NationStates Jolt Archive

Hasn't he read the indictment? Doesn't he know he's toast? What kind of man would ignore the wisdom of NS General and not even plea bargain, let alone plead "No Contest"?

Obviously one that knows the indictment was a bunch of hogwash to begin with and that a jury of twelve will realize that.

Hasn't he read the indictment? Doesn't he know he's toast? What kind of man would ignore the wisdom of NS General and not even plea bargain, let alone plead "No Contest"?

Obviously one that knows the indictment was a bunch of hogwash to begin with and that a jury of twelve will realize that.

Yes, because the guilty never plead "not guilty."

Hasn't he read the indictment? Doesn't he know he's toast? What kind of man would ignore the wisdom of NS General and not even plea bargain, let alone plead "No Contest"?

Obviously one that knows the indictment was a bunch of hogwash to begin with and that a jury of twelve will realize that.

Shhh. No one wants to be reminded that their dream didn't come true.

1. No one else was indicted, contrary to many predictions, both from prominent Democrats and from posters here.
2. No naming of Cheney or Bush as unindicted co-conspirators.
3. No impeachment hearings (I think last week's invocation of Rule 21 was scheduled as such, but the indictments didn't come through).

That, and the prosecutor's direct statement that this investigation, contrary to what Harry Reid says, has absolutely nothing to do with the intelligence behind the Iraq War.

I knew that had to hurt for them to hear the prosecutor say that.

Hasn't he read the indictment? Doesn't he know he's toast? What kind of man would ignore the wisdom of NS General and not even plea bargain, let alone plead "No Contest"?
Clearly it's all part of The Liberal Conspiracy. Either that, or he's relying on The Conservative Conspiracy to get him cleared.

Yes, because the guilty never plead "not guilty."
Well, but neither do the not guilty. There's no way to tell. An indictment is not a verdict from a jury trial. We'll just have to wait and see how the trial plays out.

Olara']Well, but neither do the not guilty. There's no way to tell. An indictment is not a verdict from a jury trial. We'll just have to wait and see how the trial plays out.

Of course, which is why the OP is so, I assume unintentionally, funny.

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald did not find evidence to prove that there was a "broad conspiracy to out a covert agent for political gain. He did not find evidence of wide-ranging criminal behavior. He did not even indict the media's ordained villain, Karl Rove," writes David Brooks in Sunday's NY TIMES.

"Leading Democratic politicians filled the air with grand conspiracy theories that would be at home in the John Birch Society."

"Why are these people so compulsively overheated?.. Why do they have to slather on wild, unsupported charges that do little more than make them look unhinged?

Brooks quotes from an essay written 40 years ago by Richard Hofstadter called "The Paranoid Style in American Politics."

Hofstadter argued that sometimes people who are dispossessed, who feel their country has been taken away from them and their kind, develop an angry, suspicious and conspiratorial frame of mind. It is never enough to believe their opponents have committed honest mistakes or have legitimate purposes; they insist on believing in malicious conspiracies.

"The paranoid spokesman," Hofstadter wrote, "sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms -- he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization." Because his opponents are so evil, the conspiracy monger is never content with anything but their total destruction."

Brooks summarizes: "So some Democrats were not content with Libby's indictment, but had to stretch, distort and exaggerate. The tragic thing is that at the exact moment when the Republican Party is staggering under the weight of its own mistakes, the Democratic Party's loudest voices are in the grip of passions that render them untrustworthy."

Back during the Clinton Administration, the roles were reversed.

In the days leading up to CIA-leak prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s announcement of his decision to indict the now-former vice presidential chief of staff, Lewis Libby, on perjury, obstruction and false-statements charges, the sense of anticipation among some Democrats was almost overpowering. In fact, if you were to read the posts on Democratic Underground, or here on NS General, you would think that some were anticipating the impeachment of the President.

The president’s adversaries were hoping for very, very big things. “At least three high-level Bush-administration personnel indicted and possibly one or more very high-level unindicted co-conspirators,” predicted former Democratic Hill aide-turned-Hollywood type Lawrence O’Donnell.

Many of you here on NS were expecting far more than a single aide charged with perjury and obstruction of justice, even though Myrmidonisia accurately predicted that this is exactly what would happen.

There was also talk of some sort of far-reaching conspiracy indictment, in which Vice President Cheney, Libby, presidential political adviser Karl Rove and maybe others would be charged in a scheme to lie the United States into war in Iraq. At the very least, I believe that some of you were expecting "unindicted co-conspirators" to be named, and you were really hoping that this would bring the impeachment of Bush. You were, in fact, expecting this grand jury investigation to be about Bush, and about the intelligence that led to the war in Iraq.

So you can imagine the crushing disappointment felt in some Democratic hearts when Fitzgerald took to the podium at the Justice Department to announce that just one person had been indicted. And then Fitzgerald said this:

“This indictment is not about the war. This indictment’s not about the propriety of the war. And people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel. ...

“The indictment will not seek to prove that the war was justified or unjustified. This is stripped of that debate, and this is focused on a narrow transaction. And I think anyone who’s concerned about the war and has feelings for or against shouldn’t look to this criminal process for any answers or resolution of that.”

So what do those Democrats do now?

Well, act as if Fitzgerald never said what he said.

“This case is bigger than the leak of highly classified information,” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said after Fitzgerald’s news conference. “It is how the Bush White House manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to bolster its case for the war in Iraq and to discredit anyone who dared to challenge the president.”

Other Democrats echoed Reid. Who cared what Fitzgerald said?

Now, it’s not that the Libby indictment isn’t a story — a high-ranking official facing criminal charges is very big news. It is that Democrats, after raising their own hopes so high, could not be satisfied with what actually happened.

Of course, which is why the OP is so, I assume unintentionally, funny.
I didn't intend to be unintentionally funny. It was an all out effort to be sarcastic. An effort at which I've failed again.

Has the President ever invoked Executive Privilege over the whole Plamegate mess? Has anyone ever refused to testify for Fitzgerald?

My recollection is no on both questions, but my memory sucks. Google doesn't turn up anything but a bunch of DU types imagining how life would be if GWB did invoke EP, but no real substantial stuff.

Yeah, it's not like a covert agent's career and a CIA cover operation were blown in a time of war. It's not like the Bush butt kissers are continuing to claim that Plame wasn't covert in the face of clear-cut eidence. It's not like the name of a long-time public servant, praised as a hero by George H. W. Bush during the first Iraq conflict, was dragged through the mud for petty political points. Nothing to see here folks, just "liberal" hysteria.

Gee, don't you people know that Fitzgerald's investigation is 100% over?

Oh wait, we don't live in Conservative Bizarro world. Forget everything I said.

*snip*
Didn't you channel all this egomaniacal whinery once already?

That fat Lady has not song yet. Libby is not automaticaly the end of this thing it may very well continue.

If the game was over every time some one pleaded "not guilty," jails would be alot emptier.

the wisdom of NS General

ROFL
other than that i have no idea what you're talking about.but i havent read the rest of the thread yet.that just struck me as funny.

snip

So what do those Democrats do now?

Well, act as if Fitzgerald never said what he said.

snip


Funny. The people I see most often ignoring what Fitzgerald said seem to be Bush butt-kissers. The BBK (Bush Butt-Kissers,) continue to state:

Plame was not covert.
The investigation is over.
No crime occurred.
No one leaked classified information.