Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

cicerone imposter wrote:

"...doesn't seem to be correct..." leaves it as a question. Comprende?

Well, Cicerone, WHAT information seems incorrect except for what's in the ARTICLE which you have not read? Will summarize tomorrow if you insist, however:)

0 Replies

Today appearing as promised to apologize to Cicerone for fact will be unable to summarize said article until at least Monday due to work overload.

Perhaps Tico could do it instead?

0 Replies

High Seas, Please show us in your article where it shows "...doesn't seen correct..." is wrong? FYI, there's a huge difference between "it isn't correct," and "doesn't seem correct." Where did you go to school?

0 Replies

High Seas wrote:

Today appearing as promised to apologize to Cicerone for fact will be unable to summarize said article until at least Monday due to work overload.

Perhaps Tico could do it instead?

Alas, I'm sharing in your work overload troubles, HoT.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

High Seas, Please show us in your article where it shows "...doesn't seen correct..." is wrong? FYI, there's a huge difference between "it isn't correct," and "doesn't seem correct." Where did you go to school?

You are the one who said, "it doesn't seem correct." The fact is you said that because you reached a conclusion. You concluded that the article didn't seem correct to you, apparently because somehow you managed to hear about Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. And apparently you reached that conclusion -- and felt strongly enough about that conclusion to post it here on A2K -- without having actually read the article you think "doesn't seem correct."

You posited that her article "doesn't seem correct," without having read it ... and now you think she should explain where in her article it proves that you don't know what you're talking about? Laughing

Don't you think that's rather like suggesting the Theory of Relativity "doesn't seem correct," and asking Einstein to explain how his theory proves you wrong? Rolling Eyes

But the funniest part is you slipping in an attempt to insult her intelligence there at the end. It always cracks me up when you do that.

Read the article yourself if you are interested in learning something about the topic.

0 Replies

Ticomaya, Where did you learn the Englsih language? "It doesn't seem correct" leave it open for challenge. None has been forthcoming, except useless blather. Do you know the difference between "it's not correct" and what I wrote?

0 Replies

Please elucidate.

0 Replies

I know hopeless when I see one.

0 Replies

Yep.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Yep.

"Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule."

Friedrich Nietzsche

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Here is a strong piece saying that the outing of Plame was treason. It also provides a list of impeachable offenses by the Bush/Cheney duo.

http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/2938/81/

I've read the last few pages of this thread, and now this article posted by Advocate, good grief, if this does not illustrate the loony left grasping at straws, I don't know what does? The loony left is truly a bunch of whackos.

The very first supposed lie in the link provided, and the one that the left has worked tirelessly to build since the Iraq war started is that Bush lied us into war. The fallacy of this is flatly proven as nonsense by one of their own heros, Valerie Plame herself, that admitted she was scared to death of WMD harming our soldiers when they entered Iraq. It was her specialty in the CIA to know about this, and it was the CIA that provided the intelligence in regard to WMD to Bush. I suppose Bush was supposed to have done his own intelligence? It was Bush's fault for listening to the CIA. Yes, Bush should have gone to Iraq himself and gathered the information.

Everything is Bush's fault. If I have learned anything from the loony left, everything is Bush's fault, and running through the list in the link, they are all nothing but grasping at straws, the last one being Hurricane Katrina was Bush's fault. It was Bush's fault that Nagin and the governor of Louisiana was too stupid to order the evacuation of New Orleans until Bush finally called the governor and told her to evacuate the city. And it was Bush's fault that Nagin was too stupid to use empty buses to bus the people out of the city, because after all, where would you bus them? That was Nagin's statement, remember? I don't suppose it would occur to him that higher ground would be a good option. It was Bush's fault also that he did not tell Nagin to take the people to higher ground.

The Hurricane Katrina issue that the left has worked so tirelessly to blame on Bush is one of the biggest revelations of how stupid the left must think people are. If anyone has half a brain to remember what happened, and what we all saw on TV, 5 days out, 3 days out, 24 hours out, with all the predictions, nobody in their right mind can claim the people were not warned to leave the city. I'm sorry, but it was the mayor and the governor where the blame squarely belongs. If Bush had not called the governor to tell her what to do, that she should have already had enough brains to do but didn't, the death toll would have been higher.

I am waiting for the loons to impeach Bush, let the proceedings begin, I can't wait.

P.S. The same people calling Bush and Cheney crooks and liars want to elect Hillary? These people truly are whacked out.

0 Replies

The house has to make the charge of impeachment, and the senate is supposed to oversee the proceedings. It ain't gonna happen.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

The house has to make the charge of impeachment, and the senate is supposed to oversee the proceedings. It ain't gonna happen.

Most sane people have known that for a long time, imposter, but some leftists still sit around and fantacize about it, so I only throw out the challenge to such people after I read a link such as Advocate posted, that is based on nothing but fantasy and grasping at straws, as they desperately still hope to find one issue that will ever prove credible enough to finally indicate what they so desperately want to believe.

0 Replies

Quote:

Libby to Drop Appeal in CIA Leak Case

By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer
7:38 AM PST, December 10, 2007
WASHINGTON -- Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby is dropping his appeal in the CIA leak case, his attorney said Monday.

Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was convicted of perjury and obstruction for lying about his conversations with reporters about outed CIA operative Valerie Plame.

"We remain firmly convinced of Mr. Libby's innocence," attorney Theodore Wells said. "However, the realities were, that after five years of government service by Mr. Libby and several years of defending against this case, the burden on Mr. Libby and his young family of continuing to pursue his complete vindication are too great to ask them to bear."

Wells said he has not discussed a possible pardon with the president and does not know what Bush will do.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wire/ats-ap_top12dec10,0,579780.story?coll=la-ap-topnews-headlines

Not very likely a truthful narrative here. About zero chance of it, I'd say.

"years of service"... we won't mention Nixon's years of service
"burden on the young family"... the fragility of the young, which accounts for the minimal sentences given to, say, young black fathers found with marijuana
"too great to bear"... yes, the poor fellow is without even a hint of charitable monied friends to help out
"hasn't discussed pardon with Bush"... and as Bush is the only person in the WH and administration, clearly a pardon is crystal ball stuff. No way of knowing. A personal conversation with Bush is necessary for anything to get done or changed in washington.

The chances of this GJ verdict being overturned are determined to be zilch or close. Going forward with an appeal isn't only legally useless but also will merely work to draw the public's and the media's attention back to this matter and possibly further into it. That's a big fat lose for republican PR and likely risks the danger of further revelations and perhaps others being brought before a GJ.

Pardon? Uncertain? Right.

Calling all republicans with confidence in the integrity of the WH and this process. Calling all republicans with personal integrity.

Does anyone on this board wish to engage me in a wager? $1000 dollars at 2 to 1 odds that there is a pardon.

Takers?

0 Replies

Quote:

AP

I'm looking forward to the Editor and Publisher assessment of the two little news tidbits.

0 Replies

I am looking forward to the loony left on here trying to explain why Bush didnt pardon Libby, after they were so sure he would.
That should be interesting to see them trying to spin it to somehow blame Bush for not pardoning him.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

I am looking forward to the loony left on here trying to explain why Bush didnt pardon Libby, after they were so sure he would.
That should be interesting to see them trying to spin it to somehow blame Bush for not pardoning him.

C'mon, man.

If he's pardoned, he can't assert his 5th amendment right to not testify about what happened. Congress could call him in and make him testify about the whole affair, or face jailtime.

This is why Bush didn't pardon him in the first place, but only commuted his sentence and got rich Republicans to pay his fine for him.

This stuff is elementary if you take a second to think about things, mm

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

blatham said...

Quote:

Does anyone on this board wish to engage me in a wager? $1000 dollars at 2 to 1 odds that there is a pardon.

Takers?

I'll take that bet!!

Quote:

If he's pardoned, he can't assert his 5th amendment right to not testify about what happened. Congress could call him in and make him testify about the whole affair, or face jailtime.

This is why Bush didn't pardon him in the first place, but only commuted his sentence and got rich Republicans to pay his fine for him.

This stuff is elementary if you take a second to think about things, mm

Cycloptichorn

He can assert his 5th amendment rights anytime he wants, there is no limitation on that.

The left has been so certain that Bush would pardon him that I am curious how they are going to explain why it didnt happen.

0 Replies

Quote:

He can assert his 5th amendment rights anytime he wants, there is no limitation on that.

You are 100% incorrect about this. A suspect cannot assert a right not to self-indemnify if he has already been pardoned, or if he has been given immunity by Congress.

Want to place a bet on it?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

He can assert his 5th amendment rights anytime he wants, there is no limitation on that.

You are 100% incorrect about this. A suspect cannot assert a right not to self-indemnify if he has already been pardoned, or if he has been given immunity by Congress.

Want to place a bet on it?

Cycloptichorn

I dont know enough to bet on it, but I would like you to show me anything in the constitution or in case law somewhere that says that.

0 Replies

Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know