home
Rough Days Ahead for Scooter Libby | 28 comments (28 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I have to admire (none / 0) (#8)
by Deconstructionist on Thu Jun 07, 2007 at 01:14:47 PM EST
 the tenaciousness of Edger and Squeaky. They counter everything I write with unwavering persistence of pit bulls. Now, if only they had significantly greater intellects than a pit bull....

Thanks, Decon. (none / 0) (#9)
by Gabriel Malor on Thu Jun 07, 2007 at 01:17:50 PM EST
I appreciate your work in this thread. I learned a lot.

[ Parent ]
Well, hmm. (none / 0) (#10)
by Gabriel Malor on Thu Jun 07, 2007 at 01:18:20 PM EST
Okay, so not this thread. But the other Libby thread where you explained forever.

[ Parent ]
You were kidding, were you not? (none / 0) (#11)
by Edger on Thu Jun 07, 2007 at 01:20:40 PM EST
You don't really believe they've avoided political consequences by having Libby lie under oath?

[ Parent ]
READ, then babble (1.00 / 1) (#12)
by Deconstructionist on Thu Jun 07, 2007 at 01:39:42 PM EST
 how much more clearly could I have said that they not only did not avoid the political consequnces but actually made them worse? My point was THEY [incorrectly] calculated that they could reduce the political consequnces by covering, and that not only failed but also got Libby convicted. Thus, it would have been better not to have engaged in the cover-up.

  if you were not so irrationally fixated on arguing with me you would not incessantly reveal yourself to be do dim.

 

[ Parent ]

I read quite clearly, decon. (none / 0) (#13)
by Edger on Thu Jun 07, 2007 at 01:47:29 PM EST
Your words (above):
I'm sure his private lawyers advised him regarding the benefits of doing that. Here though the political consequences of taking the 5th were deemed to outweigh the legal peril.
...
I think more than anything it is the political consequences which they wanted to avoid. In the end, they get that to greater degree than if they had been honest  and a conviction for Libby.
AGAIN -You don't really believe they've avoided political consequences by having Libby lie under oath?

Try not to have a stroke this time around.

[ Parent ]

I'll give you partial credit (none / 0) (#15)
by Deconstructionist on Thu Jun 07, 2007 at 02:00:45 PM EST
for finding the correct passage. But, then i flunk you for being totally incapable of comprehending it.

I think more than anything it is the political consequences which they wanted to avoid. In the end, they get that to greater degree than if they had been honest  and a conviction for Libby.

  I don't know what your problem is but you are one annoying SOB.

   

[ Parent ]

I'm interested in what kind of reasoning you (none / 0) (#18)
by Edger on Thu Jun 07, 2007 at 02:18:46 PM EST
employ to get to they avoided political consequences to greater degree than if they had been honest.

It appears to me that the reverse is the case, and that they are suffering enormous political consquences - much greater than they would have had he taken the fifth- as a direct result of having him lie.

It also appears to me, because of that, that had they followed your kind of advice (which they appear to have done) they would be suffering exactly the continuing drop in public confidence that they are now.

I'll ignore your continuing insults, on the chance that you are having a bad day.

[ Parent ]

this is unbelievable even from you! (none / 0) (#20)
by Deconstructionist on Thu Jun 07, 2007 at 03:40:29 PM EST
 i didn't say they avoided the political consequences.

I DID NOT SAY THEY AVOIDED THE CONSEQUENCES!
I said exactly the opposite happened-- the consequences became worse because of the cover-up. I've now repeated this about 5 times and you are still incapable ogf getting it and you wonder why I get frustrated!

 

[ Parent ]

Well... hmmm. (none / 0) (#25)
by Edger on Thu Jun 07, 2007 at 05:38:08 PM EST
If that is what you meant - that they did not avoid political consequences, but in fact exacerbated them by having Libby lie - then we agree.

I admit though to still being unable to get that meaning out of your original comment, though I've reread it quite a few times, but I'll take your word that that was your meaning.

I don't think anyone could think they did avoid consequences, which was why I asked my question.

[ Parent ]

Please lose the insults (none / 0) (#14)
by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 07, 2007 at 01:57:56 PM EST
to other commenters or your comments will be deleted.

[ Parent ]
I am going to object to that threat (1.00 / 1) (#16)
by Deconstructionist on Thu Jun 07, 2007 at 02:05:22 PM EST
 A handful of posters follow me around writing garbage in response to me almost constantly. They interject snide, belligerent and nonsensical comments incessantly when I am responding to other people. You never seem to have a problem with that but when I respond, admittedly with a degree of frustration and sometimes anger, you threaten ME with censorship. It's your site and you don't have to be even-handed but your choosing sides is a bit much.

[ Parent ]
Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by squeaky on Thu Jun 07, 2007 at 02:13:23 PM EST
Your ego driven blindspot is the problem. Certainly you are often wrong and when challenged always resort to insults or tantrums.

If everyone would have fessed up as you suggested this would be on the table:

§ 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States
If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.


[ Parent ]
First, (none / 0) (#21)
by Deconstructionist on Thu Jun 07, 2007 at 03:47:24 PM EST
  A criminal conspiracy requires proof of an agreement to commit an illegal act to or a lawful act in an unlawful manner.

  It's not illegal to discredit an opponent even in  a nasty fashion. The alleged offense is not playing dirty but rather disclosing a covert agent. If they had done everything else other than that there would have been no SP investigation.

  Second, from a legal standpoint if there was a conspiracy to commit an illegal act, how on Earth are they better off now with regard to possible prosecution for that than if they had simply all kept quiet and not had Libby lie?

[ Parent ]

It looks to me like Squeaky meant that (none / 0) (#26)
by Edger on Thu Jun 07, 2007 at 05:57:08 PM EST
if Libby had told the truth about what went on - not that if Libby had taken the fifth and him and everyone else had clammed up - then we'd be seeing either a single or a conspiracy prosecution. IOW Squeaky as far as I can see was saying their consequences would have been worse, not better.

[ Parent ]

Rough Days Ahead for Scooter Libby | 28 comments (28 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft