How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 The Emanuel Clock   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

The Emanuel Clock

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


0 posted 03-07-2007 06:44 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

My prediction about Dick Cheney is one step closer to coming true. My clock gives it three weeks before his resignation letter lands on Bush's desk. What does your clock say?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ari-emanuel/the-clock-is-ticking-on-c_b_42802.html




Emanuel's blog entry is in reference to the conviction of Skeuter Libby on 4 of 5 counts of obstruction and purjury.  He contends that before the administration is done Cheney will be out and Rice will be veep.

However farfetched that may be -- what do you think the implications of the Libby trial are for Cheney?  The remainder of the Bush administration?  Should Libby be pardoned as the National Review calls for?  Do you think Bush will make an 11th hour pardon the way Clinton did?  Do you agree with the jury's contention that other members of the administration should have been on trial?
rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


1 posted 03-07-2007 10:54 AM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

Whoa, Nelly. This sort of amused me in a twisted way.

quote:
By: Noodle on March 06, 2007 at 04:33pm.
Makes sense to me. Cheney resigns, Bush replaces him with Condoleeza Rice, she wins the 2008 republican nomination for president, thus guaranteeing that Hillary Clinton wins the election.


Yes, farfetched, but very employable tactics. Now if this comes to pass: I can really make a "prediction."

See Dick go. See two women run without. See how far they get before another Dick wins.

Pardon my sense of humor, please. I hope they prove me wrong. I think.

"However farfetched that may be -- what do you think the implications of the Libby trial are for Cheney?"

Libby won't be invited to Cheney's annual Christmas party ever again.

I feel that anything that goes down at the White House will not include Bush or "The remainder of the Bush administration?" With a period. If they fall down we all fall down, especially those soldiers now deployed on foreign soil. I think we know who or what is holding them up, in a number of ways.

"Do you think Bush will make an 11th hour pardon the way Clinton did?"

Bush needs to beg pardon for a lot of things, but a man gone wrong will usually justify, justify, justify, while he throws down the gavel with all the power given him, especially that which makes him afraideth it be taken away.

"Do you agree with the jury's contention that other members of the administration should have been on trial?"

Sure, but they got an excused absence, and probably two milks and all the Twinkies they could eat, which explains the shelf life of Congress and the condoning of the "Twinkie defense," with many things going on inside the White House.
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


2 posted 03-07-2007 11:19 AM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

It all depends on who you ask.  The ubercons want President Bush to sidestep the Articles in the Constitution which created Seperation of Powers and directly prosecute or bring charges of Treason against select Democrats and Liberals for leaking or destroying classified documents.  On the other side,  uberlibs cheer the verdict and work towards Regime Change on one side of the mouth and state the trial and verdicts were not politically motivated out the other side.  When asked what they spoke about in brief conversations several days ago, the usually response is 'I'm not before a Grand Jury.' Nice duck n weave action.

But they never directly answer the question, since the answer is invariably, 'I don't recall exactly.'

The real interesting thing was this entire trial was NOT about 'who outted Valerie Plame', as the Prosecution had known about Armitage for many years.  It was about whether or not there had been perjury during the investigation where the Prosecution already had their catch, but were casting their nets for other fish.  Armitage was never charged.  Armitage helped the Prosecution.  Armitage was not permitted to go public for several years.  However, all over the AP line, it's 'Libby Convicted in CIA Leak Case' or 'Libby Verdict Indictment on Iraq War'.  Yet those same reporters are quick to say the trial was apolitical.

Wilson is recommended and sent by his string pulling wife to Niger for a 'yellow-cake' story.  Wilson comes back and submits his findings that Saddam had not actually gotten any.  White House says that Saddam tried though and would eventually succeed if unchecked.  Wilson didn't like that answer, so he releases his unauthorized report to media outlets and writes an Op-Ed citing Cheney as the one who sent him, when it was his wife.  In an interview with Novak a few days later, Armitage mentions who actually sent Wilson to Niger: 'his wife, yanno the one that works in the CIA'.  Novak knew who that was.  Most reporters in DC worth their salt knew who that was.  So Wilson, Plame and the Anti-War crowd cry Foul! and immediately implicate the White House, even though Armitage worked for the State Department.

Was Armitage brought to trial? No. Nice guy, powerlifter, raised about 50 adoptive kids, worked in the State Department.  Novak? Nope.  Berger?  Sorry, different crime and political affilation...over 700 days since he said he'd take a polygraph and counting.  What the Special Prosecution wanted was someone in the current White House and they tripped up Libby.

As Jurist Collins stated, they didn't want Libby, but Rove.  Interesting that during his 15-Minutes of Fame speech, Collins plugged himself as an author and reporter.  I don't think he's a current author, but I'm sure that will be rectified soon...and there would be some serious legal issues if was a newspaper reporter AND a jurist.  I could be wrong, but I think that's a disqualifier.  Unless he wasn't straight about his profession, in which case that would be a mistrail.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


3 posted 03-07-2007 01:07 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Convicted of perjury in lying to a grand jury...wow. Reminds me of another politician in the not-so-distant past in a much higher office. He should have just stuffed secret documents down his shorts and he would have been ok  

I was wondering where you all have been during the recent threads on Pelosi, Hillary and the like. I figured it wouldn't take long for this to show up....thanks for the predictability.
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


4 posted 03-07-2007 01:29 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

All I will say for now is that this president would benefit more politically pardoning Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, rather than Lewis Libby.

Who knows when that will happen?

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


5 posted 03-07-2007 07:04 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

I admit I haven't been listening to the right wing nuts lately so I guess, from reading Cat's and Deer's responses, that they're banging on Sandy Berger again trying to assuage any stinging sensation amongst the Conservative ranks over the conviction of Libby.  This, however, is not a partisan thread but, since there are misrepresentations, misunderstandings, and factual inaccuracies let's review the final outcome of the Berger case briefly;

quote:

On July 19, 2004, it was revealed that the U.S. Justice Department was investigating Berger for unlawfully mishandling classified documents in October 2003, by removing them from a National Archives reading room prior to testifying before the 9/11 Commission. The documents were commissioned from Richard Clarke covering internal assessments of the Clinton administration's handling of the unsuccessful 2000 millennium attack plots.

When initially questioned by reporters, Berger claimed that the removal of top-secret documents in his attache-case and handwritten notes in his jacket and pants pockets was accidental. He later, in a guilty plea, admitted to deliberately removing materials and then cutting them up with scissors.[13]

Berger eventually pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material on April 1, 2005. Under a plea agreement, U.S. attorneys recommended a fine of $10,000 and a loss of security clearance for three years. However, on September 8, U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson increased the fine to $50,000 at Berger's sentencing. Robinson stated, "The court finds the fine [recommended by government prosecutors] is inadequate because it doesn't reflect the seriousness of the offense."[14] Berger was also ordered to serve two years of probation and to perform 100 hours of community service.[15]

Critics believe Berger's motives were more sinister than a mere mishandling of classified documents. They suggest he destroyed primary evidence revealing anti-terrorism policies and actions, and that his motive was to permanently erase Clinton administration pre-9/11 mistakes from the public record. Public statements to this effect have been made by talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh,[16] former Clinton campaign advisor Dick Morris,[17] USA Today reporter Jack Kelley,[18] multiple times by Fox News correspondent John Gibson (the last as recently as December 2006[19]), and former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (Republican-Illinois), who said: "What information could be so embarrassing that a man with decades of experience in handling classified documents would risk being caught pilfering our nation's most sensitive secrets?"[20]

After a long investigation, the lead prosecutor Noel Hillman, chief of the Justice Department's public integrity section, stated that Berger only removed classified copies of data stored on hard drives stored in the National Archives, and that no original material was destroyed.[21] His and the FBI's opinion of the case initially led The Wall Street Journal to editorialize against the allegations, stating in part:

“ Justice says the picture that emerged is of a man who knowingly and recklessly violated the law in handling classified documents, but who was not trying to hide any evidence. Prosecutors believe Mr. Berger genuinely wanted to prepare for his testimony before the 9/11 Commission but felt he was somehow above having to spend numerous hours in the Archives as the rules required, and that he didn't exactly know how to return the documents once he'd taken them out... We called Justice Department Public Integrity chief prosecutor Noel Hillman, who assured us that Mr. Berger did not deny any documents to history. 'There is no evidence that he intended to destroy originals,' said Mr. Hillman. 'There is no evidence that he did destroy originals. We have objectively and affirmatively confirmed that the contents of all the five documents at issue exist today and were made available to the 9/11 Commission.'[22] ”

Despite prosecutors' statements, some critics continued to make unsubstantiated allegations. This led The Wall Street Journal to reiterate its position, stating "Some people won't let a bad conspiracy theory go". The paper went on to say: "The confusion seems to stem from the mistaken idea that there were handwritten notes by various Clinton Administration officials in the margins of these documents, which Mr. Berger may have been able to destroy. But that's simply an 'urban myth,' prosecutor Hillman tells us, based on a leak last July that was 'so inaccurate as to be laughable.' In fact, the five iterations of the anti-terror 'after-action' report at issue in the case were printed out from a hard drive at the Archives and have no notations at all."[23]

On December 20, 2006, more than a year after Berger plead guilty and was sentenced, a report issued by the archives inspector detailed how Berger had perpetrated the crime. Inspector General Paul Brachfeld reported that Berger took a break to go outside without an escort. "In total, during this visit, he removed four documents ... Mr. Berger said he placed the documents under a trailer in an accessible construction area outside Archives 1 (the main Archives building)." Berger acknowledged that he later retrieved the documents from the construction area and returned with them to his office.[24][25]

The report also stated "There were not any handwritten notes on the documents Mr. Berger removed from the archives. Mr. Berger did not believe there was unique information in the three documents he destroyed. Mr. Berger never made any copies of these documents." In the end, according to the report, "[Mr. Berger] substituted his sense of sensitivity instead of thinking of classification" in deciding to remove the documents.[26]

In January 2007, departing Republican staff of The United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform released a report titled Sandy Berger's Theft of Classified Documents: Unanswered Questions. It states that the FBI or the Department of Justice never questioned Berger about two earlier visits he made on May 30, 2002 and July 18 2003, when he reviewed White House working papers not yet inventoried by the National Archives, and speculates that, had Berger previously been entirely successful in actions at which he was later caught, "nobody would know they were gone." It also contains the FBI's statement as to why they concluded there was no exposure on those dates: "Berger was under constant supervision".[27][15] Despite senior Bush Administration officials giving the report's authors highly unusual access to internal information about an ongoing DOJ investigation,[28] the report contains no new facts that the career prosecutors handling the case overlooked.

The report did, however, cause the Wall Street Journal to, in January 2007, retract their initial opinion of the case, saying there are substantial questions concerning the truth of Berger's statements and that other documents may have been removed. They now argue that Berger's taking of multiple copies of the same document contradict his statement that he took them only for his personal research, since they note that he could have simply kept his copy. However neither they, nor the committee report, detail an alternate theory in which multiple thefts of the same document are key.[29][30] Mr. Berger continues to insist that he took the copies of the same document for personal convenience, and thought them overclassified (i.e. the information they contained was not actually sensitive to national security).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Berger#Convicted_of_mishandling_classified_terror_documents




I'm not really sure how, although I think I may understand why, anyone still thinks there are any teeth to the Sandy Berger docugate drama -- especially after the Conservative newspaper the Wall Street Journal issued this op-ed on April 8, 2005;

quote:

Some people won't let a bad conspiracy theory go. We're referring to those who loudly assert that former NSC adviser Sandy Berger was trying to protect the Clinton Administration when he illegally removed copies of sensitive documents from the National Archives in late 2003.

On Wednesday, we quoted Justice Department prosecutor Noel Hillman that no original documents were destroyed, and that the contents of all five at issue still exist and were made available to the 9/11 Commission. But that point didn't register with some readers, who continue to suggest a vast, well, apparently a vast left- and right-wing conspiracy. The Washington Times, the Rocky Mountain News and former Clintonite Dick Morris have also been peddling dark suspicions based on misinformation.

The confusion seems to stem from the mistaken idea that there were handwritten notes by various Clinton Administration officials in the margins of these documents, which Mr. Berger may have been able to destroy. But that's simply an "urban myth," prosecutor Hillman tells us, based on a leak last July that was "so inaccurate as to be laughable." In fact, the five iterations of the anti-terror "after-action" report at issue in the case were printed out from a hard drive at the Archives and have no notations at all.

--conservatives don't do themselves any credit when they are as impervious to facts as the loony left.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006534




quote:

I was wondering where you all have been during the recent threads on Pelosi, Hillary and the like.



I can't speak for anyone but myself, and even that would be hard to say since - I haven't really noticed any threads lately besides the Gay-Rights Activists bashing one -- but, it's possible I was shoveling snow, playing guitar, building guitars,  having my truck totaled by a moron who thought he could do anything because he had an SUV with all-wheel-drive, spending time with my kids,  or doing something else that actually interested me.

Regina

quote:

and writes an Op-Ed citing Cheney as the one who sent him, when it was his wife



three CIA officials testified that Wilson's trip was in fact in direct response to Cheney's inquiry as stated by Wilson.

quote:

Most reporters in DC worth their salt knew who that was. So Wilson, Plame and the Anti-War crowd cry Foul! and immediately implicate the White House, even though Armitage worked for the State Department.




From the facts of this case we know that Rove and, of course, Libby, two White House officials -- were in fact spreading the word too -- the fact that Armitage leaked to Novak and that he was the first to take the bait does nothing to exonerate the White House -- in fact --it was the jury's contention that Cheney directed Libby to do the leaking.

I didn't think there was anyone left who was still trying to cast doubt on the covert status of Plame.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


6 posted 03-07-2007 10:04 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19720

I think Ann sums it up well.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


7 posted 03-07-2007 10:09 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Her summary is completely fatuous and inaccurate.
Not A Poet
Member Elite
since 11-03-1999
Posts 4427
Oklahoma, USA


8 posted 03-08-2007 12:53 AM       View Profile for Not A Poet   Email Not A Poet   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Not A Poet's Home Page   View IP for Not A Poet

Well, of course you would say that. True, she hyperbolized it a bit but where is it inacurate?
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


9 posted 03-08-2007 01:14 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

It's illegal to be a Republican?
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


10 posted 03-08-2007 01:28 AM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

Sanding aside from the more political aspect of the pardon debate here, it seems it could be argued that Libby currently doesn't even qualify for a presidential pardon under Justice Department guidelins as they are currently written:

United States Department of Justice: Office of the Pardon Attorney

Pardon Attorney Roger C. Adams

"The Office of the Pardon Attorney, in consultation with the Attorney General or his designee, assists the President in the exercise of executive clemency as authorized under Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution. Under the Constitution, the President's clemency power extends only to federal criminal offenses. All requests for executive clemency for federal offenses are directed to the Pardon Attorney for investigation and review. The Pardon Attorney prepares the Department's recommendation to the President for final disposition of each application. Executive clemency may take several forms, including pardon, commutation of sentence, remission of fine or restitution, and reprieve."


*

Newsweek: March 7, 2007

As a new Newsweek commentary also explains, according to those very guidelines:

*

"They 'require a petitioner to wait a period of at least five years after conviction or release from confinement (whichever is later) before filing a pardon application,'  according to the Justice Web site."

*

Now, of course the president has every right to waive those rules if he wishes to, but as is also pointed out:

*

"From the day he took office, Bush seems to have followed those guidelines religiously. He's taken an exceedingly stingy approach to pardons, granting only 113 in six years, mostly for relatively minor fraud, embezzlement and drug cases dating back more than two decades. Bush’s pardons are 'fewer than any president in 100 years,' according to Margaret Love, former pardon attorney at the Justice Department."

*

Thus, would it be fair to say, setting aside personal feelings for Mr. Libby, the Iraq war and the politics of the trial itself here for a moment, that such a pardon in the more immediate future would feel rather awkward when considering how the president has approached these particular guidelines intensely?

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


11 posted 03-08-2007 09:03 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Berger claimed that the removal of top-secret documents in his attache-case and handwritten notes in his jacket and pants pockets was accidental. (Somehow it is failed to mention his socks and underwear). He later, in a guilty plea, admitted to deliberately removing materials and then cutting them up with scissors.

Mr. Berger said he placed the documents under a trailer in an accessible construction area outside Archives 1 (the main Archives building)." Berger acknowledged that he later retrieved the documents from the construction area and returned with them to his office
  (would you care to come up with any scenario that would cause him to place them in a construction area and then retrieve them....me, neither)
"I'm not really sure how, although I think I may understand why, anyone still thinks there are any teeth to the Sandy Berger docugate drama" - LR

REALLY? (Ron didn't buy all of the swampland I have for sale down here, There are a few acres left if you're interested )

You may not have written this as a partisan thread but the fact remains.....had Berger been a Republican, he would have been crucified. Had Libby been a Democrat he would have skated......such is life in the 5th Estate....and occasionally in Alleys.
rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


12 posted 03-08-2007 03:24 PM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

quote:
As a result, Democrats have run wild, accepting bribes, destroying classified information, lying under oath, molesting interns, driving under the influence, obstructing justice and engaging in sex with underage girls, among other things.


WHAT? You're kidding Me!

Bunch of Hooligans!!

I'm appalled.

quote:
Criminal prosecution is a surrogate for political warfare, but in this war, Republicans are gutless appeasers.


She said it. I didn't. So is that the Democrat's fault?

Maybe the Republicans need to pay more attention to who is funding them. It could be a conspiracy. Get what you pay for. Set up a  shoo-in. Strike when he's in office...sound crazy?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/16/terror/main2488520.shtml

We'd better be equally concerned about who's underneath the platforms.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


13 posted 03-08-2007 04:48 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Hey, rwood....may as well look at both sides, no? Unfortunately, both sides could use a little more diligence..

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/12/31/135301.shtml  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Chung  

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/2/21/181251.shtml

This one is the best, with an excerpt below....   http://prorev.com/wwstats.htm

CAMPAIGN FINANCE INVESTIGATION
- As of June 2000, the Justice Department listed 25 people indicted and 19 convicted because of the 1996 Clinton-Gore fundraising scandals.
- According to the House Committee on Government Reform in September 2000, 79 House and Senate witnesses asserted the Fifth Amendment in the course of investigations into Gore's last fundraising campaign. [These figures are included in the larger figures elsewhere].
-James Riady entered a plea agreement to pay an $8.5 million fine for campaign finance crimes. This was a record under campaign finance laws.


- Number of times John Huang took the 5th Amendment in answer to questions during a Judicial Watch deposition: 1,000
- Visits made to the White House by investigation subjects Johnny Chung, James Riady, John Huang, and Charlie Trie. 160
- Number of campaign contributors who got overnights at the White House in the two years before the 1996 election: 577
- Number of members of Thomas Boggs's law firm who have held top positions in the Clinton administration. 18
- Number of times John Huang was briefed by CIA: 37
- Number of calls Huang made from Commerce Department to Lippo banks: 261
- Number of intelligence reports Huang read while at Commerce: 500

[This message has been edited by Ron (03-08-2007 05:42 PM).]

rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


14 posted 03-08-2007 05:00 PM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

Yep. It's all ugly money. Dirty, scammin', and shameful.

Democratic, Republican, no matter, tho the one I listed was most recent, I think.

I'm glad you brought those back up, Mike. Maybe people will take a look at how much Hillary Knew about it, participated in it, and now she's ridin' a new wave of it. Maybe that's why Gore is comfy outside the White House, in a convenient sort of way.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


15 posted 03-08-2007 06:08 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

You may not have written this as a partisan thread but the fact remains.....had Berger been a Republican, he would have been crucified. Had Libby been a Democrat he would have skated......such is life in the 5th Estate....and occasionally in Alleys.  



Your recollection of the definition of the word 'fact' has apparently gotten a little foggy -- maybe you can get Essorant to look it up for you.

Let's see -- did anybody skate here?  Berger committed a crime, lied about it, got caught in the lie, confessed to the crime, was tried and convicted in a plea-bargain.

Libby had the opportunity to cooperate but instead chose to plead innocent -- was tried, found guilty.

The Republicans were in control of the Justice Department for both incidents.  (Notice the word 'Department' -- take note of what it is a department of.)

If you think Berger got away with something you need to write a letter to GW and complain about it.

If you think Libby was persecuted -- you need to write a letter to the CIA and ask them why they referred the matter to the Justice Department to begin with if you, indeed, think Valerie Plame wasn't a covert agent -- since the CIA obviously confirms that she was.  

If you think Fitzgerald was biased you need to write a letter and complain to the Justice Department and complain about them recusing themselves and appointing a Republican prosecutor.

[edit instead of submitting back-to-back posts]

quote:

Well, of course you would say that. True, she hyperbolized it a bit but where is it inacurate?



That's a fair and honest question Pete -- but, I don't think the heavy lifting belongs to me -- I think it belongs to anyone who wants to assert that Coulter's statements are accurate:

quote:

Lewis Libby has now been found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice for lies that had absolutely no legal consequence.



I'm going to bet that it wouldn't be a hard search to find Coulter calling for Clinton's impeachment and removal of office for perjury charges that she thought were imperative at the time.

Of course -- she's copping the same argument that Hillary used -- vast, right-wing conspiracy -- if you changed the names -- you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference.

I'll give you a leg-up though, or, whomever wants to try to prove Ann right -- start with the Grand Jury Indictment and findings of fact:
http://files.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/plame/usvlibby102805ind.pdf

or try wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_plame

I'm not even going to address the rest of her nonsense as it has absolutely no bearing on this thread.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


16 posted 03-08-2007 07:26 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

If you think Berger got away with something you need to write...
If you think Libby was persecuted -- you need to write.....
If you think Fitzgerald was biased you need to write....


You have an interesting way of expressing my needs, LR

if you, indeed, think Valerie Plame wasn't a covert agent

Of course she had been. Do you really think that's important in the Libby case?

.... or doing something else that actually interested me.

Exactly my point. The topics on Hillary, Pelosi or the Democratic Senate are uninteresting to you but let a Republican item come up, and....viola!  Anyway, good to see you back, even if it takes a partisan thought to do it.......or HAD you initiated an Alley thread on Berger when it happened, too, and I just missed it?

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


17 posted 03-08-2007 07:51 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

I'm really not sure what you think you would gain by trying to paint me as a partisan Mike -- but it must be awfully important for some reason.

So, since you've picked this time, this place to attempt it (again) -- elaborate for us -- what do you get?

If you want to look around there's plenty of evidence that I don't like Bush, I don't like Hillary.  I'm not swayed by tunagate Mike.

quote:

Of course she had been. Do you really think that's important in the Libby case?



I think it is important to the nation and the world Mike -- and it is the central crime that was under investigation when Libby perpetrated his crimes for which he's been convicted -- which doesn't mean that he and others are not guilty of the central crime any more than Al Capone wasn't a ganster because he was convicted only of Tax Evasion.

There will be no further responses from the thread author on Sandy Berger -- if you want one -- make it yourself -- or resurrect the one Cat beat me to.

If you can come up with something interesting -- I'll participate Mike.
Not A Poet
Member Elite
since 11-03-1999
Posts 4427
Oklahoma, USA


18 posted 03-08-2007 11:59 PM       View Profile for Not A Poet   Email Not A Poet   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Not A Poet's Home Page   View IP for Not A Poet

To the contrary Reb. I think we all remember most of these facts Ann Coulter mentioned, at least superficially. There is plenty evidence there so that you don't get off by claiming it all lies and then cleim it is her responsibility to prove it. If she were the only one making those claims then I could accept your disclaimer without evidence. But to just deny it all as lies is pretty weak. That's more of a John Kerry tactic. Be serious. Unless your head has been somewhere, like buried in the sand, for the last year or two, you've heard all that many times before. You just flushed your credibility right down the tubes if you expect to get away with that.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


19 posted 03-09-2007 12:09 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Not at all Pete -- I gave you plenty of evidence -- follow the links -- read for yourself.

I'm not going to point out the pertinant parts to you.  Not my job.

I don't have to retry the case -- read the Grand Jury indictment, read the Wikipedia pages, listen to the jurors -- read a newspaper.

I'm not going to spend hours creating posts in response to people who make sideswipes at threads with single sentence potshots -- you put some time in -- I'll put time in.
iliana
Member Patricius
since 12-05-2003
Posts 13488
USA


20 posted 03-09-2007 01:38 AM       View Profile for iliana   Email iliana   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for iliana

Ann Coulter is the queen of spin.  I can't believe this thread has come down to someone defending her...in my book she is a self-aggrandizing know-it-all and I have no respect for her opinion on anything.  I like her less than I like Hiliary Clinton (if that is possible).  

Reb, as far as Libby goes...I've heard there's quite a large pool building on whether or not Bush will pardon him.  I think I will vote with a "no."  No pardon...that is unless Cheney resigns, and then....I'll change that to a "yes."  The chances of Cheney resigning are slim though, I think.  The implications of the verdict do suggest he should.  

The way Mike would play things on this thread, you would think that nothing wrong was done.  It's the whole thing here that troubles me in that it appears to me that the war in Iraq was premised on faulty or manufactured intelligence and when the Plames would not cooperate with producing what was desired, Valerie was outted.  Tell me that outting a CIA agent doesn't intimidate the heck out of the whole agency.  Libby's lie was certainly a very important one and done for some very important reason or reasons.  I am glad someone made a big deal out of this case and took it to trial.  

We'll have to wait and see what comes out when Plame testifies in front of the House of Representatives on the 16th.  Should be interesting.  

I find it fascinating how people who would like to turn this thread into a partisan brawl don't have much to say about the real matter at hand; e.g., the possibility of impeachment.  

Oh, and ah....I have a pretty bad case of the flu so this just might end up being a drive by.  At least, you got two cents.  
rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


21 posted 03-09-2007 06:53 AM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

quote:
It's the whole thing here that troubles me in that it appears to me that the war in Iraq was premised on faulty or manufactured intelligence and when the Plames would not cooperate with producing what was desired, Valerie was outted.


Bingo! They couldn't produce what wasn't there.

It's the old "Kansas City Shuffle" of information.

Valerie is definitely out. Libby is out. Who's next?

"when Plame testifies in front of the House of Representatives on the 16th."

We'll have to see, but I'll bet 1 clean dollar it will be Nobody, under these particular charges. Maybe under something else that eventually gets outted, but not from anything to do with the trip to Africa.

They'll crucify her first.
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


22 posted 03-09-2007 10:45 AM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

Testifing before the Senate?  That should indeed be fun.

Question?  Classified.  Clarify?  Plead 5th.
Question?  Classified.  Clarify?  Plead 5th.

Plus, since it's a bunch of self-righteous windbags on both sides of the aisle instead of, say, a Grand Jury, Plame could tell them lies and they couldn't do a thing to her.  Nor does she have to answer the summons.  Nor does she have to say anything.  Odds are though, she'll be very 'cooperative' up to a point, so long as the point is anti-war and anti-Bush.  After that, it'll be 'classified' and 5th.

Back to the case, how odd that despite the pleadings of the Special Prosecutor before the Media jury that the verdict was NOT about Iraq and was NOT about Plame but about Perjury that it still became about Iraq and Plame.  Well, that's not really odd come to think of it, that's just the Media.  Like a terrier, once they latch on to an idea, like every-conflict-is-Vietnam-unless-a-Democrat-does-it, they don't let go.  They just worry and shake that notion all over the place no matter how threadbare and nonsensicle it is.  Afterall, proclaim a lie often enough and folks will make it truth, with the onus of disproving the lies on those who call it such.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


23 posted 03-09-2007 06:30 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

and it is the central crime that was under investigation when Libby perpetrated his crimes for which he's been convicted --

Sorry but what was the central crime involving Libby and what crime was he convicted of? Lying to a grand jury or something, wasn't it? About what crime? Or was it lying to a grand jury about a non-crime? Has anyone been accused of an actual crime here? Will the real criminal please stand up...or, at least, the real crime?
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


24 posted 03-09-2007 06:53 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Jo,
quote:

Reb, as far as Libby goes...I've heard there's quite a large pool building on whether or not Bush will pardon him.  I think I will vote with a "no."  No pardon...that is unless Cheney resigns, and then....I'll change that to a "yes."  The chances of Cheney resigning are slim though, I think.  The implications of the verdict do suggest he should.  



Do you think Bush's response was interestingly phrased?  He said he respected the decision of the jury -- then he praised Libby's public service and expressed sympathy for him and his family -- he's yet to express sympathy or an apology to Joe and Valerie for the conduct of his administration though.  I think my best guess based on that is a pardon is coming -- I'm not sure if it's sooner or later though -- I think that if a judge orders Libby into custody while his appeal is pending the pardon will come sooner -- if he allows Libby to stay out until the appeal can happen then I think the pardon will probably come at the last minute possible.  Experts don't think there were any mistakes that would merit an appeal though and don't think that it's going to get any traction -- so, it may be coming sooner.

I agree though -- I don't think it's likely that Cheney will resign.

Hope you feel better soon.  

Reg;
quote:

We'll have to see, but I'll bet 1 clean dollar it will be Nobody, under these particular charges. Maybe under something else that eventually gets outted, but not from anything to do with the trip to Africa.

They'll crucify her first.



There is probably enough evidence from the Grand Jury investigation and Libby's trial for the Congress to charge the Vice-President -- but, I'm not hearing any rumblings in the machine that indicate anything like that is going to happen.

I'm curious about your comment re: 'crucify her' -- can you clarify your thoughts on that?  Are you thinking the Republicans on the committee will try to skewer her the way the Dems did Clarence Thomas (and the Republicans weren't in power then and the Dems were)?  If so -- I don't think the Dems are going to let Plame twist in the wind.

Cat:
What would Plame need to plead the 5th for?  The committe has appropriate security clearance to review classified information -- so I don't think that's going to be an issue.

Lying to Congress is just as much a crime as perjury -- failing to appear can get a Contempt of Congress charge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress.

quote:

They just worry and shake that notion all over the place no matter how threadbare and nonsensicle it is.  Afterall, proclaim a lie often enough and folks will make it truth, with the onus of disproving the lies on those who call it such.



What lie Cat?  What notion is threadbare -- Fitzgerald and the Grand Jury laid out the details in the Indictment.  Who is lying here (besides Libby)?
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> The Emanuel Clock   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors