<p>and it is funny, just watching a rightie on CNN who says the jurors were just stupid…nice</p>
<p>Next issue will be the sudden replacement of 6 US attorney. Both New Mexico (R) senators deny speaking or pressuring their regions, then a few days later, "yes, we did talk to them…BUT WE DIDN’T ASK ANYTHING! REALLY! </p>
<p>In Washington, The ethics Chair Doc Hastings chief of staff called for Doc. So technically Doc “didn’t call” either? </p>
<p>Here’s the problem which statement should the general public believe? There’s been so many denials followed by “well, yes we did.” mainly because it can be proved that they did.</p>
<p>The gop really needs to learn they don’t lie well. These guys anymore sound like 3rd graders getting caught… 1st deny…2nd when denial is proven false…sorta admit wrongdoing… 3rd blame somebody else… </p>
<p>Aren’t you ardent gopers tried of this too? Can’t just say what they did the first time, get the letter scolding them and be done with it? Instead the lie becomes the issue yet again. Why lie? Did something wrong, take your lumps. In many cases the wrongdoing won’t cost them their office, it’s the lie. But you think they’d learned that by now.</p>
<p>
Oh please. I hope you are never on a jury if you are so gullible to believe this line of bull put out by the prosecuting attorney. The fact is, it was a well known fact that Armitage was the leaker and that no crime had been committed. </p>
<p>Libby was the fall guy for the crowd of thirsty partisans who wanted to see some blood - as seen by the euphoria of posters here who probably don’t know half the facts of the case but are estatic anyway because someone from the Bush administration was found guilty of something/anything.</p>
<p>fundingfather - you should know that it was the defense attorney, not Fitzpatrick, who laid the blame on the others in the administration and claimed that Libby was their fall guy. That was part of the defense argument, along with the claim that Libby had a bad memory. </p>
<p>And Fitzpatrick is a Republican. Hardly a “thirsty partisan.”</p>
<p>And Armitage may have been one who told Novak, but not the only one. Several high level administration officials talked to several reporters about Wilson and his wife.</p>
<p>wow, to the end to the end</p>
<p>no one in this adminsitration does anyhting wrong in some peoples eyes…its almost epic in the loyalty</p>
<p>libby was used…and he was foolish enough to think they would protect him better</p>
<p>ah well…keep at it FF, it is truely a sight to see</p>
<p>
No, the thirsty partisans were those who demanded a piece of flesh of some sort to be taken in this affair. Armitage was not part of that crowd. However, he was the one who cowardly let the political crescendo for an investigator peak, all the while knowing that he was the one who did the original leak.</p>
<p>wow, and to think it all started with forged documnets that Bush relied on to take us to war…imagine the gall of wanting to get to the truth…and you are surrounded by liars…or Non remembers, which i find frankly scary and funny…</p>
<p>its okay, libby is one of the lucky ones, he has friends in high places…he did his part to protect them, and they will take care of him…just maybe…</p>
<p>so, will Bush pardon him? And yeah, Clinton shouldn’t have pardoned Rich…who’s attorney, ironically, was…come on…guess</p>
<p>So you think Fitz just caved to the “thirsty parisians” and wasn’t in this for his belief in justice and the law? </p>
<p>Armitage, Libby, Rove and Fleisher - all spoke to reporters about Wilson, the record shows.</p>
<p>Fitz could only bring to trial what he knew he could win. He’s about as careful as they come.<br>
Oh, and I should say it again - it was the DEFENSE that claimed Libby was a fall guy for his boss. Not the prosecution. Or I should say, not only the prosecution.</p>
<p>
Absolutely. Just look at his press conference when he indicted Libby. He parroted the Joe Wilson line perfectly about how Plame was outed for retribution. The trouble is that none of the facts of the case support that view.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Like I said, I would shudder to have you on my jury - your disregard for facts is astonishing.</p>
<p>What is amusing is that for years the administration has not be accountable for anything, any congressional hearings were a joke, no real investigation, and suddenly, there are coming…and Libby I think was surprised to be held accountable…and yeah, Cheney, what a good pal</p>
<p>And as for law, if no law was broken as Ff has stated, because he does for a fact know that, do morals count for anything</p>
<p>guess not</p>
<p>and I shuuder to have you on any jury…oh, the government is never wrong and they are smarter than us, so we have to trust all they say</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Apparently, the jury heard enough evidence to support that view after hearing a lot of facts supporting it, for the purpose of clearing Libby.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am quite certain you thought Kenneth Starr was the height of fair. The fact is if the same thing had been done by a Democratic Administration, there would be calls for impeachment on grounds of treason.</p>
<p>And it’s worth asking what the h*** the Administration is doing outing its secret operatives. Doesn’t this run counter to national security, as a rule? That’s why a law was passed making the act illegal. That Libby lied to avoid prosecution is why he’s going to stay convicted and then get pardoned.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Update your facts, FF. He told Novak. What this would show to you, if you had a mind open enough to absorb it, that there was (as the trial evidenced) a barrage of informing of the press that went on. Armitage was just one. </p>
<p>Pack up your arguments and go home now, FF. This is a battle you can’t win. Trial by jury is due process. The system worked.</p>
<p>
Let us not forget presidential advisor Karl Rove. Or is that former advisor? I seem to remember Bush promised to fire anyone involved with the leak</p>
<p>Don’t make more of it than it is…in many investigations people are found to have lied for whatever reason. In this case, the prosecutor determined the truth quickly, but a discovered that a high government official lied in the process. He had to be dealt with. </p>
<p>If Libby had merely told the truth before the grand jury (under oath) in secret proceedings it would have been over with. Whomever was Libby’s attorney at that critical point was not giving him good advice.</p>
<p>This is essentially the same thing that Clinton did - lied before the grand jury, under oath, when simply telling the truth would have eliminated the issue.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And you’re saying that Fitz “parroted the Joe Wilson line” because he wanted to …? what? </p>
<p>Fitzpatrick has a rep for being a very strong, principled prosecutor. Perhaps he “parroted” that line because he believed it after months of investigation. Hard to swallow, for some, I guess.</p>
<p>I think Libbys’ attorney knew exactly what he was doing…maybe his advice was “just right”</p>
<p>subterfuge is not foreign to this administration</p>
<p>
Huh? I have no idea what your non-sequitur regarding morals has to do with anything.</p>
<p>But, since you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Libby was guilty, could you tell which exact testimony was it that convinced you? I heard a lot of testimony that brings reasonable doubt in my mind, but I’m wondering where your proof beyond reasonable doubt comes from.</p>
<p>becuase you say no one did anything wrong, and I say, at a minimum what they did was morally wrong</p>
<p>get it now"?</p>
<p>nevermind ff, just not worth it</p>
<p>he was found guilty…yeppers…and he will either be pardoned or go to jail for his leader and his boss</p>
<p>there you go</p>