This is redundant to something you posted last week... and deserves the same response.

This is Bullcrap, you all spent 7 years with the Starr (Chamber) investigation that Starr himself later admitted was based on a flawed presumption of cover-up. You spent 40 Million dollars to seditiously strip Clinton of the ability to govern and to slap in the face the members of society that voted for him

No matter how much you bitch about it, you all set the tone, you crossed that line, and now you don't like when things are reversed. The only differences here of course are that these DA's have to actually get theorhetically impartial citizens to agree to indict rather than elected members of the Republican party. As well, the impact to the country of allowing corporate funds to be funnelled into elections is one heckuva lot greater than the fact that Lewinski gave Clinton oral sex.

This is such hypocrisy it's laughable.

PB

When I saw there was 1 comment posted for this thread so far, somehow I knew it was going to be PB....other than that same-old, this could provide some interesting reading....

Republicans love elections. DeLay must have voted in five of 'em yesterday, cause he has ink on *all* his fingers!

Angry, I'm a laughin, that's damned funny!

Colleen, I hope I did not offend.

Mitch,

What never ceases to amaze me is how rapidly you all clamour to criticize the times, yet have conveniently overlooked Judith Miller's "love affair" with Lewis Libby. She changed her source note from "Sr. White House Official" to "former Hill staffer" at HIS request. Per members of the Times, this is the single largest "smoking gun" against her as a reporter. Libby was a Hill staffer 20+ years ago, that she would willingly misrepresent him to protect him (from what?) has destroyed her credibility at the Times (and everywhere else).

She spent 20 months as Ahmed Chalabi's step-and-fetch-it reporter, saying things like they had 5000 litres of Anthrax (untrue), to the fact that there were "definetely" warehouses of WMD that the administration KNEW where it was.

Today there are reports that Lewis Libby went ballistic at Joseph Wilson and sought every avenue possible to seek retribution. He kept files on Wilson's conduct, his comments, where he went. Beyond misuse of public funds and trust, it amounts probably to abuse of power at a criminal level.

Fitzgerald, who was appointed by Bush, is an Independent, is most likely looking to bring Libby (and probably Rove too) to account for that purposeful attempt to intimidate and damage a whistle-blower. Whatever you think of Wilson is irrelevant, the White House Chiefs of Staff to the Pres and VP ought to know better, use our money better, and have better things to do than to seek retribution by betraying CIA operatives. I was listening to a Democratic spokesperson today claim that Miller was a poor choice for the Times to have pressed the "shield law" protection, but I disagree entirely, she was precisely the right person because it is the defense of the unpopular that must be assured (it unfortunately wasn't). But in addition, I think, and it was something this Dem brushed, but didn't conclude, that Fitzgerald is offended by the basic sleeziness and lack of moral rectitude Libby and Rove showed here, and is seeking to apply some law that has some teeth, a very typical DA track, rather than worry about whether the charge is pergury, or betraying state secrets.

The charge here will probably be lying to Federal Agents, which btw, Clinton never did, consipacy (again Clinton did not do), and most importantly, obstruction - a pattern that Bush's boys (or Cheney's?) has shown over and over again.

One other quick comment on Clinton, the issue is that his "offense" did not rise to the level requiring impeachment - namely lying (pergury) regarding an affair. It is almost never prosecuted in normal courts, and the business of the people should not be unnecessarily interrupted with trivialities, that's why the term "High" crimes and misdemeanors was set as the standard. You want to try him after he left office, fine, go for it.. but don't undermine the country to get your pint of salacious blood.

OTOH, betrayal of state secrets, obstruction, lying to investigators regarding it, and especially, using the power of the state to settle personal scores and vendettas, IS a serious problem. Had this been the other way, you'd have been after their heads, and Miller's.

Miller should be canned, so should Novak - but at least we know he's been a shill for a long, long time. I wish CNN would simply label him as Robert Novak - UltraConservative Propogandist, but barring that, for his part in this, he should be gone. He inadvertantly gave away the name of a covert operative. Libby had the incumbant responsibility to confirm Valerie Wilson was not on the covert side, he didn't.. Novak had the same responsibility.

PB

I think your point would be more convincing if your references linked to some external sources and NOT YOUR OWN BLOG.

PB still hasn't answered my earlier questions.

"This is Bullcrap, you all spent 7 years with the Starr (Chamber) investigation that Starr himself later admitted was based on a flawed presumption of cover-up. You spent 40 Million dollars to seditiously strip Clinton of the ability to govern and to slap in the face the members of society that voted for him"

Multiple convictions for Whitewater including Arkansas governor Jim Guy Tucker, Webster Hubble and, oh yeah, B.J. Clinton.

"One other quick comment on Clinton, the issue is that his "offense" did not rise to the level requiring impeachment - namely lying (pergury) regarding an affair. It is almost never prosecuted in normal courts"

Only when you have democrat D.A.s and liberal judges.

PB,

You're right: you never see a prosecution for pergury. Now, you'll see them for perjury fairly often when a lawyer is involved ;-) (I know, spelling mistakes aren't fair game, but you're pretty consistent on this point.)

A bit more seriously, lawyers who are involved in perjury are often disbarred and often prosecuted. In fact, the rules for what a lawyer can do for you if you ask him to lie are quite specific and very strongly enforced. It's one of the reasons a good lawyer will NEVER ask you if you did it. If you did do it, they don't want to know as it would compromise what they can do and say. The reason for this is that while the lawyer works for you, his first loyalty must be to the Court and the process therein, and this is why perjury by a lawyer is not overlooked very often (Boise [of the Microsoft antitrust trial fame] has had his own troubles with in this regard). And THIS is why Clinton was treated so harshly by the court and by the bar.

And before you go off claiming obstruction of justice, lying, etc. remember just how hard those are to prove. If you're smart you word things much as the Clinton Whitehouse staff did: as best I can recall, to the best of my knowledge, I can't recall, it may have been, etc. In fact, even if you can recall you're better off to word things that way anyway when you talk to an opposing lawyer or investigator lest your memory be faulty and you leave yourself open for criminal charges. If these guys have been properly coached by their lawyers they should, in general, be relatively safe from conviction on those charges. While prosecutors will often bring the charges anyway trying to force someone to roll over or in the hopes that a jury can be persuaded, convictions are relatively rare unless there is other evidence of a deliberate conspiracy.

So as I stated before, I am not optimistic about the chances of conviction on anything other than passing classified information to non-authorized persons, and dread the idea that that psychological barrier will be breached and fewer classified secrets will be leaked. Much of what is classified doesn't deserve to be, but is classified because it's a great way for some paper-pusher to cover his butt, or as a way to cover some embarassing details. If we allow an administration to begin a crackdown on these more innocuous leaks we risk stiffling the flow of information the electorate needs to make an informed decision.

As to truth-labeling for reporters and pundits, I doubt you'd want to go there. Given the news media's leanings you'd have to be saying, the liberal reporter so-and-so, the admittedly liberal and partisan New York Times, the fringe liberal lunatic Mike Wallace (you did see his Brady Center appearance?), etc. I believe the self-identification of reporters as liberals is above 80%, making them very much out of line with the population as a whole.

A few years back when I was a Democrat (my uncle was a congressman from the south during the 60s and 70s), I noted that the Democrats know how to use the levers of government against their opponents better than the Republicans. That is no less true today.

The Democrats are far better (both in frequency and effectiveness) in filing complaints with public agencies against their opponents, using the public court system against their opponents than the GOP, etc. It seems to me that Democrats do so on instinct while the Repulbican don't have the instint to use public institutions against their opponents. Frankly, as a former Democrat, I kind of admire how the Democrats play the game in this manner. Republicans could learn some lessons from them.

Nerdbert,

Thanks for the reply, and yep, I can't spell Perjury.

Regarding Lawyers and lying.. first, I doubt VERY seriously you see lawyers getting prosecuted for lying about thier sex life in a civil disposition. If I'm wrong, let me know.

Regarding Supborning perjury, yes, lawyers get in LOTS of trouble for that, because THAT subverts the legal system, something very similar to attempting to indimidate witnesses by outing their family members in a fit of spite...

The issue though is not only perjury, or obstruction, but one of lying to investigators, perjury AND impeding the investigation of the exposure of classified information to persons not entitled to the information. While it can be said that proving perjury is difficult, (and oh btw, I think William Jefferson didn't really use the terms "As best I can recall" half as well as Reagan and Bush did regarding Iran/Contra - after all, he was disbarred in Arkansas - ok suspended), anyway, proving you lied to investigators, proving a pattern of deception and especially proving you revealed information you should not have, is not quite so hard as you might think.

Bluntly put, Fitzgerald is a well respected prosecutor, and among the things lawyers shouldn't do beyond lying, and don't like to do, is bring charges they don't stand a chance of proving. It's why Ronnie Earle's case is much less "content free" than you all want to believe.

The bottom line is, whether it's provable or not, it's become very clear that Libby (and probably Cheney behind him) attempted to gain retribution on Wilson for telling the truth. They mischaracterized his remarks, said he said Cheney sent him, when Wilson didn't say that, he said Cheney made a request to CIA, and then lied about their involvement in doing so. They lied to Bush, lied to McClellan, etc.. They lied about putting information out that while I suspect they had no intention of outing a covert Ops person, I also hold no illusion that they were just arrogant enough to not check.

It's really repulsive conduct, and I hope they get thier due... whether or not many of you on the right (and I'm not including everyone)want them to get off just because they are "on your side." My question for you is, are they really, are you sure? Remember, they attempted to exact revenge upon someone who challenged falsehoods, whatever else you don't like about Wilson, the fact is his comments were proven right, and the claims of the President proven wrong. These guys tried to get revenge because Wilson had the gaul to point it out.

PB

BTW Badda, I looked here for some questions.. don't see em.. you want to point out what you are talking about?

csThere are girls forced to wet panties
http://fetish.hugeboobstgp.com/
panty panties high quality pictures
http://fetish.hugeboobstgp.com/panty-panties-high-quality-pictures.html
ff nylons busty pics
http://fetish.hugeboobstgp.com/ff-nylons-busty-pics.html
s3xy picks of wife in pantyhose
http://fetish.hugeboobstgp.com/s3xy-picks-of-wife-in-pantyhose.html
cherokee p0Rn galleries
http://fetish.hugeboobstgp.com/cherokee-p0Rn-galleries.html