t read it.

However, my friends might.

I wish you ill,

JeffR

78

[quote]cry wrote:

OK Jeff, if you know Bin Laden went to Pakistan before the invasion of Iraq, grow some nuts and join the force and go get him brainy balls![/quote]

This keeps getting better and better!!! shamus, if you can understand this: Thank you for posting.

This amuses me to no end.

Let’s get started on the analysis.

Observe that shamus couldn’t understand the concept of a sovereign nation. See how he flails around. He can’t quite spit out the usual “if you aren’t in the Armed Forces, you can’t discuss the issue.” You see him trying to use sarcasm with the “brainy balls.” Again, he can’t quite make it work. He has the instincts but not the skills to be effective.

This is terrific!!! One wonders if he understands what lithium is for. Out of idle curiosity, I wonder if he could come up with a medicine that “is more than lithium.” Second, did you notice the clumsy “besides playing with yourself.” Again, he has the drive to be cutting, he just doesn’t have the mental horsepower. Third, he manages to spit out the “low IQ” tag-line. However, the effect is ruined when he repeats the same word in one sentence. Worse, he wrote “reliogion” after trying to accuse others of having low IQ.

I think he actually did a little better in this paragraph. As usual, his assertions aren’t to be taken seriously. However, he did manage to vomit out a passable approximation of far left tag-lines. I applaud that effort.

Unfortunately, he couldn’t keep up the momentum. Notice how there isn’t any punctuation. It is basically several disjointed sentences jammed together.

For once, I’m going to dive into the content of what I think he is trying to say. I think he’s attempting to discourage discourse by using his alleged service.

Further, he’s making veiled threats against an unknown opponent. He doesn’t understand the simple fact that if he truly did serve, he is making his fellow servicemen and women cringe. Further, if that is him in his avatar, he has considerable work to do before getting my attention physically.

I know, I shouldn’t have subjected myself to his tortured thought process. However, I wanted to be fair in case he eventually manages to produce a cogent or original thought.

JeffR

79

Well, at least he changed his name to Shamus the Asshole which is rather fitting.

He stll can’t acknowledge that we DO indeed have pictures. I realize I cannot possibly compete with that “rear double-lovehandle” pose but at least you can’t call him skinny.

80

[quote]JeffR wrote:
For once, I’m going to dive into the content of what I think he is trying to say. I think he’s attempting to discourage discourse by using his alleged service.

He doesn’t understand the simple fact that if he truly did serve, he is making his fellow servicemen and women cringe. Further, if that is him in his avatar, he has considerable work to do before getting my attention physically.
[/quote]

Ever since I read he served in the Marines, the only way I can picture him is like this…