Clinton/Bush disparity

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:20 pm

Hell's Bells wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:
Hell's Bells wrote:
'93HonoluluCat wrote:It's also possible that there's less to "PlameGate" than the media, and the Democrats in particular, think/insinuate.
funny thing is they charged libby with obsrtuction of justice of a crime that nobody has been charged with....
Now don't start using that set of talking points ... unless you are preparing to say that the Clinton impeachment was wrong in the same breath. Consistency ... it's making things really icky for the talking heads these days. (Hint: It's about lying. That thing that was bad when it was about a blowjob, but now seemingly okay when it is about an investigation of treason).
BAC lets use some simple logic here

who has charged anyone *other then scooter's obstruction of justice charges* with crimes...the media

all that i had sarcistically retorted was that scooter libby was charged with trying to cover up a crime that nobody has been charged with yet

it does not take and reading of talking points to figure that one out. if there is obstruction of justice there has to be a crime and as far as you can tell by who has been charged with what there was no crime comitted

I think you need to do some research on the concept of "obstructing justice." Cross-reference to Clinton v. House of Representatives (or however impeachments are referenced).

Lying in a criminal investigation is obstruction of justice (regardless of whether anyone is ultimately charged with a crime). Are you in favor of lying during criminal investigations? Is that your current position? Please explain to me how Libby lying in a criminal investigation is okay.

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 10:41 am

Bay Area Cat wrote:
Hell's Bells wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:
Hell's Bells wrote:
'93HonoluluCat wrote:It's also possible that there's less to "PlameGate" than the media, and the Democrats in particular, think/insinuate.
funny thing is they charged libby with obsrtuction of justice of a crime that nobody has been charged with....
Now don't start using that set of talking points ... unless you are preparing to say that the Clinton impeachment was wrong in the same breath. Consistency ... it's making things really icky for the talking heads these days. (Hint: It's about lying. That thing that was bad when it was about a blowjob, but now seemingly okay when it is about an investigation of treason).
BAC lets use some simple logic here

who has charged anyone *other then scooter's obstruction of justice charges* with crimes...the media

all that i had sarcistically retorted was that scooter libby was charged with trying to cover up a crime that nobody has been charged with yet

it does not take and reading of talking points to figure that one out. if there is obstruction of justice there has to be a crime and as far as you can tell by who has been charged with what there was no crime comitted
I think you need to do some research on the concept of "obstructing justice." Cross-reference to Clinton v. House of Representatives (or however impeachments are referenced).

Lying in a criminal investigation is obstruction of justice (regardless of whether anyone is ultimately charged with a crime). Are you in favor of lying during criminal investigations? Is that your current position? Please explain to me how Libby lying in a criminal investigation is okay.

sooo he lied about somthing noone has been charged with yet....
really it does not make any sence criminally

here is my logic

crime x is being investigated
person Y is being questioned about the so called crime
no crime was found to be comitted after say 2 years worth of investigating
yet person Y is charged with obstruction of justice?!?!

lyeing about no crime?

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 2:26 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:
Hell's Bells wrote:
'93HonoluluCat wrote:It's also possible that there's less to "PlameGate" than the media, and the Democrats in particular, think/insinuate.
funny thing is they charged libby with obsrtuction of justice of a crime that nobody has been charged with....
Now don't start using that set of talking points ... unless you are preparing to say that the Clinton impeachment was wrong in the same breath. Consistency ... it's making things really icky for the talking heads these days. (Hint: It's about lying. That thing that was bad when it was about a blowjob, but now seemingly okay when it is about an investigation of treason).

Absolutely. It doesn't happen often that I agree with you, BAC, but your statement is true. As I mentioned before, both sides of the aisle are terrible about punishing and/or making a big deal of a matter, but when the roles are reversed, that same party is quick to play the victim.

What's illegal is illegal, regardless of party affliation. If Libby obstructed justice, then fine: put him away for his due amount of time.

Hokeyfine: I don't think Libby isn't a "big fish"--I only intended to say that the "biggest of fish" the Democrats were after is not (at this point) indicted: Karl Rove.