Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
someone posted a link that will count distance on a map of one's running routes. can you repost? wrong page. all you dems get back to agreeing with each other.

This is the one I use: http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/

[Yankee Doodle Greedy]

And no that's not a typo.

It is part of my ongoing campaign to have July 3rd declared a new national holiday of Dependence.

All those liberal leaches who believe government should provide healthcare, retirement, free cheese, prescription drugs, and all the other nanny-state teat-suckling free-rider handout social programs should celebrate DEPENDENCE on the 3rd while independent free-thinking self-sufficient patriots who are convinced that the federal government is into all kinds of stuff that they shouldn't be, can celebrate the traditional Independence Day on the 4th of July.

Who's with me?

God bless the red states of America,

Yankee D. Greedy

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
someone posted a link that will count distance on a map of one's running routes. can you repost? wrong page. all you dems get back to agreeing with each other.

W sucks.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
More Orin Kerr:
[list]A popular argument for why Scooter Libby should never have been prosecuted is that Patrick Fitzgerald knew early on in the investigation that Richard Armitage at the State Department was the leaker. If Fitzgerald knew Armitage was the leaker, why didn't he stop the investigation right away? Why did he continue? For some people, Fitzgerald's decision not to close up shop after learning Armitage was the leaker proves that he was an overzealous prosecutor run amok. He must have had some irrational desire to go after Libby, the argument runs, making the entire Libby prosecution unfair from the get-go.

I don't find this argument persuasive....

Well, Club, Sebby, Hank, me and 46 Penske socks all do, so I guess opinions will differ, won't they?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I wonder how Judith Miller feels.

She gets no sympathy from me.

Made her choices -- and spent months in jail to try to hide something the prosecutors already knew.

S_A_M

[SlaveNoMore]

Shape Shifter
W sucks.

Indeed.

So impeach already and let's bring on President Cheney

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
More Orin Kerr:

• A popular argument for why Scooter Libby should never have been prosecuted is that Patrick Fitzgerald knew early on in the investigation that Richard Armitage at the State Department was the leaker. If Fitzgerald knew Armitage was the leaker, why didn't he stop the investigation right away? Why did he continue? For some people, Fitzgerald's decision not to close up shop after learning Armitage was the leaker proves that he was an overzealous prosecutor run amok. He must have had some irrational desire to go after Libby, the argument runs, making the entire Libby prosecution unfair from the get-go.
  
  I don't find this argument persuasive. To see why, imagine yourself in Fitzgerald's shoes. Here are the relevant facts as you know them (reconstructed as best I can -- please let me know if these facts are misleading or wrong and I'll correct them). You've been appointed a special prosecutor to investigate intentional leaks to the media of the covert identity of a CIA agent. Early on in the investigation, you learn that one high-level political official has admitted that he leaked Plame's identity to one reporter; he claims that it was an accident, as he didn't realize the agent's status was covert. You also know that a lot of other reporters were leaked the same information, but you don't know who was behind those other leaks. The reporters won't talk: They insist on going to jail rather than revealing their sources.
  
  If you were Fitzgerald, would you close up shop at that point? 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 that setting, I don't understand what was so overzealous about wanting to talk to Libby. An experienced prosecutor is going to wonder if the guy who rushes forward and claims the leaks were an accident is telling the truth. Maybe he is. But you don't want to close up shop and then read in someone's memoirs ten years from now that the official (Armitage) was the fall guy who came up with the "accident" story to cover up something -- and that he got away with it because the naive prosecutor bought the story and closed the investigation without even verifying the facts. Or maybe someone was using Armitage as an unknowing intermediary, making his story accurate from his perspective but only part of the picture. Or maybe there were other leakers -- either more leakers to the one reporter (Novak) who reported to the public about Plame, or other leakers to the other reporters. None of these are certainties, of course. But it is really so unreasonable to look into them?

I'm not sure what you posted had to do with my point, which was that Libby was not the leaker.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Indeed.

So impeach already and let's bring on President Cheney

We already that. We need a clean sweep.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
someone posted a link that will count distance on a map of one's running routes. can you repost? wrong page. all you dems get back to agreeing with each other.

I use this:

http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm not sure what you posted had to do with my point, which was that Libby was not the leaker.

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.

[Cletus Miller]

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.

C'mon, Ty, that just shows that he's A leaker, not THE leaker.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
C'mon, Ty, that just shows that he's A leaker, not THE leaker.

Sure. Nor did Obama say otherwise (which was how this exchange started).

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Sure. Nor did Obama say otherwise (which was how this exchange started).

But national security was already compromised by someone else. Scooter (btw, he's such a good guy) didn't even really exacerbate the problem.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Well, Club, Sebby, Hank, me and 46 Penske socks all do, so I guess opinions will differ, won't they?

Much as the Clinton investigation stopped after it was clear he had not improperly propositioned Paula Jones.

[SlaveNoMore]

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Much as the Clinton investigation stopped after it was clear he had not improperly propositioned Paula Jones.

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

Speaking of the Clintons, this howler of a quote from Hillary is the best Libby-related response yet:

"This commutation sends the clear signal that in this administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice."

- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.

She had to wink when she said this, right?