"jps" wrote in message
...
In article et,
says...
"jps" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
says...
"bb" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 16:08:24 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:
Obstruction for What?
Libby is charged with lying about a crime that wasn't committed.
Last I checked a bj wasn't a crime.
Precisely. So what were your thoughts about Clinton's impeachment?
And
how
do they jive with your eagerness to see Libby burn for a non-crime?
Oh for ****'s sake Toothy!
Clinton lied about an embarrassing bj.
Libby lied about the outing of a CIA agent.
Libby is *accused* of lying.
So, if there was no crime or misuse of power, why did Libby testify the
way he did?
Why would Libby say something that directly contradicts his own notes?
Libby said something that blatantly contradicted Russert's testimony. One
of them is lying about that conversation. The indictment suggests that it
was Libby who lied...but the trial should show where the truth really lies.
Libby said something that didn't square perfectly with Cooper's testimony,
but it wasn't as blatant a difference as in the Russert testimony...and it
could easily be excused as unreliable memory (from either party) as to what
happened.
Perjury isn't something that's taken lightly by federal prosecutors.
No kidding. It got the 42nd President impeached.
Would you tell a different story than what you know is in your own notes
about the details being investigated?
I didn't read that in the indictment.
If you'd like to wait until after he's gone to trial to find out whether
he did lie, so be it but don't bitch about the outcome beforehand.
I'm not. I'm upset that he resigned his position beforehand. If found
innocent, Cheney ought to reinstate him.
If he's accused and not-guilty he'll get off. If he's convicted or plea
bargains then we'll know he lied and I'll once again ask the question,
Why would he lie?
I don't know...particularly since it wasn't a crime. Why would Russert lie?
Why would Wilson lie? They certainly have a better motive (ie--to
destabilize a President whose public policy they disagreed with).