| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
OT--Charged with lying about a crime that wasn't committed?
|
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT--Charged with lying about a crime that wasn't committed?
"jps" wrote in message ... In article . net, says... I don't think the facts will bear out that he lied. His testimony may not square with the testimony of a few news reporters (Russert, Cooper, etc0 but that doesn't mean that his testimony is false. His testimony doesn't square with his own notes, contemporaneously recorded when Cheney told him about Valerie Plame. He testified that Russert told him about Plame...not the other way around. He also testified that he told Russert that he didn't know it to be true or not. Did he lie to Russert? Perhaps. Did he lie to Fitzgerald? Maybe not. But is it a crime to lie to a news reporter? Especially a reporter who is fishing for a story by pretending to know the answer to the questions he's asking? |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT--Charged with lying about a crime that wasn't committed?
|
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT--Charged with lying about a crime that wasn't committed?
"NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "jps" wrote in message ... In article et, says... "jps" wrote in message ... In article . net, says... "bb" wrote in message ... On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 16:08:24 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: Obstruction for What? Libby is charged with lying about a crime that wasn't committed. Last I checked a bj wasn't a crime. Precisely. So what were your thoughts about Clinton's impeachment? And how do they jive with your eagerness to see Libby burn for a non-crime? Oh for ****'s sake Toothy! Clinton lied about an embarrassing bj. Libby lied about the outing of a CIA agent. Libby is *accused* of lying. So, if there was no crime or misuse of power, why did Libby testify the way he did? Why would Libby say something that directly contradicts his own notes? Libby said something that blatantly contradicted Russert's testimony. One of them is lying about that conversation. The indictment suggests that it was Libby who lied...but the trial should show where the truth really lies. Libby said something that didn't square perfectly with Cooper's testimony, but it wasn't as blatant a difference as in the Russert testimony...and it could easily be excused as unreliable memory (from either party) as to what happened. Yeah......try remembering the order and content of your conversations from a year ago......... Perjury isn't something that's taken lightly by federal prosecutors. No kidding. It got the 42nd President impeached. Would you tell a different story than what you know is in your own notes about the details being investigated? I didn't read that in the indictment. If you'd like to wait until after he's gone to trial to find out whether he did lie, so be it but don't bitch about the outcome beforehand. I'm not. I'm upset that he resigned his position beforehand. If found innocent, Cheney ought to reinstate him. He needed to resign in order to devote his time to fighting the charge..........he could not have handled his position while trying to defend himself. If he's accused and not-guilty he'll get off. If he's convicted or plea bargains then we'll know he lied and I'll once again ask the question, Why would he lie? I don't know...particularly since it wasn't a crime. Why would Russert lie? Why would Wilson lie? They certainly have a better motive (ie--to destabilize a President whose public policy they disagreed with). |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT--Charged with lying about a crime that wasn't committed?
"P Fritz" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "jps" wrote in message ... In article et, says... "jps" wrote in message ... In article . net, says... "bb" wrote in message ... On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 16:08:24 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: Obstruction for What? Libby is charged with lying about a crime that wasn't committed. Last I checked a bj wasn't a crime. Precisely. So what were your thoughts about Clinton's impeachment? And how do they jive with your eagerness to see Libby burn for a non-crime? Oh for ****'s sake Toothy! Clinton lied about an embarrassing bj. Libby lied about the outing of a CIA agent. Libby is *accused* of lying. So, if there was no crime or misuse of power, why did Libby testify the way he did? Why would Libby say something that directly contradicts his own notes? Libby said something that blatantly contradicted Russert's testimony. One of them is lying about that conversation. The indictment suggests that it was Libby who lied...but the trial should show where the truth really lies. Libby said something that didn't square perfectly with Cooper's testimony, but it wasn't as blatant a difference as in the Russert testimony...and it could easily be excused as unreliable memory (from either party) as to what happened. Yeah......try remembering the order and content of your conversations from a year ago......... Perjury isn't something that's taken lightly by federal prosecutors. No kidding. It got the 42nd President impeached. Would you tell a different story than what you know is in your own notes about the details being investigated? I didn't read that in the indictment. If you'd like to wait until after he's gone to trial to find out whether he did lie, so be it but don't bitch about the outcome beforehand. I'm not. I'm upset that he resigned his position beforehand. If found innocent, Cheney ought to reinstate him. He needed to resign in order to devote his time to fighting the charge..........he could not have handled his position while trying to defend himself. Leon Panetta made this point very strongly last night on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer. He also went on to say that *anyone* in the Administratoin who gets indicted should resign their post until their name is cleared. Unfortunately, Lehrer missed this meatball lobbed right over the plate. A sharper host would have asked Leon why he didn't favor this strategy for *his* boss just 7 years ago? |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT--Charged with lying about a crime that wasn't committed?
"NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "P Fritz" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "jps" wrote in message ... In article et, says... "jps" wrote in message ... In article . net, says... "bb" wrote in message ... On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 16:08:24 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: Obstruction for What? Libby is charged with lying about a crime that wasn't committed. Last I checked a bj wasn't a crime. Precisely. So what were your thoughts about Clinton's impeachment? And how do they jive with your eagerness to see Libby burn for a non-crime? Oh for ****'s sake Toothy! Clinton lied about an embarrassing bj. Libby lied about the outing of a CIA agent. Libby is *accused* of lying. So, if there was no crime or misuse of power, why did Libby testify the way he did? Why would Libby say something that directly contradicts his own notes? Libby said something that blatantly contradicted Russert's testimony. One of them is lying about that conversation. The indictment suggests that it was Libby who lied...but the trial should show where the truth really lies. Libby said something that didn't square perfectly with Cooper's testimony, but it wasn't as blatant a difference as in the Russert testimony...and it could easily be excused as unreliable memory (from either party) as to what happened. Yeah......try remembering the order and content of your conversations from a year ago......... Perjury isn't something that's taken lightly by federal prosecutors. No kidding. It got the 42nd President impeached. Would you tell a different story than what you know is in your own notes about the details being investigated? I didn't read that in the indictment. If you'd like to wait until after he's gone to trial to find out whether he did lie, so be it but don't bitch about the outcome beforehand. I'm not. I'm upset that he resigned his position beforehand. If found innocent, Cheney ought to reinstate him. He needed to resign in order to devote his time to fighting the charge..........he could not have handled his position while trying to defend himself. Leon Panetta made this point very strongly last night on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer. He also went on to say that *anyone* in the Administratoin who gets indicted should resign their post until their name is cleared. Unfortunately, Lehrer missed this meatball lobbed right over the plate. A sharper host would have asked Leon why he didn't favor this strategy for *his* boss just 7 years ago? LMAO |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT--Charged with lying about a crime that wasn't committed?
"P Fritz" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "P Fritz" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "jps" wrote in message ... In article et, says... "jps" wrote in message ... In article . net, says... "bb" wrote in message ... On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 16:08:24 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: Obstruction for What? Libby is charged with lying about a crime that wasn't committed. Last I checked a bj wasn't a crime. Precisely. So what were your thoughts about Clinton's impeachment? And how do they jive with your eagerness to see Libby burn for a non-crime? Oh for ****'s sake Toothy! Clinton lied about an embarrassing bj. Libby lied about the outing of a CIA agent. Libby is *accused* of lying. So, if there was no crime or misuse of power, why did Libby testify the way he did? Why would Libby say something that directly contradicts his own notes? Libby said something that blatantly contradicted Russert's testimony. One of them is lying about that conversation. The indictment suggests that it was Libby who lied...but the trial should show where the truth really lies. Libby said something that didn't square perfectly with Cooper's testimony, but it wasn't as blatant a difference as in the Russert testimony...and it could easily be excused as unreliable memory (from either party) as to what happened. Yeah......try remembering the order and content of your conversations from a year ago......... Perjury isn't something that's taken lightly by federal prosecutors. No kidding. It got the 42nd President impeached. Would you tell a different story than what you know is in your own notes about the details being investigated? I didn't read that in the indictment. If you'd like to wait until after he's gone to trial to find out whether he did lie, so be it but don't bitch about the outcome beforehand. I'm not. I'm upset that he resigned his position beforehand. If found innocent, Cheney ought to reinstate him. He needed to resign in order to devote his time to fighting the charge..........he could not have handled his position while trying to defend himself. Leon Panetta made this point very strongly last night on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer. He also went on to say that *anyone* in the Administratoin who gets indicted should resign their post until their name is cleared. Unfortunately, Lehrer missed this meatball lobbed right over the plate. A sharper host would have asked Leon why he didn't favor this strategy for *his* boss just 7 years ago? LMAO I thought it was funny too...so I replayed it and hit "save" on my DVR. |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT--Charged with lying about a crime that wasn't committed?
"NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "P Fritz" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "P Fritz" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "jps" wrote in message ... In article et, says... "jps" wrote in message ... In article . net, says... "bb" wrote in message ... On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 16:08:24 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: Obstruction for What? Libby is charged with lying about a crime that wasn't committed. Last I checked a bj wasn't a crime. Precisely. So what were your thoughts about Clinton's impeachment? And how do they jive with your eagerness to see Libby burn for a non-crime? Oh for ****'s sake Toothy! Clinton lied about an embarrassing bj. Libby lied about the outing of a CIA agent. Libby is *accused* of lying. So, if there was no crime or misuse of power, why did Libby testify the way he did? Why would Libby say something that directly contradicts his own notes? Libby said something that blatantly contradicted Russert's testimony. One of them is lying about that conversation. The indictment suggests that it was Libby who lied...but the trial should show where the truth really lies. Libby said something that didn't square perfectly with Cooper's testimony, but it wasn't as blatant a difference as in the Russert testimony...and it could easily be excused as unreliable memory (from either party) as to what happened. Yeah......try remembering the order and content of your conversations from a year ago......... Perjury isn't something that's taken lightly by federal prosecutors. No kidding. It got the 42nd President impeached. Would you tell a different story than what you know is in your own notes about the details being investigated? I didn't read that in the indictment. If you'd like to wait until after he's gone to trial to find out whether he did lie, so be it but don't bitch about the outcome beforehand. I'm not. I'm upset that he resigned his position beforehand. If found innocent, Cheney ought to reinstate him. He needed to resign in order to devote his time to fighting the charge..........he could not have handled his position while trying to defend himself. Leon Panetta made this point very strongly last night on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer. He also went on to say that *anyone* in the Administratoin who gets indicted should resign their post until their name is cleared. Unfortunately, Lehrer missed this meatball lobbed right over the plate. A sharper host would have asked Leon why he didn't favor this strategy for *his* boss just 7 years ago? LMAO I thought it was funny too...so I replayed it and hit "save" on my DVR. Speaking of DVR's...........how do you like yours? Do you have to subscribe to TiVo? |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT--Charged with lying about a crime that wasn't committed?
" *JimH*" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "P Fritz" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "P Fritz" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "jps" wrote in message ... In article et, says... "jps" wrote in message ... In article . net, says... "bb" wrote in message ... On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 16:08:24 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: Obstruction for What? Libby is charged with lying about a crime that wasn't committed. Last I checked a bj wasn't a crime. Precisely. So what were your thoughts about Clinton's impeachment? And how do they jive with your eagerness to see Libby burn for a non-crime? Oh for ****'s sake Toothy! Clinton lied about an embarrassing bj. Libby lied about the outing of a CIA agent. Libby is *accused* of lying. So, if there was no crime or misuse of power, why did Libby testify the way he did? Why would Libby say something that directly contradicts his own notes? Libby said something that blatantly contradicted Russert's testimony. One of them is lying about that conversation. The indictment suggests that it was Libby who lied...but the trial should show where the truth really lies. Libby said something that didn't square perfectly with Cooper's testimony, but it wasn't as blatant a difference as in the Russert testimony...and it could easily be excused as unreliable memory (from either party) as to what happened. Yeah......try remembering the order and content of your conversations from a year ago......... Perjury isn't something that's taken lightly by federal prosecutors. No kidding. It got the 42nd President impeached. Would you tell a different story than what you know is in your own notes about the details being investigated? I didn't read that in the indictment. If you'd like to wait until after he's gone to trial to find out whether he did lie, so be it but don't bitch about the outcome beforehand. I'm not. I'm upset that he resigned his position beforehand. If found innocent, Cheney ought to reinstate him. He needed to resign in order to devote his time to fighting the charge..........he could not have handled his position while trying to defend himself. Leon Panetta made this point very strongly last night on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer. He also went on to say that *anyone* in the Administratoin who gets indicted should resign their post until their name is cleared. Unfortunately, Lehrer missed this meatball lobbed right over the plate. A sharper host would have asked Leon why he didn't favor this strategy for *his* boss just 7 years ago? LMAO I thought it was funny too...so I replayed it and hit "save" on my DVR. Speaking of DVR's...........how do you like yours? Do you have to subscribe to TiVo? I like it. It's part of my Dish Network satellite receiver. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
