Author Topic: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2.... (Read 8435 times)

Gunslinger · « **Reply #285 on:** July 29, 2005, 07:58:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Raider179
Oh ok I guess I shouldnt express my opinion of the situation... please

Do you deny there is an investigation underway? That my friend is not grasping at straws. All I want to know is who they are after and for what charge. Sorry but all the info points to someone in the administration leaking secret information. Guess that's not a big deal...

I decryed "hardcore conservatives" in response only.

Like I said guess I cant express my opinion on the situation without being some kind of pre-judger. lol Well guess what I am looking at the evidence (that is known) and making judgements so say what you want, I only represent myself in the situation not the American Public or the Liberals or anyone besides myself, and I am allowed to judge and make accusations. Note that I always provide links and what I consider evidence of my judgements. I cant say the same for most posters.

Again you ask for evidence and I point you to the same charge that got Martha stewart time in jail. Lying to the FBI, but dodge that too when you answer posts.

Oh let me pity poor KR. The dems just have it in for him. Come on Matt Cooper admits KR told him about Valerie Plume working for the CIA and on WMD. He stated that. Its not heresay. KR does not deny it.

But I will wait to see your response on KR lying to the FBI before I respond more.

ok so what has Karl Rove been charged with? When was he indicted?

Raider179 · « **Reply #286 on:** July 29, 2005, 08:31:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
ok so what has Karl Rove been charged with? When was he indicted?

Why do I have to wait until that to make judgements? I know what matt cooper said. I watched him the day after he testified come on Meet the Press and discuss his conversation with KR. I saw it as Rove knowing he had went beyond what he should have discussed with Cooper. See this quote

Time correspondent Matthew Cooper said he told a grand jury last week that Rove told him the woman worked at the "agency," or CIA, on weapons of mass destruction issues, and ended the call by saying "I've already said too much."

Now I am not sure what you think "I've already said too much" means, but I know what it means to me. It means KR knew what he was doing was wrong.

So I guess I cant have an opinion or make judgement until he is charged or indicted? LOL I am not the court of public opinion as I already tried to tell you. I have no reason, nor obligation to reserve my judgment on anything or anyone.

As for charges give it time, it will all come out in the wash.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #287 on:** July 29, 2005, 08:39:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Raider179
Why do I have to wait until that to make judgements? I know what matt cooper said. I watched him the day after he testified come on Meet the Press and discuss his conversation with KR. I saw it as Rove knowing he had went beyond what he should have discussed with Cooper. See this quote

Time correspondent Matthew Cooper said he told a grand jury last week that Rove told him the woman worked at the "agency," or CIA, on weapons of mass destruction issues, and ended the call by saying "I've already said too much."

Now I am not sure what you think "I've already said too much" means, but I know what it means to me. It means KR knew what he was doing was wrong.

So I guess I cant have an opinion or make judgement until he is charged or indicted? LOL I am not the court of public opinion as I already tried to tell you. I have no reason, nor obligation to reserve my judgment on anything or anyone.

As for charges give it time, it will all come out in the wash.

You can have the opinion all you want. I don't think you know all the "facts" at all. If KR was guilty of anything he would have been charged by now. He's testified 2+ times to a grand jury. If he lied under oath (wich we all know isn't a real crime now is it) or if he admitted guilt would they not have the evidence by now to charge him??????

Don't sit here and tell me he's broken a law when you don't know he has or not.

He is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Obviously he hasnt been proven guilty by you are anyone else.

Raider179 · « **Reply #288 on:** July 29, 2005, 08:45:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
You can have the opinion all you want. I don't think you know all the "facts" at all. If KR was guilty of anything he would have been charged by now. He's testified 2+ times to a grand jury. If he lied under oath (wich we all know isn't a real crime now is it) or if he admitted guilt would they not have the evidence by now to charge him??????

Don't sit here and tell me he's broken a law when you don't know he has or not.

He is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Obviously he hasnt been proven guilty by you are anyone else.

The investiagtion is still going on. They file charges once the investigation closes, not in the middle of it.

If he lied to the FBI which all reports I have seen say he did when he gave his original testimony, its a crime. Simple as that. Unless you think that People that high up in Government should be allowed to lie when they feel like it, because its not really a crime. (cough cough clinton)

Innocent until proven guilty is a concept of the courts and public opinion. Again, That is does not apply to me as an individual. I still think OJ is guilty or am I not allowed to because he wasn't found guilty?

Gunslinger · « **Reply #289 on:** July 29, 2005, 08:59:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Raider179
The investiagtion is still going on. They file charges once the investigation closes, not in the middle of it.

If he lied to the FBI which all reports I have seen say he did when he gave his original testimony, its a crime. Simple as that. Unless you think that People that high up in Government should be allowed to lie when they feel like it, because its not really a crime. (cough cough clinton)

Innocent until proven guilty is a concept of the courts and public opinion. Again, That is does not apply to me as an individual. I still think OJ is guilty or am I not allowed to because he wasn't found guilty?

OJ isn't the mastermind behind your hated president so who cares. Again I hope this doesnt deflait you even further but If KR had commited a crime and the FBI knew about it and had evidence to prove it they would present it to a federal Grand Jury. The Jury could then hand down an indictment if they believe it a crime was committed.

It wouldnt matter if there was an investigation going or ended they would still indict him. They've done it before.

Get a towel and wipe off the drewl before you leave stains on the rug. He's not in the clear yet but he isn't guilty of anything by a long shot.

Raider179 · « **Reply #290 on:** July 29, 2005, 10:45:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
OJ isn't the mastermind behind your hated president so who cares. Again I hope this doesnt deflait you even further but If KR had commited a crime and the FBI knew about it and had evidence to prove it they would present it to a federal Grand Jury. The Jury could then hand down an indictment if they believe it a crime was committed.

It wouldnt matter if there was an investigation going or ended they would still indict him. They've done it before.

Get a towel and wipe off the drewl before you leave stains on the rug. He's not in the clear yet but he isn't guilty of anything by a long shot.

well the oj remark was in regard to you seeming to think I cant think someone is guilty of something unless a court says so.

Here is a stat on federal grand jury's.

http://www.lawcollective.org/article.php?id=46

"For example, in fiscal year 2000, federal grand juries voted to indict a total of 59,472 suspects3 and chose not to indict 29 suspects4—only one out of every two thousand suspects was left un-indicted."

"Some people who are called as witnesses at grand jury hearings, are prosecuted afterward."

more on federal grand jury's

Q: Does anyone have to tell you at a grand jury hearing that you’re being indicted? Is it legal to indict a person without their knowledge or representation?

A: There isn’t a requirement that you be advised ahead of time that an indictment is going to be returned against you. Grand jury proceedings are considered secret. In general terms, this means that the authorities aren’t allowed to reveal what happens before a grand jury.

If you’re a “target” (loosely defined as a person against whom the government has evidence of an involvement in a crime for which you may be charged) or a subject of a grand jury investigation, the government may want to question you about your involvement in the crime under investigation. In that case, the United States Attorney’s Manual requires federal prosecutors to advise you in writing of your right to counsel and to use your privilege not to incriminate yourself if you so choose.

If you think you’re the target or subject of a grand jury investigation, you might consider getting a lawyer to open communications with the prosecutor. Sometimes the prosecutor will confirm her intention to indict you, engage in plea negotiations before the indictment, or agree to surrender instead of arrest when the indictment is returned. Other times, the prosecutor will request that the indictment be sealed by the court until your arrest, to reduce the chance you’ll flee to avoid prosecution.

http://www.lawyers.com/lawyers/A~1001633~LDS/FAQ+CRIME+FEDERAL.html#two

Gunslinger · « **Reply #291 on:** July 29, 2005, 10:51:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Raider179
well the oj remark was in regard to you seeming to think I cant think someone is guilty of something unless a court says so.

Here is a stat on federal grand jury's.

http://www.lawcollective.org/article.php?id=46

"For example, in fiscal year 2000, federal grand juries voted to indict a total of 59,472 suspects3 and chose not to indict 29 suspects4—only one out of every two thousand suspects was left un-indicted."

"Some people who are called as witnesses at grand jury hearings, are prosecuted afterward."

more on federal grand jury's

Q: Does anyone have to tell you at a grand jury hearing that you’re being indicted? Is it legal to indict a person without their knowledge or representation?

A: There isn’t a requirement that you be advised ahead of time that an indictment is going to be returned against you. Grand jury proceedings are considered secret. In general terms, this means that the authorities aren’t allowed to reveal what happens before a grand jury.

If you’re a “target” (loosely defined as a person against whom the government has evidence of an involvement in a crime for which you may be charged) or a subject of a grand jury investigation, the government may want to question you about your involvement in the crime under investigation. In that case, the United States Attorney’s Manual requires federal prosecutors to advise you in writing of your right to counsel and to use your privilege not to incriminate yourself if you so choose.

If you think you’re the target or subject of a grand jury investigation, you might consider getting a lawyer to open communications with the prosecutor. Sometimes the prosecutor will confirm her intention to indict you, engage in plea negotiations before the indictment, or agree to surrender instead of arrest when the indictment is returned. Other times, the prosecutor will request that the indictment be sealed by the court until your arrest, to reduce the chance you’ll flee to avoid prosecution.

http://www.lawyers.com/lawyers/A~1001633~LDS/FAQ+CRIME+FEDERAL.html#two

so when the previous attempt to say "he lied" didn't work you are now telling me he is statistically guilty?

EDIT: raider further proof of "grasping" here is the fact that this thread and the story in General was dead for a week. Nothing new has come about.....you just want to see him go down and will keep bringing this up until somone beleives it.

Raider179 · « **Reply #292 on:** July 29, 2005, 11:15:26 PM »

No the statistic has nothing to do with KR. It has to do with the odds that someone high up in the administration is going to get charged.

the part that had to do with KR is this part.

"Some people who are called as witnesses at grand jury hearings, are prosecuted afterward."

Nash · « **Reply #293 on:** July 29, 2005, 11:17:07 PM »

Uh... Rove has admitted he told it to Cooper. (how could he not? busted dead to rights).

The only thing folks are waiting on is if he's gonna get indicted, and who else will, and if just for that or something else.

So where's the outrage? Pheh... don't bother trying to explain.

Anyways... I'm thinkin' "something else."

(you should read the bio on Fitzgerald - this guy is like a robot. If he has to invoice for a 5 minute photocopy then somebody is going to jail.)

I love this... Every minute of it.

Crooks and liars.

Nash · « **Reply #294 on:** July 29, 2005, 11:40:44 PM »

Dear leader.

Toad · « **Reply #295 on:** July 30, 2005, 12:23:02 AM »

The outrage will be there when the charges are laid and proven.

Nash · « **Reply #296 on:** July 30, 2005, 12:24:12 AM »

Oh I am so sure.

Hell, you'll prolly have a post the next day detailing how Dems do it too, and it's all business as usual, and move along everyone.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #297 on:** July 30, 2005, 12:24:53 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Raider179
No the statistic has nothing to do with KR. It has to do with the odds that someone high up in the administration is going to get charged.

the part that had to do with KR is this part.

"Some people who are called as witnesses at grand jury hearings, are prosecuted afterward."

So statistically somone in the Bush Admin is guilty and based on past practices.....or.....statisti cs it is likely to be Karl Rove because "some people who are called as witnesses at grand jury hearings, are prosecuted afterward"....

Got it. For a while there you were confusing me. I couldnt figure it out.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #298 on:** July 30, 2005, 12:27:54 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
Uh... Rove has admitted he told it to Cooper. (how could he not? busted dead to rights).

The only thing folks are waiting on is if he's gonna get indicted, and who else will, and if just for that or something else.

So where's the outrage? Pheh... don't bother trying to explain.

Anyways... I'm thinkin' "something else."

(you should read the bio on Fitzgerald - this guy is like a robot. If he has to invoice for a 5 minute photocopy then somebody is going to jail.)

I love this... Every minute of it.

read the past 6 pages of this thread and maybe you will learn something. In order for KR to be found guilty certain criteria have to be met. Just outing her is not enough. We've established this and moved on....keep up Nash

Quote

Crooks and liars.

wow that sounds really familiar.....kinda like the LAST ADMINISTRATION

SNAFU.

Toad · « **Reply #299 on:** July 30, 2005, 12:28:25 AM »

Sure, Nash. Whatever you want to believe.

Betcha this though... I bet I'm one of the few guys here that actually writes my Representatives with both compliments and outrage. I also wager that I have both praised and condemned both parties as appropriate in those letters. Lastly, I'll wager there's a whole lot more that just vent on BBS than write their representatives.

And I bet damn few Canadians ever write the US Congress.