A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

wrote:
On May 24, 1:35 pm, "Bill Sornson" wrote:
Sandy wrote:
just making sure we don't have another meltdown.
take it elsewhere. this subject could be in a FAQ, but not here.

But it's OK to talk about the French health care system, right? (I
picked a random post of yours up-thread.)

Mercy, merci.

you got VD again soreson?

why must you say such hurtful things, nubgot?

ROTFL

"Bill Sornson" wrote:
Moron comment of the month. A) She wasn't covert under the relevant law
(obviously, or someone would be in jail for it); and B) it was RICHARD
ARMITEGE who leaked her name to Bob Novak.
Since Armitege was a Clinton holdover, he wasn't even /threatened/ with
indictment, much less charged with anything.

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
"Since"? You think Patrick Fitzgerald or the current US Justice
Department wouldn't go after Dick Armitage because he had served in
the Clinton White House? Put down your crack pipe, turn off the Rush
Limbaugh and try to think clearly for once.

Fitzgerald knew it was Armitage before he indicted Libby.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

A Muzi wrote:
"Bill Sornson" wrote: (Hey, whaddya know!
Flogittodeathlinson STILL removes context from stuff! LOL )

Moron comment of the month. A) She wasn't covert under the
relevant law (obviously, or someone would be in jail for it); and
B) it was RICHARD ARMITEGE who leaked her name to Bob Novak.
Since Armitege was a Clinton holdover, he wasn't even /threatened/
with indictment, much less charged with anything.

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
"Since"? You think Patrick Fitzgerald or the current US Justice
Department wouldn't go after Dick Armitage because he had served in
the Clinton White House? Put down your crack pipe, turn off the Rush
Limbaugh and try to think clearly for once.

Fitzgerald knew it was Armitage before he indicted Libby.

Fitzgerald knew it was Armitege AND that there was no underlying crime (just
ask Victoria Tensung -- sp? -- who wrote the frigging law) within a few days
of opening the investigation. Yet he let it go on for /over a year/ --
dragging in people repeatedly, hoping that someone -- /anyone/ -- would slip
up -- while speculation and "hopeful" reporting ran rampant in the media and
lives and careers were ruined. All for one reason: political power.

As for the "current US Justice Department", it doesn't investigate leaks (at
least ones /harmful/ to the US or the Administration); and it lets people
like Sandy Berglar and William Jefferson (Democrat, Louisiana) go free.
(You know, people who REALLY DID commit crimes.)

It's astounding, really.

BS (not)

On Fri, 25 May 2007 22:34:22 -0500, A Muzi
wrote:

"Bill Sornson" wrote:
Moron comment of the month. A) She wasn't covert under the relevant law
(obviously, or someone would be in jail for it); and B) it was RICHARD
ARMITEGE who leaked her name to Bob Novak.
Since Armitege was a Clinton holdover, he wasn't even /threatened/ with
indictment, much less charged with anything.

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
"Since"? You think Patrick Fitzgerald or the current US Justice
Department wouldn't go after Dick Armitage because he had served in
the Clinton White House? Put down your crack pipe, turn off the Rush
Limbaugh and try to think clearly for once.

Fitzgerald knew it was Armitage before he indicted Libby.

I'm arguing about the "since" part -- Fitzgerald did not indict
Armitage because he thought he coudl not convict, not because
Fitzgerald gives Clinton appointees a pass.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

On Fri, 25 May 2007 21:10:21 -0700, "Bill Sornson"
wrote:

Fitzgerald knew it was Armitege AND that there was no underlying crime (just
ask Victoria Tensung -- sp? -- who wrote the frigging law) within a few days
of opening the investigation. Yet he let it go on for /over a year/ --
dragging in people repeatedly, hoping that someone -- /anyone/ -- would slip
up -- while speculation and "hopeful" reporting ran rampant in the media and
lives and careers were ruined. All for one reason: political power.

As for the "current US Justice Department", it doesn't investigate leaks (at
least ones /harmful/ to the US or the Administration); and it lets people
like Sandy Berglar and William Jefferson (Democrat, Louisiana) go free.

Your theory that Fitzgerald is some sort of Democtratic partisan
makes no sense. He was appointed by a Republican and ran his
investigation, including the part focussing on Libby, while
Republicans controlled congresss.

Are you playing the "persecuted Reblicans" card again, even when it is
the the Republicans controlling the portion of goverment doing it? Is
the big bad liberal media so powerful that it forces everyone to be
anti-neocon, and the threat of Democrats someday coming to power so
strong that every thing that hurts a Bush crony is inherently
partisan?

Was good working for the Liberal cabal when he called Kennyboy Lay
home while letter liberals stil live?????

On Victoria Toesning, she is simply wrong - other senior government
officials involved in the creating and enforcing the law, as well as
senior officials at the CIA have said so. She is a major partisan,
while there are people of several political persuasions (including
nonpartisan) opposed to her interpretation of the law.

(You know, people who REALLY DID commit crimes.)
Scooter Libby lied to Federal officials. That is a crime.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

On Fri, 25 May 2007 21:10:21 -0700, "Bill Sornson"
wrote:

there was no underlying crime (just
ask Victoria Tensung -- sp? -- who wrote the frigging law) within a few days
of opening the investigation.

Here you go dumbass, about Valerie Plame's cover status

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

try

http://www.exrx.net/Exercise.html