RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [POLITICS] News Alert: Bush CommutesLibby'sPrison Sentence

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Sorry that I can't follow your message because you've inserted your text 
with mine so that it is not possible to readily tell who wrote what.

Mike


On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Spurling, Shannon wrote:

> "> The reason he mentioned Clinton's perjury charge is because it's the
> > same charge leveled aginst two people. The cases are different, but
> it's
> > the same indictment about not telling the truth in a court of law.
>
> I understand now what he was getting at.  Of course, the Libby case
> means
> that Libby has successfully concealed the truth from us forever and the
> Clinton case meant nothing then and it still means nothing."
>
> He didn't conceal anything. If he did, they couldn't say for sure that
> he lied!
> The reason you could not follow my argument is that you still think he
> stonewalled the investigation, which he didn't. He could not. That is
> how they knew his statements were not accurate. The investigation
> concluded with a complete timeline and accurate statements from every
> one.
>
>
> "> Which leads to my second observation about this whole mess. His
> > conviction had nothing to do with the revelation of Plames identity.
> It
> > only hinged on the fact that he made statements that were factualy
> > dishonest, period. Nothing to do with an outed identity. Nothing.
>
> He was lying about *when* he told people about Plame.  He was going
> around
> scheduling meetings with people to tell them that Wilson's wife was a
> CIA
> operative.  He lied about when those meetings occurred.  Why was he
> telling people about Plame??  What am I getting wrong here?"
>
> Yes, he gave out the wrong dates. His recall of the dates and times were
> bad. If they asked him directly why he told people about Plame, and he
> refused to answer, they would put him in jail for something other than
> perjury. That's what they did when they put the reporter in jail for
> contempt of court. What am I getting wrong here? This investigator is
> apparently not the friend of these guys. Why would he wrap up this up
> and only charge him with perjury when he could get someone for something
> more?
>
>
> "Do you mean that Libby may still go to prison if the appeal fails?"
>
> No but he will have the mark stricken from his record, and not be
> charged the fee if he is found not guilty. If he serves, and he is found
> innocent, how will he be recompensated? He's not a spring chicken. Are
> they going to give him two years back on his life when he hits his death
> bed?
>
>
> S-
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discussion mailing list
> EMAIL:PROTECTED
> http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion