"I'm going to continue posting but I'm going to address something else instead of what we're talking about"
You're useless.
Printable View
"I'm going to continue posting but I'm going to address something else instead of what we're talking about"
You're useless.
Would you care to debate the subject at hand?
Would you?
I wasn't talking to you; I was responding to Dave's statement about Ron Paul
Anything more than that becomes religion. Thankfully, many in here know how to silently remove themselves from such "debates" leaving the religious talking to themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGyver
That's the most humorous point I think you could have made.Quote:
Originally Posted by Govtcheez
Let me take a couple hours and try to find a point you've actually made, other than South Park poop jokes, without trying to twist a debate to your own view.
If you can't spend more than 29 minutes in a forum conversation with the objection that you don't like someone's views on a TV show, then you suck at debating and admit you lost. Yes, this actually happened. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
But overall, I like discussing three subjects:
- Religion
- Politics
- Programming
Areas where those combine can be interesting to discuss as well. ;)
[sarcasm]Oh thank you, wise forum user. I would never have known who you were talking to otherwise without you telling me this.[/sarcasm]Quote:
Originally Posted by Govtcheez
:rolleyes:
Let's put this thread back on subject, and not try getting it closed.
Let's talk about the jurors in the Libby case for a second. We have two particular jurors I'd like to mentioned:
- Ann Redington
- Denis Collins
From Ms. Redington's perspective:
- "I don’t want him to go to jail."
- "He seemed like a ton of fun. ... I didn’t want to see him and his wife and say he was guilty of a crime."
- "I think he got caught in a difficult situation where he got caught in the initial lie, and it just snowballed."
- “I would like him to get” a pardon from Bush, Redington said. “It kind of bothers me that there was this whole big crime being investigated and he got caught up in the investigation as opposed to in the actual crime that was supposedly committed.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17506701/
From Mr. Collins perspective:
- “I will say there was a tremendous amount of sympathy for Mr. Libby on the jury,”
- “It was said a number of times: ‘What are we doing with this guy here? Where’s Rove? Where are these other guys?’ ” Collins said, referring to Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove, who was identified during the investigation as one of the senior officials who revealed the identity of the operative, Valerie Plame, to journalists.
- “I’m not saying we didn’t think Mr. Libby was guilty of the things we found him guilty of,” Collins said. “It seemed like he was, as Mr. Wells [Ted Wells, Libby’s attorney] put it, he was the fall guy.”
- In fact, Collins said, the focus on Libby frustrated the jurors, who had hoped to get a crack at the larger issues.
“What we’re in court deciding seems to be a level or two down from what, before we went into the jury, we supposed the trial was about, or had been initially about, which was who leaked” Plame’s identity.
“Some jurors commented at some point: ‘I wish we weren’t judging Libby. You know, this sucks. We don’t like being here.’ But that wasn’t our choice.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17485067/
Interesting quotes, though, for both jurors.
Ms. Redington wanted a pardon for Libby. While she was convinced he lied, her statement appears to me that it is possible she believes Libby to be covering up for someone. Her motive for a pardon would be because she thinks the real punishment should go to the person who was behind Libby.
Mr. Collins is biased imo. He appears to have already prejudged Mr. Rove, and concluded that Libby was a "fall guy". Again, the opinion, expressed on this board in this topic that basically states there must be some Queatrix-like conspiracy within the Bush administration, is raised here.
So Libby was judged with regard to what? Supposed regarding lying. What did he lie about? I believe it likely these jurors believe he was covering up for someone. If he was covering someone up, that would be enough of a reason to punish him for being an accessory, however, I keep pointing out, and people keep ignoring, that the leak was Richard Armitage. Armitage's role was known to Fitzgerald at or near the beginning of the investigation, yet, he allowed all of the speculation and rumors continue by dragging out an investigation he already knew the final answer to with regard to who leaked the name to Novak. At this point, he's still not charged anyone with the actual crime, and Libby is being prosecuted, or, perhaps rather, persecuted, for his connections with Rove, Cheney, and Bush.
I would call this bias against Libby on part of the jurors except perhaps for the fact that Libby's legal team was not allowed to present a full defense. Information that they had was prohibited from being used, and that information could have played a huge part with the jurors.
Sorry... I can't stop laughing. This is too funny.
This one is the best:
“Some jurors commented at some point: ‘I wish we weren’t judging Libby. You know, this sucks. We don’t like being here.’ But that wasn’t our choice.”
Ahahah!
Dave didn't make a statement, Dave asked a question. The question mark was supposed to indicate that. And this question was not even directed towards you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Govtcheez
To call Armitage a liberal seems a bit disingenuous, and I would love to hear your source on that, because you have been lied to. Armitage was Deputy Secretary of State for the first half of the Bush administration, with purely Republican ties.Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGyver
Reading your posts, it seems that your definition of bias is "believes Libby knowingly attempted to mislead a Grand Jury". The judge and investigator are both Republican appointees. I have yet to find anything or anyone even suggesting impropriety on either of their parts.Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGyver
As for the Jurors... to be honest, I can't really comment on that, since I can find at best very limited and sketchy information. Given your other labellings of those involved in the case, I get the feeling your opinion was formed from said limited and sketchy information.
As for Libby's sentence... look, the jury unanimously found that he knowingly lied. That's not going to mean much to you since they were out to get him, but entertain the idea that they took their job and the charge seriously. Libby's having a motive to lie was necessarily taken into account during the judgement.
If you want to sit there and still maintain that Libby did not perjure himself, then understand that you are in a singular minority. Even the White house isn't making that kind of assertion as they commute his sentence.
Would you prefer I say "moderate" instead of liberal? If he was a strong conservative, he would have been nailed down as a friend of Bush, and we know that didn't happen. No one is willing to connect him to the administration.Quote:
Originally Posted by QuestionC
It's uncited, so draw your own conclusion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard...service_careerQuote:
The United States Senate confirmed him as Deputy Secretary of State on March 23, 2001; he was sworn three days later. A close associate of Secretary of State Colin Powell, Armitage was regarded, along with Powell, as a moderate within the presidential administration of George W. Bush. Armitage tendered his resignation on November 16, 2004, the day after Powell announced his resignation as Secretary of State. He left the post on February 22, 2005, when Robert Zoellick succeeded the office.
I don't really count moderates as conservative, and while I don't claim to have used the term liberal just for that reason, I was under the impression he was a critic of the administration on the basis of how the adminstration has acted with regard to the political nature of their actions. I also believe he was against the Iraq War, although he could have just been a silent supporter. I don't remember what I read on this. I could search for articles later once I've gotten some sleep.
In searching for sources, I found a site labelling him as a neo-con.... Amusing. At least they cite their source: Counterpunch. lol.....
Novak referred to Armitage as "no partisan gunslinger", so perhaps "moderate" is a better term.
I spent some time looking for articles but I'm just too tired to do this. I'll try to get back to this after some sleep.
Must I state this all over again? From articles I read, Fitzgerald moved to block evidence from being presented. The judge agreed, and Libby was hampered in his defense.Quote:
Originally Posted by QuestionC
I find it amazing how I rarely feel that information is sketchy in this day and age with the Internet and moderate google skills when I come out with a position. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by QuestionC
Occasionally, I'm shown to be mistaken in how I read an article or something, but I like to think I have a good view on things and keep relatively up to date with subjects I discuss.
Did you read the articles I posted on this page with regard to the jurors? If so, what did you think of them?
In that case, what was his motive? Five pages and I'm still waiting for it.... Yes, yes, to "protect someone higher up."Quote:
Originally Posted by QuestionC
Who was this higher up, and why do you think there is a higher up when Richard Armitage was the original leak? Why was the investigation continued once Armitage was determined to be the leaker? Why was the Defense not allowed to use all of their information in displaying Tim Russert's crappy memory? How come everyone else that changed their testimony or had contradictory testimony during Libby's trial were not indicted on charges of perjury?
Oh noez, I'm in teh minority! Big freaking deal. Since when does that matter?Quote:
Originally Posted by QuestionC
But even so, there are others that support Libby and agree with my position, so apparently you just pulled the numbers of what constitutes a majority/minority from the air.
MacGyver, I'd like you to answer one question, with a simple yes or no answer.
Libby was accused of perjury and found guilty. Do you believe he did not perjure himself and was thus innocent?
Similarly, ChaosEngine, outside of the Libby case, do you believe there was a crime?
I know I was not asked, sorry for stepping in. But I did manage to put in my opinions so far. So, knowing Chaos will answer is piece, I'll nonetheless add mine here.
I think there was no crime. I think there were political motivations behind all this. And the prosecutor on the Libby case was also politically motivated. I also know, because he was charged, that libby lied under oath.
I'm not sure what you mean by "outside of the Libby case".Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_Sinkula
If you mean, do I believe Libby prejured himself and committed a crime? Then the answer is yes, all the evidence would seem to suggest that he lied to the federal grand jury.
If you're asking me whether the leak itself was a crime, I'm less sure of that and I'd need to read up more on the background of the case (i.e. the leak, not the perjury)
I'm still interested to hear MacGyver's thoughts on the matter. I have noticed that he has tended to ignore this issue by stating that the original leak was not a crime.
As in, outside of that, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaosEngine
So obstructing justice in the case of a non-crime?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaosEngine
Don't bother reading. It goes in circles.
I don't believe it was.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaosEngine
[edit]But I am interested in other opinions as well.