Car Forum / Toyota / Toyota Cars / March 2007
{OT} - Pardon for Libby - vote.com query
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Ron - 08 Mar 2007 17:29 GMT I was just sent a vote.com query about Bush pardoning Libby.
I assume that would be the proper and honorable thing to do. The previous administration showed its acceptablity and even how to funnel the money properly. Since Libby has 3 million thought, he probably ought to get proper advice from Bill, for the proper fee of course!
Ron in Ca
JoeSpareBedroom - 08 Mar 2007 18:04 GMT >I was just sent a vote.com query about Bush pardoning Libby. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Ron in Ca Libby was one of the attorneys who helped Marc Rich arrange for his pardon by Clinton. It's a happy little club. They all know how to make these things work.
Ron - 08 Mar 2007 18:42 GMT Didn't know that about Libby. But it does seem that there are actually just a fairly small number of those "in the loop" in Washington. They, including Bush, Kerry etc. all belong to same clubs, hire same advisors etc. When a Repub or Dem gets voted (or kicked) out office, their staff immediately migrages and is loyal to where ever there is a vacancy regardless of party. Sen/Rep goes to work for a lobbyist he was villifying on Fox or CNN yesterday....... Must be the air or water!
Ron in Ca
AnneCoultersAdamsApple - 08 Mar 2007 21:20 GMT > Didn't know that about Libby. But it does seem that there are actually just > a fairly small number of those "in the loop" in Washington. They, including [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Ron in Ca You are aware that the person to be pardoned is guilty of a crime and must be remorsefully?
What Libby did is no different than what organized crime figures do - a person keeps thier mouth shut and takes the fall. The crime family takes care of their family, protects them in jail, and give them back their job when they get out.
As a former registered republican that still believes "we are a nation of laws and not men", I must say republicans today are not interested in laws, just ideology.
Libby was found guilty of his crimes by a jury of his peers. To ask for a pardon is jury nulification but I doubt you agreed with the OJ verdict, which was also jury nulification.
Get a grip. Reassess what you are doing, how you are being used by republican people in power.
A
dbu, - 08 Mar 2007 21:29 GMT > > Didn't know that about Libby. But it does seem that there are actually just > > a fairly small number of those "in the loop" in Washington. They, including [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > A klinton not only lied, but he lied under oath, perjury, a felony......jail time for klinton, but he wiggled out of it. --
AnneCoultersAdamsApple - 08 Mar 2007 23:10 GMT > In article <1173388840.296102.74...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Your obsession with Clinton is blinding you to this administration's complete disregard for the constitution.
Clinton took the impeachment like a man. No whining, no complaining, no one on the left calling for a pardon. I bet Clinton would not accept a pardon.
What do you think is going on with the firing of the federal prosecutors? One of Karl Rove's assistants was put into the New Mexico prosecutor position after Cummings was fired. Another was told he was appointed to a federal prosecutor job to get resume experience so he could be appointed a judge. Before you give me a flip answer consider the "consequences" when a dreaded Democratic president has the same powers.
A
dbu - 08 Mar 2007 23:29 GMT > > In article <1173388840.296102.74...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com>, > > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > A What's your carbon footprint and are you going to purchase offsets? --
AnneCoultersAdamsApple - 09 Mar 2007 02:16 GMT > In article <1173395434.633437.272...@30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > - Show quoted text - See? Avoiding the question... Too bad. When people dialog both learn something.
I'm buying a Honda Fit.
A
dbu - 09 Mar 2007 02:21 GMT > > In article <1173395434.633437.272...@30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, > > [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > > A You didn't get it did ya, LOL. --
DH - 09 Mar 2007 17:18 GMT >> > In article <1173395434.633437.272...@30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, >> > > > In article <1173388840.296102.74...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > > You didn't get it did ya, LOL. ACAA gets it. You don't. Clinton lied about a BJ. Who cares? It wasn't a proper subject for investigation and questions about the President's sex life shouldn't have been put to him under oath, anyway. As regards a President's sex life, he has only the First Lady (or the First Husband, after Hillary wins) to answer to.
The Bush team appears to be illegally using the identity of CIA operatives to foster political advantage. That's illegal, a subversion of Constitutional processes and is a subject appropriate for investigation and questions about it should be put to people under oath.
And, of course, the larger picture is that this Administration is so habitually and brazenly deceitful and so thoroughly and hopelessly incompetent that one of them got convicted for lying when there was no reason to lie.
 Signature Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Scott in Florida - 09 Mar 2007 17:31 GMT >Clinton lied about a BJ. Who cares? It wasn't a >proper subject for investigation and questions about the President's sex >life shouldn't have been put to him under oath, anyway. What would happen if the head of a major corporation got a blow job from an intern?
What would happen to him if he lied to a grand jury about it?
What happened to Clintoon?
 Signature Scott in Florida
AnneCoultersAdamsApple - 09 Mar 2007 17:56 GMT On Mar 9, 12:31 pm, Scott in Florida <askifyouw...@mindspring.net> wrote:
> >Clinton lied about a BJ. Who cares? It wasn't a > >proper subject for investigation and questions about the President's sex [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Scott in Florida Was the intern over 18 and was he/she a consenting partner? If yes, then nothing would happen. You sound jealous that Bill got a blow job. Take a few Viagras and go find a blow job. You'll feel much better after.
And remember, Bill lied but nobody died. People may have even died as the direct result of the outing of Valery Plame. It's possible some of her contacts were killed.
A
JoeSpareBedroom - 09 Mar 2007 17:58 GMT >>Clinton lied about a BJ. Who cares? It wasn't a >>proper subject for investigation and questions about the President's sex >>life shouldn't have been put to him under oath, anyway. > > What would happen if the head of a major corporation got a blow job > from an intern? Depends on whether the corporation had any rules governing such things. Meanwhile, this country has no law prohibiting the president from getting a bl.wj.b from an intern in the White House, at any time of the day or night.
> What would happen to him if he lied to a grand jury about it? The corporate officer would certainly not be called before a grand jury, so your second question doesn't matter.
Scott in Florida - 09 Mar 2007 18:44 GMT >Depends on whether the corporation had any rules governing such things. Show me a major corporation that does not....
 Signature Scott in Florida
JoeSpareBedroom - 09 Mar 2007 18:47 GMT >>Depends on whether the corporation had any rules governing such things. > > Show me a major corporation that does not.... > Scott in Florida None that I ever worked for, including Merril Lynch and Kraft. Which corporate rules do YOU have access to, or are you using a crystal ball today?
Scott in Florida - 09 Mar 2007 19:20 GMT >>>Depends on whether the corporation had any rules governing such things. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >corporate rules do YOU have access to, or are you using a crystal ball >today? Wrongo..........
Hey Legend in your own mind....
You misspelled one of the companies you supposedly worked for. They probably fired you.
Here are a few of the rules for one of your 'former employers'....
How about Merrill Lynch?
Access to the Internet Only authorized connections to the Internet are permitted and access must be accomplished via an approved secure gateway. Merrill Lynch employees are not permitted to link to the Internet from Merrill Lynch offices via modem dial-up services or other external service providers without the express approval of the Office of General Counsel.
Employees should exercise good judgment when using the Internet for personal reasons during business hours. Under Merrill Lynch policy, employees may not:
* transmit, copy or download any material, including sexually explicit images or messages and materials containing racial, ethnic or other slurs, that may defame, embarrass, threaten, offend or harm a Merrill Lynch person or client or the general public;
Obligation to Report Violations or Misconduct All Merrill Lynch persons are expected to act quickly and effectively against violations of the Guidelines and the firms policies and procedures. Employees are obligated to report any known or perceived violation of law, regulation or Merrill Lynch policy and Guidelines to one of the following resources: their manager, a Leadership & Talent Management representative, the Ethics Hotline, or the Office of General Counsel. If you are unsure about the best course of action, you should consult with one of the above resources. Likewise, if you are not comfortable raising an ethical issue or discussing a possible or actual violation with your manager, or you have done so and the manager has not responded to the problem, you must seek assistance elsewhere within Merrill Lynch and report the matter through one of the alternative resources, that is, a Leadership & Talent Management representative, the Office of General Counsel, or the Ethics Hotline.
The Office of General Counsel is available to assist with business conduct and ethical issues that give you concern. Nevertheless, in many instances, you must rely on your own personal ethical standards in assessing difficult situations. Consider the following questions:
* Is the proposed action legal? * Does it endanger anyone's financial stability, life, health or safety? * Is it consistent with Merrill Lynch policy? * Will it enhance the company's reputation? * Would we lose clients if this action were known to them? * Would you like to see it become a general industry or public practice? * Would you be embarrassed if all the details were known by your manager, peers, subordinates, family or friends, or if they were published in a newspaper? * Could this action in any way be interpreted as, or appear to be, inappropriate behavior? * What would you think of your manager, peers or subordinates if any of them behaved similarly? * Does the action you are considering make you feel uncomfortable? Are you compromising your own personal ethics in any way?
Though romantic relationships between employees and situations where an employee is working with a relative are not prohibited at Merrill Lynch, Merrill Lynch policy does impose special requirements when one of these employees remains in the other employees (the manager/supervisor) chain of command. In such circumstances, Merrill Lynch policy requires that steps be taken to ensure that such relationships do not disrupt the group and that the manager/supervisor is not responsible for supervising, evaluating or compensating the other employee.
 Signature Scott in Florida
JoeSpareBedroom - 09 Mar 2007 19:32 GMT >>>>Depends on whether the corporation had any rules governing such things. >>> [quoted text clipped - 91 lines] > is not responsible for supervising, evaluating or compensating the > other employee. This bears no relationship to civil law. Grand juries get involved with the law of the land. If a corporation wants to can someone for breaking a rule, they do not need to involve the court system.
Scott in Florida - 09 Mar 2007 18:45 GMT >> What would happen to him if he lied to a grand jury about it? > >The corporate officer would certainly not be called before a grand jury, so >your second question doesn't matter. Corporate officers are called before grand juries all the time...
 Signature Scott in Florida
JoeSpareBedroom - 09 Mar 2007 18:48 GMT >>> What would happen to him if he lied to a grand jury about it? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Corporate officers are called before grand juries all the time... > Scott in Florida Not for office sex, since that is not a crime. They may be fired or demoted, but not taken to court.
Scott in Florida - 09 Mar 2007 19:21 GMT >>>> What would happen to him if he lied to a grand jury about it? >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Not for office sex, since that is not a crime. They may be fired or demoted, >but not taken to court. If they were called before a grand jury and lied.
btw a grand jury can ask you ANYTHING....
Please study a bit...
 Signature Scott in Florida
JoeSpareBedroom - 09 Mar 2007 19:31 GMT >>>>> What would happen to him if he lied to a grand jury about it? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Please study a bit... Describe a situation in which a grand jury would get involved in sexual matters between two people in an office, ASSUMING that neither person complained about the sexual liason?
Scott in Florida - 09 Mar 2007 19:35 GMT >>>>>> What would happen to him if he lied to a grand jury about it? >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >matters between two people in an office, ASSUMING that neither person >complained about the sexual liason? ROFLAMO
I see I've nailed you again.
I'll play for a bit...
Director one is before the grand jury because there is an investigation of a corporation involving insider trading.
Director one is asked if he has had sex with an intern.
Director one says no.
Further investigation shows he is lying.
 Signature Scott in Florida
JoeSpareBedroom - 09 Mar 2007 19:40 GMT >>>>>>> What would happen to him if he lied to a grand jury about it? >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > Further investigation shows he is lying. > Scott in Florida 1/2 second after the director was asked about sex, his lawyer would be out of his chair crying foul, and we would be correct because sex has nothing to do with insider trading. It would be obvious (to anyone but an idiot) that the prosecutor was simply trying to color the jury's opinion of the director.
It would certainly work on you, if you were on the jury.
Scott in Florida - 09 Mar 2007 20:50 GMT >>>>>>>> What would happen to him if he lied to a grand jury about it? >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > >It would certainly work on you, if you were on the jury. PSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSST Joe.....
You DON'T have a lawyer with ya in grand jury.
Again....
I got ya.....
http://www.abanet.org/media/faqjury.html
Frequently Asked Questions About the Grand Jury System
What is the purpose of the grand jury?
The primary function of the modern grand jury is to review the evidence presented by the prosecutor and determine whether there is probable cause to return an indictment.
The original purpose of the grand jury was to act as a buffer between the king (and his prosecutors) and the citizens. Critics argue that this safeguarding role has been erased, and the grand jury simply acts as a rubber stamp for the prosecutor.
Since the role of the grand jury is only to determine probable cause, there is no need for the jury to hear all the evidence, or even conflicting evidence. It is left to the good faith of the prosecutor to present conflicting evidence.
In the federal system, the courts have ruled that the grand jury has extraordinary investigative powers that have been developed over the years since the 1950s. This wide, sweeping, almost unrestricted power is the cause of much of the criticism. The power is virtually in complete control of the prosecutor, and is pretty much left to his or her good faith.
Can a lawyer accompany his or her client inside the grand jury room?
In the federal system, a witness cannot have his or her lawyer present in the grand jury room, although witnesses may interrupt their testimony and leave the grand jury room to consult with their lawyer. A few states do allow a lawyer to accompany the witness; some allow the lawyer to advise his or her client, others merely allow the lawyer to observe the proceeding.
 Signature Scott in Florida
JoeSpareBedroom - 09 Mar 2007 20:56 GMT >>>>Describe a situation in which a grand jury would get involved in sexual >>>>matters between two people in an office, ASSUMING that neither person [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > You DON'T have a lawyer with ya in grand jury. OK. YOu got me, diaper boy. My question remains: In the scenario YOU suggested, which YOU said involved insider trading, why would ANYONE ask a corporate director about sex?
I need an example so you can get me again.
dbu - 09 Mar 2007 18:05 GMT > >> > In article <1173395434.633437.272...@30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, > >> > > > In article <1173388840.296102.74...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 102 lines] > incompetent that one of them got convicted for lying when there was no > reason to lie. Tell the truth, I don't read more than the first sentence of your postings. Started a couple weeks ago when you yet again repeated yourself. bye. --
clfr@adelphia.net - 09 Mar 2007 21:58 GMT > In article <45f18a5a$0$16330$88260...@free.teranews.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 109 lines] > postings. Started a couple weeks ago when you yet again repeated > yourself. bye. Holy crow. DH's posts are among the most intelligent, rational ones in here. They actually have reasoned content.
Cathy
> --- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - dbu - 09 Mar 2007 22:13 GMT > > In article <45f18a5a$0$16330$88260...@free.teranews.com>, > > [quoted text clipped - 134 lines] > > Cathy they are copy-paste
> > --- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - --
dh - 09 Mar 2007 23:40 GMT >> In article <45f18a5a$0$16330$88260...@free.teranews.com>, >> > > In article <1173406571.494939.205...@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 143 lines] > > Cathy Only after the medication kicks in!
But thanks.
 Signature Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
larry moe 'n curly - 09 Mar 2007 03:41 GMT > klinton not only lied, but he lied under oath, perjury, a > felony......jail time for klinton, but he wiggled out of it. If Clinton deserved jail, then GW Bush and Cheney deserve to be tortured at Abu Graib and hanged because they're infinitely worse offenders than Mr. Blow Job ever was.
AnneCoultersAdamsApple - 09 Mar 2007 18:00 GMT On Mar 8, 10:41 pm, "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencu...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > klinton not only lied, but he lied under oath, perjury, a > > felony......jail time for klinton, but he wiggled out of it. > > If Clinton deserved jail, then GW Bush and Cheney deserve to be > tortured at Abu Graib and hanged because they're infinitely worse > offenders than Mr. Blow Job ever was. It is coming to that soon. First we should start with Alberto Gonsoles. We need to start somewhere. Should a lawyer be the US Attorney General if he/she doesn't believe the US constitution guarantees habeas corpus? I don't think so.
A
dbu - 09 Mar 2007 18:04 GMT > On Mar 8, 10:41 pm, "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencu...@my-deja.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > A You are talking out of your a.s again. You have no clue. --
JoeSpareBedroom - 09 Mar 2007 18:05 GMT >> On Mar 8, 10:41 pm, "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencu...@my-deja.com> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > You are talking out of your a.s again. You have no clue. ....and you're here to provide everyone with a clue. Go for it.
dbu - 09 Mar 2007 20:19 GMT > >> On Mar 8, 10:41 pm, "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencu...@my-deja.com> > >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > ....and you're here to provide everyone with a clue. Go for it. I see Scott has left you speechless again. Maybe you should take a break. --
JoeSpareBedroom - 09 Mar 2007 20:23 GMT >> >> On Mar 8, 10:41 pm, "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencu...@my-deja.com> >> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I see Scott has left you speechless again. Maybe you should take a > break. No. Waiting for Scott to explain how the courts would get involved with a situation where someone in an office accidentally unplugged the water cooler. He can't.
dbu - 09 Mar 2007 20:27 GMT > >> >> On Mar 8, 10:41 pm, "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencu...@my-deja.com> > >> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > situation where someone in an office accidentally unplugged the water > cooler. He can't. I thought it was about sex in the office. --
JoeSpareBedroom - 09 Mar 2007 20:32 GMT >> No. Waiting for Scott to explain how the courts would get involved with a >> situation where someone in an office accidentally unplugged the water >> cooler. He can't. > > I thought it was about sex in the office. Same thing, unless you're a fake saint and you claim they're not the same thing. If you'd like something more annoying than the water cooler example, here's another: Breaking donuts in half and leaving the half in the box, so nobody wants to eat it.
DH - 09 Mar 2007 20:44 GMT >>> No. Waiting for Scott to explain how the courts would get involved with >>> a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > example, here's another: Breaking donuts in half and leaving the half in > the box, so nobody wants to eat it. That's not a good example. Around here, almost everybody would grab up that half donut. The squeamish wouldn't take it if they thought you had bitten it in half but, even if it had teeth marks in it, somebody would take it before the end of the day.
Yeah, we're a rough crowd.
 Signature Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
JoeSpareBedroom - 09 Mar 2007 21:02 GMT >>>> No. Waiting for Scott to explain how the courts would get involved with >>>> a [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Yeah, we're a rough crowd. OK. Let's crank it up: Someone pours the last of the coffee, puts the pot back on the burner, and doesn't turn off the heat. The pot cracks. It's the only pot in the office. Now we're talking grand jury action, you bet.
dbu - 09 Mar 2007 21:43 GMT > >>>> No. Waiting for Scott to explain how the courts would get involved with > >>>> a [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > back on the burner, and doesn't turn off the heat. The pot cracks. It's the > only pot in the office. Now we're talking grand jury action, you bet. get back to the sex in the office. you are diverting attention again. --
JoeSpareBedroom - 09 Mar 2007 21:58 GMT >> >>>> No. Waiting for Scott to explain how the courts would get involved >> >>>> with [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > get back to the sex in the office. you are diverting attention again. OK. Do you want to take over this debate from Scott, or should we wait for him to come back?
dbu - 09 Mar 2007 22:14 GMT > >> >>>> No. Waiting for Scott to explain how the courts would get involved > >> >>>> with [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > OK. Do you want to take over this debate from Scott, or should we wait for > him to come back? There's no question that Scott has left you speechless. I'm waiting for a response to Scott from you. --
JoeSpareBedroom - 09 Mar 2007 22:16 GMT >> >> >>>> No. Waiting for Scott to explain how the courts would get >> >> >>>> involved [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > There's no question that Scott has left you speechless. I'm waiting for > a response to Scott from you. Scott's all done with this. He won't be back. My response is a question for you, also posted in another message, in case you missed it. Actually, this was Scott's example:
Let's say two people happily have sex in the office, and neither of them has a problem with it. Later, one of them is hauled before a grand jury because of insider trading. If you were on that jury, and a lawyer asked the employee "Did you have sex in the office?", what would you think about the lawyer asking that question?
dbu - 09 Mar 2007 22:31 GMT > >> >> >>>> No. Waiting for Scott to explain how the courts would get > >> >> >>>> involved [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > employee "Did you have sex in the office?", what would you think about the > lawyer asking that question? The prosecutor can ask any question he/she wants to ask. Even the members of the Grand Jury can ask stupid questions, did you know that? Your best bet is to say I don't remember (Bill Clinton) or I don't know and try, try to keep your big mouth shut as much as you can. I know it would be very hard for you.
I'm not your legal representative. --
JoeSpareBedroom - 09 Mar 2007 22:34 GMT >> >> >> >>>> No. Waiting for Scott to explain how the courts would get >> >> >> >>>> involved [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > and try, try to keep your big mouth shut as much as you can. I know it > would be very hard for you. I asked if you thought it was APPROPRIATE for anyone to ask such an unrelated question, not whether is was LEGAL. It would be obvious to any sentient being that in this context, the question was completely ridiculous.
By the way, I want to thank you for being a perfect example of a deuterostome, particularly since you never progressed past the stage which defines the word. You're the poster boy.
dbu - 09 Mar 2007 22:47 GMT > >> >> >> >> .. > >> >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > deuterostome, particularly since you never progressed past the stage which > defines the word. You're the poster boy. The best defense is a good offense tactic, but it won't work.
Scott got ya, LOL.
Cheers --
Scott in Florida - 09 Mar 2007 22:49 GMT >I asked if you thought it was APPROPRIATE for anyone to ask such an >unrelated question, not whether is was LEGAL. It would be obvious to any >sentient being that in this context, the question was completely ridiculous. Ask Scooter Libby.....
They went fishing.....
 Signature Scott in Florida
mark_digital© - 09 Mar 2007 22:34 GMT >>> >> >>>> No. Waiting for Scott to explain how the courts would get >>> >> >>>> involved [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > employee "Did you have sex in the office?", what would you think about the > lawyer asking that question? I'd sit straight up and ask the juror next to me "How long was I out?"
Scott in Florida - 09 Mar 2007 22:48 GMT >Scott's all done with this. He won't be back. There was nothing else to say to you after kicking the crap out of you...
Starting with you misspelling an outfit you 'said' you worked for....
Ending up with me teaching you about grand juries.....
 Signature Scott in Florida
clfr@adelphia.net - 09 Mar 2007 21:55 GMT > >>> No. Waiting for Scott to explain how the courts would get involved with > >>> a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > That's not a good example. Around here, almost everybody would grab up that > half donut. Exactly what I was thinking!
The squeamish wouldn't take it if they thought you had bitten
> it in half but, even if it had teeth marks in it, somebody would take it > before the end of the day. Yep. ;-) You want to get rid of something, be it food or virtually any other item, just leave it on a table with a "Help Yourself" or "Free" sign & presto - it's gone!
Cathy
> Yeah, we're a rough crowd. > > -- > Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com dbu - 09 Mar 2007 21:42 GMT > >> No. Waiting for Scott to explain how the courts would get involved with a > >> situation where someone in an office accidentally unplugged the water [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > here's another: Breaking donuts in half and leaving the half in the box, so > nobody wants to eat it. Or how about leaving the donut box open overnight with day old donuts. Worse yet, leaving an empty open donut box overnight.
Now get back to the more serious, SEX in the office. --
JoeSpareBedroom - 09 Mar 2007 21:59 GMT >> >> No. Waiting for Scott to explain how the courts would get involved >> >> with a [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Now get back to the more serious, SEX in the office. Why is it serious? Here's Scott's theory:
Let's say two people happily have sex in the office, and neither of them has a problem with it. Later, one of them is hauled before a grand jury because of insider trading. If you were on that jury, and a lawyer asked the employee "Did you have sex in the office?", what would you think about the lawyer asking that question?
Scott in Florida - 09 Mar 2007 22:50 GMT >Why is it serious? Here's Scott's theory: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >employee "Did you have sex in the office?", what would you think about the >lawyer asking that question? Ask Scooter Libby
 Signature Scott in Florida
JoeSpareBedroom - 09 Mar 2007 22:53 GMT >>Why is it serious? Here's Scott's theory: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Ask Scooter Libby Libby's got nothing to do with your question. Notice, above, that I simply restated YOUR example.
Scott in Florida - 10 Mar 2007 00:10 GMT >>>Why is it serious? Here's Scott's theory: >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Libby's got nothing to do with your question. Notice, above, that I simply >restated YOUR example. Libby has a LOT to do with it.
The prosecutor went after Libby for something that turned out not to be a crime and kept questioning him about stuff that had NOTHING to do with the original investigation.
Libby is a great example of the grand jury system in this country.
 Signature Scott in Florida
tak - 10 Mar 2007 00:28 GMT >>>>Why is it serious? Here's Scott's theory: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Libby is a great example of the grand jury system in this country. In some ways, like Bill Clinton. No Crime till you try to hide something, but Bill had good reason to lie (Scooter isn't facing Hillary). Oh, and Bill was not convicted by the Impeachment. That is a difference for Scooter>
Truckdude - 12 Mar 2007 18:01 GMT >>>>Why is it serious? Here's Scott's theory: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Libby is a great example of the grand jury system in this country. We need to send you and Rush each a box of tissues. :(.....
 Signature Ignorance is patriotism. Truth is treason.
AnneCoultersAdamsApple - 09 Mar 2007 18:28 GMT > In article <1173463258.289251.219...@c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > - Show quoted text - . .> You are talking out of your a.s again. You have no clue.
But you always recognize my voice, and compliment my breath.
I guess you missed Alberto Gonzoles' testimony in front of congress. In fact, AG made the habeas corpus statement as an answer to an Arlen Spector question and Arlen sat there stunned for about 10 seconds. Everybody associated with Bush is incompetent and very dangerous to the constitution.
A
tak - 09 Mar 2007 19:46 GMT >> On Mar 8, 10:41 pm, "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencu...@my-deja.com> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > You are talking out of your a.s again. You have no clue. Lie or stupid- you read more than the first line of A's post- for shame! Right, you may have forgotten already what you wrote in your last post:
"Tell the truth, I don't read more than the first sentence of your postings. Started a couple weeks ago when you yet again repeated yourself. bye"
Ron - 09 Mar 2007 01:01 GMT I thought I had my tongue in my cheek initially (well sort of).
As far as I know Libby didn't ask for a pardon, its wildass speculation.
I was showing the similarities in the pardons by Clinton and the speculation on Bush giving one to Libby for the money apparently involved. We all know there is never in quid pro quo for a pardon, its illegal.
Ron in Ca
|
|
|