In article , says...
Harry Krause wrote:

The DOJ does not uphold the law, they abuse it. Fitzgerald is a good
example of DOJ "justice". He just ruined a man and his family and has no
shame.

Libby has been charged with a number of serious offenses. If the case
against him goes to trial, he'll either be exonerated or convicted.

"Either exonerated or convicted"??? The man has been ruined no matter
how the case turns out. You show an exceptional feeling for the plight
of your fellow man, Krause. Is that instinct or heritage?

You're an idiot Snippy.

The reason the charges are taken before a grand jury is so the person in
question can be spared the injustice of a public airing of the
investigation.

The grand jury obviously felt the charges had merit, otherwise they
would not have voted to indict.

I suppose the jury is also in the pocket of the dems?

You got a dunce cap?

jps

In article , says...
wrote:

Would you say that a judge who charges anybody else with a crime has no
shame?

The judge assigned this case is a well know Dem political hack. Most
Dems are without shame, particularly when referring to stains on blue
dresses.

If that's what it comes down to in your simple little mind then he

Goose, gander.

May Scooter Libby face cocksucking *******s who have the moral and
ethical equivalents of Henry Hyde and Ken Star.

Have a nice day.

jps

Harry Krause wrote:

The Bush White House went after the Wilsons for (outing them). The
White House played hardball here and lost.

Perhaps the White House should have found a better, more final solution
to the Wilson problem.

--
Skipper

The reason the charges are taken before a grand jury is so the person in
question can be spared the injustice of a public airing of the
investigation.

Unscrupulous Dems can indict a ham sandwich. They'll drag this out for
maximum exposure.

--
Skipper

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Skipper wrote:
jps wrote:

Snippy, leave justice to those charged with upholding the law.

The DOJ does not uphold the law, they abuse it. Fitzgerald is a good
example of DOJ "justice". He just ruined a man and his family and has no
shame.

--
Skipper


Libby has been charged with a number of serious offenses. If the case
against him goes to trial, he'll either be exonerated or convicted.

Perjury, false statements, and obstruction on matters more important than
semen stains on a blue dress necessitates charges and a trial. The
indictment papers state that one of the jurors believes Libby lied in
response to a direct question from the grand jury. That would be perjury.

You keep referring obliquely to a bad experience you had with the DoJ. Did
you lie to a federal official?

Seaman (lets make this a little boat related) was not why he was in court,
he was in court over sexual Harassment charges, and he lied under oath. And
if Fitzpatrick can not get anything on the Plame case, except a left out
comment to the Grand Jury, he is going to have a hard time getting a
conviction.

Skipper wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:

Libby allegedly lied to a federal grand jury. That's perjury. He also
allegedly made false statements to federal officials investigating the
case, and he is accused of obstructing justice. Those are all federal
felonies.

Libby was charged with five (5) counts of lying. That's like a cop
issuing bumper-to-bumper tickets...abusive. The prosecutor was *only*
charged with prosecuting the outing. When he couldn't do that, he went
for entrapment. Damn Dems!!!

--
Skipper

At the time the prosecutor began investigating the retaliatory "outing"
of Valerie Plame, the (alleged) crime of lying under oath to the grand
jury had not yet been committed. One the (alleged) crime was committed
and thereby discovered in the course of the investigation it is only
fitting and proper to file charges.

wrote:

At the time the prosecutor began investigating the retaliatory "outing"
of Valerie Plame, the (alleged) crime of lying under oath to the grand
jury had not yet been committed.

Retaliatory outing? What were they retaliating for? Could it be for the
illegal politically motivated activities of the Wilsons?

--
Skipper

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Skipper wrote:
jps wrote:

Snippy, leave justice to those charged with upholding the law.

The DOJ does not uphold the law, they abuse it. Fitzgerald is a good
example of DOJ "justice". He just ruined a man and his family and has no
shame.

--
Skipper


Libby has been charged with a number of serious offenses. If the case
against him goes to trial, he'll either be exonerated or convicted.

Perjury, false statements, and obstruction on matters more important than
semen stains on a blue dress necessitates charges and a trial. The
indictment papers state that one of the jurors believes Libby lied in
response to a direct question from the grand jury. That would be perjury.

You keep referring obliquely to a bad experience you had with the DoJ.
Did you lie to a federal official?

Seaman (lets make this a little boat related) was not why he was in court,
he was in court over sexual Harassment charges, and he lied under oath.
And if Fitzpatrick can not get anything on the Plame case, except a left
out comment to the Grand Jury, he is going to have a hard time getting a
conviction.


Oops, Fitzgerald.

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 00:34:22 +0000, Bill McKee wrote:


And if Fitzpatrick can not get anything on the Plame case, except a left
out comment to the Grand Jury, he is going to have a hard time getting a
conviction.

You may be missing the point. There may not be any charges on the leak
itself, because they would be hard to prove. These charges were brought
because they will be much easier to prove. You may want to read the
indictment, these charges weren't about a "left out comment".

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 00:34:22 +0000, Bill McKee wrote:


And if Fitzpatrick can not get anything on the Plame case, except a left
out comment to the Grand Jury, he is going to have a hard time getting a
conviction.

You may be missing the point. There may not be any charges on the leak
itself, because they would be hard to prove. These charges were brought
because they will be much easier to prove. You may want to read the
indictment, these charges weren't about a "left out comment".

Hard to prove? Everyone in Wash. DC that meet the "Wilson's" was introduced
to Mrs. Wilson as my CIA Agent wife. This was occuring before the year 2002
was ever entered.

Wilson outed his wife and when they got caught running an political smear
agains the White House they screamed and claimed that the White House outed
Plame, Mrs. Wilson.

Where is the authorization to send Mr. Wilson to Niger? Where is the
specification of the work he was supposed to do. Somebody should charge the
CIA with getting involved in politics rather than doing their job of
keeiping an eye on the US's enemies.