NationStates Jolt Archive

Sen. Frist: "There is no serious question that perjury and obstruction of justice are high crimes and misdemeanors...Indeed, our own Senate precedent establishes that perjury is a high crime and misdemeanor...The crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice are public crimes threatening the administration of justice." [Congressional Record, 2/12/99]

Sen. Kyl: "...there can be no doubt that perjurious, false, and misleading statements made under oath in federal court proceedings are indeed impeachable offenses...John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States, said `there is no crime more extensively pernicious to society' than perjury, precisely because it `discolors and poisons the streams of justice.'" [Congressional Record, 2/12/99]

Sen. DeWine: "Obstruction of justice and perjury strike at the very heart of our system of justice...Perjury is also a very serious crime...The judiciary is designed to be a mechanism for finding the truth-so that justice can be done. Perjury perverts the judiciary, turning it into a mechanism that accepts lies-so that injustice may prevail." [Congressional Record, 2/12/99]

Sen. Talent: "Nobody else in a position of trust, not a CEO, not a labor union leader, not a principal of a school could do half of what the president has done and stay in office. I mean, who would have said a year ago that a president could perjure himself and obstruct justice and tamper with witnesses... and stay in office." [CNBC, "Hardball," 12/19/98]

Sen. McConnell: "I am completely and utterly perplexed by those who argue that perjury and obstruction of justice are not high crimes and misdemeanors...Perjury and obstruction hammer away at the twin pillars of our legal system: truth and justice." [Congressional Record, 2/12/99]

Sen. Voinovich: "As constitutional scholar Charles Cooper said, `The crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice, like the crimes of treason and bribery, are quintessentially offenses against our system of government, visiting injury immediately on society itself.'" [Congressional Record, 2/12/99]

Sen. Hutchison: "The reason that I voted to remove him from office is because I think the overridding issue here is that truth will remain the standard for perjury and obstruction of justice in our criminal justice system and it must not be gray. It must not be muddy." [AP, 2/12/99]

Sen. Craig: "There is no question in my mind that perjury and obstruction of justice are the kind of public crimes that the Founders had in mind, and the House managers have demonstrated these crimes were committed by the president. As for the excuses being desperately sought by some to allow President Clinton to escape accountability, it seems to me that creating such loopholes would require tearing holes in the Constitution-something that cannot be justified to protect this president, or any president." [Congressional Record, 2/12/99]

I'm not sure if anyone is going to get it.

If you're expecting consistency in their behavior, you're going to be disappointed.

:rolleyes:

Hahaha, dumbasses.

*points finger and laughs at listed republicans*

This reminds me of all the quote pages regarding John Kerry running up to the '04 election. Please don't tell me that we are heading to that dark place again?
Lets try the response they always gave: "Well, it is perfectly natural to flap in the breeze in politics, thats just the way things are and your sources are probably invalid and using the wrong facts and if they are using the right facts then they are taking them out of context and putting the wrong spin on it and they probably had sex with a cucumber on at least one occassion and its better then the alternative and everyone else sucks and you never hold anyone else to that standard and YOUR MOM COMMITS PERJURY!"

No, that doesn't quite do it as well as this: "Politicians are corrupt, deal with it."

This reminds me of all the quote pages regarding John Kerry running up to the '04 election. Please don't tell me that we are heading to that dark place again?
Lets try the response they always gave: "Well, it is perfectly natural to flap in the breeze in politics, thats just the way things are and your sources are probably invalid and using the wrong facts and if they are using the right facts then they are taking them out of context and putting the wrong spin on it and they probably had sex with a cucumber on at least one occassion and its better then the alternative and everyone else sucks and you never hold anyone else to that standard and YOUR MOM COMMITS PERJURY!"

No, that doesn't quite do it as well as this: "Politicians are corrupt, deal with it."

The funny thing is that when one posts one of Kerry's unabridged quotes, you find that he certainly did not flip flop (the lone exception being the whole ribbons/melals throwing thing, which was just stupid by Kerry,) while these Republicans embarrassingly and incontrovertably did.

I agree. Politicians are corrupt. I think the best way to "deal with it" is to ride 'em out of town on a rail.

What is the point here?

That perjury is a serious crime?

Which Republican has been convicted of perjury?

Please let me know, so that I can point and laugh as well?:p

What is the point here?

That perjury is a serious crime?

Which Republican has been convicted of perjury?

Please let me know, so that I can point and laugh as well?:p

Rampant flip-flopping. Sheesh, how many times do you people have to read it to figure that out?

Sen. Frist, et al
Care to explain how this is another put-down of Republicans? Knowing you, it is, but it would be nice to ... you know, like actually relate it to something! :p

Care to explain how this is another put-down of Republicans? Knowing you, it is, but it would be nice to ... you know, like actually relate it to something! :p

Oh, please. Just read the entire thing and tell me they're not flip-flopping on the issue.

What is the point here?

That perjury is a serious crime?

Which Republican has been convicted of perjury?

Please let me know, so that I can point and laugh as well?:p

Let me remind you of this quote by Senator Hutchinson:

I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn’t indict on the crime so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation were not a waste of time and dollars.

There's no gray area there. There's no "well, she's talking about two different things!" There's no "This was taken out of context!"

This is as blatant a case of political wankerism as I have ever seen.

The funny thing is that when one posts one of Kerry's unabridged quotes, you find that he certainly did not flip flop (the lone exception being the whole ribbons/melals throwing thing, which was just stupid by Kerry,) while these Republicans embarrassingly and incontrovertably did.
Look, I don't care if he drilled a hole in a cows skull and stuck his penis in it, the elections over and I doubt he'll ever regain his temporary (and somewhat inexplicable) burst of popularity to become a major parties candidate. The issue is that no one ever cares when their guys get caught in a jam based on quotes, and yet always try to use the exact same tactic to come back at the other side.
I agree. Politicians are corrupt. I think the best way to "deal with it" is to ride 'em out of town on a rail.
Then we'd have to run them all out. Power is corruption, it isn't power unless you are abusing it.
So I'll be the neglected Libertarian who finds himself in bed with Neo-Cons and feels dirty about it until a group of real caliber finds its way up the slippery pole. Or until I start a bloody revolution devoted to killing as many government servants as possible (with secondary goals of pillaging, and the possibility of establishing a better government if I find time and aren't too tired. One must have ones priorities in a revolt).

Care to explain how this is another put-down of Republicans? Knowing you, it is, but it would be nice to ... you know, like actually relate it to something! :p

Hey, I report. You decide!

Hey, I report. You decide!
I decide in favor of the Plaintiff. Unspecified defendent (whatever your identity), you are hereby sentenced to execution via large and uinweidly bricks.
The sentence, however, is suspended until such time as we know whom the hell the Plaintiff is accusing.
Bailiff, escort the Plaintiff to my chambers for postruling coitus.
Session adjourned!

Look, I don't care if he drilled a hole in a cows skull and stuck his penis in it, the elections over and I doubt he'll ever regain his temporary (and somewhat inexplicable) burst of popularity to become a major parties candidate. The issue is that no one ever cares when their guys get caught in a jam based on quotes, and yet always try to use the exact same tactic to come back at the other side.

I wasn't the one who brought up Kerry. I do care when "my guys" get caught with an embarrassing trouser nugget falling from their lips. I don't lie and flip-flop to prove my points.

Then we'd have to run them all out. Power is corruption, it isn't power unless you are abusing it.

And that's where you and I disagree.

So I'll be the neglected Libertarian who finds himself in bed with Neo-Cons and feels dirty about it until a group of real caliber finds its way up the slippery pole. Or until I start a bloody revolution devoted to killing as many government servants as possible (with secondary goals of pillaging, and the possibility of establishing a better government if I find time and aren't too tired. One must have ones priorities in a revolt).

How you can align yourself with the one party which is the most socially-economically-politically anti-Libertarian in existance at this time, I have no idea.

Senator Hutchinson speaks only for herself, and probably didn't mean what some people are taking her to mean.. I think she was referring to rumors that Karl Rove will be indicted for perjury not for telling a lie, but for "forgetting" a conversation he had a few years back relating to the case being investigated.. I'd call that a "technicality," in that it's not technically perjury to have "forgotten" something, which is why most people being investigated for things conveniently "forget" hundreds of different things and can't be prosecuted. The quotes from republicans had to do with the Clinton impeachment hearings, where President Clinton perjured himself by claiming something demonstrably false, not "forgetting," although he really couldn't have claimed to have forgotten his relationship with his intern, since it's something kinda significant. I don't know of any republican who has said that perjury shouldn't be considered a "high crime." It should.

I wasn't the one who brought up Kerry. I do care when "my guys" get caught with an embarrassing trouser nugget falling from their lips. I don't lie and flip-flop to prove my points.
Yes, but I was simply saying that this method of arguing is so very dull, and never sways anyone. Better just to call everyone a poo-poo head and tell them to leap off a building.
You won the case, as I announced earlier, so quit complaining.
And that's where you and I disagree.
That doesn't mean that you are getting out of the post-ruling coitus.
How you can align yourself with the one party which is the most socially-economically-politically anti-Libertarian in existance at this time, I have no idea.
A lot of things are easy when you realize that the only moral sense you ever had was the fear of divine retribution. Anyway, Neo-Cons are the ones with the Starve-The-Beast, which needs to be done. The problem is that the plan is inherently suicidal.
Basically, my view of it (which involves a whole lot off arguing and crap that I don't want to get into today, so what follows is the incredibly short and simple version) is that if the Neo-Cons succeed, they will manage to slash government spending to the ground. This would piss alot of people off, which will leave room for another group to enter power, and that is the only way I can see of a group not within the Republicrats moving into power.

Neo-Cons are the ones with the Starve-The-Beast, which needs to be done.

Starve the beast, and kill off a lot of unnecessary poor people. Brilliant idea!

What is the point here?

That perjury is a serious crime?

Which Republican has been convicted of perjury?

Please let me know, so that I can point and laugh as well?:p
Seeing as you seem to be perpetually in need of having anything-at-hand laid wide open for you to wrap your head around it, the point is that these Republicans are quick to jump on the "perjury" bandwagon when it's not a Republican ass that's in a sling. The obvious question that was supposed to come to mind is/was, "well, what will they say when the shoe is on the other foot, and it's a Republican who's being less-than-truthful in court?"

Connect the dots already.

...That doesn't mean that you are getting out of the post-ruling coitus.


Um, are you a hot chick by any chance?

Starve the beast, and kill off a lot of unnecessary poor people. Brilliant idea!
If they can't support themselves enough to survive, I see no problem.
Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses? Are there no pimps?

If they can't support themselves enough to survive, I see no problem.
Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses? Are there no pimps?

Put poor people in prisons and "workhouses", eh?

You're so lucky we're not in the same room right now.

Um, are you a hot chick by any chance?
No, but neither are you, so nobody is perfect.
Now, Bailiff, escort this man to my chambers!

No, but neither are you, so nobody is perfect.
Now, Bailiff, escort this man to my chambers!

Okay, are you a half-way decent looking chick, and do you have liquor?

If they can't support themselves enough to survive, I see no problem.
Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses? Are there no pimps?
I know who'll be getting a visitation or two this Christmas Eve...:rolleyes:

Put poor people in prisons and "workhouses", eh?

You're so lucky we're not in the same room right now.
I think we've had this conversation before, and I think that you resorted to threats of physical violence last time as well. C'est la vive, and all that then, may your penis grow large enough that you no longer feel the need to be an internet tough guy at some future date.

I'm not sure if anyone is going to get it.
They're politicians. Which way is the wind blowing, today?

I think we've had this conversation before, and I think that you resorted to threats of physical violence last time as well. C'est la vive, and all that then, may your penis grow large enough that you no longer feel the need to be an internet tough guy at some future date.

7" isn't long enough for a 17-year-old? Oh well, I better commit suicide, then.

Don't get me wrong --- I'm like this in real life, too, so there. The difference between a forum and reality is that I actually would've wailed on you.

So the Reps change their position to be like the Dems used to be, and the Dems change THEIR position to be like the Reps used to be.

I see no problem here. Hypocrisy on BOTH sides cancels itself out. Only the people who are COMPLAINING about it are worse.

Okay, are you a half-way decent looking chick, and do you have liquor?
I'm a man, and you are starting to get annoying.
Bailiff, just thump him over the head and throw him out a window instead. Be sure that the window is big enough for him this time too!
I know who'll be getting a visitation or two this Christmas Eve...
Well, other than your mom, I'm not sure who you could be talking about.
I haven't believed in magical fairies for years, go play Moral Mouse with someone else.

Well, other than your mom, I'm not sure who you could be talking about.*sighs*

I'd wanted to think you were paraphrasing Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol". How foolish of me to have made that assumption.
I haven't believed in magical fairies for years, go play Moral Mouse with someone else.
And I haven't believed that Scrooges really existed for years.

Go play in traffic.

7" isn't long enough for a 17-year-old? Oh well, I better commit suicide, then.
*Nearly dies laughing*
Twenty minutes ago, this was an argument about perjury, then it became an argument about the poor, and now we are comparing penis size?
Don't get me wrong --- I'm like this in real life, too, so there. The difference between a forum and reality is that I actually would've wailed on you.
You must be such a charmer.
"Hello, sir or madaam, my name is Potaria and I beat people up while possessing a large penis."
"Oh, yours or somebody else's? By the by, I think that people should work for their money."
"Now you must die!"

Hah, you don't scare me! I have magic faerie powers, impeccable dictation, and an Elvish Long Machete of Slay Dragon +50.

Ummm...........


What is the point of this thread? Someone please tell me!

*sighs*

I'd wanted to think you were paraphrasing Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol". How foolish of me to have made that assumption.
Did you think that my quote about workhouses and prisons was random? Yes, I know that I probably butchered it, and I know that he didn't say "pimps", but, come on, have I really got to acknowledge that we both read the same massive cultural icon during our lives?
And I haven't believed that Scrooges really existed for years.
Oh, we exist. I'm just one of the first to be openly so. Its my honest nature.

*Nearly dies laughing*
Twenty minutes ago, this was an argument about perjury, then it became an argument about the poor, and now we are comparing penis size?

You must be such a charmer.
"Hello, sir or madaam, my name is Potaria and I beat people up while possessing a large penis."
"Oh, yours or somebody else's? By the by, I think that people should work for their money."
"Now you must die!"

Hah, you don't scare me! I have magic faerie powers, impeccable dictation, and an Elvish Long Machete of Slay Dragon +50.

1: "Comparing"? :p

2: LOL! Now, I'd like to see the look on somebody's face if I actually said that. It'd be fucking priceless!

3: Oh, is that so? Well, I have a Luna Lance that adds +10 Chivalry and +5 Strength, and a Magical Elven Longbow that does 45% Lightning damage and has a special Dragon Slayer ability. Nyah!

Seriously, I do! Ultima Online rocks, man!

I'm a man, and you are starting to get annoying.

Well, considering the online persona you are projecting, you might be a male, but you are most certainly not a man.

Bailiff, just thump him over the head and throw him out a window instead. Be sure that the window is big enough for him this time too!

This from the person who just complained about threats of personal violence. For shame Fiddlebottoms, for shame!

Well, other than your mom, I'm not sure who you could be talking about.
I haven't believed in magical fairies for years, go play Moral Mouse with someone else.

And now for your entertainment pleasure, we have fresh new jokes like...er...sex with your mom.

Lords. Ladies. Critters of indeterminate nature. I think it's clear to all assembled that Mr. Fiddlebottoms is attempting to argue from a position where his ears are warmed by the walls of his lower intestine. Considering the anatomical impossibility of such a posture, I suggest that Mr. Fiddlebottoms, much like the fairies he mentions in his post, is simply a figment. A bugbear from ancient legend. A children's story. A poorly written children's story at that, with no plot and especially no moral.

Did you think that my quote about workhouses and prisons was random?

I rather thought I'd addressed that. I should think it's painfully obvious that I did not perceive your quip to be random.

Yes, I know that I probably butchered it, and I know that he didn't say "pimps", but, come on, have I really got to acknowledge that we both read the same massive cultural icon during our lives?

Hence my use of the word, 'paraphrasing'. Perhaps you overlooked that part. :rolleyes:

Lords. Ladies. Critters of indeterminate nature. I think it's clear to all assembled that Mr. Fiddlebottoms is attempting to argue from a position where his ears are warmed by the walls of his lower intestine. Considering the anatomical impossibility of such a posture, I suggest that Mr. Fiddlebottoms, much like the fairies he mentions in his post, is simply a figment. A bugbear from ancient legend. A children's story. A poorly written children's story at that, with no plot and especially no moral.
And more to the point, a Humbug. A Humbug in October, of all things... Hell, we're still a ways away from Hallowe'en and he's a Humbug already.

Jacob Marley has his work cut out for him this winter.

I don't think anyone really believes what Republicans say anyway. They are also supposed to be about small government.

Ummm...........


What is the point of this thread? Someone please tell me!

My point in presenting this thread was to expose the incredible hypocrisy of Senator Hutchinson and to "head off at the pass" attempts by Republicans and Bush apologists to downplay perjury as merely a technicality.

The intention of the apologists is to divert attention from this by changing the subject and to try to insinuate that all politicians of whatever stripe are this clumsily and embarrassingly disingenuous.

Also, perhaps if you had read the thread, you might have a better idea of the point, since it has already been explicitly spelled out for you.

Well, considering the online persona you are projecting, you might be a male, but you are most certainly not a man.
Ooh, you cut me deep there, buddy, real deep.
I'm sorry if I'm not taking this seriously enough for you, but I am indeed laughing my ass off on this end
This from the person who just complained about threats of personal violence. For shame Fiddlebottoms, for shame!
There is a difference between a threat and an order. I mean, you'd have to be a special kind of daft to think that I seriously have a bailiff.
And now for your entertainment pleasure, we have fresh new jokes like...er...sex with your mom.
I wasn't talking about sex. I was talking about people visiting her literally, don't you get visitors over Christmas, or have your morals scared them all away yet?
Lords. Ladies. Critters of indeterminate nature. I think it's clear to all assembled that Mr. Fiddlebottoms is attempting to argue from a position where his ears are warmed by the walls of his lower intestine.
Considering that: A) I doubt that Charles Dickens was the topic, B) This thread will probably be in spam pretty soon anyway, and C) I find you all funny as hell, I gave up on arguing awhile ago. No, I'm just playing my own little game.
Considering the anatomical impossibility of such a posture, I suggest that Mr. Fiddlebottoms, much like the fairies he mentions in his post, is simply a figment. A bugbear from ancient legend. A children's story. A poorly written children's story at that, with no plot and especially no moral.
Fictional? Yes, very. Moral? Nope. Plot? Nope. Poorly Written? Most certainly not. Look, if you want to argue on an emotional level, outnumber the other guy, tapdance far beyond topic, and use physical threats, don't be surprised when the other guy joins you at the intellectual level of Winney the Pooh.
I just enjoy it more.
Hence my use of the word, 'paraphrasing'. Perhaps you overlooked that part.
Yeah, well, yes. Actually, I did. Still, I fail to see why my not immediately returning or mentioning the reference warrants a comment.

And with that, I bid you all adieu! Parting is such sweet banana pudding.

So the Reps change their position to be like the Dems used to be, and the Dems change THEIR position to be like the Reps used to be.

I see no problem here. Hypocrisy on BOTH sides cancels itself out. Only the people who are COMPLAINING about it are worse.
There you go! The universal political cancellation theorem in action. I think the parties adopting positions that formerly were held by the opposition party is a corollary.
All you need to add to make the proof complete is "QED".

Yeah, well, yes. Actually, I did. Still, I fail to see why my not immediately returning or mentioning the reference warrants a comment. You fail to see much. So much for quantity over quality.

*sighs yet again*

Ooh, you cut me deep there, buddy, real deep.
I'm sorry if I'm not taking this seriously enough for you, but I am indeed laughing my ass off on this end

Actually, I think you're fluctuating violently between taking it too lightly and taking it too seriously. You clearly don't recognize humor directed at you.

There is a difference between a threat and an order. I mean, you'd have to be a special kind of daft to think that I seriously have a bailiff.

And you have to be a special kind of daft to think I was taking any of that seriously.

I wasn't talking about sex. I was talking about people visiting her literally, don't you get visitors over Christmas, or have your morals scared them all away yet?

Oh please. You know you were weakly attempting a "yo mama" there. Don't try to dodge now.

Considering that: A) I doubt that Charles Dickens was the topic, B) This thread will probably be in spam pretty soon anyway, and C) I find you all funny as hell, I gave up on arguing awhile ago. No, I'm just playing my own little game.

I seriously doubt it will be in spam, despite all your unfunny attempts to trivialize it. Come on, I've seen you be funny before. Surely you can do better than this.

Fictional? Yes, very. Moral? Nope. Plot? Nope. Poorly Written? Most certainly not. Look, if you want to argue on an emotional level, outnumber the other guy, tapdance far beyond topic, and use physical threats, don't be surprised when the other guy joins you at the intellectual level of Winney the Pooh.
I just enjoy it more.

I was perfectly happy arguing this on a rational level. I merely moved to the absurd to accomodate you. And this is the thanks I get in return. Sheesh. How rude.

And with that, I bid you all adieu! Parting is such sweet banana pudding.

You'll be back.

Actually, I think you're fluctuating violently between taking it too lightly and taking it too seriously. You clearly don't recognize humor directed at you.
Trust me, I am speaking with my tongue firmly in cheek. I just thought that you were taking this seriously. Way to suck the funny out of it for me, Name I Can't Pronounce!
Oh please. You know you were weakly attempting a "yo mama" there. Don't try to dodge now.
I would never make an actual "yo mama." It was a set up for the sudden reversal, in which I reveal that I wasn't thinking about sex at all, but you were. Thus, accidental ineundo and hilarity insues.
Once again, you're just being a jerk.
I was perfectly happy arguing this on a rational level. I merely moved to the absurd to accomodate you. And this is the thanks I get in return. Sheesh. How rude.
How can I argue seriously about quotes when I'm not sure what you mean by them.
If I simply walked up to you and said 4562; 8098098; 79809; and -5, would you be able to determine what mathematical formula I was refering to?
You'll be back.
Oh, no I won't.
Wait ...
GODDAMMIT!

NOTE: I admit, the whole point of that post was to get to the "GODDAMMIT" punchline. I also admit to killing JFK, JR, Marilyn Monroe, and planning 9/11. Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa.

You fail to see much. So much for quantity over quality.

*sighs yet again*
Note to self: From now on, when someone makes a literary reference the proper response is to type: "LOLOLOLOL!!!!11!!!!<writer/work referenced>LOLOL!!1!!"
Lesson #8,768 from the Interweb.

Note to self: From now on, when someone makes a literary reference the proper response is to type: "LOLOLOLOL!!!!11!!!!<writer/work referenced>LOLOL!!1!!"
Lesson #8,768 from the Interweb.
No, really. Go play in traffic. Please. Do.

No, really. Go play in traffic. Please. Do.
I live in New York, whenever I walk across the street I am, in fact, playing in traffic.
Oh, and I just love how you are repeating the same unfunny line over and over again rather than thinking, it perfectly replicates talking to a wall!

I live in New York, whenever I walk across the street I am, in fact, playing in traffic.
Oh, and I just love how you are repeating the same unfunny line over and over again rather than thinking, it perfectly replicates talking to a wall!
Unlike having to repeat myself ad nauseam until unfunny people learn to properly read a post.

God, you're dull.

I'm taking a breather while the air in here clears.

Unlike having to repeat myself ad nauseam until unfunny people learn to properly read a post.

God, you're dull.

I'm taking a breather while the air in here clears.
Well since your apparent complaint was that I didn't feel the need to immediatly acknowledge your reference, then I posit that you are the dull one.
I also posit that the ignore cannons have been fired, goodnight.

I also posit that the ignore cannons have been fired, goodnight.
Thank God for small mercies. won't be seeing you later, then. And by the way, you're wrong about my 'complaint', but seeing as you've got an agenda to fulfill, I won't bother slowing you down with things other than your suppositions, like... truth.

Besides, it's much ado about nothing, and a protracted hijack to boot, you cad.

Well since your apparent complaint was that I didn't feel the need to immediatly acknowledge your reference, then I posit that you are the dull one.
I also posit that the ignore cannons have been fired, goodnight.

I would like to say that if Fiddlebottoms is accused of being less than honest, I hope it won't be for a piddling thing like repeatedly proclaiming that he's leaving and then returning almost immediately. Lying about unimportant things is unimportant in it's unimportance.

Look, I don't care if he drilled a hole in a cows skull and stuck his penis in it, the elections over and I doubt he'll ever regain his temporary (and somewhat inexplicable) burst of popularity to become a major parties candidate. The issue is that no one ever cares when their guys get caught in a jam based on quotes, and yet always try to use the exact same tactic to come back at the other side.

Then we'd have to run them all out. Power is corruption, it isn't power unless you are abusing it.
So I'll be the neglected Libertarian who finds himself in bed with Neo-Cons and feels dirty about it until a group of real caliber finds its way up the slippery pole. Or until I start a bloody revolution devoted to killing as many government servants as possible (with secondary goals of pillaging, and the possibility of establishing a better government if I find time and aren't too tired. One must have ones priorities in a revolt).


Hear, hear!!

I would like to say that if Fiddlebottoms is accused of being less than honest, I hope it won't be for a piddling thing like repeatedly proclaiming that he's leaving and then returning almost immediately. Lying about unimportant things is unimportant in it's unimportance.
I only immediatly returned once, and that was exclusively to use the "GODDAMMIT" line, of which I am unnaturally proud. So, yes, it was a lie, but it was intentional for the purposes of my own amusement.
The other closing was addressed at someone specific, as a way of closing an apparently irreconcilable issue (I suspect the lack of closure is due to the fact that neither of us knew what the other one was arguing about, but that is neither here nor there).
Whatever, I leave you with the knowledge that I took nothing seriously here, and may very well have been lying the entire time to get your goat.
Or I might have been telling the truth.
Still, this time I am gone, for the "GODDAMMIT" line only works once a year.

I only immediatly returned once, and that was exclusively to use the "GODDAMMIT" line, of which I am unnaturally proud. So, yes, it was a lie, but it was intentional for the purposes of my own amusement.
The other closing was addressed at someone specific, as a way of closing an apparently irreconcilable issue (I suspect the lack of closure is due to the fact that neither of us knew what the other one was arguing about, but that is neither here nor there).
Whatever, I leave you with the knowledge that I took nothing seriously here, and may very well have been lying the entire time to get your goat.
Or I might have been telling the truth.
Still, this time I am gone, for the "GODDAMMIT" line only works once a year.

But see how I cleverly tied your entrances and exits back to the original topic?

If you can't see what I'm arguing about, I suggest you get a refresher course in English, good sir.

My point in presenting this thread was to expose the incredible hypocrisy of Senator Hutchinson and to "head off at the pass" attempts by Republicans and Bush apologists to downplay perjury as merely a technicality.
The situations, as noted before are different. Exposing an undercover CIA agent out of malice would, I think we both agree, be a much more serious charge than perjury. On the other hand, I think we would also both agree the perjury is a more serious crime than screwing around on your wife(Especially someone like Hillary). If Fitzgerald comes up with more charges than just the perjury, then all is well, but if all he comes up with is a charge of perjury when had the investigation not been started the issue wouldn't have come up at all and seriously pursues the charge of perjury alone, that's rather sad and unnecessary.

The situations, as noted before are different. Exposing an undercover CIA agent out of malice would, I think we both agree, be a much more serious charge than perjury. On the other hand, I think we would also both agree the perjury is a more serious crime than screwing around on your wife(Especially someone like Hillary). If Fitzgerald comes up with more charges than just the perjury, then all is well, but if all he comes up with is a charge of perjury when had the investigation not been started the issue wouldn't have come up at all and seriously pursues the charge of perjury alone, that's rather sad and unnecessary.
I don't see how the investigation could have been avoided based merely on the facts that Plame was a covert operative and her name was broadcast as being an employee of the CIA. This automatically created the possibility that a crime was committed, therefore an investigation was called for to find out one way or the other.

If Fitzgerald is a proper prosecutor (as he seems to be), then he must prosecute whatever crime his investigation uncovers. Just because he might have been hunting treason, it doesn't mean he should pass over perjury just because it may not have proof of treason attached to it. Whatever the crime, if the suspect did it, then the suspect is busted.

All these neo-con sons of bitches have worked in politics and law long enough to know better than to lie under oath. For crying out loud, Pat Buchanan himself :eek: was on the news (Hardball w/ Chris Matthews, I think) saying this doesn't make any sense and that if Libby and/or Rove lied to the grand jury they were either hiding something bigger or are total idiots.

The truth probably is that the outing of Plame was a screw-up due to over-reaction to Wilson's criticisms. If they had admitted it (or if they had just shrugged Wilson off without ever saying the name Plame), none of this would have happened. But if they lied about it to the GJ, then they've manufactured their own indictments and deserve whatever they get.

I suspect a number of other parties will be very glad of mere perjury indictments, especially if they can be tied to the case for the Iraq war, in the hopes they may be used to crowbar open further investigations. I tell ya, lawyers could dine out for years on the tangled webs woven by these jerks.

Also, perhaps if you had read the thread, you might have a better idea of the point, since it has already been explicitly spelled out for you.


Well. Personally i somewhat get it.

But starting out the thread with just a bunch of stupid quotes is just stupid in my honest oppinion. Thats just as bad as that guy who quoted the bible over and over again for trying to make his point about how a certain group of people are "evil".

I don't see how the investigation could have been avoided based merely on the facts that Plame was a covert operative and her name was broadcast as being an employee of the CIA. This automatically created the possibility that a crime was committed, therefore an investigation was called for to find out one way or the other.

I guess that's why other people knew she was a CIA operative long before Cheney, Rove, or Libby knew her name.

"A former CIA covert agent who supervised Mrs. Plame early in her career yesterday took issue with her identification as an "undercover agent," saying that she worked for more than five years at the agency's headquarters in Langley and that most of her neighbors and friends knew that she was a CIA employee.
"She made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee and her husband was a diplomat," said Fred Rustmann, a covert agent from 1966 to 1990."

Just a small note:

Next time you post something like this, link sources.

I guess that's why other people knew she was a CIA operative long before Cheney, Rove, or Libby knew her name.

"A former CIA covert agent who supervised Mrs. Plame early in her career yesterday took issue with her identification as an "undercover agent," saying that she worked for more than five years at the agency's headquarters in Langley and that most of her neighbors and friends knew that she was a CIA employee.
"She made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee and her husband was a diplomat," said Fred Rustmann, a covert agent from 1966 to 1990."

1. Source.

1A. Note that this from 1 former covert agent. The CIA has officially disagreed.

2. Legal relevance?

The situations, as noted before are different. Exposing an undercover CIA agent out of malice would, I think we both agree, be a much more serious charge than perjury. On the other hand, I think we would also both agree the perjury is a more serious crime than screwing around on your wife(Especially someone like Hillary). If Fitzgerald comes up with more charges than just the perjury, then all is well, but if all he comes up with is a charge of perjury when had the investigation not been started the issue wouldn't have come up at all and seriously pursues the charge of perjury alone, that's rather sad and unnecessary.
hang on...

Spousal infidelity has degrees now? It's fair if it's Hillary but not if it's Ann Coulter, is that it? What kind of twisted logic is that? Republican Logic?

1. Source.

1A. Note that this from 1 former covert agent. The CIA has officially disagreed.

2. Legal relevance?

Aside from obstruction of justice, if she's not a covert agent, most of the brouhaha does not apply.

Plenty of people are CIA employees and they are publicly known as such. In fact, the majority of its employees are known to friends and neighbors.

The source is the Washington Times.

The former covert agent is the one who trained and initially handled her. If she was giving away the fact that she worked for the CIA that long ago, then everyone who is anyone already knew it. It's no longer a secret.

The legal relevance is that if you prosecute anyone for leaking her name and identity, you would have to prosecute her as well. They DO prosecute CIA agents for doing this - people who brag about where they work go to jail if they work for the CIA.

The situations, as noted before are different. Exposing an undercover CIA agent out of malice would, I think we both agree, be a much more serious charge than perjury. On the other hand, I think we would also both agree the perjury is a more serious crime than screwing around on your wife(Especially someone like Hillary). If Fitzgerald comes up with more charges than just the perjury, then all is well, but if all he comes up with is a charge of perjury when had the investigation not been started the issue wouldn't have come up at all and seriously pursues the charge of perjury alone, that's rather sad and unnecessary.


As you note the situation is different, but in a different way than you describe.

Ken Starr was never officially investigating whether Clinton had committed adultery or any related topic. He was investigating WHITEWATER. He never came up with an indictment even vaguely related to the subject of his investigation. Instead, he alleged perjury in an unrelated civil case.

Nonetheless, the Republicans claimed that prejury (even just not admitting an affair) was high crime worthy of impeachment.

Now that a Republican may be indicted for something directly related to national security, you and your fellow ideologues are pooh-pooh perjury.

As you note the situation is different, but in a different way than you describe.

Ken Starr was never officially investigating whether Clinton had committed adultery or any related topic. He was investigating WHITEWATER. He never came up with an indictment even vaguely related to the subject of his investigation. Instead, he alleged perjury in an unrelated civil case.

Nonetheless, the Republicans claimed that prejury (even just not admitting an affair) was high crime worthy of impeachment.

Now that a Republican may be indicted for something directly related to national security, you and your fellow ideologues are pooh-pooh perjury.

I'm not pooh-poohing perjury. In fact, I agree with Myrmidonisia that it's the most common outcome for grand juries in this town.

I'm saying that we can't predict what indictments, if any, will be handed down.

I find it rather odd that it's two days before expiration, and no indictments have been handed down yet. Usually, grand juries around here pop them out every once in a while during their long tenure.

Aside from obstruction of justice, if she's not a covert agent, most of the brouhaha does not apply.

Plenty of people are CIA employees and they are publicly known as such. In fact, the majority of its employees are known to friends and neighbors.

The source is the Washington Times.

The former covert agent is the one who trained and initially handled her. If she was giving away the fact that she worked for the CIA that long ago, then everyone who is anyone already knew it. It's no longer a secret.

The legal relevance is that if you prosecute anyone for leaking her name and identity, you would have to prosecute her as well. They DO prosecute CIA agents for doing this - people who brag about where they work go to jail if they work for the CIA.

The Washington Times isn't a great source -- but anyway.

We've been over this ground before and I cited the statutes that showed these rumors and innuendo made no legal difference.

Show me where in the relevant statute this makes a difference. Look at the actual elements of the crimes. She can legally be a covert agent even if some people knew.

And show me where there is evidence she violated a statute. Meet the elements of the crimes.

Aside from obstruction of justice, if she's not a covert agent, most of the brouhaha does not apply.

Plenty of people are CIA employees and they are publicly known as such. In fact, the majority of its employees are known to friends and neighbors.

The source is the Washington Times.

The former covert agent is the one who trained and initially handled her. If she was giving away the fact that she worked for the CIA that long ago, then everyone who is anyone already knew it. It's no longer a secret.

The legal relevance is that if you prosecute anyone for leaking her name and identity, you would have to prosecute her as well. They DO prosecute CIA agents for doing this - people who brag about where they work go to jail if they work for the CIA.

Wow man, you're confused.

Wow man, you're confused.
How so?

I find it very interesting that we've gone this long with no indictments. If all the evidence the press suggests is floating out there, and has been for some time, you would think at least one indictment would have come out already.

Don't you find it strange?

And grand juries are funny things. They don't have to hand down indictments on the things you think are important.

If she did out herself as an agent, and you can even get one person to validate it (her former boss and one neighbor), she could be found in violation of the law.

And there are CIA agents who go to jail for doing just that.

While I was pouring a drink, I had an epiphany. Fitzgerald has had two years to bring out an indictment against someone over leaking the name of a CIA agent. If this is the cut--and--dried case it appears to be, why does it look like he's going into extra innings?

My guess is that he can't do any better than some collateral damage. Perjury and obstruction are probably the only things he's able to get a Grand Jury to indict anyone for. Maybe those cases are so weak that he's going to need even more time and witnesses to validate them.

Now perjury and obstruction of justice are serious crimes in the right context. That context being the effort to obscure the efforts of a legal proceeding. Maybe that's happened here. If so, why the long, drawn out effort? More than likely, the crimes, if any, would never have existed if there had been no investigation.

This all may actually mean something if anyone gets idicted for anything . The grand jury term is up on friday . So far we have a special prosecuter investigating something that was not even a crime . A huge waste of money and resourses . But let the games go on .

hang on...

Spousal infidelity has degrees now? It's fair if it's Hillary but not if it's Ann Coulter, is that it? What kind of twisted logic is that? Republican Logic?
*blinks* Ann Coulter? Ann fucking Coulter? I fail to see how substituting one crazy bitch for another makes the situation any different. As for why, well Hillary didn't exactly bitch about it now did she? By the time Billy-boy was elected president theirs was a marriage of convinience, you can bet your ass that she was already eyeing a senatorship even then. In order for it to be something serious one must betray the other, if the other does not have any caring emotion invested in their spouse, than there is nothing to betray. What hue and cry did Hillary raise about the issue? None at all.