Originally Posted By jonvn "Why don't you lay it out for me?" Because it's already been done a couple times, by me and another person who is a lawyer. I don't see why doing it again would be anything but a waste of time.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I don't see why doing it again would be anything but a waste of time.> Certainly, repeating the same generalities again when I keep asking for specifics would be a waste of time.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By jonvn Anyway: Libby is convicted, and the usual reactionaries on the board are trying to change the subject. It's one more black eye (how many eyes can they have?) for Bush & Co. In a few years, we'll see just how corrupt this organization was, and I don't think history will be too kind to them.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I love how Doug is demanding how others here have to explain this verdict to him. It's being explained all over all manner of media. But let's try this: Doug seems to be insisting on applying his own standards in this case, standards which don't have any relevancy. That's not meant to be an insult, but an observation. He wants "specifics". Well, he's been given as much specificity as is available. While investigating the matter of the Plame case, Fitzgerald interview countless people. Among them, Libby. During his investigation, when compared to the information he gathered from others, it became apparent to Fitzgerald that Libby was not in sync with other deponents. His version of events did not correspond with others. He said things that seemed designed to deflect Fitzgerald's attention away from where the investigation was going, compared the answers he got elsewhere. After a while, Fitzgerald concluded that this was not soem innocent mistake, but an obvious attempt to deceive. Once that happens, an indictment usually follows. And that's all there is to know. It doesn't get more "specific" than that. It there as a crime committed, Fitzgerald can't be sure one way or another because Libby obfuscated the facts. One day he said red, the next day the answer to the same question was green. It's akin to "the stolen money is in the safe, no it's in the closet, no I have no idea, wait a minute, nothing was stolen, oh, my bad, Smith stole it, oh, forget it, nothing's missing." And after enough of that, Fitzgerald said the hell with it, if that's how Libby wants to play it, he goes down for screwing with him. And essentially, that's what has happened. Libby purposely made a jumble out of Fitzgerald's investigation and now he pays. That's as "specific" as it gets.
Originally Posted By jonvn I think that pretty much explains it. AGAIN. I mean, you go and rob a bank, and they catch you and you are convicted. It's a crime to rob a bank. It's a crime to obstruct justice, or lie to the FBI. Geeze.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I love how Doug is demanding how others here have to explain this verdict to him.> I'm not demanding; I'm simply asking. If I ask a question that can't be answered, there's no harm in not answering it, and there's no reason to be insulting. <After a while, Fitzgerald concluded that this was not soem innocent mistake, but an obvious attempt to deceive. Once that happens, an indictment usually follows.> And I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is your whole next paragraph. It's all conjecture - there is simply no evidence that what Mr Libby said in his testimony could have possibly interfered with whether Ms Plame was covered by the law and, if so, who gave her name to Mr Novak.
Originally Posted By jonvn "there is simply no evidence that what Mr Libby said in his testimony could have possibly interfered" I guess the jury, who actually saw the evidence at trial, thought otherwise.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "And I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is your whole next paragraph. It's all conjecture - there is simply no evidence that what Mr Libby said in his testimony could have possibly interfered with whether Ms Plame was covered by the law and, if so, who gave her name to Mr Novak." You.Don't.Get.It. You continue to insist on applying standards that aren't there and/or required. It isn't conjecture, it is what happened, otherwise there would be no conviction(s). His statements obstructed the investigation. He obstructed by not being truthful. If there was such a thing as Obstruction Per Se, this would be it. By virtue of his lies, he obstructed. His lies cast doubt on the credibility of everything he said, thus preventing Fitzgerald from moving forward. He refused to be the piece that fit. Since this investigation covered much classified ground, this is as specific as you're going to get. If you truly don't understand this, well, you're right, you're not that stupid. One is left with nothing else to conclude that you just can't accept that maybe others have been right about the corruption in this Administration. Libby's convictions are indeed a sad thing. He's a bright guy, albeit not too bright, or he wouldn't have allowed himself to take a bullet for someone else or others.
Originally Posted By jonvn Ollie North, or Admiral Poindexter did the same thing, I believe, back in the Reagan years. They came out ok. North has, or had, a radio talk show. But he shredded documents. His secretary stated to Congress "Sometimes you just have to go above the law." That's the mindset.
Originally Posted By gadzuux I agree with STPs assessment of doug's motivation here. He privately thinks that libby was railroaded by some "liberal activist court" and that the evidence doesn't support the convictions. But he can't come out and actually say that because he knows he can't defend it afterwards. So instead he ponders aloud about 'why' and 'what the specifics' were. Its sifting through tea leaves for answers, and ultimately it's a red herring - the results are what counts here - and the result is that libby is now a convicted felon on federal charges. In the meantime, he nicely redirected the thread away from too many scathing reports about the rampant corruption within the administration that doug supports. Being a republican seems to be all about rationalization - and far-fetched ones at that. These rickety constructs allow the person to continue their support by allowing for the slimmest of unplausible explanations for blatantly obvious malfeasance.
Originally Posted By gadzuux From today's sfgate - good 'analysis piece' ... <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/03/07/MNGG9OGQF41.DTL" target="_blank">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/03/07/MNGG9OGQF41.DTL</a> ANALYSIS In public's mind, White House is guilty one excerpt - >> Testimony showed that President Bush either was lying about the White House's role in outing a CIA officer at the center of the scandal or was kept in the dark by top aides who defied his orders to come forward. "I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information,'' Bush declared in September 2003. "If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know about it, and we'll take the appropriate action. ... I want to know who the leakers are.'' Testimony at the trial made plain that when Bush spoke those words, Karl Rove, his top political aide; Ari Fleischer, his press secretary; Richard Armitage, the No. 2 man at the State Department; and Libby had each discussed the matter, on background, with reporters. << Interesting point - bush is triangulated on this one - he can't say anything, so he doesn't - other than to express sympathy for the libby family. But guess what - he lied. As for his high-profile promise to "take the appropriate action" when the leakers are found, whaddya bet that means a presidential pardon? Of course he'll wait until the last death-rattle breath of his term. I can only hope that he's stupid enough to grant a pardon before the `08 election. That would really clinch it for the dems.
Originally Posted By jonvn "he nicely redirected the thread away from too many scathing reports about the rampant corruption within the administration that doug supports" Simply ignoring him and his antics would go a long way to stopping that, and allowing conversation to flow about the topics at hand.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Simply ignoring him and his antics would go a long way to stopping that, and allowing conversation to flow about the topics at hand." Well, no. He's not beau, and that comes with being a beauron. And he's not Darkbeer, enough said there. Doug most times gives decet respectable responses to things. Certainly, he obfuscates, redirects and appears stubborn to the point of wanting to upset, but the thing is, there's a certain genuineness about it. On the other hand, as in here, his inability to acknowledge his heroes have flaws is mind boggling.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder King of the Typos. .. and that comes with being a beauron= and all that comes with..... "..gives decet respectable..."= gives decent......
