Print

[pug_ster]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17485067/

Looks like Libby is found guilty of Obstruction of justice, False statement to FBI investigators, and perjury to the grand jury.  This is not surprising.  However, even the jurors felt sorry for this guy because there are more people in the administration involved in this leaking incident.

In any case, I doubt that people like Rove and Cheney will ever get indicted unless Libby decides to rat them out.  Even if Libby would get Jail time, Bush would probably pardon him by the end of his presidency.  White House officials already got their hands dirty on this scandal and they are probably just as guilty as OJ.  However, to the American public and and in the textbooks for decades to come, this story won't be about how Libby found guilty.  This story will be about how Bush deceived Americans into the Iraq war and their administration had to lie to cover a lie.  That will probably be the Bush legacy.  

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Mar 6 2007, 04:07 PM)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17485067/

Looks like Libby is found guilty of Obstruction of justice, False statement to FBI investigators, and perjury to the grand jury. This is not surprising. However, even the jurors felt sorry for this guy because there are more people in the administration involved in this leaking incident.

In any case, I doubt that people like Rove and Cheney will ever get indicted unless Libby decides to rat them out. Even if Libby would get Jail time, Bush would probably pardon him by the end of his presidency. White House officials already got their hands dirty on this scandal and they are probably just as guilty as OJ. However, to the American public and and in the textbooks for decades to come, this story won't be about how Libby found guilty. This story will be about how Bush deceived Americans into the Iraq war and their administration had to lie to cover a lie. That will probably be the Bush legacy.

 

Nobody was able to cover anything up. This has all been in the news for quite some time now. Nobody knows whether you're right or wrong, but so far there have been no facts to support the claims you made here, so it is just speculation. I think instead of proclaiming your opinion as fact, possibly you could preclude it with "in my opinion".

[pug_ster]

Unfortunately, the conviction of Libby created more questions than answers.  Libby was convicted of lying, not disclosing Valeria Plume as a CIA Operative.  Obviously, since White House didn't fill out the blanks, the media is speculating that.  It is much like when the news media went all over about Clinton and Monica scandal until Clinton had to lie in front of the Media.  At this point, Bush is screwed for anything he says.  If he tells the truth about this matter, congress will hold hearings about this matter.  If he lies, a special presecution will bring him to court about lying.  

In any case, Joe Wilson is having his civil suit that might expose the dirty details of Cheney part in this matter.  With 60% of the Americans want troops to decrease in Iraq, this scandal and walter Reed Scandal, is enough Ammo for the Congress to start holding hearings on this matter.  Yet Pelosi is mostly mum about getting the White House Accountable for the leaking of intelligence of Valerie Plume.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Mar 7 2007, 10:26 AM)

Unfortunately, the conviction of Libby created more questions than answers. Libby was convicted of lying, not disclosing Valeria Plume as a CIA Operative. Obviously, since White House didn't fill out the blanks, the media is speculating that. It is much like when the news media went all over about Clinton and Monica scandal until Clinton had to lie in front of the Media. At this point, Bush is screwed for anything he says. If he tells the truth about this matter, congress will hold hearings about this matter. If he lies, a special presecution will bring him to court about lying.

In any case, Joe Wilson is having his civil suit that might expose the dirty details of Cheney part in this matter. With 60% of the Americans want troops to decrease in Iraq, this scandal and walter Reed Scandal, is enough Ammo for the Congress to start holding hearings on this matter. Yet Pelosi is mostly mum about getting the White House Accountable for the leaking of intelligence of Valerie Plume.

 

Well if there is evidence that the White House leaked the intelligence then by all means start the witch hunt. Until there is that, just please don't proclaim speculation as fact. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, it just really helps if they make it known that it is their opinion.

[pug_ster]

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Mar 7 2007, 08:35 PM)

Well if there is evidence that the White House leaked the intelligence then by all means start the witch hunt. Until there is that, just please don't proclaim speculation as fact. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, it just really helps if they make it known that it is their opinion.

The trial includes proof more or less about the timeline of when Libby knew about Valerie Plame's identity and if he had lied to prosecuters about reporters told Libby instead.

http://www.cbsnews.c...D8N7LSB00.shtml

According to the testimony, this is what came out:

_a vice president fixated on finding ways to debunk a former diplomat's claims that Bush misled the U.S. people in going to war and his suggestion Cheney might have played a role in suppressing contrary intelligence.

_a presidential press secretary kept in the dark on Iraq policy.

_top White House officials meeting daily to discuss the diplomat, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, and sometimes even his CIA-officer wife Valerie Plame.

I think there's enough evidence to start having a congressional hearing but the Democrats don't have the balls to do it.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Mar 7 2007, 03:38 PM)

The trial includes proof more or less about the timeline of when Libby knew about Valerie Plame's identity and if he had lied to prosecuters about reporters told Libby instead.

http://www.cbsnews.c...D8N7LSB00.shtml

According to the testimony, this is what came out:

_a vice president fixated on finding ways to debunk a former diplomat's claims that Bush misled the U.S. people in going to war and his suggestion Cheney might have played a role in suppressing contrary intelligence.

_a presidential press secretary kept in the dark on Iraq policy.

_top White House officials meeting daily to discuss the diplomat, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, and sometimes even his CIA-officer wife Valerie Plame.

I think there's enough evidence to start having a congressional hearing but the Democrats don't have the balls to do it.

 

Well in actuality, that is what we call "hearsay". It is not evidence. Although if your witness is credible enough you can choose to roll the dice on it but you HAVE to be able to back it up with facts. Even if you were there, you saw it yourself, you cannot win a case if you have no evidence. I mean, all the defense has to say is "what does Mrs. Plame stand to gain with these allegations?" The answer is, her husband is an anti war activist. You see, it works both ways. The news media needs a story so rather than report that there is no evidence and just claims to cover asses, they create this conspiracy that may or may not exist in our minds. Their job is to report facts and not what may or may not be. At any rate, the whole thing sounds fishy to me. To believe it all, you have to ignore the fact that during the Clinton administration they actively persued Saddam and talked about disarming his regime all the time. Nancy Pelosi stated a few years back that he was a threat and needed to be disarmed. So did John Kerry and HIllary Clinton. I mean the list goes on, so there is really no need to manufacture evidence. It's been there all along. So I'm not sure what's true and what's not, but neither is anyone.

 

[damam]

the dude lied and he should have gotten convicted

but i find the comments of the jury very confusing as well.  By there comments i could not tell if he was on trial for perjury, or if he was on trial for all of the sins of the bush administration?

[pug_ster]

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Mar 7 2007, 10:56 PM)

Well in actuality, that is what we call "hearsay". It is not evidence. Although if your witness is credible enough you can choose to roll the dice on it but you HAVE to be able to back it up with facts. Even if you were there, you saw it yourself, you cannot win a case if you have no evidence. I mean, all the defense has to say is "what does Mrs. Plame stand to gain with these allegations?" The answer is, her husband is an anti war activist. You see, it works both ways. The news media needs a story so rather than report that there is no evidence and just claims to cover asses, they create this conspiracy that may or may not exist in our minds. Their job is to report facts and not what may or may not be. At any rate, the whole thing sounds fishy to me. To believe it all, you have to ignore the fact that during the Clinton administration they actively persued Saddam and talked about disarming his regime all the time. Nancy Pelosi stated a few years back that he was a threat and needed to be disarmed. So did John Kerry and HIllary Clinton. I mean the list goes on, so there is really no need to manufacture evidence. It's been there all along. So I'm not sure what's true and what's not, but neither is anyone.

Hearsay is someone convicted without a shred of evidence.  Libby is on trial here.  According to the evidence, Libby learned the identity of Valerie Plame a month before he spoke to the reporters.  Therefore, he is convicted of purjury and lying to fbi investigators.  

When Fitzgerald gotten the evidence to prosecute Libby, they uncovered that Libby worked closely with Cheney and several other people in the white house in exposing plame, but they was not supeoned at all.  Again, the trial is not about charges of Cheney ratting Plame.

Yes, the previous clinton Administration, Kerry, and most Democrats said that Iraq needs to be disarmed, but it has nothing to do with this case.  Thus thats reason why I said the Democrats don't have the balls to start congressional hearings about white house exposing Valeria Plame because most of them were for the war in the first place.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Mar 8 2007, 09:01 AM)

Hearsay is someone convicted without a shred of evidence.

That definition is not accurate at all. Try to look to the root word/s before you attempt to define something. Here is the actual definition which concurs with the definition I gave previously.

 

QUOTE

hear·say (hîr'sā')
n.

1. Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.
2. Law. Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony.

http://www.answers.com/topic/hearsay

 

QUOTE

Libby is on trial here. According to the evidence, Libby learned the identity of Valerie Plame a month before he spoke to the reporters. Therefore, he is convicted of purjury and lying to fbi investigators.

That much is true.

QUOTE

When Fitzgerald gotten the evidence to prosecute Libby, they uncovered that Libby worked closely with Cheney and several other people in the white house in exposing plame, but they was not supeoned at all. Again, the trial is not about charges of Cheney ratting Plame.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Nobody KNOWS that. It is all just hearsay. Until someone presents some facts, you can't state it as a fact. You can comment on it and express your opinion, but don't state it this way as it's unfounded.

QUOTE

Yes, the previous clinton Administration, Kerry, and most Democrats said that Iraq needs to be disarmed, but it has nothing to do with this case. Thus thats reason why I said the Democrats don't have the balls to start congressional hearings about white house exposing Valeria Plame because most of them were for the war in the first place.

You don't have to have balls to call a liar a liar. As a matter of fact, the Democrats have to have balls to do and say the things they do EVERY day. If they really thought things would go in their favor they would start those hearings. They know they have nothing to go on and it's all speculation or you can bet they'd go for it. They LOVE to attempt to smear the President and Vice President. Their president got impeached and they would LOVE to do it back. They can't though and they know it.

[pug_ster]

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Mar 8 2007, 04:37 PM)

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Nobody KNOWS that. It is all just hearsay. Until someone presents some facts, you can't state it as a fact. You can comment on it and express your opinion, but don't state it this way as it's unfounded.

I'm stating my opinions based on the evidence on the trial.  Don't tell me that I am not entitled on my opinions.

QUOTE

You don't have to have balls to call a liar a liar. As a matter of fact, the Democrats have to have balls to do and say the things they do EVERY day. If they really thought things would go in their favor they would start those hearings. They know they have nothing to go on and it's all speculation or you can bet they'd go for it. They LOVE to attempt to smear the President and Vice President. Their president got impeached and they would LOVE to do it back. They can't though and they know it.

Now don't start flame threads by saying "You don't have the balls..."

I don't hear every Democrat publically saying that they won't have congressional hearings for outing of valerie Plame.  So this is a matter of your own opinion, not a fact.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Mar 8 2007, 12:06 PM)

I'm stating my opinions based on the evidence on the trial. Don't tell me that I am not entitled on my opinions.

I didn't. Please re-read the statment you quoted.

QUOTE

Now don't start flame threads by saying "You don't have the balls..."

You misquoted me. Please re-read and you'll understand.

 

QUOTE

I don't hear every Democrat publically saying that they won't have congressional hearings for outing of valerie Plame. So this is a matter of your own opinion, not a fact.

None of this is my opinion. What actually matters is whether they have congressional hearings or not... not what they say they will or will not do as we all know politicians do that all the time and it means nothing.

[pug_ster]

QUOTE

I didn't. Please re-read the statment you quoted.

You misquoted me. Please re-read and you'll understand.

I'm not going go to a path to "what I said, and what you think I said" debate.  I don't even know what you are talking about.  It is pointless.

QUOTE

None of this is my opinion. What actually matters is whether they have congressional hearings or not... not what they say they will or will not do as we all know politicians do that all the time and it means nothing.

Looks like there will be a congressional hearing about this issue, in light of the conviction.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17524785/