Reid demands "no-pardon" pledge from Bush

#27
#27
Same thing? Well then why didn't someone take this to trial? I guess not only are the courts filled with liberals but are prosecutors as well?
 
#28
#28
CSpindizzy said:
Same thing? Well then why didn't someone take this to trial? I guess not only are the courts filled with liberals but are prosecutors as well?
Click to expand...
Because once he was out of office, the need for a witch hunt went away. Libby would have never stood trial had this happened in late 2008 and a dem elected shortly thereafter.

I understand it's illegal to be a liberal prosecutor so they actually don't exist. Attorneys are notoriously conservative so it's easy for cities to find a proper conservative prosecutor, such as Nifong.
 
#29
#29
Well as I said earlier prosecutors choose not to go after the top honchos. Just as Clinton got off the hook, it looks as if W, or better yet Cheney got off the hook in this matter. Perhaps that is why Libby's lawyer didn't let Cheney testify. He saw the writing on the wall and figured it's better to just keep it at Libby taking the fall.
 
#30
#30
What would Cheney be getting off the hook for? No laws were broken and the trial evidence shows there was no active campaign to out a covert agent or really any active campaign at all.
 
#31
#31
Well when the jurors seem to feel that Cheney was the real one who needed to be on trial, I'd say they might have a point. How do you know no laws were broken? We know little about Cheney's testimony and depositions.
 
#32
#32
Hmmm....jurors that don't like Cheney. That's very peculiar. He must have done something wrong.
 
#33
#33
CSpindizzy said:
Well when the jurors seem to feel that Cheney was the real one who needed to be on trial, I'd say they might have a point. How do you know no laws were broken? We know little about Cheney's testimony and depositions.
Click to expand...

How do I know no laws have been broken? Has Cheney been charged? Did the jurors say Cheney should have been on trial? Do jurors decide who should be on trial?

What law do you think Cheney broke? Given that Fitzgerald has publicly stated that Libby's lie was that he really heard it from Cheney but said he heard it from Russert -- don't you think if he had anything on Cheney he would have put him on trial?

I guess the new standard is that even if not charged with a crime we can still assume a crime was committed? Prove that you didn't do something eh?
 
#34
#34
volinbham said:
What law do you think Cheney broke?
Click to expand...

False statements

Conspiracy to commit torture

Insurrection against U.S. authority or the laws thereof

Carrying on trade and business in the funds of the U.S.

Acts affecting personal financial interest which have affected the integrity of his office

Accepted compensation

Frauds and swindles

Continuing a financial crimes enterprise
 
#35
#35
teddy kenndey left a woman to drown in his car and he's still a sitting senator. believe it or not thats a fact. all this crap about libby is nothing but pre-election politics. sandy berger got a free pass on stealing documents concerning national security. why isnt the media harpping on that?
 
#36
#36
That was then, this is now. If you pardon Libby, the terrorists win.
 
#39
#39
volinbham said:
I guess the new standard is that even if not charged with a crime we can still assume a crime was committed? Prove that you didn't do something eh?
Click to expand...

Here's an amazing concept...listen to the evidence presented and then in interviews say that Cheney should have been up there instead of Libby. Hmmm. By the powers of deduction we could say the jurors, who yes do not decide who gets tried but do have the power to actually decide one's fate, saw enough wrong to feel Cheney should have been the one up there.
 
#40
#40
melissa hyberger said:
teddy kenndey left a woman to drown in his car and he's still a sitting senator. believe it or not thats a fact. all this crap about libby is nothing but pre-election politics. sandy berger got a free pass on stealing documents concerning national security. why isnt the media harpping on that?
Click to expand...

Where are the prosecutors? Who cares about the media. If a wrong was committed why isn't Gonzales all over that? Sit back and blame the media all you want but it's the Administration dropping the ball if a law was broken. Why don't you jump up and down and scream about that rather than blame the media who has no power over the matter?
 
#41
#41
CSpindizzy said:
Here's an amazing concept...listen to the evidence presented and then in interviews say that Cheney should have been up there instead of Libby. Hmmm. By the powers of deduction we could say the jurors, who yes do not decide who gets tried but do have the power to actually decide one's fate, saw enough wrong to feel Cheney should have been the one up there.
Click to expand...

Yet Fitzgerald clearly didn't see enough evidence. I guess those jurors know more about the workings of the justice system than a long time prosecutor.
 
#42
#42
OWB said:
False statements

Conspiracy to commit torture

Insurrection against U.S. authority or the laws thereof

Carrying on trade and business in the funds of the U.S.

Acts affecting personal financial interest which have affected the integrity of his office

Accepted compensation

Frauds and swindles

Continuing a financial crimes enterprise
Click to expand...

:lol:

This is one funny list. You left off that he shot someone and probably drowns kittens.
 
#43
#43
Since now we should rely on jurors to determine who should be tried, I guess we should rely on them for pardon decisions:

One juror in the Libby case, Ann Redington, said she supported the idea of a pardon for Libby.

"It kind of bothers me that there was this whole big crime being investigated and he got caught up in the investigation as opposed to in the actual crime that was supposedly committed," Redington said in an interview on the MSNBC program "Hardball."
Click to expand...

:whistling:
 
#44
#44
volinbham said:
Yet Fitzgerald clearly didn't see enough evidence. I guess those jurors know more about the workings of the justice system than a long time prosecutor.
Click to expand...

So wait, you're telling me a prosecutor pursues every single illegal action?
 
#45
#45
volinbham said:
Since now we should rely on jurors to determine who should be tried, I guess we should rely on them for pardon decisions:
Click to expand...

I love how you just take things out of context and run with it. The jury saw everything presented and many said the wrong person was being tried. Plain and simple. If the people who saw the full case and those who have the power to convict say that, again I'd say their word means a bit. As for the pardon point you bring up, that just solidifies my point. They think the wrong person was prosecuted.
 
#46
#46
CSpindizzy said:
I love how you just take things out of context and run with it. The jury saw everything presented and many said the wrong person was being tried. Plain and simple. If the people who saw the full case and those who have the power to convict say that, again I'd say their word means a bit. As for the pardon point you bring up, that just solidifies my point. They think the wrong person was prosecuted.
Click to expand...

You are overstating their comments.
 
#47
#47
CSpindizzy said:
So wait, you're telling me a prosecutor pursues every single illegal action?
Click to expand...

So wait, you're telling me that even though a prosecutor doesn't bring an action we should still assume the person did something wrong? Scary world.

Or...

So wait, you're telling me Fitzgerald had actions he could have brought against Cheney but decided not to? He decided to go after Libby instead?
 
#48
#48
Did you not read previous posts of mine?

As I said and obviously have to repeat, if the people who were gathered to hear the evidence and convict Libby say the wrong man was prosecuted, I'd lean more on their line of thinking that wrong was committed and by another.
 
#49
#49
CSpindizzy said:
Did you not read previous posts of mine?

As I said and obviously have to repeat, if the people who were gathered to hear the evidence and convict Libby say the wrong man was prosecuted, I'd lean more on their line of thinking that wrong was committed and by another.
Click to expand...

You're so cute when you are condescending...

They haven't said the wrong man was prosecuted. One suggested that they thought they were dealing with a minor part of a bigger issue. They did not suggest that they felt others committed crimes. They felt that others were involved with the case but never did they state or suggest there was evidence that others committed crimes.

Further, no evidence of an underlying crime was presented. Had Libby told the truth - that he heard it from Cheney - then Fitzgerald would have had no indictments.

Finally, it is a scary leap to suggest that based on what one juror said we can assume that Cheney did something wrong. That is not a justice system that I want to see.
 
#50
#50
I guess you've missed out on the interviews especially the ones the day of the verdict. Asking why Libby was there and questioning why Rove and Cheney weren't there instead...saying Libby was the fall guy for this crime.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top