Valerie Plame for Congress

[Terri4Trump]

Because righties hate strong women who serve their country.

Most women who serve in the military are conservative LIKE ME you gonad gargling freak.

There's nothing more annoying that a sissy little ***** like you telling me, a woman who served in the army, that "righties hate strong women who serve". Who the **** do you think you are you punk!!! When did you ever serve you *****!!

 

[Faun]

Because righties hate strong women who serve their country.

Most women who serve in the military are conservative LIKE ME you gonad gargling freak.

There's nothing more annoying that a sissy little ***** like you telling me, a woman who served in the army, that "righties hate strong women who serve". Who the **** do you think you are you punk!!! When did you ever serve you *****!!

LOLOL

Unhinginged rightard, righties hate strong women who serve. Most prefer their women to be subservient, barefoot & pregnant. Being an annoying idiot like you doesn't make you strong, it makes you a harmless pest, like a mosquito. Here's a strong woman who served her country, who you hate....

 

[iceberg]

Ex-CIA operative, Valerie Plame, running for New Mexico's 3rd district.

dig the ad. want to hear more from her.

 

[iceberg]

Because righties hate strong women who serve their country.

Most women who serve in the military are conservative LIKE ME you gonad gargling freak.

There's nothing more annoying that a sissy little ***** like you telling me, a woman who served in the army, that "righties hate strong women who serve". Who the **** do you think you are you punk!!! When did you ever serve you *****!!

LOLOL

Unhinginged rightard, righties hate strong women who serve. Most prefer their women to be subservient, barefoot & pregnant. Being an annoying idiot like you doesn't make you strong, it makes you a harmless pest, like a mosquito. Here's a strong woman who served her country, who you hate....

and lookie here. right after i say i want to hear more from this woman, i happen to follow a shallow minded generic bullshit stereotype from you.

well, that is how you roll and all.

 

[Terri4Trump]

and lookie here. right after i say i want to hear more from this woman, i happen to follow a shallow minded generic bullshit stereotype from you. well, that is how you roll and all.

Go have another drink, asswipe

 

[Faun]

Because righties hate strong women who serve their country.

Most women who serve in the military are conservative LIKE ME you gonad gargling freak.

There's nothing more annoying that a sissy little ***** like you telling me, a woman who served in the army, that "righties hate strong women who serve". Who the **** do you think you are you punk!!! When did you ever serve you *****!!

LOLOL

Yah, laugh all you want you little *****. In the end, I am conservative strong woman who picked up a weapon and served her country, and you are a sniveling ****** ***** who has never done a worthwhile thing in your little pathetic life.

Live with it

LOLOL

You're a pesty mosquito who gums at my balls. That's why you hate Plame and why it eats at you that she's running for office. If she wins, she'll have a voice in Congress. You'll have a voice here.

 

[MAGAman]

Ex-CIA operative, Valerie Plame, running for New Mexico's 3rd district.

I guess you may as well lie in your first campaign commercial if you're a commiecrat.

.

Oh? What lie is that?

Outing Valerie Plame. Plame and her husband, Joe Wilson, accused the Bush White House of doing it in retaliation, because her husband was a critic of its war policy. Wilson said it would be “fun to see Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs.” Only one problem: Rove didn’t do it. The State Department’s Richard Armitage did.

https://nypost.com/2014/12/22/outing-valerie-plame/

.

She was outed. And Rove was involved. He just wasn't the only one or the first. There was no lie. She was a covert operative for the CIA until the day Novak's article exposed her.

No, it was not Rove.

She's a liar. And you like lies.

 

[MAGAman]

Because righties hate strong women who serve their country.

Most women who serve in the military are conservative LIKE ME you gonad gargling freak.

There's nothing more annoying that a sissy little ***** like you telling me, a woman who served in the army, that "righties hate strong women who serve". Who the **** do you think you are you punk!!! When did you ever serve you *****!!

LOLOL

Yah, laugh all you want you little *****. In the end, I am conservative strong woman who picked up a weapon and served her country, and you are a sniveling ****** ***** who has never done a worthwhile thing in your little pathetic life.

Live with it

LOLOL

You're a pesty mosquito who gums at my balls. That's why you hate Plame and why it eats at you that she's running for office. If she wins, she'll have a voice in Congress. You'll have a voice here.

Your homosexuality is your business. But it's best not to out your fantasies in this forum.

 

[Papageorgio]

Ex-CIA operative, Valerie Plame, running for New Mexico's 3rd district.

I guess you may as well lie in your first campaign commercial if you're a commiecrat.

.

Scooter Libby took responsibility for his crime when he accepted the pardon.

She lies and you swear to it. Good job commie.

.

Presidential pardons come with strings attached, one of those is accepting your guilt for the crime you were convicted of.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...447f84-69ba-11e8-bf8c-f9ed2e672adf_story.html

Pardons are only for guilty people; accepting one is an admission of guilt.
In 1915, the Supreme Court wrote in Burdick v. United States that a pardon “carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it.” Over the years, many have come to see a necessary relationship between a pardon and guilt. Ford carried the Burdick quote in his wallet, defending the e pardon by noting that it established Nixon’s guilt. More recently, MSNBC host Ari Melber taunted Arpaio by saying he had admitted he was guilty when he accepted Trump’s pardon.

But Burdick was about a different issue: the ability to turn down a pardon. The language about imputing and confessing guilt was just an aside — what lawyers call dicta. The court meant that, as a practical matter, because pardons make people look guilty, a recipient might not want to accept one. But pardons have no formal, legal effect of declaring guilt.

Indeed, in rare cases pardons are used to exonerate people. This was Trump’s rationale for posthumously pardoning boxer Jack Johnson, the victim of a racially based railroading in 1913. Ford pardoned Iva Toguri d’Aquino (World War II’s “Tokyo Rose”) after “60 Minutes” revealed that she was an innocent victim of prosecutors who suborned perjured testimony in her treason case. President George H.W. Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger because he thought the former defense secretary, indicted in the Iran-contra affair, was a victim of “the criminalization of policy differences.” If the president pardons you because he thinks you are innocent, what guilt could accepting that pardon possibly admit?

 

[Faun]

Ex-CIA operative, Valerie Plame, running for New Mexico's 3rd district.

I guess you may as well lie in your first campaign commercial if you're a commiecrat.

.

Oh? What lie is that?

Outing Valerie Plame. Plame and her husband, Joe Wilson, accused the Bush White House of doing it in retaliation, because her husband was a critic of its war policy. Wilson said it would be “fun to see Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs.” Only one problem: Rove didn’t do it. The State Department’s Richard Armitage did.

https://nypost.com/2014/12/22/outing-valerie-plame/

.

She was outed. And Rove was involved. He just wasn't the only one or the first. There was no lie. She was a covert operative for the CIA until the day Novak's article exposed her.

No, it was not Rove.

She's a liar. And you like lies.

I didn't say Rove was the one who outed her. I said he was involved. He just wasn't the first one to expose her. Learn to read for comprehension.

 

[MarcATL]

As far as I'm concerned - Valerie Plame deserves any office she runs for! She has served this country honorably!

My only problem with her running is that she's running in a Democrat district. I'd rather see her take a seat from a Republican.

That too!

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Terri4Trump]

You're a pesty mosquito......

I am a strong military conservative woman, and you are a sissy liberal ***** who is scared to death of me. Live with it *****

 

[MarcATL]

Ex-CIA operative, Valerie Plame, running for New Mexico's 3rd district.

I guess you may as well lie in your first campaign commercial if you're a commiecrat.

.

Scooter Libby took responsibility for his crime when he accepted the pardon.

She lies and you swear to it. Good job commie.

.

Presidential pardons come with strings attached, one of those is accepting your guilt for the crime you were convicted of.

**** off commie, it was proven Libby didn't do it. And he was never convicted of doing so. The ***** lied, deal with it.

.

Link?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Faun]

Because righties hate strong women who serve their country.

Most women who serve in the military are conservative LIKE ME you gonad gargling freak.

There's nothing more annoying that a sissy little ***** like you telling me, a woman who served in the army, that "righties hate strong women who serve". Who the **** do you think you are you punk!!! When did you ever serve you *****!!

LOLOL

Yah, laugh all you want you little *****. In the end, I am conservative strong woman who picked up a weapon and served her country, and you are a sniveling ****** ***** who has never done a worthwhile thing in your little pathetic life.

Live with it

LOLOL

You're a pesty mosquito who gums at my balls. That's why you hate Plame and why it eats at you that she's running for office. If she wins, she'll have a voice in Congress. You'll have a voice here.

Your homosexuality is your business. But it's best not to out your fantasies in this forum.

LOL

Dumbfuck, what's gay about a woman gumming a man's balls?? You freaks are sooo confused.

Now how about staying on the topic of ex-CIA operative Valerie Plsne running for Congress.

 

[MarcATL]

Because righties hate strong women who serve their country.

Most women who serve in the military are conservative LIKE ME you gonad gargling freak.

There's nothing more annoying that a sissy little ***** like you telling me, a woman who served in the army, that "righties hate strong women who serve". Who the **** do you think you are you punk!!! When did you ever serve you *****!!

"When did you serve *****?" is a damn good question to ask the current Occupant of 1400.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Faun]

Ex-CIA operative, Valerie Plame, running for New Mexico's 3rd district.

I guess you may as well lie in your first campaign commercial if you're a commiecrat.

.

Scooter Libby took responsibility for his crime when he accepted the pardon.

She lies and you swear to it. Good job commie.

.

Presidential pardons come with strings attached, one of those is accepting your guilt for the crime you were convicted of.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...447f84-69ba-11e8-bf8c-f9ed2e672adf_story.html

Pardons are only for guilty people; accepting one is an admission of guilt.
In 1915, the Supreme Court wrote in Burdick v. United States that a pardon “carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it.” Over the years, many have come to see a necessary relationship between a pardon and guilt. Ford carried the Burdick quote in his wallet, defending the e pardon by noting that it established Nixon’s guilt. More recently, MSNBC host Ari Melber taunted Arpaio by saying he had admitted he was guilty when he accepted Trump’s pardon.

But Burdick was about a different issue: the ability to turn down a pardon. The language about imputing and confessing guilt was just an aside — what lawyers call dicta. The court meant that, as a practical matter, because pardons make people look guilty, a recipient might not want to accept one. But pardons have no formal, legal effect of declaring guilt.

Indeed, in rare cases pardons are used to exonerate people. This was Trump’s rationale for posthumously pardoning boxer Jack Johnson, the victim of a racially based railroading in 1913. Ford pardoned Iva Toguri d’Aquino (World War II’s “Tokyo Rose”) after “60 Minutes” revealed that she was an innocent victim of prosecutors who suborned perjured testimony in her treason case. President George H.W. Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger because he thought the former defense secretary, indicted in the Iran-contra affair, was a victim of “the criminalization of policy differences.” If the president pardons you because he thinks you are innocent, what guilt could accepting that pardon possibly admit?

So you're saying trump thinks Libby didn't lie to federal prosecutors? Based on what?

 

[Faun]

You're a pesty mosquito......

I am a strong military conservative woman, and you are a sissy liberal ***** who is scared to death of me. Live with it *****

LOLOL

No, I've read your posts. You're nothing but a pest who's disconnected from reality. And fortunately, you're quite harmless. That you think I fear you is rather funny in itself.

But why are you trying so diligently to divert this thread to be about me when it's actually about Plsme and her running for Congress? Is there a reason you don't want to talk about Plame?

 

[MAGAman]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...447f84-69ba-11e8-bf8c-f9ed2e672adf_story.html

Pardons are only for guilty people; accepting one is an admission of guilt.
In 1915, the Supreme Court wrote in Burdick v. United States that a pardon “carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it.” Over the years, many have come to see a necessary relationship between a pardon and guilt. Ford carried the Burdick quote in his wallet, defending the e pardon by noting that it established Nixon’s guilt. More recently, MSNBC host Ari Melber taunted Arpaio by saying he had admitted he was guilty when he accepted Trump’s pardon.

But Burdick was about a different issue: the ability to turn down a pardon. The language about imputing and confessing guilt was just an aside — what lawyers call dicta. The court meant that, as a practical matter, because pardons make people look guilty, a recipient might not want to accept one. But pardons have no formal, legal effect of declaring guilt.

Indeed, in rare cases pardons are used to exonerate people. This was Trump’s rationale for posthumously pardoning boxer Jack Johnson, the victim of a racially based railroading in 1913. Ford pardoned Iva Toguri d’Aquino (World War II’s “Tokyo Rose”) after “60 Minutes” revealed that she was an innocent victim of prosecutors who suborned perjured testimony in her treason case. President George H.W. Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger because he thought the former defense secretary, indicted in the Iran-contra affair, was a victim of “the criminalization of policy differences.” If the president pardons you because he thinks you are innocent, what guilt could accepting that pardon possibly admit?

The ability to refuse a pardon is untested and would lose if the Constitution is followed.

The Constitution gives POTUS power to pardon except impeachment. Period. No ifs, no buts.

Therefore, implied guilt without a trial is political hackery.

In America, guilt is proven, not conferred.

 

[Rigby5]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...447f84-69ba-11e8-bf8c-f9ed2e672adf_story.html

Pardons are only for guilty people; accepting one is an admission of guilt.
In 1915, the Supreme Court wrote in Burdick v. United States that a pardon “carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it.” Over the years, many have come to see a necessary relationship between a pardon and guilt. Ford carried the Burdick quote in his wallet, defending the e pardon by noting that it established Nixon’s guilt. More recently, MSNBC host Ari Melber taunted Arpaio by saying he had admitted he was guilty when he accepted Trump’s pardon.

But Burdick was about a different issue: the ability to turn down a pardon. The language about imputing and confessing guilt was just an aside — what lawyers call dicta. The court meant that, as a practical matter, because pardons make people look guilty, a recipient might not want to accept one. But pardons have no formal, legal effect of declaring guilt.

Indeed, in rare cases pardons are used to exonerate people. This was Trump’s rationale for posthumously pardoning boxer Jack Johnson, the victim of a racially based railroading in 1913. Ford pardoned Iva Toguri d’Aquino (World War II’s “Tokyo Rose”) after “60 Minutes” revealed that she was an innocent victim of prosecutors who suborned perjured testimony in her treason case. President George H.W. Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger because he thought the former defense secretary, indicted in the Iran-contra affair, was a victim of “the criminalization of policy differences.” If the president pardons you because he thinks you are innocent, what guilt could accepting that pardon possibly admit?

The ability to refuse a pardon is untested and would lose if the Constitution is followed.

The Constitution gives POTUS power to pardon except impeachment. Period. No ifs, no buts.

Therefore, implied guilt without a trial is political hackery.

In America, guilt is proven, not conferred.

Except that Scooter Libby was proven guilty by a trial and jury, on 4 felonies.
The claim that it was Armitage who accidentally disclosed Plame's cover is false because Armitage did not know and only speculated. It was Libby who deliberately disclosed Plame's sting operation to pretend to buy or sell WMD in the Mideast.

 

[whitehall]

Plame was a setup to embarrass president Bush. Everyone knew the socialite had connections with the CIA but they pretended that she was "outed" by the Bush administration. You almost gotta laugh that the primary intel network in the world (the CIA) couldn't figure out who done it until reporter Robert Novak confessed.