http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_917966.html

Ouch! No pun intended....

On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 11:35:04 -0700, wrote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_917966.html

Ouch! No pun intended....

I think this falls under the "you don't know what you don't know"
category.

He didn't know that he'd be sued for his role in this gargantuan lie.

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 11:35:04 -0700, wrote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_917966.html

Ouch! No pun intended....

I think this falls under the "you don't know what you don't know"
category.

He didn't know that he'd be sued for his role in this gargantuan lie.

Next up Holder.

On Thu, 4 Aug 2011 20:46:10 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 11:35:04 -0700, wrote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_917966.html

Ouch! No pun intended....

I think this falls under the "you don't know what you don't know"
category.

He didn't know that he'd be sued for his role in this gargantuan lie.

Next up Holder.


For what? Not going after Cheney?

On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 17:59:33 -0700, wrote:

On Thu, 4 Aug 2011 20:46:10 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 11:35:04 -0700, wrote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_917966.html

Ouch! No pun intended....

I think this falls under the "you don't know what you don't know"
category.

He didn't know that he'd be sued for his role in this gargantuan lie.

Next up Holder.


For what? Not going after Cheney?

That guy must be drunk or stoned. Little he says makes any sense.

On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 18:08:07 -0700, jps wrote:

On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 17:59:33 -0700, wrote:

On Thu, 4 Aug 2011 20:46:10 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 11:35:04 -0700, wrote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_917966.html

Ouch! No pun intended....

I think this falls under the "you don't know what you don't know"
category.

He didn't know that he'd be sued for his role in this gargantuan lie.

Next up Holder.


For what? Not going after Cheney?

That guy must be drunk or stoned. Little he says makes any sense.

They're not mutually exclusive.

On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 01:27:31 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 16:59:10 -0700, jps wrote:

On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 11:35:04 -0700, wrote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_917966.html

Ouch! No pun intended....

I think this falls under the "you don't know what you don't know"
category.

He didn't know that he'd be sued for his role in this gargantuan lie.

I doubt this case really goes anywhere. The precedent would be
chilling for any sitting government official. That is why Obama is
presenting the defense.

Well, given your vast legal and political expertise, I'm sure you're
right.