On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 08:45:35 -0500, Bert Robbins wrote:


What about the covert CIA agent Sen. Kerry outed a few months ago. Are you
going to have him brought up on charges too? If not, then your bias is
showing.

LOL, my bias? Both Sen. Lugar and Sen. Kerry "outed" the very same agent.
Why didn't you mention Sen. Lugar? It appears your bias is showing. But
hey, go for it. Bring them both up on charges.

jps wrote:

It's funny - your wife disagrees with most of what you say about Democrats.
Why, just this morning, I rolled off of her, we shared some strawberries
dipped in melted chocolate, and we started discussing politics. I'll bet you
have no idea what she says about you while you're out at Victoria's Secret,
gettin' yourself a new supply of panties.


Oh man, that's rich. Thanks for the hearty laugh.

jps

Doug's pretty sharp for such a late hour.

In article , "Dr. Dr. Smithers"
Ask Me about my Phd @ Diploma Mill .com says...

fabricate fictitious boats to impress people in UseNet.

I'm with Smithers on this one Harry. Why would Snippy fabricate owning
a Bilgeliner?

jps

Harry,
It sounds like you are doing some projecting here. Does your barber have
many boating magazines?


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
jps wrote:
In article , "Dr. Dr. Smithers" Ask
Me about my Phd @ Diploma Mill .com says...

fabricate fictitious boats to impress people in UseNet.

I'm with Smithers on this one Harry. Why would Snippy fabricate owning a
Bilgeliner?

jps


Easy. Snippy was getting a haircut one day in Derby, and while sitting in
the barber's chair, he perused a boating related magazine. He saw the
Bilgeliner, decided he wanted to be a "boater," and imagined owning one,
and trailering it all over the free world.

Ever been to the Derby, Kansas - Wichita area? I have. A jon boat or bass
boat would be sufficient.

IMHO
Sounds like what Billy Jeff Clinton was charged with: lying about consensual
sex.
Fredo

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

Obstruction for What?
Libby is charged with lying about a crime that wasn't committed.

Saturday, October 29, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation took nearly two years, sent a reporter
to jail, cost millions of dollars, and preoccupied some of the White
House's senior officials. The fruit it has now borne is the five-count
indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the Vice President's Chief of
Staff--not for leaking the name of Valerie Plame to Robert Novak, which
started this entire "scandal," but for contradictions between his
testimony and the testimony of two or three reporters about what he told
them, when he told them, and what words he used.

Mr. Fitzgerald would not comment yesterday on whether he had evidence for
the perjury, obstruction of justice and false statement counts beyond the
testimonies of Mr. Libby and three journalists. Instead, he noted that a
criminal investigation into a "national security matter" of this sort
hinged on "very fine distinctions," and that any attempt to obscure
exactly who told what to whom and when was a serious matter.

Let us stipulate that impeding a criminal investigation is indeed a
serious matter; no one should feel he can lie to a grand jury or to
federal investigators. But there is a question to be asked about the end
to which the accused allegedly lied. The indictment itself contains no
motive. And Mr. Libby is not alleged to have been the source for Robert
Novak's July 14, 2003 column, in which Valerie Plame's employment with the
CIA was revealed.

Rather, according to the indictment, Mr. Libby did a little digging, found
out who Joe Wilson's wife was, and apparently told Judith Miller of the
New York Times, who never wrote it up, and Matthew Cooper of Time
magazine, who put it into print after Mr. Novak's column had run. What's
more, he allegedly did not talk to Tim Russert of NBC about it, although
he claimed that he had. Mr. Libby then didn't tell a grand jury and the
FBI the truth about what he told those reporters, the indictment claims.

If this is a conspiracy to silence Administration critics, it was more
daft than deft. The indictment itself contains no evidence of a
conspiracy, and Mr. Libby has not been accused of trying to cover up some
high crime or misdemeanor by the Bush Administration. The indictment
amounts to an allegation that one official lied about what he knew about
an underlying "crime" that wasn't committed. And we still don't know who
did tell Mr. Novak--presumably, it was the soon-to-be-infamous "Official
A" from paragraph 21 of the indictment, although we don't know whether
Official A was Mr. Novak's primary source or merely a corroborating one.





To the extent that the facts alleged in the indictment can be relied upon,
the story goes something like this. Sometime in May 2003, or slightly
before, Nicholas Kristof, a columnist for the New York Times, was informed
of Joe Wilson's 2002 trip to Niger to investigate claims that Saddam
Hussein had attempted to buy yellowcake there. Mr. Kristof wrote a column,
and Mr. Libby began to ask around, to determine why a Democratic partisan
had been sent on such a sensitive mission in the run-up to the Iraq war.
He allegedly learned in the course of his inquiries that Mr. Wilson's wife
worked for the CIA.
Mr. Fitzgerald alleges that Mr. Libby informed Judith Miller of the New
York Times about Mr. Wilson's wife in June, but she never wrote it up. In
the meantime, Mr. Wilson went public with his own account of his mission
and its outcome, without reference to his wife's employment or possible
involvement in his trip.

Mr. Libby also spoke to Mr. Cooper of Time about it, who did write it up,
but only after Mr. Novak's column had run. In this same time period, he
had a conversation with Mr. Russert, which may or may not have covered Mr.
Wilson and his wife, depending on whom you believe.

So, we are left with this. Did Mr. Libby offer the truth about Mr. Wilson
to Mr. Cooper "without qualifications," as Mr. Fitzgerald alleges, or did
he merely confirm what Mr. Cooper had heard elsewhere? Did he, or did he
not, discuss Mr. Wilson with Tim Russert at all?

On this much we can agree with Mr. Fitzgerald: These are "very fine
distinctions" indeed, especially as they pertain to discussions that
occurred two years ago, and whose importance only became clear well after
the fact, when investigators came knocking. In a statement yesterday, Mr.
Libby's counsel zeroed in on this point when he said, "We are quite
distressed the Special Counsel has now sought to pursue alleged
inconsistencies in Mr. Libby's recollection and those of others' and to
charge such inconsistencies as false statements." He added that they "will
defend vigorously against these charges."





On the answers to these questions hang a possible 30-year jail term and
$1.25 million in fines for a Bush Administration official who was merely
attempting to expose the truth about Mr. Wilson, a critic of the
Administration who was lying to the press about the nature of his
involvement in the Niger mission and about the nature of the intelligence
that it produced. In other words, Mr. Libby was defending Administration
policy against political attack, not committing a crime.
Mr. Fitzgerald has been dogged in pursuing his investigation, and he gave
every appearance of being a reasonable and tough prosecutor in laying out
the charges yesterday. But he has thrust himself into what was, at bottom,
a policy dispute between an elected Administration and critics of the
President's approach to the war on terror, who included parts of the
permanent bureaucracy of the State Department and CIA. Unless Mr.
Fitzgerald can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Libby was lying,
and doing so for some nefarious purpose, this indictment looks like a case
of criminalizing politics.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/weeken.../?id=110007476

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A policy dispute indeed! One that culminated into treason committed by
bureaucrats in State and the CIA who worked in concert to destabilize a
President.

"FREDO" wrote in message
.. .
IMHO
Sounds like what Billy Jeff Clinton was charged with: lying about
consensual sex.
Fredo




No, he was charged for lies in a Sexual Harassment suit.