Have you been talking to the German government again?Originally Posted by Govtcheez
Have you been talking to the German government again?
Nope, talking from personal experience here
-Govtcheez
[email protected]
Too bad Robert Byrd isn't a candidate. He was even anti-war on the grounds he would refuse to fight beside someone black. Tried to scuttle the Civil Rights Act of 1964.... Used the N word in 2001 in poor taste, and only in 1982 decided that parents love their children no matter their race. So apparently before that he didn't think blacks had feelings either, I guess, since apparently we know he didn't have any.
Yup.
Good candidate.
David Duke would be proud.
A skeptical observer could say that;
Libby’s motivation to lie was to protect someone higher up (or the administration).
Libby threatened to expose that person (or the administration) if he went to prison.
That ‘higher up’ arranged for Libby’s sentence to be commuted to protect themselves (or the administration).
Either way, it appears (to the outside observer) that US ‘justice’ is based not on the decision of the courts, but by whom you know.
Hilton can get out because the bars don’t go with her outfit.
Libby can lie to a grand jury and get away with a slap on the wrist (the fine is nothing compared to the amount he earns).
This seemed a balanced view of the result;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...030600559.html
Washington Post: Will Libby get a pardon?
Jeralyn Merritt: That is anyone's guess. Mine would be that if Libby maintains his silence and stoically goes off to do any sentence the judge imposes, he will get one before Bush leaves office. But, that's a political opinion, not a legal one.
"Man alone suffers so excruciatingly in the world that he was compelled to invent laughter."
Friedrich Nietzsche
"I spent a lot of my money on booze, birds and fast cars......the rest I squandered."
George Best
"If you are going through hell....keep going."
Winston Churchill
Another skeptical observer could say that a man was convicted of no crime for trying to prevent a de facto coup d'etat by this CIA on the US government. But who's to say?
7. It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.
40. There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.*
If it's so obvious Libby is covering up a crime by someone else, Fitzgerald wouldn't have pulled a Nifong. He would have chosen who to indict by means of who performed the crime, not someone with a bad memory. In addition, the judge in this case was completely biased against Libby by throwing out the option for the defense to bring in evidence that was supposed to show Russert's memory was just as crappy as or even worse than Libby's. Libby should never have been charged, let alone convicted.
It was already well know the other reporters and people in the case couldn't remember a freaking thing, and they all testified different things. No one was charged but Libby, and it was because of political bias.
The absurdity of this becomes a little more clear when we realize that we know for a fact Libby was not covering up Novak's primary source because we know who Novak's primary source was: Richard Armitage.
So where was the crime in the Bush administration? Who was the higher up that invented this plan? The left-wing ate this entire story up from the beginning as an opportunity to get at Bush, and it turned out they screwed up in jumping to conclusions and ranting all day and night that Karl Rove was going to get burned. Apparently some couldn't let it go, and they had to make it look good, and Libby took the fall because they couldn't get at anyone bigger, so they picked on a decent guy that just couldn't remember what happened when.
Are you saying the US judicial system is so corrupt that the opposition political party can get a very high member of the administration convicted of a crime solely based on 'political bias'?
If so, it would it not follow that the ruling party could use it's greater political power to stop it?
Why can you accept that one party can, and does, expoit political power in this fashion but not accept that the other party (with greater power) does not?
from the link I posted
Washington: Do you believe the jury found appropriately given the way the trial unfolded?
Jeralyn Merritt: Yes. I believe the jury's verdict was consistent with the evidence. I listened to the juror's press remarks after the verdict where he described how the jury arrived at its verdict and what they considered.
Once they found Libby falsely attributed his knowledge of Plame Wilson's employment status to Tim Russert, it was pretty much downhill after that.
There were so many officials that testified they had conversations with Libby about Joe Wilson and his wife, and when considered with the handwritten notes by VP Cheney on the Wilson article asking about his wife's role, I think the evidence was pretty powerful.
Libby's lawyers did a good job of pointing out inconsistencies in the testimony, and in everyone's memories, but they failed in their attempt to establish any motive for the Government witnesses to have lied.
"Man alone suffers so excruciatingly in the world that he was compelled to invent laughter."
Friedrich Nietzsche
"I spent a lot of my money on booze, birds and fast cars......the rest I squandered."
George Best
"If you are going through hell....keep going."
Winston Churchill
Yeah, too bad.
Of course there are racist democrats, I never said there weren't. I said that none of them were running for President.
Do you ever debate what people are actually debating or do you just twist everything to your own view?
-Govtcheez
[email protected]
That's the most humorous point I think you could have made.
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.
7. It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.
40. There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.*
*cough*nor*cough*And not you, or I or Bush can change that
Actually, each branch is suppose to balance out both of the other branches. Congress has certain powers over the President and the Courts, the courts have certain powers over the President and Congress, and the President has certain powers over Congress and the Courts.The Executive Branch of government is supposed to keep an eye on the Judicial Branch. This is why it's the President of the United States that selects and appoints judges, and not Congress. Congress is meant to make sure the President doesn't go out of line, and the Supreme Court is meant to make sure Congress doesn't make any bad, inherently illegal laws.
As for this subject of this topic: I don't think anyone was surprised. Like it or not this is within the powers given to the President. Modern Presidents have pardon/commuted hundreds of people each during their term. Most go without notice.
I haven't read all the posts but are you talking about that guy who got into trouble for exposing the super secret military space-plane, and then got pardoned by the president at the last minute? I saw a documentary about it.
Um... no.
I think you meant to say "I haven't read any of the posts or the article in the first post"
-Govtcheez
[email protected]
No, since the law empowered the executive branch of that government to do what it did.So does this mean the government is above the law?
Look up a C++ Reference and learn How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
1) Being the American Justice system so weak to defend itself against political lobbies as it was the case here when the big bad left wing wolves rallied against the Bush administration little red hood, poor Mr. Libby, on an American Court of Law,
2) And being that the other branches didn't seem to do their job and prevent such thing from happening,
Is the American judicial system capable of putting to trial terrorism suspects under this or the next administration?
Or is it that the American Judicial System did in fact work as it was expected from it and charged a man with perjury.
Because one or two TV and newspaper aligned commentators bring out this wonderful thought that this was all a big plot and the country almost suffered from a Coup and Mr. Libby was the savior of the nation, I still think that in the end a man lied under oath to protect his administration. And that, gentlemen, is a crime. Whether you like it or not.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
What part of Richard Armitage being the leak that Fitzgerald was investigating does not strike you as relevant?
