Reid demands "no-pardon" pledge from Bush

#51
#51
CSpindizzy said:
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.
Click to expand...
There it is. It's true. Write it down.
 
#52
#52
CSpindizzy said:
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?
Click to expand...

the media has all the power!! where have you been. they no longer report news, they report their opinion of the news. we are not losing this war, but the media wants you to believe that we are so that is all they report. the media has crucified bush the same way they did clinton and every other president before them. the days of integrity and morals in the news media are long gone. you can either swallow their BS and believe it or you can use your own common sense and read between the lines to try and decipher what the truth really is. just like in the x-files, "THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE"!!!!!!
 
#54
#54
CSpindizzy said:
saying Libby was the fall guy for this crime.
Click to expand...

What crime? That's the whole point. Libby wasn't a fall guy for a crime. Libby committed a crime. No one else has been charged. Fitzgerald has not even suggested that a crime other than the perjury occurred. There is no crime for Libby to take the fall for. Libby might have been trying to protect Cheney from embarrassment but that's certainly not a crime.
 
#55
#55
melissa hyberger said:
the media has all the power!! where have you been. they no longer report news, they report their opinion of the news. we are not losing this war, but the media wants you to believe that we are so that is all they report.
Click to expand...

Where have you been? The media has been this way since the beginning of our nation. Both parties used to control papers directly. Check into papers named Democrat, Republican, etc. Even while trying to approve the Constitution, both Federalists and Antifederalists bought up papers to report "news" or their version of it.

Power is in the ignorance of people not checking the facts for themselves. Power is in networks who are completely partisan when you know partisanship is biased and only in their own version of the story. The media throws out what they choose to. Power only comes when you are blind and believe what they print or say. The media does not have the power.
 
#56
#56
volinbham said:
What crime? That's the whole point. Libby wasn't a fall guy for a crime. Libby committed a crime. No one else has been charged. Fitzgerald has not even suggested that a crime other than the perjury occurred. There is no crime for Libby to take the fall for. Libby might have been trying to protect Cheney from embarrassment but that's certainly not a crime.
Click to expand...

Then why are those who overheard all of this testimony implying otherwise?
 
#57
#57
CSpindizzy said:
Then why are those who overheard all of this testimony implying otherwise?
Click to expand...

1. I not in agreement with you that they are implying a crime was committed. I did see the interview with the juror spokesman and read his comments as well.

2. Fitzgerald has not suggested that a crime has been committed.

In short, neither the jury or prosecutor has said they believe a crime was committed (other than Libby's perjury).
 
#58
#58
That's why they've stated they believed Rove or Cheney should have been there rather than Libby...
 
#63
#63
Look, I am only repeating what was said by the people who sat down to hear the whole case. If you want to question what was said, I can find the jurors' addresses and feel free to ask them.
 
#64
#64
CSpindizzy said:
Look, I am only repeating what was said by the people who sat down to hear the whole case. If you want to question what was said, I can find the jurors' addresses and feel free to ask them.
Click to expand...

Yet they never said they thought Cheney (or Rove) should be on trial. That's your assumption of what they meant.
 
#65
#65
"It was said a number of times, 'What are we doing with this guy here? Where's [Karl] Rove ... where are these other guys?"

I guess all of the other interviews where a few go into detail are my assumptions?
 
#66
#66
Denis Collins said that "a number of times" they asked themselves, "what is HE doing here? Where is Rove and all these other guys. ... I'm not saying we didn't think Mr. Libby was guilty of the things we found him guilty of. It seemed like he was, as Mr. Wells [his lawyer] put it, he was the fall guy."

He said they believed that Vice President Cheney did "task him to talk to reporters."
Click to expand...

I'll ask again - why do you consider this evidence of a crime. Put another way, what crime is this evidence of?
 
#67
#67
Again, read and listen to the series of interviews. Again, the fact that a person hearing the evidence and sitting through the entire trial is saying that Libby, on trial here, should be replaced by Rove or Cheney, speaks volumes about their feelings on the matter. If the people in charge of the fate of Libby feel that someone else should be there instead of him, there would be a reasonable suspicion that someone else needs to be sitting in that courtroom.

It's simple. If someone else is on trial for murder but yet a juror feels someone else should be there instead of the defendant, doesn't that mean something? Or would you rather overanalyze the intent of the juror?
 
#68
#68
CSpindizzy said:
It's simple. If someone else is on trial for murder but yet a juror feels someone else should be there instead of the defendant, doesn't that mean something? Or would you rather overanalyze the intent of the juror?
Click to expand...

Libby was on trial for perjury - knowingly making false statements to the Grand Jury. To use your logic would suggest that the jury felt Libby shouldn't have been there but instead Rove should. So are you suggesting Rove perjured himself? Cheney?
 
#69
#69
if the jury felt that someone else should have been in Libby's place, why did they convict him on 4 of 5 counts?

Wouldn't "reasonable doubt" have played into their decision?

doesn't this further reinforce the notion that Libby should be pardoned?
 
#70
#70
volinbham said:
To use your logic would suggest that the jury felt Libby shouldn't have been there but instead Rove should. So are you suggesting Rove perjured himself? Cheney?
Click to expand...

Again, I'm not sure why I have to repeat myself but I am only saying that those who saw everything (which you haven't) make statements like someone else should have been up there. When those in the know make statements like this, one can say that perhaps there is more to this.

Again, just because Fitzgerald has chosen NOT to pursue this does not mean that this is over. Many legal scholars on both sides of the spectrum have come out saying this is very open ended.
 
#71
#71
MG1968 said:
if the jury felt that someone else should have been in Libby's place, why did they convict him on 4 of 5 counts?

Wouldn't "reasonable doubt" have played into their decision?

doesn't this further reinforce the notion that Libby should be pardoned?
Click to expand...

Perhaps that is why they asked the judge about reasonable doubt. Their case focused on what was handed to them.
 
#72
#72
CSpindizzy said:
Again, I'm not sure why I have to repeat myself but I am only saying that those who saw everything (which you haven't) make statements like someone else should have been up there. When those in the know make statements like this, one can say that perhaps there is more to this.
Click to expand...

Here's the transcript of Denis Collins comments:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/06/AR2007030601489.html

You will note that they did not speculate on any crimes committed by Cheney. In fact, there are several comments where he suggests that they didn't consider anything other than the charges at hand. They were frustrated that what they thought was a trial about a bigger issue (the leak) was instead about perjury.

It is pure speculation to say that the one comment "where is Rove, where are those other guys" (whoever they are) constitutes evidence of a crime committed by Cheney.
 
#73
#73
.
QUESTION: Was he covering for the vice president?

COLLINS: We actually never discussed that, because that was not what we were assigned to do.

QUESTION: What do you think?

COLLINS: I have really don't know.
Click to expand...
 
#74
#74
Doesn't sound like's he's formed an opinion about Cheney in this quote either.

QUESTION: Can you just tell us what it meant that you did not hear from Libby or Vice President Cheney?

COLLINS : You know, we had eight hours of grand jury testimony from Libby. So I felt like we that was good.

Hearing from Cheney I think it would have been interesting. I'm not sure what it would have done. I don't have any idea what he would have said.
Click to expand...
 
#75
#75
On testifying....wow. You're stretching that it has anything to do what he said about Cheney's guilt. Reading that quote in context and seeing what you're trying to imply, I'd say you missed your goal.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top