AtomicCEO Posted June 10, 2008 Author Share Posted June 10, 2008 Az, you sound ridiculous, man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 can someone please tell me how the f*ck you are supposed to argue with someone who believes that patrick fitzgerald is the attorney general who has the final determination over interpretation of the law? TIA. LOL....I get the guys official title wrong....he is the litigator for the US Attorney General....my bad....and you get your entire set of facts COMPLETELY wrong . Yep...you win on that one. Good for you. You have finally won one battle. Read much? Have you figured it out yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 This is like watching a tennis match, only not boring. It seems to me that neither side has enough facts to totally prove thier case, and both sides have political motivations. Methinks yer both just WV, I don't have and ideological fight. I just think what these guys did was wrong.....I am a republican and always have been. There is nothing republican, except tax policy, about this administration. What happened to Plame I would have thought Clinton would have done...not a Bush ADMN. It was wrong. Now, Fitz cannot prove anyone KNOWINGLY outed a covert CIA agent......that is the end of the argument. That is how the statute reads. The funny part is Azz and I agree on the "what possible good comes out of McClellan testifying?" But it might allow the Congress to pass a stricter statute to protect out intelligence gatherers around the world from political persecution in the media Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 LOL....I get the guys official title wrong....he is the litigator for the US Attorney General....my bad....and you get your entire set of facts COMPLETELY wrong . Yep...you win on that one. Good for you. You have finally won one battle. Read much? Have you figured it out yet? you still got his title wrong. fitzgerald was the US Attorney for the judicial district in chicago, appointed special counsel to investigate the plame affair. but that was your supercial error, the truly exasperating one was when you made the ridiculous assertion that he, as the prosecutor in a case, somehow makes the final determination on the interpreation of any law. that, as any 9th grade civics student knows, is the exclusive role of the judiciary. prosecutors make all sorts of legal arguments that end up not carrying water, but the key point here is that fitzgerald NEVER argued that plame was covert AS DEFINED IN THE RELEVANT STATUTE. if he did, he would have had a tough argument to make. and what facts have I gotten wrong in your estimation? the fact that the definition of covert in the relevant statute would have been a hurdle to prosecuting anyone involved for the leak? trust me, it would have been a hurdle...or no, don't trust me, trust one of the lawyers who drafted the f'ing law in the first place. you're right that other elements of the statute would have been problems as well -- the knowledge that the government was trying to conceal her identity, the intentional disclosure. basically every element of the crime is one that the prosecutor would have had a near impossible time demonstrating in court, because ultimately, the facts of the case simply don't fit a violation of that particular law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 you still got his title wrong. fitzgerald was the US Attorney for the judicial district in chicago, appointed special counsel to investigate the plame affair. but that was your supercial error, the truly exasperating one was when you made the ridiculous assertion that he, as the prosecutor in a case, somehow makes the final determination on the interpreation of any law. that, as any 9th grade civics student knows, is the exclusive role of the judiciary. prosecutors make all sorts of legal arguments that end up not carrying water, but the key point here is that fitzgerald NEVER argued that plame was covert AS DEFINED IN THE RELEVANT STATUTE. if he did, he would have had a tough argument to make. and what facts have I gotten wrong in your estimation? the fact that the definition of covert in the relevant statute would have been a hurdle to prosecuting anyone involved for the leak? trust me, it would have been a hurdle...or no, don't trust me, trust one of the lawyers who drafted the f'ing law in the first place. you're right that other elements of the statute would have been problems as well -- the knowledge that the government was trying to conceal her identity, the intentional disclosure. basically every element of the crime is one that the prosecutor would have had a near impossible time demonstrating in court, because ultimately, the facts of the case simply don't fit a violation of that particular law. Blah blah blah blah blah.....you are like an annoying mosquito......one with only one brain cell....Good luck with the rest of your day...hope you don't hurt yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 Blah blah blah blah blah.....you are like an annoying mosquito......one with only one brain cell....Good luck with the rest of your day...hope you don't hurt yourself. I see this as surrender. PWND! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 I see this as surrender. PWND! Scroll back and review...you got this reversed....would you like to ride as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 I see this as surrender. PWND! who surrendered first? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted June 20, 2008 Author Share Posted June 20, 2008 Former aide: Bush should tell all on CIA leak McClellan talked. Cheney... very suspicious behavor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 Former aide: Bush should tell all on CIA leak McClellan talked. Cheney... very suspicious behavor. just part of the book tour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted June 21, 2008 Author Share Posted June 21, 2008 just part of the book tour. It's funny how many former insiders write fake books about how corrupt the Bush admin is. People can be such opportunistic liars. Not Bush... no no... but those other people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 Jesus would not lie to us! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.