Darrell Issa(R) "cuts 'n runs"

[Nosmo King]

The media did it to themselves when they removed themselves from their job of critically overseeing government actions. We all know the majority of journalists are Obama-bots.

Keep that media boogeyman handy! Lord knows partisans hate to admit their own mistakes. Blaming the media takes pressure off the intellectual process.

The Media: Food for Lazy Minds!

So the majority of journalists are registered republicans?

Who cares what the 'vast majority of journalists' are? Do you eschew your responsibility as a voter to that mean old media boogeyman? Can that boogey man be blamed? Or is that media boogeyman just the most convenient scapegoat available? Fear driven politics desperately needs a scapegoat.

So you can say, as a matter of fact, the media does not have a pro-Obama/Democrat bias?

Just to be clear on this, please define exactly what you call the media. Is it every website and cable tv channel as well as networks, or just the major players? Define your terms.

In the context of this thread, my definition of the media is any media used as a scapegoat by partisans.

 

[martybegan]

The media did it to themselves when they removed themselves from their job of critically overseeing government actions. We all know the majority of journalists are Obama-bots.

Keep that media boogeyman handy! Lord knows partisans hate to admit their own mistakes. Blaming the media takes pressure off the intellectual process.

The Media: Food for Lazy Minds!

So the majority of journalists are registered republicans?

Who cares what the 'vast majority of journalists' are? Do you eschew your responsibility as a voter to that mean old media boogeyman? Can that boogey man be blamed? Or is that media boogeyman just the most convenient scapegoat available? Fear driven politics desperately needs a scapegoat.

So you can say, as a matter of fact, the media does not have a pro-Obama/Democrat bias?

Just to be clear on this, please define exactly what you call the media. Is it every website and cable tv channel as well as networks, or just the major players? Define your terms.

The major networks, the major newspapers and their websites.

Yes we all know fox news is the devil, so you don't need to bring them up.

 

[martybegan]

The media did it to themselves when they removed themselves from their job of critically overseeing government actions. We all know the majority of journalists are Obama-bots.

Keep that media boogeyman handy! Lord knows partisans hate to admit their own mistakes. Blaming the media takes pressure off the intellectual process.

The Media: Food for Lazy Minds!

So the majority of journalists are registered republicans?

Who cares what the 'vast majority of journalists' are? Do you eschew your responsibility as a voter to that mean old media boogeyman? Can that boogey man be blamed? Or is that media boogeyman just the most convenient scapegoat available? Fear driven politics desperately needs a scapegoat.

So you can say, as a matter of fact, the media does not have a pro-Obama/Democrat bias?

Rise above it! Using the media as a reason everything went so wrong for you guarantees that things will continue to go wrong! It's your responsibility to vet candidates to your own standards. Looking for a boogeyman is the province of small, mistake laden minds.

Rising above it does not mean giving your side a pass when you say the media is not on your side. In fact, your tact acknowledgement of it is refreshing.

 

[Nosmo King]

Keep that media boogeyman handy! Lord knows partisans hate to admit their own mistakes. Blaming the media takes pressure off the intellectual process.

The Media: Food for Lazy Minds!

So the majority of journalists are registered republicans?

Who cares what the 'vast majority of journalists' are? Do you eschew your responsibility as a voter to that mean old media boogeyman? Can that boogey man be blamed? Or is that media boogeyman just the most convenient scapegoat available? Fear driven politics desperately needs a scapegoat.

So you can say, as a matter of fact, the media does not have a pro-Obama/Democrat bias?

Rise above it! Using the media as a reason everything went so wrong for you guarantees that things will continue to go wrong! It's your responsibility to vet candidates to your own standards. Looking for a boogeyman is the province of small, mistake laden minds.

Rising above it does not mean giving your side a pass when you say the media is not on your side. In fact, your tact acknowledgement of it is refreshing.

With the glut of media services, calling the media the boogeyman seems silly, doesn't it? One may avail one's self of a myriad of media outlets to either confirm one's politics or refute it. I suggest a healthy helping of both just to cut through the propaganda minefield. But looking to the media for honesty, truth and clarity is a fool's errand. Blaming the media for all problems great and small is a sterling example of someone lacking intellectual curiosity.

 

[idb]

Issa rightfully so made the dims look bad, which they are! He accomplished another cog in the wheel of the Republicans gaining the majority in the Senate. He proved dims are liars and scum!

That's it right there.
All that money was spent on political posturing to make the Democrats look bad.
Taxpayers money spent for party political purposes.

 

[BULLDOG]

Keep that media boogeyman handy! Lord knows partisans hate to admit their own mistakes. Blaming the media takes pressure off the intellectual process.

The Media: Food for Lazy Minds!

So the majority of journalists are registered republicans?

Who cares what the 'vast majority of journalists' are? Do you eschew your responsibility as a voter to that mean old media boogeyman? Can that boogey man be blamed? Or is that media boogeyman just the most convenient scapegoat available? Fear driven politics desperately needs a scapegoat.

So you can say, as a matter of fact, the media does not have a pro-Obama/Democrat bias?

Just to be clear on this, please define exactly what you call the media. Is it every website and cable tv channel as well as networks, or just the major players? Define your terms.

The major networks, the major newspapers and their websites.

Yes we all know fox news is the devil, so you don't need to bring them up.

Ok. Would you agree that the major sources of news are in the best position to know what is actually happening? They do have the resources and connections to get to the actual facts no matter what bias they may or not have.

 

[martybegan]

So the majority of journalists are registered republicans?

Who cares what the 'vast majority of journalists' are? Do you eschew your responsibility as a voter to that mean old media boogeyman? Can that boogey man be blamed? Or is that media boogeyman just the most convenient scapegoat available? Fear driven politics desperately needs a scapegoat.

So you can say, as a matter of fact, the media does not have a pro-Obama/Democrat bias?

Rise above it! Using the media as a reason everything went so wrong for you guarantees that things will continue to go wrong! It's your responsibility to vet candidates to your own standards. Looking for a boogeyman is the province of small, mistake laden minds.

Rising above it does not mean giving your side a pass when you say the media is not on your side. In fact, your tact acknowledgement of it is refreshing.

With the glut of media services, calling the media the boogeyman seems silly, doesn't it? One may avail one's self of a myriad of media outlets to either confirm one's politics or refute it. I suggest a healthy helping of both just to cut through the propaganda minefield. But looking to the media for honesty, truth and clarity is a fool's errand. Blaming the media for all problems great and small is a sterling example of someone lacking intellectual curiosity.

That assumes the majority of people go out and get information from all sources. Most people get it from cable news, the papers, local news, and the websites associated with them, and most of those are biased towards the left, even if subtly.

 

[martybegan]

So the majority of journalists are registered republicans?

Who cares what the 'vast majority of journalists' are? Do you eschew your responsibility as a voter to that mean old media boogeyman? Can that boogey man be blamed? Or is that media boogeyman just the most convenient scapegoat available? Fear driven politics desperately needs a scapegoat.

So you can say, as a matter of fact, the media does not have a pro-Obama/Democrat bias?

Just to be clear on this, please define exactly what you call the media. Is it every website and cable tv channel as well as networks, or just the major players? Define your terms.

The major networks, the major newspapers and their websites.

Yes we all know fox news is the devil, so you don't need to bring them up.

Ok. Would you agree that the major sources of news are in the best position to know what is actually happening? They do have the resources and connections to get to the actual facts no matter what bias they may or not have.

Kind of like Rolling Stone now, and Dan Rather during Memogate?

Having resources doesn't mean you use them.

 

[BULLDOG]

Who cares what the 'vast majority of journalists' are? Do you eschew your responsibility as a voter to that mean old media boogeyman? Can that boogey man be blamed? Or is that media boogeyman just the most convenient scapegoat available? Fear driven politics desperately needs a scapegoat.

So you can say, as a matter of fact, the media does not have a pro-Obama/Democrat bias?

Just to be clear on this, please define exactly what you call the media. Is it every website and cable tv channel as well as networks, or just the major players? Define your terms.

The major networks, the major newspapers and their websites.

Yes we all know fox news is the devil, so you don't need to bring them up.

Ok. Would you agree that the major sources of news are in the best position to know what is actually happening? They do have the resources and connections to get to the actual facts no matter what bias they may or not have.

Kind of like Rolling Stone now, and Dan Rather during Memogate?

Having resources doesn't mean you use them.

So you think they intentionally ignore gathering information even if it might help them frame what you think might be a predefined agenda?

 

[kiwiman127]

Well, this thread sure died when some folks were asked to back themselves up with actual events using actual facts.
But have no fear, they'll still claim the the Dems are bad as the GOP when it comes to witch hunts and wasting tax payer money, just for the purpose of political posturing.
This certainly demonstrates that some people just don't know their history or willingly forget history.

Valerie. Plame.

And there were multiple Congressional hearings that lasted two years? No.
First the CIA requested the Justice Department to launch an investigation. This lead to a trial which led Libby's conviction of lying to the Grand Jury.
Following that, there was a congressional investigation that lasted a couple of months, not a couple of years.

And for all that you got one lying conviction. Forgetting all those hopes of "Fitzmas" from Daily Kos over the special prosecutors investigations? And those used paid federal employees as well.

The special prosecutor, was a result of the CIA asking the Justice Department to investigate how Plame was outed. The Justice Department got the special prosecutor involved, it had nothing to do with congress. This, explained in my previous post. You can read the timeline at several sites.
=======================================================
"Department of Justice investigation[edit]
Following the disclosure, on September 16, 2003, the CIA sent a letter to the United States Department of Justice (DoJ), requesting a criminal investigation of the matter.[15] On September 29, 2003, the Department of Justice advised the CIA that it had requested an FBI investigation into the matter.[15][16]

On September 30, 2003, President Bush said that if there had been "a leak" from his administration about Plame, "I want to know who it is... and if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."[17] Initially, the White House denied that Karl Rove, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff, and Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Chief of Staff of Vice President Dick Cheney, were involved in the leak.[18]

Attorney General John Ashcroft referred the matter to the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel, directed by Patrick Fitzgerald, who convened a grand jury. The CIA leak grand jury investigation did not result in the indictment or conviction of anyone for any crime in connection with the leak itself. However, Libby was indicted on one count of obstruction of justice, one count of perjury, and three counts making false statements to the grand jury and federal investigators on October 28, 2005. Libby resigned hours after the indictment.
Plame affair - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
======================================================

But the Dems did put on their show after Libby was found guilty of perjury, however it was a short, short circus compared with the two year show of Benghazi-gate. Should we compare cost to the taxpayers?

 

[Nosmo King]

Who cares what the 'vast majority of journalists' are? Do you eschew your responsibility as a voter to that mean old media boogeyman? Can that boogey man be blamed? Or is that media boogeyman just the most convenient scapegoat available? Fear driven politics desperately needs a scapegoat.

So you can say, as a matter of fact, the media does not have a pro-Obama/Democrat bias?

Rise above it! Using the media as a reason everything went so wrong for you guarantees that things will continue to go wrong! It's your responsibility to vet candidates to your own standards. Looking for a boogeyman is the province of small, mistake laden minds.

Rising above it does not mean giving your side a pass when you say the media is not on your side. In fact, your tact acknowledgement of it is refreshing.

With the glut of media services, calling the media the boogeyman seems silly, doesn't it? One may avail one's self of a myriad of media outlets to either confirm one's politics or refute it. I suggest a healthy helping of both just to cut through the propaganda minefield. But looking to the media for honesty, truth and clarity is a fool's errand. Blaming the media for all problems great and small is a sterling example of someone lacking intellectual curiosity.

That assumes the majority of people go out and get information from all sources. Most people get it from cable news, the papers, local news, and the websites associated with them, and most of those are biased towards the left, even if subtly.

Hey! Who's the Conservative here? PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Isn't that the watchword whenever some poor person applies for government benefits? Well, if that is a good enough excuse to raise the homeless numbers, it sure as hell ought to be good enough to decide on a candidate.

 

[Dot Com]

Well, this thread sure died when some folks were asked to back themselves up with actual events using actual facts.
But have no fear, they'll still claim the the Dems are bad as the GOP when it comes to witch hunts and wasting tax payer money, just for the purpose of political posturing.
This certainly demonstrates that some people just don't know their history or willingly forget history.

Valerie. Plame.

And there were multiple Congressional hearings that lasted two years? No.
First the CIA requested the Justice Department to launch an investigation. This lead to a trial which led Libby's conviction of lying to the Grand Jury.
Following that, there was a congressional investigation that lasted a couple of months, not a couple of years.

And for all that you got one lying conviction. Forgetting all those hopes of "Fitzmas" from Daily Kos over the special prosecutors investigations? And those used paid federal employees as well.

The special prosecutor, was a result of the CIA asking the Justice Department to investigate how Plame was outed. The Justice Department got the special prosecutor involved, it had nothing to do with congress. This, explained in my previous post. You can read the timeline at several sites.
=======================================================
"Department of Justice investigation[edit]
Following the disclosure, on September 16, 2003, the CIA sent a letter to the United States Department of Justice (DoJ), requesting a criminal investigation of the matter.[15] On September 29, 2003, the Department of Justice advised the CIA that it had requested an FBI investigation into the matter.[15][16]

On September 30, 2003, President Bush said that if there had been "a leak" from his administration about Plame, "I want to know who it is... and if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."[17] Initially, the White House denied that Karl Rove, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff, and Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Chief of Staff of Vice President Dick Cheney, were involved in the leak.[18]

Attorney General John Ashcroft referred the matter to the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel, directed by Patrick Fitzgerald, who convened a grand jury. The CIA leak grand jury investigation did not result in the indictment or conviction of anyone for any crime in connection with the leak itself. However, Libby was indicted on one count of obstruction of justice, one count of perjury, and three counts making false statements to the grand jury and federal investigators on October 28, 2005. Libby resigned hours after the indictment.
Plame affair - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
======================================================

But the Dems did put on their show after Libby was found guilty of perjury, however it was a short, short circus compared with the two year show of Benghazi-gate. Should we compare cost to the taxpayers?

^ that had to leave a mark. Why is it martybegan & Oldstyle are the designated Repub dirty tricks apologists 94% of the time?

 

[Dot Com]

So you can say, as a matter of fact, the media does not have a pro-Obama/Democrat bias?

Rise above it! Using the media as a reason everything went so wrong for you guarantees that things will continue to go wrong! It's your responsibility to vet candidates to your own standards. Looking for a boogeyman is the province of small, mistake laden minds.

Rising above it does not mean giving your side a pass when you say the media is not on your side. In fact, your tact acknowledgement of it is refreshing.

With the glut of media services, calling the media the boogeyman seems silly, doesn't it? One may avail one's self of a myriad of media outlets to either confirm one's politics or refute it. I suggest a healthy helping of both just to cut through the propaganda minefield. But looking to the media for honesty, truth and clarity is a fool's errand. Blaming the media for all problems great and small is a sterling example of someone lacking intellectual curiosity.

That assumes the majority of people go out and get information from all sources. Most people get it from cable news, the papers, local news, and the websites associated with them, and most of those are biased towards the left, even if subtly.

Hey! Who's the Conservative here? PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Isn't that the watchword whenever some poor person applies for government benefits? Well, if that is a good enough excuse to raise the homeless numbers, it sure as hell ought to be good enough to decide on a candidate.

 

[mudwhistle]

Well, this thread sure died when some folks were asked to back themselves up with actual events using actual facts.
But have no fear, they'll still claim the the Dems are bad as the GOP when it comes to witch hunts and wasting tax payer money, just for the purpose of political posturing.
This certainly demonstrates that some people just don't know their history or willingly forget history.

Valerie. Plame.

And there were multiple Congressional hearings that lasted two years? No.
First the CIA requested the Justice Department to launch an investigation. This lead to a trial which led Libby's conviction of lying to the Grand Jury.
Following that, there was a congressional investigation that lasted a couple of months, not a couple of years.

And for all that you got one lying conviction. Forgetting all those hopes of "Fitzmas" from Daily Kos over the special prosecutors investigations? And those used paid federal employees as well.

The special prosecutor, was a result of the CIA asking the Justice Department to investigate how Plame was outed. The Justice Department got the special prosecutor involved, it had nothing to do with congress. This, explained in my previous post. You can read the timeline at several sites.
=======================================================
"Department of Justice investigation[edit]
Following the disclosure, on September 16, 2003, the CIA sent a letter to the United States Department of Justice (DoJ), requesting a criminal investigation of the matter.[15] On September 29, 2003, the Department of Justice advised the CIA that it had requested an FBI investigation into the matter.[15][16]

On September 30, 2003, President Bush said that if there had been "a leak" from his administration about Plame, "I want to know who it is... and if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."[17] Initially, the White House denied that Karl Rove, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff, and Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Chief of Staff of Vice President Dick Cheney, were involved in the leak.[18]

Attorney General John Ashcroft referred the matter to the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel, directed by Patrick Fitzgerald, who convened a grand jury. The CIA leak grand jury investigation did not result in the indictment or conviction of anyone for any crime in connection with the leak itself. However, Libby was indicted on one count of obstruction of justice, one count of perjury, and three counts making false statements to the grand jury and federal investigators on October 28, 2005. Libby resigned hours after the indictment.
Plame affair - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
======================================================

But the Dems did put on their show after Libby was found guilty of perjury, however it was a short, short circus compared with the two year show of Benghazi-gate. Should we compare cost to the taxpayers?

So, somebody "Leaked" the name of a CIA operative not in the field, and the leaker you assholes don't even want to mention because he was let go soon after it was discovered he was the leaker, yet you assholes spent millions of dollars going on a witchhunt and end up getting Scooter Libby on a process crime, totally forgetting about the guilty party entirely. Richard Armitage.

So what was the whole purpose of the investigation if the leaker was already revealed. Why didn't Armitage get any time for leaking Plame's identity?

Well, because it isn't against the law. That's why. The president can declassify anything he chooses. Obama does it all of the time. Giving away secrets about the UBL takedown, where Israel was staging aircraft for a possible attack on Iran. Giving away secrets to the Iranians and the Russians when things had settled down after the election when he could be more flexible.. Lot's of stuff.

 

[kiwiman127]

Well, this thread sure died when some folks were asked to back themselves up with actual events using actual facts.
But have no fear, they'll still claim the the Dems are bad as the GOP when it comes to witch hunts and wasting tax payer money, just for the purpose of political posturing.
This certainly demonstrates that some people just don't know their history or willingly forget history.

Valerie. Plame.

And there were multiple Congressional hearings that lasted two years? No.
First the CIA requested the Justice Department to launch an investigation. This lead to a trial which led Libby's conviction of lying to the Grand Jury.
Following that, there was a congressional investigation that lasted a couple of months, not a couple of years.

And for all that you got one lying conviction. Forgetting all those hopes of "Fitzmas" from Daily Kos over the special prosecutors investigations? And those used paid federal employees as well.

The special prosecutor, was a result of the CIA asking the Justice Department to investigate how Plame was outed. The Justice Department got the special prosecutor involved, it had nothing to do with congress. This, explained in my previous post. You can read the timeline at several sites.
=======================================================
"Department of Justice investigation[edit]
Following the disclosure, on September 16, 2003, the CIA sent a letter to the United States Department of Justice (DoJ), requesting a criminal investigation of the matter.[15] On September 29, 2003, the Department of Justice advised the CIA that it had requested an FBI investigation into the matter.[15][16]

On September 30, 2003, President Bush said that if there had been "a leak" from his administration about Plame, "I want to know who it is... and if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."[17] Initially, the White House denied that Karl Rove, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff, and Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Chief of Staff of Vice President Dick Cheney, were involved in the leak.[18]

Attorney General John Ashcroft referred the matter to the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel, directed by Patrick Fitzgerald, who convened a grand jury. The CIA leak grand jury investigation did not result in the indictment or conviction of anyone for any crime in connection with the leak itself. However, Libby was indicted on one count of obstruction of justice, one count of perjury, and three counts making false statements to the grand jury and federal investigators on October 28, 2005. Libby resigned hours after the indictment.
Plame affair - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
======================================================

But the Dems did put on their show after Libby was found guilty of perjury, however it was a short, short circus compared with the two year show of Benghazi-gate. Should we compare cost to the taxpayers?

So, somebody "Leaked" the name of a CIA operative not in the field, and the leaker you assholes don't even want to mention because he was let go soon after it was discovered he was the leaker, yet you assholes spent millions of dollars going on a witchhunt and end up getting Scooter Libby on a process crime, totally forgetting about the guilty party entirely. Richard Armitage.

So what was the whole purpose of the investigation if the leaker was already revealed. Why didn't Armitage get any time for leaking Plame's identity?

Well, because it isn't against the law. That's why. The president can declassify anything he chooses. Obama does it all of the time. Giving away secrets about the UBL takedown, where Israel was staging aircraft for a possible attack on Iran. Giving away secrets to the Iranians and the Russians when things had settled down after the election when he could be more flexible.. Lot's of stuff.

How exactly did "we' spend millions dollars on a witch hunt?
For the third time today, the CIA asked the Judicial Department to investigate Plame being outed. The Justice Department chose a Special Prosecutor and the rest is history. The Dems had their own hearings after Libby was convicted, which lasted a couple of months.
Now, where does "we" come in? Both the CIA and the Judicial Department were not in control of the Dems. The Republicans controlled the White House, the House and the Senate during Plame-gate.
Would you like to compare how much tax payer money was spent on Plame-gate versus Benghazi or Whitewater?

 

[martybegan]

So the majority of journalists are registered republicans?

Who cares what the 'vast majority of journalists' are? Do you eschew your responsibility as a voter to that mean old media boogeyman? Can that boogey man be blamed? Or is that media boogeyman just the most convenient scapegoat available? Fear driven politics desperately needs a scapegoat.

So you can say, as a matter of fact, the media does not have a pro-Obama/Democrat bias?

Just to be clear on this, please define exactly what you call the media. Is it every website and cable tv channel as well as networks, or just the major players? Define your terms.

The major networks, the major newspapers and their websites.

Yes we all know fox news is the devil, so you don't need to bring them up.

Ok. Would you agree that the major sources of news are in the best position to know what is actually happening? They do have the resources and connections to get to the actual facts no matter what bias they may or not have.

So its OK if they are biased as long as they have more resources?

 

[martybegan]

So you can say, as a matter of fact, the media does not have a pro-Obama/Democrat bias?

Just to be clear on this, please define exactly what you call the media. Is it every website and cable tv channel as well as networks, or just the major players? Define your terms.

The major networks, the major newspapers and their websites.

Yes we all know fox news is the devil, so you don't need to bring them up.

Ok. Would you agree that the major sources of news are in the best position to know what is actually happening? They do have the resources and connections to get to the actual facts no matter what bias they may or not have.

Kind of like Rolling Stone now, and Dan Rather during Memogate?

Having resources doesn't mean you use them.

So you think they intentionally ignore gathering information even if it might help them frame what you think might be a predefined agenda?

Sometimes. I consider it more willful ignorance, plus they downplay certain stories if it hurts their buddy Obama.

 

[martybegan]

Well, this thread sure died when some folks were asked to back themselves up with actual events using actual facts.
But have no fear, they'll still claim the the Dems are bad as the GOP when it comes to witch hunts and wasting tax payer money, just for the purpose of political posturing.
This certainly demonstrates that some people just don't know their history or willingly forget history.

Valerie. Plame.

And there were multiple Congressional hearings that lasted two years? No.
First the CIA requested the Justice Department to launch an investigation. This lead to a trial which led Libby's conviction of lying to the Grand Jury.
Following that, there was a congressional investigation that lasted a couple of months, not a couple of years.

And for all that you got one lying conviction. Forgetting all those hopes of "Fitzmas" from Daily Kos over the special prosecutors investigations? And those used paid federal employees as well.

The special prosecutor, was a result of the CIA asking the Justice Department to investigate how Plame was outed. The Justice Department got the special prosecutor involved, it had nothing to do with congress. This, explained in my previous post. You can read the timeline at several sites.
=======================================================
"Department of Justice investigation[edit]
Following the disclosure, on September 16, 2003, the CIA sent a letter to the United States Department of Justice (DoJ), requesting a criminal investigation of the matter.[15] On September 29, 2003, the Department of Justice advised the CIA that it had requested an FBI investigation into the matter.[15][16]

On September 30, 2003, President Bush said that if there had been "a leak" from his administration about Plame, "I want to know who it is... and if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."[17] Initially, the White House denied that Karl Rove, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff, and Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Chief of Staff of Vice President Dick Cheney, were involved in the leak.[18]

Attorney General John Ashcroft referred the matter to the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel, directed by Patrick Fitzgerald, who convened a grand jury. The CIA leak grand jury investigation did not result in the indictment or conviction of anyone for any crime in connection with the leak itself. However, Libby was indicted on one count of obstruction of justice, one count of perjury, and three counts making false statements to the grand jury and federal investigators on October 28, 2005. Libby resigned hours after the indictment.
Plame affair - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
======================================================

But the Dems did put on their show after Libby was found guilty of perjury, however it was a short, short circus compared with the two year show of Benghazi-gate. Should we compare cost to the taxpayers?

So no democrat in congress made calls for a special prosecutor?

 

[martybegan]

So you can say, as a matter of fact, the media does not have a pro-Obama/Democrat bias?

Rise above it! Using the media as a reason everything went so wrong for you guarantees that things will continue to go wrong! It's your responsibility to vet candidates to your own standards. Looking for a boogeyman is the province of small, mistake laden minds.

Rising above it does not mean giving your side a pass when you say the media is not on your side. In fact, your tact acknowledgement of it is refreshing.

With the glut of media services, calling the media the boogeyman seems silly, doesn't it? One may avail one's self of a myriad of media outlets to either confirm one's politics or refute it. I suggest a healthy helping of both just to cut through the propaganda minefield. But looking to the media for honesty, truth and clarity is a fool's errand. Blaming the media for all problems great and small is a sterling example of someone lacking intellectual curiosity.

That assumes the majority of people go out and get information from all sources. Most people get it from cable news, the papers, local news, and the websites associated with them, and most of those are biased towards the left, even if subtly.

Hey! Who's the Conservative here? PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Isn't that the watchword whenever some poor person applies for government benefits? Well, if that is a good enough excuse to raise the homeless numbers, it sure as hell ought to be good enough to decide on a candidate.

Nice cover given to the media. The media's RESPONSIBILITY is to report on government to the people. They abrogate their responsibility when they have someone in the White House they like, plain and simple.

 

[martybegan]

Well, this thread sure died when some folks were asked to back themselves up with actual events using actual facts.
But have no fear, they'll still claim the the Dems are bad as the GOP when it comes to witch hunts and wasting tax payer money, just for the purpose of political posturing.
This certainly demonstrates that some people just don't know their history or willingly forget history.

Valerie. Plame.

And there were multiple Congressional hearings that lasted two years? No.
First the CIA requested the Justice Department to launch an investigation. This lead to a trial which led Libby's conviction of lying to the Grand Jury.
Following that, there was a congressional investigation that lasted a couple of months, not a couple of years.

And for all that you got one lying conviction. Forgetting all those hopes of "Fitzmas" from Daily Kos over the special prosecutors investigations? And those used paid federal employees as well.

The special prosecutor, was a result of the CIA asking the Justice Department to investigate how Plame was outed. The Justice Department got the special prosecutor involved, it had nothing to do with congress. This, explained in my previous post. You can read the timeline at several sites.
=======================================================
"Department of Justice investigation[edit]
Following the disclosure, on September 16, 2003, the CIA sent a letter to the United States Department of Justice (DoJ), requesting a criminal investigation of the matter.[15] On September 29, 2003, the Department of Justice advised the CIA that it had requested an FBI investigation into the matter.[15][16]

On September 30, 2003, President Bush said that if there had been "a leak" from his administration about Plame, "I want to know who it is... and if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."[17] Initially, the White House denied that Karl Rove, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff, and Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Chief of Staff of Vice President Dick Cheney, were involved in the leak.[18]

Attorney General John Ashcroft referred the matter to the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel, directed by Patrick Fitzgerald, who convened a grand jury. The CIA leak grand jury investigation did not result in the indictment or conviction of anyone for any crime in connection with the leak itself. However, Libby was indicted on one count of obstruction of justice, one count of perjury, and three counts making false statements to the grand jury and federal investigators on October 28, 2005. Libby resigned hours after the indictment.
Plame affair - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
======================================================

But the Dems did put on their show after Libby was found guilty of perjury, however it was a short, short circus compared with the two year show of Benghazi-gate. Should we compare cost to the taxpayers?

^ that had to leave a mark. Why is it martybegan & Oldstyle are the designated Repub dirty tricks apologists 94% of the time?

Why do you suck JoeBlow's dick 100% of the time?