 sj |
||
|
||
BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s???
|
|
|
Subject: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Bobert Date: 20 Oct 05 - 05:38 PM Okay, here's the short list of possibilities: A. Dick Cheney B. Scotter Libby C. Karl Rove D. No Indictments E. B & C F. None of the above Vote early and vote often.... My guess is "B" or "D".... But, given the crooks in charge, "D" is more likely... They can say stuff like, "Well, Scooter, didn't intend for Valarie Plame to get outed as a CIA operative in retaliation for her husband's blowing the whistle on the Niger lie. Intent is hard to prove... Blah, blah, blah..." But what yer take... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Rapparee Date: 20 Oct 05 - 05:58 PM You forgot "None of the above." That's who I always want to vote for these days. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Peace Date: 20 Oct 05 - 06:02 PM I have no faith in American justice when it comes to politicians and bureaucrats. Bastards protect each other and justice is never served. My thoughts? Indictments with pardons for Scotter and Karl. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: CarolC Date: 20 Oct 05 - 08:29 PM I don't know, but the question is bringing up some interesting possibilities in my mind. Consider this scenario... Cheny resigns and Condoleeza Rice is appointed VP (I heard there's a rumor going around about this possibility). Then Bush gets impeached and removed from office. That would make Condoleeza Rice both the first female president and the first African American president. Since she's such a neocon blood-for-oil war monger, we wouldn't want her in office for too long, but a couple of years would be enough to at least pave the way for a woman with an actual conscience to have a decent shot at the job (and I'm not talking about Hillary Clinton). Plus, the Republicans would be much less inclined to try to shoot her down just for being a woman because if they did, they would be shooting down one of their own. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: dianavan Date: 20 Oct 05 - 09:54 PM I vote for B and C and that probably won't happen. B will have to take the fall for C if only for the govt. to save face. Of course, I doubt if he will do any jail time. Probably restrictions of some sort and a fine. Behind the scenes, he will reap huge benefits and will be set for life. Some people will do anything for money. Prostitutes come in all shapes and sizes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 21 Oct 05 - 06:21 PM That's "Scooter", not "Scotter". Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: dianavan Date: 22 Oct 05 - 01:44 AM I changed my mind in view of new evidence. Rove got the info from Libby and Libby got the info from Cheney. I'm gonna go for broke and put all of my money on Cheney. Definitely A but also B and C. But if its anyone, C will have to take the fall. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Peace Date: 22 Oct 05 - 02:35 AM Right ya are, Uncle Dave. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: DougR Date: 22 Oct 05 - 06:13 PM Wow, Carol C, you DO have a vivid imagination don't you? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: CarolC Date: 22 Oct 05 - 06:15 PM Possibly. But it's a hell of a lot more fun than the alternative. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Bobert Date: 22 Oct 05 - 06:48 PM Ouch, Dougie!!! You gonna take that, buddie??? Heck, I met CarolC at the Getaway and she might be 5 feet tall and 80 pounds... Like I said, "You gonna take that?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Peace Date: 22 Oct 05 - 06:51 PM Bobert: She play accordian. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST,saulgoldie Date: 26 Oct 05 - 12:27 PM Time now: 12:26. Won't be long now. All the ins and outs of the case hurt my purty little head trying to keep em straight. But I am guessing 2 or more indictments, and at least one of them will really hurt Bush & Co. At any rate, this will make any second term "progress" (read: REgress, IMHO) will be much more difficult than it was a month ago. The only thing more pathetic than this whole escapade is the Democrats' non-response. Apparently, they want to be an EX-party. Oh, sorry for the thread drift. Please return to the question at hand, which is "Who will be indicted?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST,A Date: 26 Oct 05 - 12:50 PM I just wish I could do something to lessen the bad news for the Libs and Socialists in this and other threads. Won't be long now"??? It has already been announced that "no indictments today". Hold your applause - and watch out for the Wilsons' problems to increase. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: jeffp Date: 26 Oct 05 - 12:52 PM My guesses: Libby - 95+% likely to be indicted, probably for obstruction of justice Rove - 50% Cheney >5% |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST,Janice way up North Date: 26 Oct 05 - 01:13 PM Libby and no one else. They'll heap all the crap on one fall guy, just like blaming Lt. Calley for all the shit that happened in Viet Nam, or Sgt. Grainer and Pvt. England for US torture policy in Iraq. Scooter will do a deuce in Club Fed, when it's you-know-who should be in the dock at the Hague. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: leftydee Date: 26 Oct 05 - 03:45 PM I suspect that Scooter will take the rap and find a way to stay out of jail until W gives him the Prez Pardon on his way out. I sure wish they'd indict that smarmy frat boy Rove though. You just know he set the whole deal up. The arrogance of the whole Bush crowd astounds and sickens me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST,a Date: 26 Oct 05 - 05:10 PM Leftydee, now you some of the feeling we had during the Clinton years. Take a few minutes this evening and compare how many were indicted during the Clinton years as compared to the past 5 years. Forget about the suspicious deaths and any imprisonment(s). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 26 Oct 05 - 05:16 PM I sure would love to see a headline |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST,a Date: 26 Oct 05 - 05:27 PM Why? Do you want his job? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 26 Oct 05 - 06:20 PM No, instead, do a little research on the million$ wasted by republicans zealots as they hounded the Clinton administration for baseless charges and trumped up stupid affairs. Clinton may have had some personal habits that republicans didn't like, but he was an articulate, intellectual, talented president who left this country in pretty good shape (particularly financially) despite the fact that he was smeared every step of the way. Bush has had several opportunities handed to him on a platter that he has not only blown, he has made far far worse than any could imagine. Afghanistan and Iraq are abominable examples of his strutting and posturing just to prove he can do it. He is spending us into a sinkhole while his cronies in business get richer beyond their wildest dreams. The fact that he was elected this second time proves that the American educational system is a shambles, that so many people couldn't think for themselves and were swayed by the rhetoric of his managers. His presence in the White House is an insult to all thinking people. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: leftydee Date: 26 Oct 05 - 06:33 PM guesta, Take a good look at what SRS has to say, Then read "And The Horse He Rode In On" by James Carville. Carville names names and times of the smear (cost about $8 million by most accounts) perpetrated against Clinton. It's shocking. I'm also quite certain it's true or Ken Starr would have sued. Never even objected as far as I can discern. No convictions either..... how lame is that? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Bobert Date: 26 Oct 05 - 08:04 PM Difference here GUEST, a, is that we ain't talkin' about a blow job 'er even leing about gettin one, we're talkin' about a conspiarcy to hold down the truth in ordwer to take our country to awar that has killed tens upon thousands of innocent women and children, over 2,000 Americans and with no end in sight... Amd guess what??? Clinton weren't involved in this conspiracy and subsequest war... Yer guy was!!! Ain't do dogin' it... Yer guy was!!! Bobert (oh, and don't give me no Clinton loving right winged bullcrap... I'm a Green and wouldn't have voted fir Clinto fir dog catcher... Though lookin' at Monika Lewinski, he prolly would have been good at it...) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST,A Date: 27 Oct 05 - 08:33 AM I don't care who you are, stay on subject for a change. BJ wasn't mentioned. My guy, as you put it and he isn't totally, has never been indicted. Do you know why all the living former Presidents could practice in front of the Supreme court and WJC can't? Besides, we were not talking about the war persay, it was the overall conduct of the presidency and compared indictments in the administration of WJC as opposed to GWB. Leave out imprisonments and unexplained deaths. Why could you not ascertain that. Go back and reread please. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST,A Date: 27 Oct 05 - 08:39 AM One other thing, WJC, in the late '90s, talked about how something should be done about Iraq but neglected to do so. He just continued to allow destruction of our Barracks, Embassies and things like the USS Cole plus the first bombing of the World Trade Center to go unpunished. So, embolden by this apparent unwillingness to respond, we then were greeted with 9-11. But, here I am, going off topic almost as much as you do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Amos Date: 27 Oct 05 - 08:48 AM Look for an inside scandal on Scooter shacking up with Judith Miller. You heard it here first!! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: leftydee Date: 27 Oct 05 - 08:32 PM Guest A, you've got a weird memory. Don't you recall the s**t fit your guys threw when WJC took a shot at Bin Laden with cruise missles? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: leftydee Date: 27 Oct 05 - 08:36 PM Good call, Amos. I suspect we may see a Rove/Jeff Gannon contection too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Bobert Date: 27 Oct 05 - 10:23 PM Hey, listen GUEST A... Yer the one who brought up Clinton... Not me... So get off yer high n' mighty righteouisly indignant horse... Yeah, you may be new around this joint but you ain't waltzed into to the friggin' retard ward... You bring up stu7ff and it's comin' back atcha so don't go sayin' carp like "Get back to the subject" after you done went off into Clinton-burg... You gonna put it out here then it's comin' back yer way... That's the rules here in the Catbox... If I go off on a tangent, hey,m I'm gonna have to defend myself out there and not claim some executive priviledge to get myself off the hook... You brought up Slick Willie Clinton first... Check appropriate response: _________ yes _________ no See the way the game is played??? Purdy simple, ain't it... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: jeffp Date: 28 Oct 05 - 01:11 PM Libby has been indicted on 5 counts: 1 obstruction of justice, 2 perjury, and 2 making false statements. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: beardedbruce Date: 28 Oct 05 - 01:24 PM So, any member of the executive branch indicted should take a leave of absense, resign, or be suspended? Clinton Articles of impeachment - Purjury, obstruction of justice,... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST,TIA Date: 28 Oct 05 - 01:32 PM Nope, I want him to stay right where he is...in the administration, and on the front page. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: jeffp Date: 28 Oct 05 - 01:56 PM Too bad. Scooter has resigned. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Bill D Date: 28 Oct 05 - 02:10 PM and "no decision yet" on Rove. I suppose he will end up not being indicted, although everyone knows he MUST have known and discussed just as much as Libby did.....ah, well...the system runs on proof. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 28 Oct 05 - 02:23 PM No, Beardedbruce, they should only resign if they are someone YOU support. That would be nice! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST,A Date: 28 Oct 05 - 02:27 PM |
|
Subject: Libby Fibbed From: Donuel Date: 28 Oct 05 - 02:41 PM The indictment boils down to 4 fibs by Libby. At most he faces a realistic 10 years and a minimum of 2 years. The bad news for Scooter is that the judge appointed to his case has the ominous nickname "Judge Longball" and is best known for handing out maximum sentences ever since the time he worked for the DEA. Cheney seems to have given himself enough wiggle room on to evade prosecution unless Libby stabs him in the back. Cheney's Meet the Press statements are not under oath. Besides he is allowed to share classified information with others who hold a similar clearence. In a manner of speaking the jury is still out on Rove. What I find most interesting is the sheer irony of W's father creating the law that has scarred his son's administration. "Anyone who exposes a covert CIA agent is the most insidious traitor of the United States!" quote GHW Bush. "If we find out who leaked we will deal with them" Quote GWB. ......... This administration has their own agenda as to what constitutes an Axis of Evil. It seems that W and his Kabal considers the axis of evil to be: the Geneva Convention, Bill of Rights, Rule of Law, and the truth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST,A Date: 28 Oct 05 - 02:53 PM SRS - point taken about spending - I have not seen any sign of budget control. Both sides must think we don't about spending somewhat within our means. Leftydee - The 12 missles (@ a million bucks each) were not justified afterwards. Maybe a "wag the dog" scenario? Monica was a hot topic (no pun intended) at the time. Sort of an expensive way of getting rid of an Aspirin factory. And Clinton was comvicted of perjury. Now to the non-intellectual part of this thread. Bobert, do not try do lecture me. And in that vein, I have two words for you; Spell checker. I am not on a high horse as you crassly tried to imply. By staying on subject, a couple of us were having a pretty good conversation on the overall aspects of the WJC and GWB administrations, not on individual items such as BJs and the war. Speaking of the war, go back to news articles from the late 90s and you can see where WJC was advocating action against Iraq along with the concept of what a "grave danger" Iraq was. See what the New York Times had to say also. The quotes from that time period and the comments from the GWB administration were almost interchangable. If I need to be told "how the game is played", I will go to Amos, B'dBruce, SRS, Peace, Dianavan (sorry about Cheney, DV) and Leftydee among others. NOT from a blustery, doesn't seem to understand facts and certainly can't come up with any fellow in dire need of spell check. Sorry, don't want to get personal but some of your stuff is difficult to understand at first read and consequently wastes time. Yes, I am convinced I walk into the "friggin' retard room" and you of all people know who I saw first. Now, "back on subject", has anyone heard who actually outed Valerie Plame? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST,Whiplash Date: 28 Oct 05 - 02:53 PM General observation: on these threads, any time the Bush administration is under fire, someone will try to divert the discussion by bringing up Clinton, making a big deal out of indiscretions in his personal life, ignoring the fact that in the final analysis he was one of the better presidents. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: leftydee Date: 28 Oct 05 - 03:20 PM I think you'll find out who outed Ms Wilson in the next couple of weeks. My real interest is in why. Was it vindictivness for Joe Wilson's assessment? Didn't the Brits draw the same conclusions? I guess I'm just not smart enough to figure out how anyone could have thought they had something to gain from outing a CIA agent. Futhermore, why in hell would Novak think this was fit to print? If he knew other classified info would he print that too? It seems like treason to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: beardedbruce Date: 28 Oct 05 - 03:31 PM Whiplash, So, you would apply a different set of rules to different administrations? Law in the the US depends heavily on precedent. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Amos Date: 28 Oct 05 - 03:38 PM You don't punch people out in a bar-room brawl because you want to get even for something mean they said, and then come up with a rational explanation for it, Lefty. Some foks have mean, antisocial dispositions and believe that slamming down hard on any critics is a good policy because it will intimidate the critics; this is called reigning by intimidation. Bush's machine has always favored coming down hard on those who get out of line or criticize himself or his policies. Their policies are often to do anything to snuff out criticism -- lie, stonewall, tapdance, duck and weave, slime the accusers, ruin the lives of a few folks here and there to shut them up. All part of the hardball approach so admired by criminals, violent types, the hard-brained and the ruthless. Thus, W. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: leftydee Date: 28 Oct 05 - 03:40 PM Jees Amos, I think you may have nailedit |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: beardedbruce Date: 28 Oct 05 - 03:41 PM Gee, Amos, I recognize more than a few Mudcat posters in yours description... ( on both sides) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Donuel Date: 28 Oct 05 - 04:29 PM The CIA is still reorganized under the intimidation of neocon control. The days of independent intelligence gathering without the micromanagement of the Vice President's and Rumsfeld's special office are practically ancient history. Perhaps these indictments may further intimidate the few remaining veteran CIA administrators who were allowed to stay on after Porter Goss took over. I think the damage to the agency will be long lasting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST,A Date: 28 Oct 05 - 04:37 PM I said "has anyone heard who actually outed Valerie Plame" in a joking manner. She WAS NOT outed - it is a known fact that she had not been covert for some time. Otherwise, I think "Scooter" would have been nailed with that charge. I bet that had Scooter taken the 5th, he would be home free. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Donuel Date: 28 Oct 05 - 04:42 PM Scooter is not nailed with that charge because they can not prove he "did it"* maliciously or with the intent to cause personal damage. The investigation revealed that Plames status was indeed a secret. Not only a national security secret but one which was known only to a few central insiders. *with the caveat of innocence until proven guilty. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: GUEST,Whiplash Date: 28 Oct 05 - 04:49 PM No, beardedbruce, but I think there is a qualitative difference between lying about getting a blowjob and lying to the American people get the United States involved in an illegal war, with the inevitable casualties. In one case, horniness is a fairly straightforeward motive. In the other, the motives get pretty murky. Oil, dominance, imperial expansion, GWB simply trying to demonstrate that he, too, has balls, or all of the above. transgretion resulted in a stain on a dress, the other resulted in 2000 American corpses and at least 30,000 Iraqi dead. Not quite the same thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Donuel Date: 28 Oct 05 - 04:59 PM Neocons truely believe that their murky motives are good for the nation. ITs hard to argue that a lie about a blowjob is either good or bad for the nation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Snitch-gate' Indictment/s??? From: Don Firth Date: 28 Oct 05 - 05:12 PM I would say that it's completely inconsequential. The whole point of the "Monica-gate" brouhaha was to character-assassinate Clinton. The Right had been trying to do that ever since he took office. See Kenneth Starr and the whole Whitewater thing. Far from trying to scam people in a real estate deal, the Clintons themselves got taken in by it and lost $60,000. The Right were tripping over their own feet trying to get something on Clinton, and when he hanky-panked with Monica, he foolishly left himself vulnerable. There was no damage to the country, only to himself. This whole Phlame affair is just another part of the Right-Wing "If you get in the way of our agenda, we'll mash you, no matter what we have to do" tactic. Don Firth |
