Oh Dear...The facts get in the way again.

[red states rule]

Isn't that what you are doing with libby?? Spinning the information to your favor? yeah, thought so. Thanks for playing. Have a nice day !!!

Spinning to a liberal is hitting them with facts

 

[Shogun]

Spinning to a liberal is hitting them with facts

while justice to a conservative is tossing a noose on a tall branch, eh?

 

[red states rule]

while justice to a conservative is tossing a noose on a tall branch, eh?

Conservatives have facts - libs like Shogun have nothing

 

[Shogun]

Conservatives have facts - libs like Shogun have nothing

if by "facts" you mean a white only restroom and a desire to teach a colored boy a lesson then you are correct....


conservatives will pretend that Jeff Gannon is a primary source worthy of consideration knowing damn well not to argue with Karls latest boytoy..

 

[red states rule]

if by "facts" you mean a white only restroom and a desire to teach a colored boy a lesson then you are correct....


conservatives will pretend that Jeff Gannon is a primary source worthy of consideration knowing damn well not to argue with Karls latest boytoy..

Is that all you have in your arsenal - the race card?

 

[Shogun]

Is that all you have in your arsenal - the race card?

is all you have in your arsenal sweeping bullshit generalizations about liberals that have about as much footing in reality as your dream of a white only America?

frustrating, isnt it?

 

[red states rule]

is all you have in your arsenal sweeping bullshit generalizations about liberals that have about as much footing in reality as your dream of a white only America?

frustrating, isnt it?

I have the facts and you have the same old, tired, worn out liberal crap

Not fustrating at all - I am use to your type

 

[Shogun]

I have the facts and you have the same old, tired, worn out liberal crap

Not fustrating at all - I am use to your type

again, if by "facts" you mean karl rove's apple gag and leather gimp suit then sure....


if you mean anything remotley insightful beyond broken record liberal bashing then..

well...


im ceretainly not the only one who laughs at your thread input.

 

[red states rule]

again, if by "facts" you mean karl rove's apple gag and leather gimp suit then sure....


if you mean anything remotley insightful beyond broken record liberal bashing then..

well...


im ceretainly not the only one who laughs at your thread input.

and you continue with meaningless blather

 

[Shogun]

and you continue with meaningless blather

still not figuring out how funny it is to see the infamous RSR crying about meaningless posts, eh?

 

[red states rule]

still not figuring out how funny it is to see the infamous RSR crying about meaningless posts, eh?

Whose crying?

Your whining is fun to watch. A lib who can't compete having a meltdown is always entertaining

 

[Shogun]

Whose crying?

Your whining is fun to watch. A lib who can't compete having a meltdown is always entertaining

HA!


RSR thinks that IM the one having the meltdown!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

damn, dude...

is this where you toss out an ad hominem and then claim that only liberals resort to insults too?

I mean.. why let this ride wind down, eh?

 

[T-Bor]

RSR GOT

 

[red states rule]

Only in the upside down reverse world of a liberal

 

[CockySOB]

cocky sob,

On what grounds is your "guess" coming from...?

On what grounds do you think that he will win his appeal on the Obstruction of Justice guilty conviction?

care

My guess is based on what I see as shaky grounds for Fitzgerald having pursued a criminal investigation into the alleged Plame outing when he could (and likely DID) know from very early in the investigation that he would be unable to prove in court that Plame WAS covert per the law. And from what I'm reading at Maguire's site, there are several avenues by which Fitzgerald could have ascertained Plame's covert status under the law, but which were never made available to the defense in discovery. This violates due process as potentially exculpatory evidence was denied the defense.

I don't think his perjury and making false statements can be overturned though, unless there's some obscure ruling I haven't heard which is relevant. And as I have said, he shouldn't be pardoned for those crimes. But perhaps his sentence could be commuted to match the sentence handed to Sandy "Pants" Berger and we just strip Libby of his license to practice law and be done with it.

 

[Truthmatters]

I'm going to take a guess that Libby's conviction for obstruction will get overturned on appeal. He may still be stuck with the other charges, but without the obstruction charge, the scoring of those crimes will be lessened and the jail time shortened accordingly.

On what ground SOB?

You can give me little red squares because you cant come up with any real reason but it doesnt change the fact that you say this for partisan reasons only.

 

[CockySOB]

On what ground SOB?

You can give me little red squares because you cant come up with any real reason but it doesnt change the fact that you say this for partisan reasons only.

I give you little red squares for wasting bandwidth with your partisan tripe. It's not something I often do, but you've earned it with your incessant repetitions of mindless bullshit. If you try presenting a real fact once in a while, you probably won't get the "ding."

Why would his conviction for obstruction get overturned? If Fitzgerald had any evidence that Plame was not covert under the law and failed to disclose that information to defense, it could well be prosecutorial misconduct a la Mike Nifong. Remember how Nifong screwed the pooch in the Duke railroading case by ignoring some evidence and failing to disclose other evidence to the defense? It would seem that since Plame's status under the law never came into court, that Fitzgerald had no viable reason to continue with the obstruction charge as he might have known that there was no substantive crime.

Personally, I'm hoping that Fitzgerald can show he proceeded with the investigation in good faith that Plame's status under the law would be resolved as covert per the IIPA. I actually like Fitzgerald as a prosecutor and hold him in fairly decent regard... for a lawyer. But there is always a fine line between being an aggressive prosecutor and prosecutorial misconduct, moreso for the higher profile cases.

 

[red states rule]

BIRTHDAY REMEMBRANCE

Yesterday was a special day - a special birthday. Monica Lewinsky turned 31

It seems like only yesterday she was crawling around the White House on her
hands and knees, and putting everything in her mouth

I wonder if Hillary sent her a Birthday card

 

[Care4all]

I give you little red squares for wasting bandwidth with your partisan tripe. It's not something I often do, but you've earned it with your incessant repetitions of mindless bullshit. If you try presenting a real fact once in a while, you probably won't get the "ding."

Why would his conviction for obstruction get overturned? If Fitzgerald had any evidence that Plame was not covert under the law and failed to disclose that information to defense, it could well be prosecutorial misconduct a la Mike Nifong. Remember how Nifong screwed the pooch in the Duke railroading case by ignoring some evidence and failing to disclose other evidence to the defense? It would seem that since Plame's status under the law never came into court, that Fitzgerald had no viable reason to continue with the obstruction charge as he might have known that there was no substantive crime.

Personally, I'm hoping that Fitzgerald can show he proceeded with the investigation in good faith that Plame's status under the law would be resolved as covert per the IIPA. I actually like Fitzgerald as a prosecutor and hold him in fairly decent regard... for a lawyer. But there is always a fine line between being an aggressive prosecutor and prosecutorial misconduct, moreso for the higher profile cases.

Disclosing Armitage to the Libby team of Lawyers or to Libby has nothing to do with his lies, perjury or obstruction does it?

To obtain a conviction under section 1503, the government must prove that there was a pending federal judicial proceeding, the defendant knew of the proceeding, and the defendant had corrupt intent to interfere with or attempted to interfere with the proceeding.

Two types of cases arise under the Omnibus Clause: the concealment, alteration, or destruction of documents; and the encouraging or rendering of false testimony. Actual obstruction is not needed as an element of proof to sustain a conviction. The defendant's endeavor to obstruct justice is sufficient. "Endeavor" has been defined by the courts as an effort to accomplish the purpose the statute was enacted to prevent. The courts have consistently held that "endeavor" constitutes a lesser threshold of purposeful activity than a criminal "attempt."

Federal obstruction of justice statutes have been used to prosecute government officials who have sought to prevent the disclosure of damaging information. The Watergate scandal of the 1970s involving President Richard M. Nixon is a classic example of this type of obstruction. A number of Nixon's top aides were convicted of obstruction of justice, including former attorney general John N. Mitchell. A federal grand jury named Nixon himself as an unindicted coconspirator for the efforts to prevent disclosure of White House involvement in the 1972 burglary of Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate building complex in Washington, D.C.

It's a rather silly defense to say that if Libby had been told that Armitage confessed outing Plame then Libby would not have had to lie about it?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Disclosing Armitage to the Libby team of Lawyers or to Libby has nothing to do with his lies, perjury or obstruction does it?



It's a rather silly defense to say that if Libby had been told that Armitage confessed outing Plame then Libby would not have had to lie about it?

STILL waiting for your explanation on WHY Libby wasn't charged with outing Plume. You have STATED he did it and that he specifically said she was covert. You have stated there are a host of witnesses to this. Either retract that or explain it.