LawTalkers - Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)

- Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - Meet your new thread, same as the old thread. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=781)

The change has come, she's under my thumb.

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
He didn't? Then why did he settle with her for $850K?

He got summary judgment. If the 8th circuit was going to reverse, it would have been the first time in years they'd ruled for a plaintiff in any kind of discrim. case.

And he had plenty of donations so that the DNC could move on and put it behind them for 2000.

The change has come, she's under my thumb.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
He got summary judgment. If the 8th circuit was going to reverse, it would have been the first time in years they'd ruled for a plaintiff in any kind of discrim. case.

And he had plenty of donations so that the DNC could move on and put it behind them for 2000.

he got SJ that assuming he did drop trou on her, legally it still wasn't enough. no one decided he didn't drop trou.

The change has come, she's under my thumb.

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
he got SJ that assuming he did drop trou on her, legally it still wasn't enough. no one decided he didn't drop trou.

Fair enough. Still , the case was over.

The change has come, she's under my thumb.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Fair enough. Still , the case was over.

In a truly just world, there would be no SoL for rape.

http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/AR...HX_OF_RAPE.jpg

The change has come, she's under my thumb.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
But he did leak (as did Armitage). Why do you think there was only one person leaking? If you were Fitz, would you assume Armitage was the only one? (If you read to Kerr's third paragraph, he says: "Would you conclude without even speaking to other potential witnesses that the one high-level official was in fact responsible for all the leaks, and that he acted accidentally and entirely on his own? Or would you at least want to dig deeper to see if the story checks out?")

In fact, Libby's defense was, in part, that he was leaking stuff. Two years ago, it was reported that he told the grand jury that he was leaking (as was Rove):

With New York Times reporter Judith Miller's release from jail Thursday and testimony Friday before a federal grand jury, the role of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, came into clearer focus. Libby, a central figure in the probe since its earliest days and the vice president's main counselor, discussed Plame with at least two reporters but testified that he never mentioned her name or her covert status at the CIA, according to lawyers in the case.

His story is similar to that of Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser. Rove, who was not an initial focus of the investigation, testified that he, too, talked with two reporters about Plame but never supplied her name or CIA role.

Their testimony seems to contradict what the White House was saying a few months after Plame's CIA job became public. . . .

[B]oth Rove and Libby and perhaps other senior White House officials knew about Wilson's wife's position at the CIA and, according to lawyers familiar with testimony in the probe, used that information with reporters to undermine the significance of Wilson's trip.

There's been no dispute about this for a while.

If he was leaking after it had been leaked, then it seems to me it was already in the public domain and no longer confidential and therefore not actually a leak. It was also not a violation of any law, as Slave and I have been saying for years now. The only illegality here is the perjury, the punishment for which you apparently do not agree.

The change has come, she's under my thumb.

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
If he was leaking after it had been leaked, then it seems to me it was already in the public domain and no longer confidential and therefore not actually a leak.

That's crazy. If Spy 1 sells secrets to the Chinese and gets caught, can he get out of trouble by proving that Spy 2 had earlier sold the same secrets to the Russians? Of course not.

Quote:

It was also not a violation of any law, as Slave and I have been saying for years now.

Slave was saying that on the basis of facts that Fitzpatrick later contradicted in court filings. For example, he seemed pretty sure that Plame wasn't under cover, but Fitz and the CIA said otherwise. And the fact that Fitz did not bring charges does not mean that no law was broken.

Quote:

The only illegality here is the perjury, the punishment for which you apparently do not agree.

I don't have a problem with the sentence he got. I have a problem with Bush commuting the sentence, less because I care about Libby doing time and more because I'm disgusted by the way that this administration puts itself above the law.

The change has come, she's under my thumb.

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
If he was leaking after it had been leaked, then it seems to me it was already in the public domain and no longer confidential and therefore not actually a leak. It was also not a violation of any law, as Slave and I have been saying for years now. The only illegality here is the perjury, the punishment for which you apparently do not agree.

If it had already been "leaked" then why would he leave out her name when talking with reporters? Put aside whether a specific law was violated (and even the "punishment" for perjury and pardon) -- are you comfortable with the Executive Branch talking about CIA spies with reporters? I'm sure as hell not. Those slopes don't get slippier.

The change has come, she's under my thumb.

Quote:

Slothrop
And the fact that Fitz did not bring charges does not mean that no law was broken.

True.

But that said, no law was broken.

The change has come, she's under my thumb.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
That's crazy. If Spy 1 sells secrets to the Chinese and gets caught, can he get out of trouble by proving that Spy 2 had earlier sold the same secrets to the Russians? Of course not.

I know you know what Public domain means, and
so I am really troubled by this response. can you elaborate, or back down?

The change has come, she's under my thumb.

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I know you know what Public domain means, and
so I am really troubled by this response. can you elaborate, or back down?

You think that if a journalist knows something, it's in the public domain, but if the Chinese government knows it, it's not? That's weird.

T.S.

1-0

The change has come, she's under my thumb.

Quote:

no, but if the chinese then publish it in their weekly column . . .

Quote:

rich

The change has come, she's under my thumb.

Quote:

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
If it had already been "leaked" then why would he leave out her name when talking with reporters? Put aside whether a specific law was violated (and even the "punishment" for perjury and pardon) -- are you comfortable with the Executive Branch talking about CIA spies with reporters? I'm sure as hell not. Those slopes don't get slippier.

of course i'm not. but that doesn't mean it was against the law.

The change has come, she's under my thumb.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You think that if a journalist knows something, it's in the public domain, but if the Chinese government knows it, it's not? That's weird.

T.S.

1-0

are you dyslexic? maybe learned to read from Hebrew? it just seems that stuff is often backwards from you.

an Inconvenient Son

Al Gore's son was arrested early Wednesday on suspicion of possessing marijuana and prescription drugs after deputies pulled him over for speeding, authorities said.

Al Gore III, 24, was driving a blue Toyota Prius about 100 mph on the San Diego Freeway when he was pulled over at about 2:15 a.m., Sheriff's Department spokesman Jim Amormino said.

The deputies said they smelled marijuana and searched the car, Amormino said. They found less than an ounce of marijuana along with Xanax, Valium, Vicodin and Adderall, which is used for attention deficit disorder, he said.

"He does not have a prescription for any of those drugs," Amormino said.

Gore was being held in the men's central jail in Santa Ana on $20,000 bail.

The son of the former vice president and Democratic presidential nominee also was pulled over and arrested for pot possession in December 2003, in Bethesda, Md., while he was a student at Harvard University.

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/US/South/1...y.gore.son.jpg

Of course, the rotten apple doesn't fall far from the tree:

http://www.registeredmedia.com/galle...upinsmoke3.jpg

Six Days of the Condor.

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Whatever. There are thousands of slimebags sitting in jail right now that deserve a walk more than Scooter Libby does.

I should have known that a man that gave George Tenet a Presidential Medal of Freedom for intelligence work leading up to Iraq would also give a walk to Libby. Accountability for fuck ups--especially for fuck ups having to do with this god awful war--isn't really the calling card of this administration.

It's not just the war. Don't forget "you're doing a heck of a job, Brownie!"