NationStates Jolt Archive

The jury has reached a verdict in the trial involving Lewis "Scooter" libby.

The Verdict is guilty on 4 of 5 of the counts in the CIA Leak case.

And now the appeals, and eventually, the pardon, sometime around January 18, 2009.

I think it is pretty interesting how news channels are covering the verdict. CNN and MSNBC are really just repeating the fact that the verdict is guilty, and there is basically no analysis. Fox News is reporting over and over again how the jury was probably confused, because they asked so many questions, and it is likely that some of the charges will get thrown out, etc.

I think it is pretty interesting how news channels are covering the verdict. CNN and MSNBC are really just repeating the fact that the verdict is guilty, and there is basically no analysis. Fox News is reporting over and over again how the jury was probably confused, because they asked so many questions, and it is likely that some of the charges will get thrown out, etc.

Well on the not guilty one, there was alot of confusion. I do not blame the lawyers for pursuing that angle for the appeal on the 4 guilty verdicts. That is what FNC is stating here. They are looking at it from the defense attorny's POV.

Why is he called Scooter?

Well on the not guilty one, there was alot of confusion. I do not blame the lawyers for pursuing that angle for the appeal on the 4 guilty verdicts. That is what FNC is stating here. They are looking at it from the defense attorny's POV.

Do you have a link for this? I searched for any article about a verdict but couldn't find one.

Why is he called Scooter?

Because his parents hated him as a child?

Do you have a link for this? I searched for any article about a verdict but couldn't find one.

Here you go (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17479718/).
This seems to be the salient portion:
Following are the individual charges and their corresponding verdicts:

* Obstruction of Justice: GUILTY
* False statements to FBI investigators (about Russert conversation): GUILTY
* False statement to FBI investigators (about Cooper conversation): NOT GUILTY
* Perjury to the Grand Jury (about Tim Russert conversation): GUILTY
* Perjury to the Grand Jury (about the Matt Cooper conversation): GUILTY So perhaps the argument would be that if he wasn't guilty of making false statements to FBI about Cooper, how could he be guilty of perjury? Seems to me the two aren't completely linked for starters, and that the jury might have felt that Fitzgerald didn't completely prove his case on that one count, not that Libby was innocent of the charges.

Do you have a link for this? I searched for any article about a verdict but couldn't find one.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/06/cia.leak/index.html

Do you have a link for this? I searched for any article about a verdict but couldn't find one.

Its on TV Deus Malum. Going by what I'm hearing on the TV.

Really doesn't surprise me. Fox news has a long history of helping conservatives get off.

They are going to make a motion for a new trial based on confusion (due to the questions that the Jury was asking just this morning (as reported on TV)). If that does not work, then they will appeal the decision.

Really doesn't surprise me. Fox news has a long history of helping conservatives get off.

Considering they are talking to a judge about this case....

So we see another scapegoat go down for the lies of his overlords. The Bush administration accepts responsibility only when cornered and caught red handed. Then they use a hockey tactic-sending out a goon to do the dirty work as you know you can peg him with the offense. Despicable demons they are that will enjoy hell when they finally make it there.

Why is he called Scooter?

So you'll know if he's gonna be top bunk or not when he goes to jail?

Scoooooooter! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWRQ_In1KBA) :D

The new trial motion is a joke, there is absolutely no chance they'll get that.

It's part of the formalities. You have to ask, even though you'll never get the answer you want. Otherwise you can have your appeal tossed for not going through the proper preliminary steps. A lot of this stuff is a sort of kabuki dance.

They are going to make a motion for a new trial based on confusion (due to the questions that the Jury was asking just this morning (as reported on TV)). If that does not work, then they will appeal the decision.
The new trial motion is a joke, there is absolutely no chance they'll get that.

The new trial motion is a joke, there is absolutely no chance they'll get that.

Indeed hence the appeal that is forthcoming but you have to start with a motion for a retrial even though it is rarely given out.

It's part of the formalities. You have to ask, even though you'll never get the answer you want. Otherwise you can have your appeal tossed for not going through the proper preliminary steps. A lot of this stuff is a sort of kabuki dance.

Well put.

The new trial motion is a joke, there is absolutely no chance they'll get that.

the new trial motion is posturing and hoping for the best. It's purely legalistic disguise and hoping that someone may find one little shred that went wrong and give this guy another chance. He's guilty and has been since the beginning. The only shame is that he has to go down for his bosses. This is the way the powerful stay that way though, by burying the bodies.

Well put.
I know that, which is why I said it was a joke. :P

This is good. Now if only we could somehow take away the promise of a pardon, and get him to roll on Prick Cheney...

Why is he called Scooter?

I dunno, but that's the name of one of my lovebirds. 'Cause he scoots around on his perch.

Oh, and that's also the name we use for those green garden spiders that hide out inside the house during the winter months.

I thought it kinda sucked to find out this dude Libby uses the same nickname.

<sigh> I doubt Libby will see a day behind bars. Even if he does do time it will be at a minimum security country club, not a real prison. Just once I would like to see one of these nitwits go to a REAL PRISON and put in the general population. These guys feel no pressure and don't worry about going to jail because their lifestyle does not significantly change. He will flood the system with appeals and be pardoned by Shrub before he serves any time at all.

With a pardon it does not matter, your record is expunged. Just like Negroponte and Elliot Abrams. Two of the vilest men in the world, pardoned by Daddy Bush because they were his buds and to add insult injury, here they are doing the same old shit again for another Bush President.

But, to not put too fine a point on it, this guy fell on his sword for his boss who is the real bad guy. He did wrong and deserves to be punished, but don't lose sight of the fact that he was the Chief of Staff to the Vice President of the United States, who at a minimum was privy to what "Scooter" did and very likely told him to do it.

Why is he called Scooter?

According to other news accounts, he first acquired his nickname "Scooter" as an infant, when his father, after seeing him move quickly across his crib, described him as "a scooter"..

Who knows if this is accurate though...


And I think we all expect that even if Libby gets jail time, a presidential pardon is on the way for him.

This is good. Now if only we could somehow take away the promise of a pardon, and get him to roll on Prick Cheney...

Apparently, if he's pardoned, he can be required to testify about anything and everything because he can no longer plead the 5th. So don't expect a pardon until the last minutes of the Bush presidency, and depending on who wins in 2008, pre-emptive pardons for a number of other administration people.

Meh.

Because his parents hated him as a child?

I think so too. Why would somebody call their child as this...

http://www.pennyfortheguy.com/scooter/bajaj-087.jpg

Good.

Those who perjure belong in jail.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/06/cia.leak/index.html

After his conviction, he was released on his own recognizance pending sentencing? :confused:

Is that normal?

What's that sound? Oh yes that's right...

It's the sound of you getting ninja'd! (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=519972)

Ahha! Busted!

There's no way in hell he'll serve the full 25 though.

What's that sound? Oh yes that's right...

It's the sound of you getting ninja'd! (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=519972)

Booo!!! :(

CNN said it was 'breakig news'! I want my money back! :mad:

The funniest thing about the whole situation is that there are 400 people rotting in cells in cuba who haven't even been CHARGED yet and this convict is out ordering a milkshake at Dairy Queen.

:p

Booo!!! :(

CNN said it was 'breakig news'! I want my money back! :mad:

The funniest thing about the whole situation is that there are 400 people rotting in cells in cuba who haven't even been CHARGED yet and this convict is out ordering a milkshake at Dairy Queen.

:p


Yes.

Funny.

Tee.

Hee.

Scapegoat

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=519972

It helps if you look at the front page Lunatic :D

Trilby63;12399220']Yes.

Funny.

Tee.

Hee.

I smell sitcom! :)

Booo!!! :(

CNN said it was 'breakig news'! I want my money back! :mad:

The funniest thing about the whole situation is that there are 400 people rotting in cells in cuba who haven't even been CHARGED yet and this convict is out ordering a milkshake at Dairy Queen.

:p

Laugh? I nearly started! ;)

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=519972

It helps if you look at the front page Lunatic :D

I did, but I didn't notice your thread. You should've called him 'Scooter'. :p

Here you go (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17479718/).
This seems to be the salient portion:
So perhaps the argument would be that if he wasn't guilty of making false statements to FBI about Cooper, how could he be guilty of perjury? Seems to me the two aren't completely linked for starters, and that the jury might have felt that Fitzgerald didn't completely prove his case on that one count, not that Libby was innocent of the charges.

To my untrained mind, the difference seems to be whether or not one was under oath. Perjury is the more serious of the two, requiring that one be under oath for it to be committed.

I think so too. Why would somebody call their child as this...

http://www.pennyfortheguy.com/scooter/bajaj-087.jpg

Not that kind of Scooter!

This kind of Scooter:
http://barkbarkwoofwoof.blogspot.com/m3scooter6.jpg

I've read that, after wasting four years and many millions of dollars, Fitzgerald is satisfied with his work and will not file any more charges. Does that mean that the claims that Robert Armitage was the source of the Plame leaks will just be ignored? Or is he just not closely enough related to the Bush administration?

I've read that, after wasting four years and many millions of dollars, Fitzgerald is satisfied with his work and will not file any more charges. Does that mean that the claims that Robert Armitage was the source of the Plame leaks will just be ignored? Or is he just not closely enough related to the Bush administration?

First of all, it wasn't a waste of millions of dollars. It was a necessary investigation. Plame was NOC, after all, despite right-wing claims to the contrary. Second of all, it was pretty clear from when the Libby charges were filed that they probably wouldn't go much farther, precisely because Libby had done a good enough job of obstructing the investigation from the beginning.

I smell sitcom! :)

Hey! That's my forum catchphrase!

Although I really haven't been posting here long enough for people to pay attention to such things...


:(

And thus concludes the circus...

And thus concludes the circus...


No.

And thus concludes the circus...

But we have Karl Rove live in the center ring! :)

I smell sitcom! :)


Hmmmmmmmmmmm......

*begins writing*

Hey do you think we could make the gitmo characters jewish? Jews make funny sitcom characters. I mean, imagine 400 Ross Gellars!

Another republican administration, another batch of convicted felons.

Anyone really surprised?

But we have Karl Rove live in the center ring! :)

The show is over kids.

Otherwise, they would have indicted him.

The show is over kids.

Otherwise, they would have indicted him.

That really depends how close they get to Cheney, doesn't it? :p

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/06/cia.leak/index.html

After his conviction, he was released on his own recognizance pending sentencing? :confused:

Is that normal?

Yeah thats normal as long as you don't possess a flight risk. Meaning, they don't hold you in custody until sentencing as long as they don't think you'll immediately take a vacation across the border or ocean.

How to offend everyone who needs to be offended: do a sitcom set in Guantanamo Bay. Make out that it's totally illegal and wrong (offends Bushlike individuals) but that the prisoners really, really enjoy torture and humiliation (offends leftist, angry at Bushlike individuals) and cast all the Muslims as Jews.


Well they made a sitcom out of those Geico cavemen...

That is a fantastic can of worms.

How to offend everyone who needs to be offended: do a sitcom set in Guantanamo Bay. Make out that it's totally illegal and wrong (offends Bushlike individuals) but that the prisoners really, really enjoy torture and humiliation (offends leftist, angry at Bushlike individuals) and cast all the Muslims as Jews.

Nuff Said.

Oh and have the camp commander played by a really gay version of Buddha. Just for a laugh.

He could have a catchphrase:

Woody Allen lookalike: Oh the pain, the pain, oy vey does it hurt but it's good for the tubes and, shmuck that I am I deserve it.

Buddha: What goes around comes around!

Canned laughter. Fade out.

Kind of like "Hogan's Heroes" but with palm trees. :)

Trilby63;12399446']Hmmmmmmmmmmm......

*begins writing*

Hey do you think we could make the gitmo characters jewish? Jews make funny sitcom characters. I mean, imagine 400 Ross Gellars!

That is a fantastic can of worms.

How to offend everyone who needs to be offended: do a sitcom set in Guantanamo Bay. Make out that it's totally illegal and wrong (offends Bushlike individuals) but that the prisoners really, really enjoy torture and humiliation (offends leftist, angry at Bushlike individuals) and cast all the Muslims as Jews.

Nuff Said.

Oh and have the camp commander played by a really gay version of Buddha. Just for a laugh.

He could have a catchphrase:

Woody Allen lookalike: Oh the pain, the pain, oy vey does it hurt but it's good for the tubes and, shmuck that I am I deserve it.

Buddha: What goes around comes around!

Canned laughter. Fade out.

After his conviction, he was released on his own recognizance pending sentencing? :confused:

Is that normal?

he can't go to prison 'til he gets a different nickname. i mean you'd have to kill like three people on your first day to make it with a name like scooter.

Damn, when I read the title I thought Scooter the Talking Baseball was convicted. :p

He should be, he has made watching Fox Saturday Baseball impossible.

Damn you! Looking at the headline I thought the thread was about this Scooter:

http://www.juergen-gessner.de/custom/HP.jpg

Just look at that twat. It's time someone locked up that german metrosexual menace!

Or even this Scooter (http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/hofer_bios/images/rizzuto_phil_2.jpg)! Holy Cow!

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/06/cia.leak/index.html

After his conviction, he was released on his own recognizance pending sentencing? :confused:

Is that normal?

Damn you! Looking at the headline I thought the thread was about this Scooter:

http://www.juergen-gessner.de/custom/HP.jpg

Just look at that twat. It's time someone locked up that german metrosexual menace!

Damn you! Looking at the headline I thought the thread was about this Scooter:

http://www.juergen-gessner.de/custom/HP.jpg

Just look at that twat. It's time someone locked up that german metrosexual menace!

I see you haven't clicked my link yet (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPvsHo4NPNo) :p

First of all, it wasn't a waste of millions of dollars. It was a necessary investigation. Plame was NOC, after all, despite right-wing claims to the contrary. Second of all, it was pretty clear from when the Libby charges were filed that they probably wouldn't go much farther, precisely because Libby had done a good enough job of obstructing the investigation from the beginning.

Sad, but true. It's the same old song and dance in US politics, some loyal subordinate takes the hit for the sins of their superiors and by the time it's all over, the fruit of the tree is so poisoned that any further investigations will go nowhere or be completely useless.

Libby did a masterful job of protecting his boss, that is why he will get a pardon mere hours before Bush leaves office.

I see you haven't clicked my link yet (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPvsHo4NPNo) :p

This is how Germans get back at the world for beating them at war.

This is how Germans get back at the world for beating them at war.

yup hate to think what we would have got if they won

yup hate to think what we would have got if they won

"Move your ass" would probably be our national anthem.

CNN said it was 'breakig news'! I want my money back!


You actually paid for that?!? Having teenage midget ninjas riverdance on your reptillian brain is more constructive than watching CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/06/cia.leak/index.html

After his conviction, he was released on his own recognizance pending sentencing? :confused:

Is that normal?

Thanks God for show trials.

Otherwise, someone 'important' might have got in trouble.

Now we can only hope that Scooter turns witness in exchange for a good deal.

Now we can only hope that Scooter turns witness in exchange for a good deal.

Why should he? All he needs to do is drag out the appeals process until W pardons him in January of 09.

It is important to remember that before he was a convicted felon, scooter libby was an author.

"At age ten the madam put the child in a cage with a bear trained to couple with young girls so the girls would be frigid and not fall in love with their patrons. They fed her through the bars and aroused the bear with a stick when it seemed to lose interest. "

And, finally:

"He asked if they should fuck the deer."

The answer, reader, is yes.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/051107ta_talk_collins

Show's over. Says Fitzgerald.

Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald says the CIA leak investigation was now inactive.

"I do not expect to file any additional charges," he said.

"We're all going back to our day jobs."

Now if we can only concentrate more news coverage on ongoing things like, oh, say, the Iraqi war?

http://coffeeandcapitalism.com/blog2/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/gotojail2.jpg

http://coffeeandcapitalism.com/blog2/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/gotojail2.jpg

http://coffeeandcapitalism.com/blog2/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/gotojail2.jpg

Bring on Cheney!! :D

http://images.worldofstock.com/slides/CON1335.jpg

Not so fast, Chicken Marengo. He'll be pardoned.

It is important to remember that before he was a convicted felon, scooter libby was an author.

"At age ten the madam put the child in a cage with a bear trained to couple with young girls so the girls would be frigid and not fall in love with their patrons. They fed her through the bars and aroused the bear with a stick when it seemed to lose interest. "

And, finally:

"He asked if they should fuck the deer."

The answer, reader, is yes.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/051107ta_talk_collins

There is a DEFINITE pattern with right wing literary mindsets, apparently.

*retch*

Why is he called Scooter?
It's short for 'Pooper Scooter'.
His job in the WHiteHouse Admin was to shovel the shit around. Unfortunately he wasn't aware Rove had a big fan in his office and most of it flew back and hit Scooter in the face.

Jail time? What about good old executions for traitors?

Show's over. Says Fitzgerald.
If the talking heads are any indication, Libby could have avoided indictment and conviction if he had simply said "I don't remember" a lot more during the course of the investigation. Therein lies a lesson for witnesses in future such investigations--which may make it harder for prosecutors to do their jobs when pursuing actual crimes.

Jail time? What about good old executions for traitors?

Because he was not tried for treason :rolleyes:

I've read that, after wasting four years and many millions of dollars, Fitzgerald is satisfied with his work and will not file any more charges. Does that mean that the claims that Robert Armitage was the source of the Plame leaks will just be ignored? Or is he just not closely enough related to the Bush administration?

So... An investigation about lying about a war that got lots of people killed is a wate of money. But an investigation about someone getting a blowjob isn't.

Doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, DOUBLETHINK!!!

Because he was not tried for treason :rolleyes:

no he wasn't, but should he have been? It amazes me because I read the threads of the same people hear ranting about Sandy Berger did this and that and then they are like "nothing to see here" on this case. The man lied to cover up the Bush Administration's attempts to smear a man who was going to throw a monkey wrench in their war plans. Who was right in that case by the way? It was Bush and Cheney right? By doing so they undermined every asset of a NOC agent who had been working on non-proliferation of WMD, more specifically with regards to Iran and Iraq. We wouldn't find her or her people to be important considering we're in a war on terror and constantly being reminded how dangerous it would be for WMD to fall into the wrong hands now would we? The charge stands that Bush and Cheney put politics ahead of their country in this case. Even if our limp legal system won't charge them with treason as they should (including Dick Armitage) the court of public opinion has seen them to be guilty snakes.

"You try to minimize the issue but I'm keeping it large, I love the place I live but I hate the people in charge."

So... An investigation about lying about a war that got lots of people killed is a wate of money. But an investigation about someone getting a blowjob isn't.

Doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, doublethink, DOUBLETHINK!!!
Crap like that isn't even worth answering. If you can't see the differences, then I don't particulary care.

If the talking heads are any indication, Libby could have avoided indictment and conviction if he had simply said "I don't remember" a lot more during the course of the investigation. Therein lies a lesson for witnesses in future such investigations--which may make it harder for prosecutors to do their jobs when pursuing actual crimes.

So, lying about destroying a woman's life is ok, but lying about getting a blowjob is an actual crime.

Are you insulting my intelligence or yours?

Crap like that isn't even worth answering. If you can't see the differences, then I don't particulary care.

If you were so confident, you'd show me the differences. You don't because you know you can't. Thanks for admitting that you lost this argument though.

Well, of course, for you the difference is Clinton was a Democrat (which would make him a criminal) and Scooter was a Republican (which would make him a saint no matter how many people's lives he cowardly helped destroy).

If you were so confident, you'd show me the differences. You don't because you know you can't. Thanks for admitting that you lost this argument though.

Well, of course, for you the difference is Clinton was a Democrat (which would make him a criminal) and Scooter was a Republican (which would make him a saint no matter how many people's lives he cowardly helped destroy).

come on, blowjobs are much more dangerous than outing a front company dealing with rogue nations and terrorists all over the world. Even an idiot can se that. DUH!

come on, blowjobs are much more dangerous than outing a front company dealing with rogue nations and terrorists all over the world. Even an idiot can se that. DUH!

Well, actually ONLY an idiot can see that. :D

So... An investigation about lying about a war that got lots of people killed is a wate of money. But an investigation about someone getting a blowjob isn't.

It was about Valarie Plame you idiot and NOT the Iraq War. :rolleyes:

The jury has reached a verdict in the trial involving Lewis "Scooter" libby.

The Verdict is guilty on 4 of 5 of the counts in the CIA Leak case.

So how are the liberals going to spin this into an anti-conservative story. He was not convicted on one of the five counts he was up for. This proves that it was all a liberal witch hunt to take down an innocent man whose only crime was being a conservative, perjury, and obstruction.

It was about Valarie Plame you idiot and NOT the Iraq War. :rolleyes:

Valerie Plame is ultimately about the war in Iraq.

Crap like that isn't even worth answering. If you can't see the differences, then I don't particulary care.

We do see the difference. Blowjob not worth government time. Leaking the names of CIA agents worth government time.

Valerie Plame is ultimately about the war in Iraq.

Actually no it isn't. It is a totally separate issue in this case. To try and link the two is like connecting Bin Laden with Saddam.

It was about Valarie Plame you idiot and NOT the Iraq War. :rolleyes:

oh, so you mean that the reason she was outed was purely coincidental to the fact that her husband was eating away at the underlying reason to the Iraq war. Watch who you're calling an idiot Corny. Yes, I see you're back to your switching screen names gag as you want to make it look like more people agree with you. save the excuses as that's the only reason you "love to switch back and forth." Seriously, can't you see that the two are connected. If her husband never wrote the article she never would have been outed. Plain and simple bucko.

Dude, Valerie Plame was a NOC agent working on WMD issues in Iraq and Iran, and her outing was pushback against her husband's Op-Ed in the NY Times which dealt with one of the primary justifications for the Iraq War--the uranium from Niger. They are directly and inextricably linked.

Sorry but this trial was NOT ABOUT THE IRAQ WAR!!! It is about outing a C.I.A. agent. That is all. To make it into something more is just plain stupid. Leave it to the left to try to make this into something more.

Actually no it isn't. It is a totally separate issue in this case. To try and link the two is like connecting Bin Laden with Saddam.

Dude, Valerie Plame was a NOC agent working on WMD issues in Iraq and Iran, and her outing was pushback against her husband's Op-Ed in the NY Times which dealt with one of the primary justifications for the Iraq War--the uranium from Niger. They are directly and inextricably linked.

Actually no it isn't. It is a totally separate issue in this case. To try and link the two is like connecting Bin Laden with Saddam.

which the bush administration also tried to pull. We don't buy the lies no matter how many excuses you make. So if it had nothing to do with the Iraq war then why did she get outed. Why did they just happen to pick her out of all the NOC agents working on counter-proliferation of WMD in the CIA? was it because she's pretty or they just like the name Valerie?

Sorry but this trial was NOT ABOUT THE IRAQ WAR!!! It is about outing a C.I.A. agent. That is all. To make it into something more is just plain stupid. Leave it to the left to try to make this into something more.

A CIA agent who just so happens to be married to a critic of the rational for war? RRRRIIIGHT! So you mean the didn't have detailed notes about how the white house handled this case? They didn't see Cheney's hand-written scribble on the paper? Give it a break and switch back to your other name so we can hear the echo. This was all about payback to someone who dared to say the rulers were wrong. Anyone who can't see that is an idiot or a liar.

Sorry but this trial was NOT ABOUT THE IRAQ WAR!!! It is about outing a C.I.A. agent. That is all. To make it into something more is just plain stupid. Leave it to the left to try to make this into something more.

You know, putting your angry reply in all caps and punctuating it with exclamation points doesn't make it any less stupid. Walk through this with me.

If there's no push to war with Iraq, there's no trip to Niger for Joseph Wilson. If there's no trip, there's no Op-Ed. If there's no Op-Ed, there's no push-back and Plame is never outed and there is no case. Ergo, there's no case without the Iraq War--the two are linked.

Now, can you refute that or are you going to simply stamp your feet and scream some more?

You know, putting your angry reply in all caps and punctuating it with exclamation points doesn't make it any less stupid. Walk through this with me.

If there's no push to war with Iraq, there's no trip to Niger for Joseph Wilson. If there's no trip, there's no Op-Ed. If there's no Op-Ed, there's no push-back and Plame is never outed and there is no case. Ergo, there's no case without the Iraq War--the two are linked.

Now, can you refute that or are you going to simply stamp your feet and scream some more?

time goes by, *crickets, crickets*

It was about Valarie Plame you idiot and NOT the Iraq War. :rolleyes:

Even if Plame's case didn't have anything to do with the unnecessary bloodshed in Iraq, my point would STILL stand: Blowjobs aren't half as serious as outing a CIA agent for her husband unmasking the Administration's thirst for blood. And you call me an idiot? Fine. Let's assume the outing was not about the war. It doesn't MATTER! Why? BECAUSE DESTROYING A CIA AGENT'S COVER, CAREER AND LIFE IS STILL MORE SERIOUS THAN WHAT CLINTON WAS DOING WITH HIS PENIS!!! THAT'S WHY!!!

Even if Plame's case didn't have anything to do with the unnecessary bloodshed in Iraq, my point would STILL stand: Blowjobs aren't half as serious as outing a CIA agent for her husband unmasking the Administration's thirst for blood. And you call me an idiot? Fine. Let's assume the outing was not about the war. It doesn't MATTER! Why? BECAUSE DESTROYING A CIA AGENT'S COVER, CAREER AND LIFE IS STILL MORE SERIOUS THAN WHAT CLINTON WAS DOING WITH HIS PENIS!!! THAT'S WHY!!!

sounds from corny and his puppets *crickets crickets* He hides when trounced.

edit: but he'll come back when called out. That's why he's so amusing to play with.

sounds from corny and his puppets *crickets crickets* He hides when trounced.

So, if he doesn't answer, can I point out that I win?

It was about Valarie Plame you idiot and NOT the Iraq War. :rolleyes:

And the valerie plame case is only notable because it was retaliation for someone who exposed lies being used to justify invading iraq early-on.

The bush administration is "about the iraq war" - that is what defines this misadministration completely, that it what it will be remembered for.

One cog in the lies-machine has been convicted of a felony, no sane and intelligent person fails to see the implication regarding iraq.

So, if he doesn't answer, can I point out that I win?

Victory on technicality but victory none the less.

Victory on technicality but victory none the less.

Not so much technicality as much as "W.O." in which he left while I was winning.

Actually no it isn't. It is a totally separate issue in this case. To try and link the two is like connecting Bin Laden with Saddam.

No. That's what your boys do.

This is more like trying to link Pearl Harbor and the war with the Nazi's. We had one, therefore we had the other.

Valerie Plame was outed as a direct result of her husband trying to debunk the Bush Administration's claim that Saddam Hussein tried to purchase uranium in Niger. A claim which was made with the intention of prompting a war with Saddam Hussein.

Even if Plame's case didn't have anything to do with the unnecessary bloodshed in Iraq, my point would STILL stand: Blowjobs aren't half as serious as outing a CIA agent for her husband unmasking the Administration's thirst for blood. And you call me an idiot? Fine. Let's assume the outing was not about the war. It doesn't MATTER! Why? BECAUSE DESTROYING A CIA AGENT'S COVER, CAREER AND LIFE IS STILL MORE SERIOUS THAN WHAT CLINTON WAS DOING WITH HIS PENIS!!! THAT'S WHY!!!

The contrast you should be making here is between Libby and Berger. Libby answers a few too many questions, is indicted and convicted for having a faulty memory. Libby probably goes to jail.

Berger steals, hides, and destroys classified documents that contain information whose unauthorized disclosure would pose the gravest threat to national security. But he gets a plea deal. Berger doesn't go to jail because he can't be used to damage the Bush administration.

The flaw in your analogy with Clinton is that his crime was not sex. It was perjury. Lying under oath is a crime no matter what what you're lying about.

Sorry but this trial was NOT ABOUT THE IRAQ WAR!!! It is about outing a C.I.A. agent. That is all. To make it into something more is just plain stupid. Leave it to the left to try to make this into something more.

It seems you aren't getting much agreement. The question of course is WHY Plame was exposed. Could it be because of the efforts of her husband to discredit Bush and his push for war in Iraq? Why it does! So Iraq most definately is mixed up in this whole disgusting affair.

So wait--the Justice department under Alberto Gonzales is biased against the Bush administration? There's paranoia, and then there's being fucking retarded.

So why do you think that Berger, who arguably committed a more serious crime, was allowed to plead, while Libby wasn't?

Don't even bother. I quit.

The contrast you should be making here is between Libby and Berger. Libby answers a few too many questions, is indicted and convicted for having a faulty memory. Libby probably goes to jail.

Berger steals, hides, and destroys classified documents that contain information whose unauthorized disclosure would pose the gravest threat to national security. But he gets a plea deal. Berger doesn't go to jail because he can't be used to damage the Bush administration.

The flaw in your analogy with Clinton is that his crime was not sex. It was perjury. Lying under oath is a crime no matter what what you're lying about.
So wait--the Justice department under Alberto Gonzales is biased against the Bush administration? There's paranoia, and then there's being fucking retarded.

So wait--the Justice department under Alberto Gonzales is biased against the Bush administration? There's paranoia, and then there's being fucking retarded.

Yeah, didn't you know that?

The damn evil liberals are so bad, even the whole justice department, even the special prosecutor bush appointed, even gonzales himself are in a conspiracy to hurt the bush administration.

Its best not to take myrmie's half-demented ramblings seriously.

So why do you think that Berger, who arguably committed a more serious crime, was allowed to plead, while Libby wasn't?

Don't even bother. I quit.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

Did you notice how Libby is still denying he did anything wrong?

I imagine libby did have the opportunity to plead out, but alas, he wanted to go to court.

Usually when someone refuses to plead guilty, there can be no sensible discussion abut being "allowed" to plead.

Get a grip!

So why do you think that Berger, who arguably committed a more serious crime, was allowed to plead, while Libby wasn't?

Don't even bother. I quit.

A plea has to be offered and accepted. Libby didn't want to plea out as he truly felt he was in the right (or that his lawyer would get him off). And cut the he was convicted for having a faulty memory bullshit. He was guilty on 4 out of 5 counts of conspiring to cover up a crime that is tantemount to treason. No matter how you spin it he's dead in the sights guilty. They're just lucky that we don't hand people from yard arms anymore.

So why do you think that Berger, who arguably committed a more serious crime, was allowed to plead, while Libby wasn't?

Don't even bother. I quit.

Because no one actually believes that Berger's crime was more serious, maybe? Seriously, you're arguing that a Gonzales led justice department is biased against the Bush administration. Do you even begin to realize how ludicrous that sounds?

Yeah, didn't you know that?

The damn evil liberals are so bad, even the whole justice department, even the special prosecutor bush appointed, even gonzales himself are in a conspiracy to hurt the bush administration.

Its best not to take myrmie's half-demented ramblings seriously.

In all fairness, Fitzgerald was appointed by Ashcroft--that's how long this has been going on--and is a Republican himself, so you can obviously see how the deck was stacked against Libby from the beginning. :rolleyes:

The flaw in your analogy with Clinton is that his crime was not sex. It was perjury. Lying under oath is a crime no matter what what you're lying about.

Libby lied under oath. Only it was about a serious matter.

So why do you think that Berger, who arguably committed a more serious crime, was allowed to plead, while Libby wasn't?

Because Berger plead out, and Libby didn't?

Because Berger had a lawyer smart enough to know the reality of the situation and advised him to take the deal and Libby's was not?

How the hell do you know that Libby was NOT offered a plea? Having actually WORKED for the USAO before, I feel pretty confident to say that he was. He just chose not to accept it.

Don't even bother. I quit.

If that's the best you can come up with I'm not surprised.

Sorry but this trial was NOT ABOUT THE IRAQ WAR!!! It is about outing a C.I.A. agent. That is all. To make it into something more is just plain stupid. Leave it to the left to try to make this into something more.

Actually this particular trial was about him lying in court.

He's guilty of that, but the court and the jury knew he was just a fallguy for Cheney and Rove - notice how quickly the discussion and investigation about who actually outed her stopped completely and was replaced by "Libby lied in court!".

Actually this particular trial was about him lying in court.

He's guilty of that, but the court and the jury knew he was just a fallguy for Cheney and Rove - notice how quickly the discussion and investigation about who actually outed her stopped completely and was replaced by "Libby lied in court!".

Hey, that means Myrm DOES have a point! The higher-ups like Cheney should have been prosecuted instead of Libby being a distraction! Thanks for pointing that out, Myrm!

Lying under oath is a crime no matter what what you're lying about.

No, not necessarily.

Well, apparently Rove didn't lie - he straight up told Fitzgerald what he asked for.

Apparently, it's not illegal to leak Plame's identity, because she hadn't been an active agent in over five years. Otherwise, I'm sure Fitz would have went with that against Rove and Armitage and others.

Looks like Fitz has also declared that the whole leak investigation is over.

So it's over.

Listen--Fitzgerald has already said more than once that leaking Plame's name was a crime. Spinning it won't change that--though it will further show you to be an untrustworthy liar. What he also said was that he couldn't charge that crime because Libby obstructed the investigation and seeing as how Libby was convicted of said crime, I'd say that proves pretty substantially that a crime was indeed committed. Just because no one is charged doesn't mean the crime didn't happen. Bad people get away with shit all the time.

Well, apparently Rove didn't lie - he straight up told Fitzgerald what he asked for.

Apparently, it's not illegal to leak Plame's identity, because she hadn't been an active agent in over five years. Otherwise, I'm sure Fitz would have went with that against Rove and Armitage and others.

Looks like Fitz has also declared that the whole leak investigation is over.

So it's over.

No, not necessarily.

That brings to mind what Rice had to say about FAA warnings of terrorist attack ... when she said "ONE" emphatically, she actually meant "52" - you know, the time she insisted on that to the panel investigating something or other ... what was that again?

Must've slipped her mind or something?

I'm supposed to be here 24/7? I do have this thing called classes that I need to attend Liuzzo. So shut the fuck up about me not responding when you want me to respond. I'll respond when I have the time asshat.

Woohoo, Elton John is back?
;)

I'm supposed to be here 24/7? I do have this thing called classes that I need to attend Liuzzo. So shut the fuck up about me not responding when you want me to respond. I'll respond when I have the time asshat.
Aren't you the one who's constantly lecturing me on how being insulting harms my debating points, Corny? :rolleyes:

sounds from corny and his puppets *crickets crickets* He hides when trounced.

edit: but he'll come back when called out. That's why he's so amusing to play with.

I'm supposed to be here 24/7? I do have this thing called classes that I need to attend Liuzzo. So shut the fuck up about me not responding when you want me to respond. I'll respond when I have the time asshat.

Source? I hadn't heard that before. I'm actually pretty sure all I've heard was that she was put in danger because of being outed.

His source would be right-wingers like Robert Novak who had a vested interest in her not being undercover. That question was put to bed when the case began, because if she hadn't been undercover, there wouldn't have been an investigation. Eve's a liar and he knows it.

Well, apparently Rove didn't lie - he straight up told Fitzgerald what he asked for.

Apparently, it's not illegal to leak Plame's identity, because she hadn't been an active agent in over five years. Otherwise, I'm sure Fitz would have went with that against Rove and Armitage and others.

Looks like Fitz has also declared that the whole leak investigation is over.

So it's over.

Source? I hadn't heard that before. I'm actually pretty sure all I've heard was that she was put in danger because of being outed.

I'm supposed to be here 24/7? I do have this thing called classes that I need to attend Liuzzo. So shut the fuck up about me not responding when you want me to respond. I'll respond when I have the time asshat.

in other words, you still don't have an answer.

OK

Actually this particular trial was about him lying in court.

And here I thought it was to a grand jury and the FBI.

He's guilty of that,

No shit. Even I thought he was guilty.

but the court and the jury knew he was just a fallguy for Cheney and Rove -

Now if you have actual evidence to back that up....

notice how quickly the discussion and investigation about who actually outed her stopped completely and was replaced by "Libby lied in court!".

Or could it be that they could not find any evidence pointing to what you are alleging?

No, not necessarily.

What? You are saying its ok to lie under oath in some circumstances? :rolleyes:

Aren't you the one who's constantly lecturing me on how being insulting harms my debating points, Corny? :rolleyes:

Problem with this is, I wasn't making a point with that post. I was being attacked for not responding right away because I was in this thing called a class taking a test.

Problem with this is, I wasn't making a point with that post. I was being attacked for not responding right away because I was in this thing called a class taking a test.

Ah. So you were flaming then. It's okay if you're a Corneliu, that sort of thing? Good thing I don't respect your debating style in the first place--that insult to another poster might have damaged your reputation in my eyes.

Ah. So you were flaming then. It's okay if you're a Corneliu, that sort of thing? Good thing I don't respect your debating style in the first place--that insult to another poster might have damaged your reputation in my eyes.

Insult me and I will insult back. Declaring victory when I'm not even here beause of a class is stupid. It will be responded to.

As for you Nazz. Fuck off. I do not care and you know it.

Insult me and I will insult back. Declaring victory when I'm not even here beause of a class is stupid. It will be responded to.

As for you Nazz. Fuck off. I do not care and you know it.

Ah, being caught out as a hypocrite stings a bit, does it? That's all right--I'm leaving it alone now. I'm more interested in your response to the post I made linking this case to the Iraq War anyway.

Source? I hadn't heard that before. I'm actually pretty sure all I've heard was that she was put in danger because of being outed.

Plame's husband, Joe Wilson, stated in a July 14, 2005 interview with Wolf Blitzer of CNN that "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity."

And here I thought it was to a grand jury and the FBI.

I said court, but I meant that, yeah. I thought that was assumed.

No shit. Even I thought he was guilty.

Good.

Now if you have actual evidence to back that up....

I read it in an article found on my google homepage. Can't remember the url now, but I'll get it when I get home in about five hours.

The article had quotes from the jury saying they were "sympathetic" to Libby, because they considered him the fall-guy for the higher-ups.

Or could it be that they could not find any evidence pointing to what you are alleging?

As far as I can remember there's been bounds of evidence found pointing to Rove and Cheney.

.

Plame's husband, Joe Wilson, stated in a July 14, 2005 interview with Wolf Blitzer of CNN that "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity."

Which doesn't matter. It was still a crime, or else Justice would never have opened an investigation. What's so difficult for you to get your mind around?

Eh? 2005? Has this shit really been going on for two years? God.
Longer than that--Fitzgerald was appointed in 2003, if I recall correctly.

Plame's husband, Joe Wilson, stated in a July 14, 2005 interview with Wolf Blitzer of CNN that "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity."

Eh? 2005? Has this shit really been going on for two years? God.

Eh? 2005? Has this shit really been going on for two years? God.

Yes.

And the best proof that the actual "outing" isn't prosecutable, is that Fitzgerald isn't prosecuting anyone for it.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Fitzgerald_No_further_investigation_planned_0306.html

"I do not expect to file any further charges, the investigation was inactive prior to the trial," the Chicago-based federal attorney who led the prosecution said. "We're all going back to our day jobs."

However, Fitzgerald did concede "If new information comes to light, of course we'll do that."

Yes.

And the best proof that the actual "outing" isn't prosecutable, is that Fitzgerald isn't prosecuting anyone for it.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Fitzgerald_No_further_investigation_planned_0306.html

Bullshit. It means that someone got away with it. In what world do you live in which every crime committed is charged? People get away with shit all the time--doesn't mean there wasn't a crime committed. You're such a dishonest hack, Eve.

Bullshit. It means that someone got away with it. In what world do you live in which every crime committed is charged? People get away with shit all the time--doesn't mean there wasn't a crime committed. You're such a dishonest hack, Eve.

Armitage and Rove admitted it under oath.

That sounds like evidence to me.

Armitage and Rove admitted it under oath.

That sounds like evidence to me.

And is it admissible in court in another proceeding? Or were they given immunity in a proffer for testimony like Ari Fleischer was? Do you even know? Do you know dick about the process or are you simply mouthing right-wing talking points? I know what my money is on.

And is it admissible in court in another proceeding? Or were they given immunity in a proffer for testimony like Ari Fleischer was? Do you even know? Do you know dick about the process or are you simply mouthing right-wing talking points? I know what my money is on.

If you were investigating the White House, it's unlikely that you would give Rove immunity, eh?

WTF is up with "talking points"?

Insult me and I will insult back. Declaring victory when I'm not even here beause of a class is stupid. It will be responded to.

As for you Nazz. Fuck off. I do not care and you know it.

By all means, I withdraw my claim, because I'm feeling like an awfully good sport. So, kindly tell me, do you have a counterpoint? If you do, what is it?

If you were investigating the White House, it's unlikely that you would give Rove immunity, eh?

WTF is up with "talking points"?

I wouldn't know what is likely and what isn't--I'm not a federal prosecutor. What I do know is that Fitzgerald--you know, the prosecutor?--has said from the beginning that he would charge what he could charge. He didn't go into this case with the idea that he was going to cast a wide net and see what he could dredge up (like Ken Starr did, looking for crimes where none existed). He went in, investigated, and charged what he could convict on, and he was right on 4 of 5 charges. That's a pretty impressive result.

I'm supposed to be here 24/7? I do have this thing called classes that I need to attend Liuzzo. So shut the fuck up about me not responding when you want me to respond. I'll respond when I have the time asshat.

Nice flame, I love it when you get angry. Notice I won't cry like a baby to the mods though. The point is that he committed a crime and was punished for it. As for EO, if it was not illegal to leak her name why did they start an investigation in the first place? Please answer that oh brilliant one. The CIA and DOJ both agreed that it was unlawful to leak her name so what source do you have that supersedes them?

www.thenation.com/doc/20060918/corn

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/01/AR2005100101317.html

EO knows more than the CIA and DOJ combined, so take that.

Corny, keep your panties on and calm down.

I wouldn't know what is likely and what isn't--I'm not a federal prosecutor. What I do know is that Fitzgerald--you know, the prosecutor?--has said from the beginning that he would charge what he could charge. He didn't go into this case with the idea that he was going to cast a wide net and see what he could dredge up (like Ken Starr did, looking for crimes where none existed). He went in, investigated, and charged what he could convict on, and he was right on 4 of 5 charges. That's a pretty impressive result.

Also, going after the President and Vice-President would require congress to investigate and appoint a special prosecutor in this case. DOJ would take the lead from there but not until congress decided it. Further, these charges would be defined as high crimes and misdemeanors and would have to result in articles of impeachment being drawn up. The weak Dems have decided it would be better to just let Bush rot for 1.5 years and bury himself instead. That's not what my choice would be if someone decided to undermine the constitution and democracy, but it's theirs. It's why the Democrats will always be the weaker of the two parties in my eyes. It is why I could never call myself a member of their party because they always bow down in the face of an attack instead of fighting back.

I'm supposed to be here 24/7? I do have this thing called classes that I need to attend Liuzzo. So shut the fuck up about me not responding when you want me to respond. I'll respond when I have the time asshat.

Get a grip, jesus christ...

It's bad enough you post all kinds of garbage in here, the least you can do is be civil.

Shape up NOW

What? You are saying its ok to lie under oath in some circumstances? :rolleyes:

yes, that's exactly what I am saying.

Insult me and I will insult back. Declaring victory when I'm not even here beause of a class is stupid. It will be responded to.

As for you Nazz. Fuck off. I do not care and you know it.

2 hours later.

Still waiting.

I wouldn't know what is likely and what isn't--I'm not a federal prosecutor. What I do know is that Fitzgerald--you know, the prosecutor?--has said from the beginning that he would charge what he could charge. He didn't go into this case with the idea that he was going to cast a wide net and see what he could dredge up (like Ken Starr did, looking for crimes where none existed). He went in, investigated, and charged what he could convict on, and he was right on 4 of 5 charges. That's a pretty impressive result.

And the not guilty verdict is what the appeals is going to be based on. Jury confusion of the law.

Nice flame, I love it when you get angry. Notice I won't cry like a baby to the mods though.

Wouldn't be the first time I've been reported and yet I'm still around here. I know what I can and cannot get away with. I've been here long enough for that.

The point is that he committed a crime and was punished for it.

Yep. The question now is, how long will he be in jail.

Corny, keep your panties on and calm down.

I do not wear panties. :p

yes, that's exactly what I am saying.

Lying under oath, regardless of circumstances, is violation of the law.

Lying under oath, regardless of circumstances, is violation of the law.

No, it is not.

Perjury is a violation of the law. I do not, in any circumstances, condone Perjury.

However you are erronious in your assumption that all lies under oath are perjury. Not every lie under oath is perjury. Likewise not every instance of perjury involves a lie.

You are highly mistaken in your claim that any lie under oath, regardless of the circumstances of the lie, is illegal.

And the not guilty verdict is what the appeals is going to be based on. Jury confusion of the law.

And it'll likely fail as well. The jury showed that they did due diligence and took the time to go through all the evidence. Libby'd be better off counting on that last minute pardon.

And the not guilty verdict is what the appeals is going to be based on. Jury confusion of the law.

a claim that has less of a chance of success than being hit by lightning.

Twice.

a claim that has less of a chance of success than being hit by lightning.

Twice.

You forget that while you may have gone to law school or whatever, Corny has 2 PhDs in Legal Expertise.

You forget that while you may have gone to law school or whatever, Corny has 2 PhDs in Legal Expertise.

Of course, what was I thinking....

ahh the sound of crickets.

No, it is not.

Perjury is a violation of the law. I do not, in any circumstances, condone Perjury.

When you swear to a grand jury that everything u say is the whole truth and nothing but the truth then it turns out to be false, that is lying under oath which means Perjury. That is what is being discussed here. Scooter lied under oath and was found guilty of such. Clinton was impeached on lying under oath to a grand jury as well though that was a whole different set of circumstances and he was found innocent of it.

And it'll likely fail as well. The jury showed that they did due diligence and took the time to go through all the evidence. Libby'd be better off counting on that last minute pardon.

I'm going to have to agree with you but with appeals courts, one can never tell. Frankly, I wish they send him to Fort Levenworth.

You forget that while you may have gone to law school or whatever, Corny has 2 PhDs in Legal Expertise.

Funny :rolleyes:

When you swear to a grand jury that everything u say is the whole truth and nothing but the truth then it turns out to be false, that is lying under oath which means Perjury..

Incorrect. That is not what perjury means. The definition of perjury is NOT "lying under oath". I suggest looking it up in Black's Law Dictionary.

Hint, you're missing a crucial element here.

Incorrect. That is not what perjury means. The definition of perjury is NOT "lying under oath". I suggest looking it up in Black's Law Dictionary.

Hint, you're missing a crucial element here.

"The act or an instance of a person's deliberately making material false or misleading statement while under oath"

Corny's two Law Expert PhDs don't come with a complementary copy of Black's... I think he was cheated.

Incorrect. That is not what perjury means. The definition of perjury is NOT "lying under oath". I suggest looking it up in Black's Law Dictionary.

Hint, you're missing a crucial element here.

Well I do not have my law dictionary handy (I have one at home) but this is how the dictionary defines Perjury:

per·ju·ry (pûrj-r) KEY

NOUN:
pl. per·ju·ries

Law The deliberate, willful giving of false,
misleading, or incomplete testimony under oath.

The breach of an oath or promise.

Anyone who does this, is guilty of Perjury and Scooter boy here is guilty of it. You give testimony under oath, send the bastard or witch up the river.

Well I do not have my law dictionary handy (I have one at home) but this is how the dictionary defines Perjury:

per·ju·ry (pûrj-r) KEY

NOUN:
pl. per·ju·ries

Law The deliberate, willful giving of false,
misleading, or incomplete testimony under oath.

The breach of an oath or promise.

Anyone who does this, is guilty of Perjury and Scooter boy here is guilty of it. You give testimony under oath, send the bastard or witch up the river.


Your dictionary is incorrect, or at least, provides an improper LEGAL definition to the definition as LEGALLY relevant, which is what we are talking about here. Words have legal definitions that are often different, or at least not precisely the same, as the common definition. And since we are talking law here, the legal definition is the one to use.

The legal definition was given earlier, straight out of Black's. It is:

"The act or an instance of a person's deliberately making material false or misleading statement while under oath"

This is the proper, legal definition. Now there is a very key, and very crucial difference between:

The deliberate, willful giving of false, misleading, or incomplete testimony under oath.

and

The act or an instance of a person's deliberately making material false or misleading statement while under oath

Can you spot it? Hint, it begins with an "M"

Well I do not have my law dictionary handy (I have one at home) but this is how the dictionary defines Perjury:

Anyone who does this, is guilty of Perjury and Scooter boy here is guilty of it. You give testimony under oath, send the bastard or witch up the river.

You realise you are arguing against the legal definition, with a lay definition, yes?

Which might not matter, unless we were discussing a legal issue, of course...

You realise you are arguing against the legal definition, with a lay definition, yes?

Yes that is somewhat problematic isn't it?

Which might not matter, unless we were discussing a legal issue, of course...

Why that happens to be exactly what we're doing. Oops.

Corny, I feel sorry for you, so I'll explain it. For a lie under oath to be perjury, the lie must be related to the matter at hand. To use a completely random example, if you are under oath for stuff related to real estate deals, lying about sexual activities that occurred around 20 years after the aforementioned deals does not qualify as perjury.

I already said that my dictionary was at home. Both definitions are pretty much the same. You give false or misleading testimony under oath, it is perjury. That is what I was stating.

I already said that my dictionary was at home. Both definitions are pretty much the same. You give false or misleading testimony under oath, it is perjury. That is what I was stating.

*facepalm*

Ah well, I gotta run, so I'm going to bring this little game to a close. The difference between the legal definition of "perjury" and the lay definition is the word "material".

That little word changes the definition of perjury from "lying under oath" to "lying under oath on a material matter". That is what perjury means. It is only perjury if the lie relates to a material fact in the proceeding.

If for example I am on trial for...I dunno, jaywalking (ignoring any 5th amendment problems here) and I am asked "did you jaywalk" and I say "no", even though I am aware that I did, in fact, jaywalk, this is lying under oath. This is also perjury. Whether I jaywalked or not is a material fact in my jaywalking trial.

If I am however asked "are you cheating on your wife" and I say "no", even though I am aware that I am, in fact, cheating on my wife, this is also lying under oath. This is not, however, perjury. Why not? Because whether I'm boinking someone on the side is irrelevant to whether or not I committed the crime of jaywalking, and thus is immaterial to my jaywalking trial. Because it is immaterial, and thus irrelevant, lying would not constitute perjury. Why not? Because the irrelevant question should not have been asked in the first place, thus I am under no obligation to answer it truthfully.

To go back to our little game, and to quote our interactions, just in case you try to weasel out of it. Here's how the conversation went.

Myrmidonisia's original statement. Page 7, response 105:

Lying under oath is a crime no matter what what you're lying about.


My response. Page 8, response 118:

No, not necessarily.

And this is true, as I said, lying under oath is not a crime. Perjury is a crime. Not all lies under oath are perjury.

Your response to me, page 9, response 129:

What? You are saying its ok to lie under oath in some circumstances?:rolleyes:

My response to that, page 10, response 149:

yes, that's exactly what I am saying.

Then you went on with your erronious diatribe about the definition of perjury. As my statement said, it is ok to lie under oath in some circumstances. What are those circumstances? When the lie is in response to an immaterial question.

Once again, lying under oath is not a crime. Perjury is a crime. Not all lies under oath are perjury.

Thus concludes the lesson.

I already said that my dictionary was at home. Both definitions are pretty much the same. You give false or misleading testimony under oath, it is perjury. That is what I was stating.

The reasons you think that the two definitions are the same is the reason you are not a lawyer.

Corny, I feel sorry for you, so I'll explain it. For a lie under oath to be perjury, the lie must be related to the matter at hand. To use a completely random example, if you are under oath for stuff related to real estate deals, lying about sexual activities that occurred around 20 years after the aforementioned deals does not qualify as perjury.

feh, you ruin the fun.

Considering I've said the same thing to him on at least one other occasion, not really.

I have to be totally honest here. I actually kind of missed Corny. We really didn't have anyone to beat up on for a while, and I think we almost started cannibalising one another.

It could have gotten ugly.

feh, you ruin the fun.

Considering I've said the same thing to him on at least one other occasion, not really.

I have to be totally honest here. I actually kind of missed Corny. We really didn't have anyone to beat up on for a while, and I think we almost started cannibalising one another.

It could have gotten ugly.

he's sort of a keystone species in forum ecology then, yeah?

he's sort of a keystone species in forum ecology then, yeah?

You know, that's rather apt. And scary. It means we have a duty to protect him from becoming extinct.

You know, that's rather apt. And scary. It means we have a duty to protect him from becoming extinct.

and probably a moral obligation to reintroduce him (or someone else that can serve his ecosystem function) into 'degraded' forum ecosystems

Insult me and I will insult back. Declaring victory when I'm not even here beause of a class is stupid. It will be responded to.

As for you Nazz. Fuck off. I do not care and you know it.
Ahhhhhhh Classic Corn.......we have missed your pearls of wisdom. :p

You realize you are arguing against the legal definition, with a lay definition, yes?

Which might not matter, unless we were discussing a legal issue, of course...

Good conservatives don't get discouraged by elitist bullshit like "facts."

Words are what you make them. And conservatives make them meaningless. How do you argue with people who accept statements like "we were welcomed in Iraq, it just wasn't a peaceful welcome."

I already said that my dictionary was at home. Both definitions are pretty much the same. You give false or misleading testimony under oath, it is perjury. That is what I was stating.

Call the presses!!!

Corny is persisting in factual error after it has been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that he is factually in error for the 500TH TIME

Good conservatives don't get discouraged by elitist bullshit like "facts."

Words are what you make them. And conservatives make them meaningless. How do you argue with people who accept statements like "we were welcomed in Iraq, it just wasn't a peaceful welcome."

truthiness

Good conservatives don't get discouraged by elitist bullshit like "facts."

Words are what you make them. And conservatives make them meaningless. How do you argue with people who accept statements like "we were welcomed in Iraq, it just wasn't a peaceful welcome."

facts have a liberal bias, after all.

And where's corny to insit that he's right?

facts have a liberal bias, after all.

And where's corny to insit that he's right?

Typing out a paper that is due friday.

Typing out a paper that is due friday.

But it is wednesday...

Didnt they teach you how to do college? They call it procrastination.

Maybe you should write a paper on what perjury really means, both as a form of penance and education.

But it is wednesday...

Didnt they teach you how to do college? They call it procrastination.

Hey, don't tell him to do that. It's some poor slob like me that has to read that thing--you keep working, Corny. Don't listen to these bad influences.

But it is wednesday...

Didnt they teach you how to do college? They call it procrastination.

It is due on Friday and I procrastinated enough. Frankly, I'm trying to get to page 7 of this fucking thing before I turn in because I do not want to be up all night tomorrow finishing it up.

Hey, don't tell him to do that. It's some poor slob like me that has to read that thing--you keep working, Corny. Don't listen to these bad influences.

Wait until friday and stay up until 6am, fueled by coffee and bourbon.

Wait until friday and stay up until 6am, fueled by coffee and bourbon.

I actually do not drink. As to staying up till 600 am friday, I would rather sleep. I have stayed up till like 3 AM typing out papers before but I told myself to stop doing that. Now it is almost 100 here and I am going off to bed here in a few minutes.

I actually do not drink. As to staying up till 600 am friday, I would rather sleep. I have stayed up till like 3 AM typing out papers before but I told myself to stop doing that. Now it is almost 100 here and I am going off to bed here in a few minutes.

Can you name the two most famous teetotalers in history?




















Hitler and Bin Laden

Wait until friday and stay up until 6am, fueled by coffee and bourbon.
I hate you. ;)

Can you name the two most famous teetotalers in history?





















Hitler and Bin LadenFunny, but more than a smidge provocative.

Funny, but more than a smidge provocative.

Just some evidence that teetotaling is part of heinous, genocidal, satanic evil.

Bear in mind that Jesus H Christ not only drank alcohol, he made wine.

I guess the third most famous teetotaler is Muhammad Atta.

Just some evidence that teetotaling is part of heinous, genocidal, satanic evil.
And not forgetting Ming the Merciless. Never touched a drop.

So.... yeah. That proves it.

Just some evidence that teetotaling is part of heinous, genocidal, satanic evil.

Bear in mind that Jesus H Christ not only drank alcohol, he made wine.

I guess the third most famous teetotaler is Muhammad Atta.

Nah, the third most famous teetotaler is Satan.

Nah, the third most famous teetotaler is Satan.

I would imagine satan is quite happy to drink - he after all the 'father of lies.'

It is a mark of his followers though, teetotaling. Nothing else accounts for the enormous preponderance of evil teetotalers. Look also to prohibition in the US - the creation of vast, murderous, socially destructive criminal enterprises.

Always keep wary of teetotalers, they are the hitlers, bin ladens, attas, &al. of the future.

Just some evidence that teetotaling is part of heinous, genocidal, satanic evil.

Bear in mind that Jesus H Christ not only drank alcohol, he made wine.

I guess the third most famous teetotaler is Muhammad Atta.

Who was it who said "Beer is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy?" Almost enough to make me want to believe in God.

Yay! This was one of my first issues on NS.

Who was it who said "Beer is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy?" Almost enough to make me want to believe in God.

That was Ben Franklin who said that, you know, the founding father of our country Ben Franklin.

It would appear that in addition to being satanic and depraved, teetotaling is unpatriotic and anti-american.

Note also that the only amendment to be repealed by another amendment - ie, the only amendment that was declared to be fundamentally unamerican - is the prohibiton amendment.

Attn: Teetotalers - we've got our eyes on you and all other anti-americans - if you don't like this country and its culture, history, and heritage - leave.

That was Ben Franklin who said that, you know, the founding father of our country Ben Franklin.

It would appear that in addition to being satanic and depraved, teetotaling is unpatriotic and anti-american.

Note also that the only amendment to be repealed by another amendment - ie, the only amendment that was declared to be fundamentally unamerican - is the prohibiton amendment.

Attn: Teetotalers - we've got our eyes on you and all other anti-americans - if you don't like this country and its culture, history, and heritage - leave.
I could really be a dick and point out that the most prominent teetotalers in the US right now--as groups--are evangelical christians, most notably the Mormons and, I believe, most Pentecostal groups. But I won't, because that would be dickish. ;)

I could really be a dick and point out that the most prominent teetotalers in the US right now--as groups--are evangelical christians, most notably the Mormons and, I believe, most Pentecostal groups. But I won't, because that would be dickish. ;)

And those people are all depraved and satanic, next please?

Always keep wary of teetotalers, they are the hitlers, bin ladens, attas, &al. of the future.

Am not.

I already said that my dictionary was at home. Both definitions are pretty much the same. You give false or misleading testimony under oath, it is perjury. That is what I was stating.

<sigh> No.

Perjury

crim. law. This offence at common law is defined to be a wilful false oath, by one who being lawfully required to depose the truth in any judicial proceedings, swears absolutely in a matter material to the point in question, whether he be believed or not.

2. If we analyze this definition we will find, 1st. That the oath must be wilful. 2d. That it must be false. 3d. That the party was lawfully sworn. 4th. That the proceeding was judicial. 6th. That the assertion was absolute. 6th. That the falsehood was material to the point in question.*

*Quotation from Black's Legal Dictionary and from LawyerIntl.com

For perjury to be committed, the statement must be material and germane to the point in question. Period.

In short, it's not perjury to say, under oath, that the earth is only 6,000 years old if you're testifying in a wrongful death suit against an auto manufacturer.

I believe that would be grounds for an objection from an attorny anyway as it would have no bearing on the case.

<sigh> No.

Perjury

crim. law. This offence at common law is defined to be a wilful false oath, by one who being lawfully required to depose the truth in any judicial proceedings, swears absolutely in a matter material to the point in question, whether he be believed or not.

2. If we analyze this definition we will find, 1st. That the oath must be wilful. 2d. That it must be false. 3d. That the party was lawfully sworn. 4th. That the proceeding was judicial. 6th. That the assertion was absolute. 6th. That the falsehood was material to the point in question.*

*Quotation from Black's Legal Dictionary and from LawyerIntl.com

For perjury to be committed, the statement must be material and germane to the point in question. Period.
In short, it's not perjury to say, under oath, that the earth is only 6,000 years old if you're testifying in a wrongful death suit against an auto manufacturer.

I believe that would be grounds for an objection from an attorny anyway as it would have no bearing on the case.

yes, this is true, an immateriality objection can be raised.

But
That
Still
Does
Not
Make
It
Perjury

Despite your former insistance that "all lies under oath are perjury"

yes, this is true, an immateriality objection can be raised.

But
That
Still
Does
Not
Make
It
Perjury

Despite your former insistance that "all lies under oath are perjury"

Thing is though, debating the age of the Earth is a personal opinion anyway. No one knows precisely what the age of this Earth is. Is it Billions? Millions? Thousands? Know one knows.

Thing is though, debating the age of the Earth is a personal opinion anyway. No one knows precisely what the age of this Earth is. Is it Billions? Millions? Thousands? Know one knows.

Which. Still. Doesn't. Demonstrate. That. All. Lies. Under. Oath. Are. Perjury. Despite. Your. Insistance. That. They. Are.

In other words, you're either a hack, an idiot, or a liar, who doesn't have the guts to admit that he was wrong.

Which. Still. Doesn't. Demonstrate. That. All. Lies. Under. Oath. Are. Perjury. Despite. Your. Insistance. That. They. Are.

In other words, you're either a hack, an idiot, or a liar, who doesn't have the guts to admit that he was wrong.

Then. Use. A. Better. Example!

Then. Use. A. Better. Example!

Already did, page 12, #172. You've ignored it.

Go on, keep trying to weasel out of admitting you were wrong. You can say it, ya know. We all know it already anyway. Even you know it. You already know you've been proven wrong, just have the guts to admit it.

the age of the Earth is a personal opinion anyway

brilliant!

snip the age of the Earth is a personal opinion anyway. snip

Bull shit some idiots seem to be clinging to an outdated model. But either way the age of the earth is objective not subjective whatever it may be

Bull shit some idiots seem to be clinging to an outdated model. But either way the age of the earth is objective not subjective whatever it may be

i love the way that wingnuts retreat into absolute relativism rather than be wrong. it's not even moral or cultural relativism, it's "basic facts of the universe" relativism. just fucking awesome.

i love the way that wingnuts retreat into absolute relativism rather than be wrong. it's not even moral or cultural relativism, it's "basic facts of the universe" relativism. just fucking awesome.

Yeah I dont get that they scream moral objectivism when it suits them and then retreat to factual/absolute relativism

Yeah I dont get that they scream moral objectivism when it suits them and then retreat to factual/absolute relativism

its simple, really. there is a clear, knowable, objective fact of the universe that, for example, gays are icky. and i am in possession of these facts. at the exact same time, all facts that i disagree with are mere matters of opinion.

a life with double standards is the only life for me!

Thing is though, debating the age of the Earth is a personal opinion anyway. No one knows precisely what the age of this Earth is. Is it Billions? Millions? Thousands? Know one knows.

Stop that weaseling, stop that lying, stop it now.

Say

"When I insisted over and over again that all lying under oath was perjury, I was wrong because I didnt understand what I was talking about."

god hates people who won't fess up.

Then. Use. A. Better. Example!

Admit that you were wrong.

Stop that weaseling, stop that lying, stop it now.

Say

"When I insisted over and over again that all lying under oath was perjury, I was wrong because I didnt understand what I was talking about."

god hates people who won't fess up.

Come on corny, we're waiting.

Thing is though, debating the age of the Earth is a personal opinion anyway. No one knows precisely what the age of this Earth is. Is it Billions? Millions? Thousands? Know one knows.

Debating the age of the earth might be personal opinion. Of course... the ACTUAL age of the earth is not personal opinion - although we might not know it...

I notice corny never came back...

I notice corny never came back...

It's a standard tactic for his kind. When everyone knows what a fraud he is, he runs away or pretends it never happened.

It's a standard tactic for his kind. When everyone knows what a fraud he is, he runs away or pretends it never happened.

Or could it be that I had more important things to do like PACK TO GO HOME!!???

Or could it be that I had more important things to do like PACK TO GO HOME!!???

Well then, now that you've had the time to respond to me, why not respond to all these other rebuttals hmmm?

Well then, now that you've had the time to respond to me, why not respond to all these other rebuttals hmmm?

Sorry but I have a 630 AM wake up! Won't be on my computer most of the day tomorrow.

NIGHT!!!

I notice corny never came back...

Love means never having to say you're sorry.

Sorry but I have a 630 AM wake up! Won't be on my computer most of the day tomorrow.

NIGHT!!!

All you have to do is type three words. Three simple words. That's all you need to do. Just type "I was wrong". That's all.

Good.

Those who perjure belong in jail.

Including Bill Clinton? Oh and he wasn't found innocent, he was convicted and impeached, and then they decided not to throw him out of office.

I love the accusations at Mr Rove and the Vice President...two years and massive investigations, no proof, no case to answer, no charges, and yet according to you lot they are guilty anyway.

There are no indictments, because there is no proof,. Plame wasn't covert, her own neighbours knew she was in the CIA, it's hard to hide that fact when she walks to her car and drives to work at CIA headquarters, her own husband used to brag at parties about his wife the CIA agent...so thats it, game over.

Yell, screech, do whatever you want, berate each other and rave till the cows come home..it changes nothing.

Investigation is over, Fitz has closed the proceedings, and as usual, what we see here is trial by consensus.'We all know he did it"

Big whoop to do.

'Everyone knew:" the earth was flat.

"Everyone knew" that if you sailed too far you fell off the end of the world.

This forum leans so far damned left, its a surprise it doesnt fall over.And none of you can accept one simple fact.

It's over. The investigation is closed, Mr Rove and Mr Cheney aren't going to be charged with anything because there is no proof.

No proof = no case.

Plame over.

Including Bill Clinton? Oh and he wasn't found innocent, he was convicted and impeached, and then they decided not to throw him out of office.

Clinton was impeached. He was not convicted. To claim otherwise is to lie. Clinton didn't commit perjury, as has already been demonstrated.

Fine.

He wasn't convicted.

The rest of my post stands.

Clinton was impeached. He was not convicted. To claim otherwise is to lie. Clinton didn't commit perjury, as has already been demonstrated.

'"I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish this goal and am certain my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false," Clinton said in a written statement released Friday by the White House. '

Source: http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/19/clinton.lewinsky/

per·ju·ry - Law. the willful giving of false testimony under oath or affirmation, before a competent tribunal, upon a point material to a legal inquiry. (Dictonary.Com)


He was indeed a perjurer, he just got away with it because of lack of political will. He agreed to the lesser charge of giving false or misleading statements as a sort of a plea deal.

Libby was basically found guilty of having a bad memory. Those are the breaks though I suppose. Sometimes the guilty get off and the innocent are convicted.

Libby was basically found guilty of having a bad memory. Those are the breaks though I suppose. Sometimes the guilty get off and the innocent are convicted.

In what kind of insane reality is getting your cock sucked enough to 'make you guilty', but exposing (and thus, implicitly risking the life of) an undercover agent makes you 'innocent'?

Clinton and Lewinski conspire to waste a little black dress and a mouthful of sperm in a bit of harmless fun.

The Bush regime conspires to waste thousands of US soldiers and billions of dollars in a bit of funless harm.

Who is the real monster?

'"I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish this goal and am certain my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false," Clinton said in a written statement released Friday by the White House. '

Source: http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/19/clinton.lewinsky/

per·ju·ry - Law. the willful giving of false testimony under oath or affirmation, before a competent tribunal, upon a point material to a legal inquiry. (Dictonary.Com)


He was indeed a perjurer, he just got away with it because of lack of political will. He agreed to the lesser charge of giving false or misleading statements as a sort of a plea deal.

Libby was basically found guilty of having a bad memory. Those are the breaks though I suppose. Sometimes the guilty get off and the innocent are convicted.
So refresh my memory here--who was innocent and was convicted anyway? :rolleyes:

'"I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish this goal and am certain my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false," Clinton said in a written statement released Friday by the White House. '

Source: http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/19/clinton.lewinsky/

per·ju·ry - Law. the willful giving of false testimony under oath or affirmation, before a competent tribunal, upon a point material to a legal inquiry. (Dictonary.Com)


He was indeed a perjurer, he just got away with it because of lack of political will. He agreed to the lesser charge of giving false or misleading statements as a sort of a plea deal.

Libby was basically found guilty of having a bad memory. Those are the breaks though I suppose. Sometimes the guilty get off and the innocent are convicted.

Have you even been reading this thread? Seriously we dealt with this bullshit pages ago.

Try to keep up.

Fine.

He wasn't convicted.

The rest of my post stands.

The rest of your post is mostly tripe anyway. Kind of odd how most of those House Impeachment managers got their butts kicked out of office the very next cycle. I remember Bill McCollum from FL CD8. He was virtually unbeatable, I know I ran TWO people against him in two cycles and got my butt handed to me as campaign manager.

Lo and behold, he takes up the impeachment of Bill Clinton and loses to a fellow Republican by the name of Ric Keller, WHY? Republican Central Floridians came out and voted against him for two reasons, his role in the impeachment debacle and to a lesser extent because he failed to meet his obligations to his constituency through his constituency outreach program.

Very few of those managers survived (Note: Tom DeLay survived).

Bill Clinton did not perjure, but it was great for the Republican Party to prey on the prurient sexual interests of the easily titillated voter. The only problem is that it backfired and I was delighted to see it happen.

The rest of your post is mostly tripe anyway.

Actually, this,

There are no indictments, because there is no proof,. Plame wasn't covert, her own neighbours knew she was in the CIA, it's hard to hide that fact when she walks to her car and drives to work at CIA headquarters, her own husband used to brag at parties about his wife the CIA agent...so thats it, game over.

Yell, screech, do whatever you want, berate each other and rave till the cows come home..it changes nothing.

is reality.

deny it if you will, it changes nothing.

The investigation is closed.

Actually, this,



is reality.

deny it if you will, it changes nothing.


Wrong. Had Valerie Plame not been covert, there would never have been an investigation. You are either ignorant or lying.

Wrong. Had Valerie Plame not been covert, there would never have been an investigation. You are either ignorant or lying.

And in a case like this one, it's hard to tell the difference sometimes, because of all the misinformation that's been spread about it. But that's the crux of the case--if Plame wasn't covered under the law as a covert operative, then the investigation never begins in the first place, and Libby's never in trouble, because there's no criminal investigation to obstruct.

Actually, this,



is reality.

deny it if you will, it changes nothing.

The investigation is closed.

Seems like the fact that if she was covert, then they should be brought up on charges of their own, especially her husband if he was bragging about his wife being in the CIA.

Seems like the fact that if she was covert, then they should be brought up on charges of their own, especially her husband if he was bragging about his wife being in the CIA.
That's a hell of an if there, and with absolutely nothing to back it up. I mean, in the first interviews with Joseph Wilson after she'd been outed, he still refused to confirm or deny her status because it was still considered classified information. So it makes little sense that he'd be bragging about it elsewhere.

That's a hell of an if there, and with absolutely nothing to back it up. I mean, in the first interviews with Joseph Wilson after she'd been outed, he still refused to confirm or deny her status because it was still considered classified information. So it makes little sense that he'd be bragging about it elsewhere.

That was why I said if. It can't be proven one way or the other. If there was proof, we would not be having this discussion. I'm not saying he did nor am I not saying he did not say it. It is just a rumor that is out there.

If I had to decide if I believe it, my answer would be no, I wouldn't.

Seems like the fact that if she was covert, then they should be brought up on charges of their own, especially her husband if he was bragging about his wife being in the CIA.

still not ready to admit you were wrong?

We have not forgotten.

Not an apology for lying to the forum about what entails perjury, and not a statement admitting that I was in complete factual error, and that it has been demonstrated conclusively as such.

That isn't an apology for lying to the forum about what entails perjury, and it isn't a statement admitting that you were in complete factual error, and that it was demonstrated conclusively as such.

...

Well corny?

Wrong. Had Valerie Plame not been covert, there would never have been an investigation. You are either ignorant or lying.

This is the distinction between a few of Corny's posts and this particular poster.
The lying quite often follows up the ignorance to fill in those "uncomfortable silences".
As so often in text as it is in thought, sadly enough.

i love the way that wingnuts retreat into absolute relativism rather than be wrong. it's not even moral or cultural relativism, it's "basic facts of the universe" relativism. just fucking awesome.

But if it's about cultural relativism, then oh-oh-oh-oh ....

Stop that weaseling, stop that lying, stop it now.

That is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO sigworthy! :D

Just some evidence that teetotaling is part of heinous, genocidal, satanic evil.

Bear in mind that Jesus H Christ not only drank alcohol, he made wine.

Yup, part and parcel.

I know a few good swigs of whatever-proof usually makes me like everyone slightly more - even if i really, really shouldn't.

Besides, liquor helps wash down those uncomfortable hiccoughs of sanity and reason that tend to be a bit too pesky to blend the soul and it's natural bane, religion.

the fat reminds "scooter is a lying SOB" and he did it to protect his bosses. They'll get there's soon enough as karma is a bitch.

That is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO sigworthy! :D

danke shoen, now if only it really would stop...


We're waiting...

Can you name the two most famous teetotalers in history?

Hitler and Bin Laden

Just remember that some of the best artists throughout history have been teetotalers too.

And while we're on the topic of famous teetotalers. What about... I dunno. William Jennings Bryan? The man who was the uniting figure of the Populist Movement, which set the stage for politics in the U.S. for the century thereafter? Is that enough?

Henry David Thoreau was a teetotaler, and he was one of the most important poets in American history. His essays on politics have had a huge influence on activists world-wide. He was also one of the first environmentalists.

Teetotalers, much like Christians, Atheists, Liberals, Conservatives, Cops, Protesters, and every other group, are a mixed bag. You get bad apples, but that doesn't make the whole tree rotten.