Has Bush's Brain Given Notice?

[dilloduck]

Yeah, and just how do PROVE he lied? You can't without a confession. The best that can proven is that he gave erroneous information.

That of course won't stop the witchhunt.

If Rove goes, I wonder who would replace him ? This might backfire on someone. :tng:

 

[Gunny]

If Rove goes, I wonder who would replace him ? This might backfire on someone. :tng:

I'm emailing my resume as we speak ....

 

[dilloduck]

I'm emailing my resume as we speak ....

:teeth: You're bound to be a shoe-in, brother Texan !!!!

 

[jillian]

Yeah, and just how do PROVE he lied? You can't without a confession. The best that can proven is that he gave erroneous information.

That of course won't stop the witchhunt.

What seems to have happened is that he gave certain testimony. Then they found documents and emails, supposedly, which contradicted that testimony. I suppose we'll see when we see. And the testimony of others involved would also help to prove if he lied. They don't need a confession for a conviction if they have the goods and if we're REALLY going to see an indictment. But this seems to be the most reliable info as to what they're looking at...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/07/AR2006050700717.html

 

[Gunny]

What seems to have happened is that he gave certain testimony. Then they found documents and emails, supposedly, which contradicted that testimony. I suppose we'll see when we see. And the testimony of others involved would also help to prove if he lied. They don't need a confession for a conviction if they have the goods and if we're REALLY going to see an indictment. But this seems to be the most reliable info as to what they're looking at...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/07/AR2006050700717.html

You cannot prove criminal intent in this case without a confession. Information that contradicts his statement supports only that he gave erroneous information. Proving the criminal intent is another matter.

 

[Diuretic]

In all actuality, this is one instance where I see your law as superior to ours. When freedom of speech is taken so far that people are tried and convicted by the media prior to even an arraignment, something is wrong with the system.

You mention Peterson. He had NO chance. His arrogant personality didn't help him much, but he was tried and convicted by the media .... most especially Greta Van Susteren and Nancy Grace, before he ever went to trial. He was convicted and sentenced to death based on circumstantial evidence.

Compare that to OJ Simpson's trial. The American judicial system was held hostage by the threat of racial violence if an ethnic minority group did not receive the results it desired.

The law demands a fair trial. And I say if there is ANY notoriety involved, there is no such thing.

Competely agree. I can't see how anyone gets a fair trial in those circumstances. One of the other problems is that people who follow trials closely in that manner get to read/see/hear all the speculation a la Greta but none of the admissible evidence - as does the jury. So when a jury hands down a verdict which seems to go against the punditry then all hell breaks lose and the public naturally begin to question the justice system.

Also agree with you on OJ and at the risk of igniting the board I have to say that the same thing happened in the trial of the LA cops in Simi Valley (where they were found not guilty in the King case) but found guilty under federal civil rights charges elsewhere, later on after the riots. I won't go on about for fear of thread drift but there were problems there too.

 

[Diuretic]

Actually, with some statutes/laws it does. Dunno about perjury..

(edit)..I should add recklessness/negligence isn't proof per se, but can go towards proving a charge...

Yes it does - manslaughter is usually met with reference to recklessness or negligence (if it was intention it would be murder). I think with something like perjury there would not only have to be intent but the proof would want to be very, very solid. The chance of someone being imprisoned for making a mistake in their evidence must be removed. Jeez I mean we talk about "eyewitness evidence" as if it's great, it's crap trust me. You can have a witness tell you one thing at a scene and then when you go back to proof them for the case they are telling you different.

 

[dilloduck]

Heck--and we haven't even begun to talk about buying you a high price lawyer to take care of ya !!! I love American "justice" !

 

[Diuretic]

You cannot prove criminal intent in this case without a confession. Information that contradicts his statement supports only that he gave erroneous information. Proving the criminal intent is another matter.

I won't refer to this case in particular because I know only what I've read (and I admit I haven't followed it closely). And I think that statement is right in the sense that an admission or confession would seal a perjury case (if it was admitted as evidence of course). But perjury can be proven without a direct admission. BUT it does not a lot of very good circumstantial evidence that is well presented. I think it's a long jump from a grand jury deciding if there is evidence for an indictment to a jury which is deciding if there is sufficient evidence for conviction. It requires much evidence.

 

[Diuretic]

Heck--and we haven't even begun to talk about buying you a high price lawyer to take care of ya !!! I love American "justice" !

That happens here too. We have a system of legal aid but it's means-tested and frequently people have to get loans to pay for their defence. Athough there is High Court case which states that someone can't be tried for serious criminal matter if they are not represented. On an application by the defendant the matter is stayed indefinitely until competent legal representation is available.

 

[Dr Grump]

When did "the right" go after Clinton? Are you referring to Monica-gate? If so, you need to reexamine your facts. A Washington career bureaucrat spilled the beans on Billybob and Attorney General Janet Reno, a Clinton appointee, ordered Ken Starr to shift the focus of his investigation from Whitewater to Billybob and his antics.

Further, even if "the right went after Clinton," what does that have to do with this? Oh yeah ... you lefties got that adloescent tit-for-tat thing going.

And who screamed about Whitewater? Reno? Nope, ti was the right. And it was Starr who went after Clinton off his own bat, not Reno.

BTW, I am no leftie. As for tit-for-tat, what did you conservatives expect after the Clinton witch hunt. I'm with Dillo on this - they're all idiots...

 

[UnAmericanYOU]

What seems to have happened is that he gave certain testimony. Then they found documents and emails, supposedly, which contradicted that testimony. I suppose we'll see when we see. And the testimony of others involved would also help to prove if he lied. They don't need a confession for a conviction if they have the goods and if we're REALLY going to see an indictment. But this seems to be the most reliable info as to what they're looking at...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/07/AR2006050700717.html

Well, they found email addresses, but not content, and it's more about what Rove omitted rather than anything he ever said.

Testified, what, five times now? Fitzgerald is supposed to wrap this case up very soon, over at DU they are saying (without any basis AGAIN) that Karl Rove has been "totally cleared".

 

[jillian]

Well, they found email addresses, but not content, and it's more about what Rove omitted rather than anything he ever said.

Testified, what, five times now? Fitzgerald is supposed to wrap this case up very soon, over at DU they are saying (without any basis AGAIN) that Karl Rove has been "totally cleared".

They didn't find content because everything was deleted. But as I've said, I'll believe it when I see it. Until then it's all a question mark. Oh...and I wouldn't know what they say at DU. It's not someplace I've ever been to.

So...we'll just have to wait and see. What I find more interesting is people's responses to this.

 

[Gunny]

And who screamed about Whitewater? Reno? Nope, ti was the right. And it was Starr who went after Clinton off his own bat, not Reno.

BTW, I am no leftie. As for tit-for-tat, what did you conservatives expect after the Clinton witch hunt. I'm with Dillo on this - they're all idiots...

You keep saying "the right." WHO exactly? Whitewater was a landscam, plain and simple. Hillary was involved in Whitewater. Her name came up.

And you are incorrect concerning Starr. He was directed by Reno to shift the focus of the Whitewater investigation. Starr, on his own, would have no grounds to within the scope of the investigation.

 

[UnAmericanYOU]

And who screamed about Whitewater? Reno? Nope, ti was the right. And it was Starr who went after Clinton off his own bat, not Reno.

BTW, I am no leftie. As for tit-for-tat, what did you conservatives expect after the Clinton witch hunt. I'm with Dillo on this - they're all idiots...

So what are you, a neo-con?

Screamed, interesting choice of word there, reminiscent to me of someone.

Well, at least you're not one of those left-wing commies!

So Clinton was an idiot, too, just like Bush? How bi-partisan of you....

The OP posted that Karl Rove would be indited, the thread had nothing at ALL to do with the Clinton administration except for a couple of people like you. It was your little way of focusing the thread on what you wanted the focus to be on, a tacit reminiscent to me of someone.

jillian, you are right, these responses WERE interesting. If Karl Rove is guilty, I want him indited and convicted, just the writer of that blog on that site has well, a credibility issue.

I don't think he will, why's Fitz waiting to the last minute if so? For dramatic effect, only thing I know is neither Fitz nor Rove are out trolling a forum!

 

[Dr Grump]

So what are you, a neo-con?

Yeah...

Screamed, interesting choice of word there, reminiscent to me of someone. Well, at least you're not one of those left-wing commies!

Thank Christ for that eh?

So Clinton was an idiot, too, just like Bush? How bi-partisan of you!

Yeah he was, but for different reasons... Hey, I've always been an equal-opportunity polly basher...

The OP posted that Karl Rove would be indited, the thread had nothing at ALL to do with the Clinton administration except for a couple of people like you. It was your little way of focusing the thread on what you wanted the focus to be on, a tacit reminiscent to me of someone.

When somebody squeals about the poor widdle GoP and how everybody is picking on them...yadda, yadda, yadda...a little reminder of past experiences is in order.... Oh, and what are people like me? I think the focus on this thread is fine and my post was relevent...

only thing I know is neither Fitz nor Rove are out trolling a forum!

You mean there are those on these boards that ain't?

 

[UnAmericanYOU]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight! Only dems should be prosecuted.

I FORGOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

^^^^Hey, bubba, look who brought this up!

Coincidence? I think not. We all have the same join date more or less, all three of us.

jillian, you and the quack have many, many more posts than I do. Teamwork, THERE"S the spirit. If only Karl Rove would finally learn what you know, but you're "awsome".

You asked me, after perhaps conferring with a doctor, why the right was so hard on Clinton since I questioned the source of what you cited TWICE, as if the two things were at all related. OMF, OMG!!!

They're all stupid, and everyone's a troll, must have missed the neo-con memo, as you both like to say. It all comes out the same, doesn't it?

Discord, schmiscord, if you both hate politics so much, WHY post on a political forum?????

You and Doom are aware there are forums? Not DU, of course, you've never been there. Never been there. Nope.

 

[Dr Grump]

^^^^Hey, bubba, look who brought this up!

Coincidence? I think not. We all have the same join date more or less, all three of us.

jillian, you and the quack have many, many more posts than I do. Teamwork, THERE"S the spirit. If only Karl Rove would finally learn what you know, but you're "awsome".

You asked me, after perhaps conferring with a doctor, why the right was so hard on Clinton since I questioned the source of what you cited TWICE, as if the two things were at all related. OMF, OMG!!!

They're all stupid, and everyone's a troll, must have missed the neo-con memo, as you both like to say. It all comes out the same, doesn't it?

Discord, schmiscord, if you both hate politics so much, WHY post on a political forum?????

You and Doom are aware there are forums? Not DU, of course, you've never been there. Never been there. Nope.

Jillian is a friend. I make no apologies for that. We both joined on the same day in fact. There is a reason for that. And, so what? Is it is a big deal or something? As for the DU, I have absolutely no idea what it is, or where it is....And who said we/I hated politics? I love discussing politics AND religion... 95% of the reason I am here. And Jillian is way more to the left than me...she'd admit that...

 

[jillian]

jillian, you are right, these responses WERE interesting. If Karl Rove is guilty, I want him indited and convicted, just the writer of that blog on that site has well, a credibility issue.

I don't think he will, why's Fitz waiting to the last minute if so? For dramatic effect, only thing I know is neither Fitz nor Rove are out trolling a forum!

I think writers on ALL blogs have credibility issues, hence the question mark after the thread title. As for trolling, ummmmmmm....I'm not the one who thinks people who disagree with me are "unamerican".

 

[UnAmericanYOU]

I think writers on ALL blogs have credibility issues, hence the question mark after the thread title. As for trolling, ummmmmmm....I'm not the one who thinks people who disagree with me are "unamerican".

Of course you do. You know the reason for this name, and it's not a reversal of what you think it originally meant. But he is a friend of mine, so's Jim, who inexplicably keeps calling mods off of you. Neither post here.

This:

Hey, I've always been an equal-opportunity polly basher..

is a staple of both of you. There's no difference between the two parties, we're all doomed. And religion is the bane of society. I know. I know. I know.

He told me you'd admit being cult mem-er...friends, and that you'd attack this nic.

The blog writer swears that Rove will be indited Wednesday now, but if he's true to form, he's wrong again. And YOU started this, to the left of the far left is still far left, what kind of doctor IS Doom, went to a Carribean med school?

God bless you both, He must have a reason you are both here.

'Til later.