Oh, I hope so. This is going to be fun
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1862853/posts
One can only hope they ask him to testify. Maybe the president will tell him not to.
Oh, I hope so. This is going to be fun
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1862853/posts
Oh, I hope so. This is going to be fun
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1862853/posts
Why should he be?
One can only hope they ask him to testify. Maybe the president will tell him not to.
Well sure.. cuz the justice department is really part of the executive branch and covered by executive privilege.. except where the national archives are concerned in which case he's really covered by somehow being a member of the legislative branch. ::)
One can only hope they ask him to testify. Maybe the president will tell him not to.
Well sure.. cuz the justice department is really part of the executive branch and covered by executive privilege.. except where the national archives are concerned in which case he's really covered by somehow being a member of the legislative branch. ::)
Who's the President of the Senate?
Oh, I hope so. This is going to be fun
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1862853/posts
Why should he be?
Oh, I don't know....perhaps because the guy that actually LEAKED the information has yet to be brought to justice while someone else that didn't leak the information was sentenced to prison.
One can only hope they ask him to testify. Maybe the president will tell him not to.
Well sure.. cuz the justice department is really part of the executive branch and covered by executive privilege.. except where the national archives are concerned in which case he's really covered by somehow being a member of the legislative branch. ::)
Who's the President of the Senate?
Currently it depends on who you ask, when you ask them, what the immediate implications are for them if they answer in a particular way, and how much grease they have on them in case they get cornered into doing something they don'twantfeel like doing.
Oh, I hope so. This is going to be fun
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1862853/posts
Why should he be?
Oh, I don't know....perhaps because the guy that actually LEAKED the information has yet to be brought to justice while someone else that didn't leak the information was sentenced to prison.
Oh, I hope so. This is going to be fun
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1862853/posts
Why should he be?
Oh, I don't know....perhaps because the guy that actually LEAKED the information has yet to be brought to justice while someone else that didn't leak the information was sentenced to prison.
1. The guy that "leaked" the information hasn't been "brought to justice" because Fitzgerald determined that he had not committed a crime, or that he could not prove he had committed a crime. Isn't this what you guys have been saying all along? Now you want a guy "brought to justice" for something you don't believe is a crime? Hmmm.
2. As you well know, Scooter wasn't convicted and sentenced for leaking, he was convicted and sentenced for lying. Regardless of the ultimate outcome of the probe, it's still illegal to lie in order to impede a federal investigation. The fact Fitzgerald ultimately opted not to bring charges regarding a leak doesn't justify Libby's lies.
That is partially correct...you can't be guilty of a crime of outing a "covert" agent if they aren't "covert" according to the statute. But hey, Fitzfong got a scalp. I just find it interesting how virtually no one goes after Armitage, the actual leaker, and we all know why that's the case.
Oh, I hope so. This is going to be fun
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1862853/posts
Why should he be?
Oh, I don't know....perhaps because the guy that actually LEAKED the information has yet to be brought to justice while someone else that didn't leak the information was sentenced to prison.
1. The guy that "leaked" the information hasn't been "brought to justice" because Fitzgerald determined that he had not committed a crime, or that he could not prove he had committed a crime. Isn't this what you guys have been saying all along? Now you want a guy "brought to justice" for something you don't believe is a crime? Hmmm.
2. As you well know, Scooter wasn't convicted and sentenced for leaking, he was convicted and sentenced for lying. Regardless of the ultimate outcome of the probe, it's still illegal to lie in order to impede a federal investigation. The fact Fitzgerald ultimately opted not to bring charges regarding a leak doesn't justify Libby's lies.
That is partially correct...you can't be guilty of a crime of outing a "covert" agent if they aren't "covert" according to the statute. But hey, Fitzfong got a scalp. I just find it interesting how virtually no one goes after Armitage, the actual leaker, and we all know why that's the case.
That is partially correct...you can't be guilty of a crime of outing a "covert" agent if they aren't "covert" according to the statute. But hey, Fitzfong got a scalp. I just find it interesting how virtually no one goes after Armitage, the actual leaker, and we all know why that's the case.
Why is it an outrageous, impeachable offense to lie to federal investigators about a sexual encounter with an intern, yet the prosecution of someone who lied during a far more serious inquiry is worthy of derision (i.e. "Fitzong got a scalp")?
Is perjury and obstructing justice OK in some instances, criminal in others?
Don't you realize how ridiculously hypocritical and partisan your arguments are in this matter?
Again, I must ask, where's the consistency in your arguments?
Enlighten me, why did Fitzfong, as you call him, not go after Armitage?
I would love to hear his reasoning for not going after Armitage. I mean, if Fitz believes that outting an agent is against the law and Armitage admitted he did so (he ADMITTED IT), then he should have the evidence to go after him. Why didn't he? Or, if Fitz believes there never was a crime to begin with (which is my belief), then how did it ever get to this point at all?
Enlighten me, why did Fitzfong, as you call him, not go after Armitage?
That's what I want Fitzmas to answer. Personally, I believe because he was part of the "anti-administration"...he becomes unimpeachable at that point. Just my two cents, but I believe Powell and Armitage have permanent Get Out Of Jail Cards with this Congress and with Fitzfong.
I would love to hear his reasoning for not going after Armitage. I mean, if Fitz believes that outting an agent is against the law and Armitage admitted he did so (he ADMITTED IT), then he should have the evidence to go after him. Why didn't he? Or, if Fitz believes there never was a crime to begin with (which is my belief), then how did it ever get to this point at all?
So, Darth Cheneyous is not technically a part of the executive branch, but frequently invokes executive privilege. Got it.
Enlighten me, why did Fitzfong, as you call him, not go after Armitage?
That's what I want Fitzmas to answer. Personally, I believe because he was part of the "anti-administration"...he becomes unimpeachable at that point. Just my two cents, but I believe Powell and Armitage have permanent Get Out Of Jail Cards with this Congress and with Fitzfong.
I would love to hear his reasoning for not going after Armitage. I mean, if Fitz believes that outting an agent is against the law and Armitage admitted he did so (he ADMITTED IT), then he should have the evidence to go after him. Why didn't he? Or, if Fitz believes there never was a crime to begin with (which is my belief), then how did it ever get to this point at all?
First, why do you think that Fitz is in on some great left conspiracy? He has a history of being blind to party in his prosecutions in the past, he had a republican congressional sponsor, he was appointed by GWB and confirmed by a GOP congress Second, if the answer is "there was not enough evidence" (and remember, by law a confession by itself is never enough to get past reasonable doubt), will that be enough for you?
Enlighten me, why did Fitzfong, as you call him, not go after Armitage?
That's what I want Fitzmas to answer. Personally, I believe because he was part of the "anti-administration"...he becomes unimpeachable at that point. Just my two cents, but I believe Powell and Armitage have permanent Get Out Of Jail Cards with this Congress and with Fitzfong.
I would love to hear his reasoning for not going after Armitage. I mean, if Fitz believes that outting an agent is against the law and Armitage admitted he did so (he ADMITTED IT), then he should have the evidence to go after him. Why didn't he? Or, if Fitz believes there never was a crime to begin with (which is my belief), then how did it ever get to this point at all?
First, why do you think that Fitz is in on some great left conspiracy? He has a history of being blind to party in his prosecutions in the past, he had a republican congressional sponsor, he was appointed by GWB and confirmed by a GOP congress Second, if the answer is "there was not enough evidence" (and remember, by law a confession by itself is never enough to get past reasonable doubt), will that be enough for you?
Actually, I don't think he's part of a left leaning conspiracy....I think he had no case and to justify spending millions he had to get a scalp. I find it very similar to the crap in the 1990's quite frankly...Whitewater basically yielded nothing so a bunch others went down. Personally, I'd do away with the Independent Counsel statute completely. I believe early on the case was going nowhere and that's when he asked for broader authority and got it so he coud fish more.
Now, on Armitage...yes, I do believe he was the leaker (he says so as do those that he leaked to...to me that is more than enough evidence...both sides of the conversation) yet he chose not to go down that path. I find that interesting and would love for him to answer why he didn't. It would clear up a good many things in my mind.
freeway, are you a prosecutor? You've never told us that before. :-*