1st deny, then minimize, then ridicule

[Michael Tee]

<<There was no underlying crime in the Libby case. >>

. . . said he with all the advantage of hindsight. 

There's no law that says every investigation HAS to find a crime.  When the investigation is in process, the whole point is to find out if a crime has been committed, and if so, who committed it.   Surely to God the investigators are entitled to the truth from every person they interview.  If lying to investigators becomes rampant, it's obvious they won't find crimes where crimes have been committed, or they could find crimes where none were committed.  Lying to the investigators fucks up the investigation.  That's pretty basic.  So a law was passed:  Don't lie to the investigators.  It doesn't make an exception for cases where no underlying crime was committed - - a lie could just as well lead them to falsely accuse someone of committing a non-existent crime as it could lead them to falsely accuse someone of committing a real crime. 

Why is this concept so hard to grasp? - - that it's an offence to lie to an investigator whether a crime was committed or not.  Libby lied to an investigator.  He did exactly what the law said he should not do.  Wanna change the law?  Write your Congressman.

[Plane]

Surely to God the investigators are entitled to the truth from every person they interview.

No they are not!

Most emphaticy, they are not!

From now on anyone who is going to talk to a federal agent , especialy a civil servant who does not know of any crime at all , should use is fifth admendment right to say nothing!

There may be no underlying crime , there may be nothing to cover up , but this may not mean that you won't get locked up for not rembering precicely who told you what.

Come on , are you confident that you could tell me with sureity where you first saw the name "Plame" ?
If you can't you deserve the same jail term that Libbey is getting.

[Plane]

<<What were the watchmen doing when the Twin towers were bombed in 93?
<<We were lucky that time that the force required was underestimated.>>

Coulda woiulda shoulda.  Fact is they DIDN'T.  Fact is that Clinton had some successes and some failures.  Maybe his successes were due to luck or maybe his failures were due to misfortune.  Regardless, he finished his watch, and whatever COULDA happened, didn't.

Fact also is, George Bush came on watch and the worst fucking disaster in modern US history took place on his watch.  And all he can say is, "Well, it COULDA happened to Clinton?"

Pathetic.

Yes we were lucky that the first attempt to crash the World Trade center was innefective , the Al Quiea  kept trying till they got lucky. We will either kill enough of them to keep them on the run and perhaps eradicate the Al Quieda  elese they will keep trying and eventually get lucky again.

President Bush gives the Al Quieda less oppurtunity to attack the US than Clinton did so it may take longer for them to get lucky again.

[Michael Tee]

<<No they [Federal investigators]are not! [entitled to the truth from every witness they interview.]

<<. . .

<<From now on anyone who is going to talk to a federal agent , especialy a civil servant who does not know of any crime at all , should use is fifth admendment right to say nothing! >>

You are correct, of course.  The witness has a right to remain silent.  Even in Canada.  What they do not have is a right to lie to the agents.

<<There may be no underlying crime , there may be nothing to cover up , but this may not mean that you won't get locked up for not rembering precicely who told you what.>>

You're not being honest.  We've been through this.  Libby was NOT convicted for "not remembering."  He was convicted for LYING.  On the unanimous opinion of twelve individuals who heard all the evidence, listened to all the arguments (including the arguments of Libby's extremely competent defence counsel) deliberated extensively and finished without even ONE of them having one single reasonable doubt.  Twist and turn all you like, plane, those are FACTS that you can never spin away.

<<Come on , are you confident that you could tell me with sureity where you first saw the name "Plame" ?
If you can't you deserve the same jail term that Libbey is getting.>>

Come on yourself, that is just such TOTAL bullshit.  In the first place, Libby would be a lot more conversant with these things than I am.  And again, he was convicted for the lies that he told, not the things he couldn't remember.  This was a case about some definite charges and you keep trying to turn it into a case of other charges.  Sorry plane, your magic wand just don't have the magic.  The case is what it is and all your attempts to re-write it are useless.

[sirs]

<<A lot of these things happened during the Clintons' co -presidency , does blowing up Embassys and ships not count?>>

Chickenshit compared to what happened on Bush's watch.

Boy, then FDR had to be the worst President ever, I guess.  Oh wait, that would be Lincoln

[Xavier_Onassis]

Surely to God the investigators are entitled to the truth from every person they interview.


No they are not!

Most emphaticy, they are not!

====================================
Yes, they are. You do not have to reveal what might implicate YOU, but you are not free to lie to investigators about anything.

Libbey could take the Fifth Amendment about what he knew that might implicate HIM, but not what might implicate Cheney.

[BT]

I doubt Bush could have prevented 911 anymore than Clinton could have prevented the Cole.

That whole  tangent is just nonsense. It is a seeking of scapegoats and a distraction.

[Michael Tee]

<<I doubt Bush could have prevented 911 anymore than Clinton could have prevented the Cole. >>

This is just more of the "coulda shoulda woulda" BS.  The Cole was a non-event.  Basically a military target attacked successfully because the commander failed to secure it.  It's not Presidential scope-of-responsibility, other than sending it to where it was.

9-11 depended on a lot of things that WERE Presidential responsibility, immigration and border controls, airport security, intelligence and the integration of them all, specifically in this case around airport security.  The "President" failed miserably and unaccountably has been given a pass by the supposedly "liberal" (hah!) media.

<<That whole  tangent is just nonsense. It is a seeking of scapegoats and a distraction.>>

Well, of course I realize how trivial and unimportant the whole thing is when compared with subjects of such magnitude as an Oval Office blow-job, but still and all I think it's a bit of an exaggeration to call it a mere distraction.  After all, SOME people seem to have suffered some really serious losses out of all this, admittedly not nearly as many as were harmed by the former President ejaculating onto a blue dress, but still, some basic consideration of their feelings would seem to be in order.

[BT]

Like i said it is just a distraction and an opportunity for partisan hacks to spew bile.

 

[Michael Tee]

Like I said, it's an indictment that you can't wish away.

[BT]

Until you produce an indictment, you have partisan spewing of bile.

Got one?

[Michael Tee]

<<Until you produce an indictment, you have partisan spewing of bile.

<<Got one?>>

Everything I just said against the guy was an indictment.  If you mean an actual legal indictment from a Grand Jury, or a Bill of Impeachment, don't make me laugh.  Why would I wait for such an indictment when the guy remains immune from prosecution for capital offences like war crimes?  Let's try to keep this discussion limited to the real world, shall we?  You know and I know that Bush will not be indicted for anything, ever.  That's just the way the world is, BT.

[BT]

So really all you are doing is sharing your opinion with us, no matter how unfounded in fact it may be. We certainly thank you for that.

BTW, how could Bush have prevented 9-11?

What draconian measures would have had to have been in place to succeed? And would those measure meet with your approval?

[Michael Tee]

<<So really all you are doing is sharing your opinion with us . . . >>

Excuse me, is this not the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University?  I must have wandered into the wrong place.  Pardon me.

<< . . .  no matter how unfounded in fact it may be. >>

Oh, got my facts wrong, did I?  Bush was NOT the incumbent President on Sept. 11, 2001?  And nothing happened to the WTC on that date?  The attack was during the Clinton Administration?  And anyway Bush's duties did not include national security?  Geeze, I don't know what's come over me.   Thanks for pointing it all out to me, though.  I sure am embarrassed by my unfounded opinions, but don't we all come here to listen and learn?  I'm SO glad you straightened me out on that, BT.

<< We certainly thank you for that. >>

Now, now, BT, easy on the sarcasm.  If you please.  Everybody makes mistakes, don't they?

<<BTW, how could Bush have prevented 9-11? >>

Oh, I dunno.  That's quite a challenge for a poor dumb Canuck like me.  Geeze. Increase airport security?  Screen for weapons?  Take away their little box-cutters?  Activate the fighter planes faster?    That took me all of about 30 seconds.  Even your moronic failure of a "President" should have been able to come up with something in his eight months on the job.  In between planning for tax cuts, a little thought on the matter, even HIS kind of thought, surely would have been repaid.

[sirs]