Scooter Libby trial

[Chief Henry]

The jurry is taking awhile. Any guess's on why ?

I thought it was a slam DUNK conviction according to some on
here.

[patteeu]

Because 1 or 2 jurors who can't set aside their Cheney-hate are holding out for a guilty verdict? :shrug:

[dirk digler]

Because 1 or 2 jurors who can't set aside their Cheney-hate are holding out for a guilty verdict? :shrug:

LMAO

One of the jurors got dismissed the other day so that set them back some

[Cochise]

I'm sure he'll be executed eventually.

[Amnorix]

I think the general rule is that the longer the jury is out, the better for the defense it is.

Also, obviously, the more the chances of a mistrial due to hung jury...

[dirk digler]

I think the general rule is that the longer the jury is out, the better for the defense it is.

Also, obviously, the more the chances of a mistrial due to hung jury...

Yep. I fully expect an acquittal.

[mlyonsd]

If Libby is convicted on any of the counts the max he should get is a fine.

Jail time is absurd. Libby should get no more than Sandy Burglar for these charges.

[chiefforlife]

I think that, in this case, the verdict is more important then the sentence.

[Taco John]

Libby jury resolves question, calls it a day
POSTED: 6:21 p.m. EST, February 28, 2007

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Jurors in the criminal trial of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff told the judge Wednesday that they had resolved a question about one of the charges.

The jury's question to U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton was: "Is the charge that the statement was made, or the content of the statement itself?"

It's unknown what statement the jury was referring to.

They resumed their deliberations, which have been going on for a week and ended the day without a verdict. The trial will continue Thursday.

The jury is deliberating the fate of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who is fighting a five-count indictment for allegedly lying to investigators about his knowledge of leaks of the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame.

On Tuesday the jury sent a note to Walton, asking him to explain one of the charges. The question concerned what Libby told the FBI about a conversation with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine.

The jury asked whether the charge was about the content of the conversation, or about whether it took place at all.

Walton sent a note back, asking the jurors to clarify what they were asking.

Apparently, they answered their own question.

They returned a note that said, "After further discussion, we are clear on what we need to do. No further clarification needed. Thank you. We apologize."

The jury has sent out three other notes since it began deliberating last week.

One was a request for office supplies such as a flip-chart and notepads.

A second note involved a request for pictures of witnesses who testified in the trial, which began January 23.

The third note was notification that a juror had inappropriately obtained information that disqualified her from continuing to serve. (Full story)

"They [jurors] seem to be asking whether the government had to prove both that he [Libby] made the statement and that it was a lie. Obviously, the government has to prove both," said CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.

"It's a reasonable question, although the answer is pretty clear, as the jury seemed to recognize."

The note was handed up to the judge at the end of the jury's fourth full day of deliberations, and was announced after the panel had been taken from the courthouse by U.S. marshals for the evening.

Libby, who also was national security adviser to Cheney, faces one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury and two counts of making false statements to the FBI and a grand jury investigating how Plame was outed.

To disclose classified information knowingly to unauthorized recipients is a crime, and Plame's position was classified, but Libby is not accused of exposing her.

If convicted on all five counts, Libby, 56, could be sentenced to 30 years in prison and fined $1.25 million.

Prosecutors contend Libby disclosed Plame's covert profession to reporters as part of a plan to discredit her husband, Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador who alleged that the Bush administration twisted some intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war.

Wilson, who conducted a CIA-sponsored trip to Niger, wrote in a July 2003 New York Times editorial that he found no evidence Iraq sought to buy uranium from the African nation, as the Bush administration claimed.

CNN's Paul Courson contributed to this report.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/28/cia.leak/

[penchief]

Yep. I fully expect an acquittal.

I've had this feeling for some time.

However, I'm beginning to entertain the idea that the jury is deliberating longer because they are deliberating each count thoroughly on its own merit. I would not be surprised to see him convicted on one or two counts and acquitted on the rest.

[pikesome]

I've harped on this more than once but this case HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LEAKING CIA ANYTHING. It's all about Libby lying to the investigator investigating a crime he knew never happened and didn't involve Libby. POLITICS!

[Taco John]

I've harped on this more than once but this case HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LEAKING CIA ANYTHING.


You needed caps for that? I'm pretty sure that every regular on this board knows it has to do with Libby giving inconsistent testimony under oath, and the jury is deciding whether it he was deliberately lying, or making an honest mistake. I don't believe anybody here is confused at the nature of this trial.

It's a perjury trial.

[pikesome]

You needed caps for that? I'm pretty sure that every regular on this board knows it has to do with Libby giving inconsistent testimony under oath, and the jury is deciding whether it he was deliberately lying, or making an honest mistake. I don't believe anybody here is confused at the nature of this trial.

It's a perjury trial.

And barely a perjury trial at that. This whole investigation is/was/will forever be horseshit because the investigator knew who the "criminal" was and he knew that no crime had been committed. And yes, caps are called for here because I'm amazed that this topic comes up as anything more than Fitzgerald doing a Nifong on Libby. Trying someone solely for even outright lies to investigators doesn't happen unless there is politics involved. My father, 30 years a criminal attorney on both sides, had a term for this, "Chickenshit".

[Taco John]

And barely a perjury trial at that. This whole investigation is/was/will forever be horseshit because the investigator knew who the "criminal" was and he knew that no crime had been committed. And yes, caps are called for here because I'm amazed that this topic comes up as anything more than Fitzgerald doing a Nifong on Libby. Trying someone solely for even outright lies to investigators doesn't happen unless there is politics involved. My father, 30 years a criminal attorney on both sides, had a term for this, "Chickenshit".


There's no such thing as "barely" perjuring yourself. You either do or you don't.

I'm sure you and your father were pounding the table over Clinton being tried for perjury. If you want to complain about anyone, you can start there. Fitzgerald has his hands tied thanks to the events that went down in the Clinton situation. There's no way that he can just let a perjeror walk without an investigation in such a high profile case after what happened in the last ten years.

But for the record, I disagree with you. I think Clinton SHOULD have been tried for purjury since he purjured himself. I didn't like the fact that his sex life was being called into question in front of the nation, but he was under oath regardless.

The same goes with Libby. He gave inconsistent testimony, it's incumbant on the prosecutor to reconcile that inconsistency for the sake of the court. If we start turning our head to purjury, what's the point of the oath system at all then?

I think this is about politics to you. You see someone on the right being tried, and you immediately scream politics. I think it's a knee jerk reaction that is unfounded. There is nothing in Fitzgerald's history that would suggest that he takes a partisan approach to his prosecution. In fact, if you look at his history, you'll see a calculating man who takes a conservative, safe approach to building a case and weeding out corruption. He doesn't appear to be a grandstander by any stretch of the imagination.

[pikesome]

I'm sure you and your father were pounding the table over Clinton being tried for perjury. If you want to complain about anyone, you can start there. Fitzgerald has his hands tied thanks to the events that went down in the Clinton situation. There's no way that he can just let a perjeror walk without an investigation in such a high profile case after what happened in the last ten years.

No, actually my father was uncomfortable with Clinton's impeachment for the same reason Ross wasn't in favor of Johnson's. I'm more critical of Clinton but if forced to pick a side I wasn't in favor of the impeachment either, it didn't rise the the level of a crime that needed to be charged.

But for the record, I disagree with you. I think Clinton SHOULD have been tried for purjury since he purjured himself. I didn't like the fact that his sex life was being called into question in front of the nation, but he was under oath regardless.

You are factually correct, he did lie. The job of a prosecutor is not only to decide if there is enough evidence but also whether the case should be tried. Trying or even convicting Clinton wouldn't have served any purpose, it was a waste of time. That's one of the reasons that head prosecutors are elected, if we wanted them to do nothing but enforce the law we'd just hire someone and give him no discretion.

The same goes with Libby. He gave inconsistent testimony, it's incumbant on the prosecutor to reconcile that inconsistency for the sake of the court. If we start turning our head to perjury, what's the point of the oath system at all then?

There is a reason perjury cases don't get tried often, it's damn hard to prove. Nothing about this case has been slam dunk so far. It's boiled down to he said/she said.

I think this is about politics to you. You see someone on the right being tried, and you immediately scream politics. I think it's a knee jerk reaction that is unfounded. There is nothing in Fitzgerald's history that would suggest that he takes a partisan approach to his prosecution. In fact, if you look at his history, you'll see a calculating man who takes a conservative, safe approach to building a case and weeding out corruption. He doesn't appear to be a grandstander by any stretch of the imagination.

What I see is a man sent out to find the source of a CIA agent's identity leak and returning with nothing. I posted an article from a lawyer who worked with CIA regs about how this whole case was BS before the special investigator was assigned. He assuredly knew the law hadn't been broken but kept on. Then he found out who did mention her name and hid this information during his investigation. This feels like a case of someone has to be tried or this was all a big waste.

If you were questioned, under oath, about a crime that didn't happen and then were charged with perjury because your statements turned out to be wrong don't you think you'd be a bit pissed?

Read this article and tell me some thing's not right with the way this case turned out.
Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/16/AR2007021601705_pf.html)

[BucEyedPea]

Trying someone solely for even outright lies to investigators doesn't happen unless there is politics involved.

Oh yeah! That's what Martha Stewart was put on trial for...it wasn't insider trading as many thought. It does happen. Govt investigators lied to her though...but that's okay.

Not tryin' to hijack, I'm mainly just readin' this thread, just pointin' out this point you're making in here.

[pikesome]

Oh yeah! That's what Martha Stewart was put on trial for...it wasn't insider trading as many thought. It does happen. Govt investigators lied to her though...but that's okay.

Not tryin' to hijack, I'm mainly just readin' this thread, just pointin' out this point you're making in here.

She's a great example, shouldn't have gone to trial. And she was accused of more than Libby, she tried to cover up her illegal act by telling others to lie also. Libby isn't charged with "doing" anything, just lying about it.

[Taco John]

What I see is a man sent out to find the source of a CIA agent's identity leak and returning with nothing.

Well you're wrong. What he returned with was someone who gave inconsistent testimony and a question as to why he gave inconsistent testimony. The question is whether he is giving inconsistent testimony to protect someone, thus obstruct justice, or whether he is just a dope who can't keep his facts straight.

If he's obstucting justice he needs to be prosecuted. If he's just a dope, well, he won't be the only dope working in the white house.

Libby is a lawyer. He knows the law.

[Taco John]

Libby isn't charged with "doing" anything, just lying about it.

For all your authoritative rambling, you really don't seem to know what you are talking about.

Libby is charged first and foremost with obstruction of justice. The prosecution has built a case to prosecute Libby for this charge first and foremost. He was subsequently charged with two counts of making false statments, and two counts of perjury. Whether he's guilty of these charges remains to be seen, but he most certainly has been charged with "doing" something; namely obstructing justice.

I'm not going to guess if he's guilty or innocent. I haven't heard the evidence. I'm just saying that he's definitely charged with something.

[patteeu]

Well you're wrong. What he returned with was someone who gave inconsistent testimony and a question as to why he gave inconsistent testimony. The question is whether he is giving inconsistent testimony to protect someone, thus obstruct justice, or whether he is just a dope who can't keep his facts straight.

If he's obstucting justice he needs to be prosecuted. If he's just a dope, well, he won't be the only dope working in the white house.

Libby is a lawyer. He knows the law.

What's your defense of Fitzgerald for continuing the investigation after finding out who leaked Plame's name to Robert Novak, after realizing that Plame was not a covert agent to begin with, and before he knew he had inconsistent statements from Libby?

[pikesome]

For all your authoritative rambling, you really don't seem to know what you are talking about.

Libby is charged first and foremost with obstruction of justice. The prosecution has built a case to prosecute Libby for this charge first and foremost. He was subsequently charged with two counts of making false statments, and two counts of perjury. Whether he's guilty of these charges remains to be seen, but he most certainly has been charged with "doing" something; namely obstructing justice.

I'm not going to guess if he's guilty or innocent. I haven't heard the evidence. I'm just saying that he's definitely charged with something.


· On Dec. 30, 2003, the day Fitzgerald was appointed special counsel, he should have known (all he had to do was ask the CIA) that Plame was not covert, knowledge that should have stopped the investigation right there. The law prohibiting disclosure of a covert agent's identity requires that the person have a foreign assignment at the time or have had one within five years of the disclosure, that the government be taking affirmative steps to conceal the government relationship, and for the discloser to have actual knowledge of the covert status.

From FBI interviews conducted after Oct. 1, 2003, Fitzgerald also knew that then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage had identified Plame as a CIA officer to columnist Robert D. Novak, who first published Plame's name on July 14, 2003.


Would you like to dispute this passage? This seems to indicate no crime was committed. Or even if you decide that Plame was covert, that Libby didn't do it.

The indictment (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1028051plame1.html)

He's charged with one count of obstruction, two of false statements and two of of perjury. I don't see anything about leaking a name.

In summation, you're an idiot with an axe to grind. No matter how much you would like to believe that Bush engineered the smear campaign against Plame, there is no evidence to support that. There is a large amount that directly contradicts the "Evil Bush" theory however. Libby might have lied about something but it wasn't about whether he committed a crime because one didn't happen.

[Chief Henry]

Verdict to be read at noon eastern time...per
www.drudgereport.com

[noa]

Guilty of obstruction of justice per CNN

[Donger]

Guilty, on all five counts.

Wait, not guilty on one of them.

[noa]

Count two, also guilty

[noa]

Guilty, on all five counts.


Actually they just said he was found guilty on everything except the 3rd count

[noa]

They're saying he's almost certain to go to prison, unless he gets pardoned of course.

[the Talking Can]

sweet justice

let the spin begin....it will be EPIC

ha ha

[penchief]

I hope George lets this guy off.... That bitch Valerie Plame is coming to the University of Iowa later this month... I'm going to be very loud and bring big signs that show my disgust for her.

What did she do?

[HolmeZz]

I hope George lets this guy off...

F*CK THE LEGAL SYSTEM

[Donger]

There will be a new trial.

[penchief]

It's what the entire hoopla is about! She was not covert, she does not matter and it is a shame that Scooter has to go down like this

Again, what did she do besides get outed by the vice-president?

Why did Libby lie? That should be your question.

[noa]

There will be a new trial.


I'm listening to this possibility right now. The trial judge himself would have to find that this is a substantial miscarriage of justice and that the evidence is so flimsy the conviction can't stand. If the judge feels this way, why doesn't he just throw the verdict out?
These motions are rarely granted.

[penchief]

SHE WASNT OUTED... there was nothing to out

Why did Libby lie?

[noa]

SHE WASNT OUTED... there was nothing to out


Still, she didn't do anything in this matter. Libby apparently lied to the grand jury.

[memyselfI]

F*CK THE LEGAL SYSTEM

What legal system? The WH doesn't acknowledge there is one outside their offices...

[noa]

It was a simple mistake


I don't know. My understanding is that he claimed before the grand jury that he received the info from Tim Russert, and Russert flatly denied this on the stand.

[penchief]

It was a simple mistake

Maybe, but not an honest one.

[pikesome]

It was a simple mistake

Now, don't be so naive. He's a lawyer. Probably can't help himself.

[noa]

So 25 years in prison and a million dollar fine is fair justice?!


He was found guilty on 4 of 5 counts. It wasn't just one count that gets him 25 years. And yes, its fair justice when you have a trial with adequate defense and the jury finds you guilty.

[dirk digler]

Wow I never thought he would get convicted this is too funny.

He will become someone's bitch in prison for sure unless he gets pardoned.

[NewPhin]

So 25 years in prison and a million dollar fine is fair justice?!

Nah. That's the threat they're holding over his head to get him to give up the fat cats. Once Cheney is arrested and imprisoned, we'll see justice.

[Cochise]

Boy, sounds like the prosecution really proved their case in the minds of the jury. :rolleyes:

[penchief]

So 25 years in prison and a million dollar fine is fair justice?!

Did you hear me say that?

[noa]

Boy, sounds like the prosecution really proved their case in the minds of the jury. :rolleyes:


Please explain...

[dirk digler]

I think they should hang him

[pikesome]

Nah. That's the threat they're holding over his head to get him to give up the fat cats. Once Cheney is arrested and imprisoned, we'll see justice.

About how Bill took money to pardon Marc Rich? It would be nice to see justice done. :rolleyes:

[penchief]

He got "off" easy

and your point is.....

[penchief]

About how Bill took money to pardon Marc Rich? It would be nice to see justice done. :rolleyes:

and that has something to do with........

[penchief]

This guy lied the every American... lied under oath... the exact same thing that Scooter did... but Scooter gets the book handed to him, and Clinton is livin the life

I don't think Libby's been sentenced yet, has he?

[noa]

This guy lied the every American... lied under oath... the exact same thing that Scooter did... but Scooter gets the book handed to him, and Clinton is livin the life

If you consider living with Hillary the life

[dirk digler]

This guy lied the every American... lied under oath... the exact same thing that Scooter did... but Scooter gets the book handed to him, and Clinton is livin the life

Big difference...Clinton was POTUS Libby is a nobody that sucks cock for a living

[pikesome]

and that has something to do with........

That was what Libby did before he worked for Bush's crew. He's a hired thug lawyer, works for whoever has the checkbook.

[StcChief]

F*CK THE LEGAL SYSTEM

Ditto... load the lawyer bus now. There is a cliff for them. :)

[Laz]

O.J. Simpson walked ......... there's no such thing as a slam dunk conviction anymore.

[penchief]

I'm talking about the millions he makes each year talking around the country

And Oliver North was a hero to some people. I just don't see what any of that has to do with why Libby lied.

[Laz]

Because 1 or 2 jurors who can't set aside their Cheney-hate are holding out for a guilty verdict? :shrug:
one of the jury paid by Haliburton to force a hung jury :shrug:

[memyselfI]

25 years in prison is WAY to much time... maybe 6 months...

Not really, when you consider the government is in the postion now to:

1. squeeze Libby for information
2. make an example of him for others thinking about lying in an investigation. If they let Libby walk with a light sentence then they've basically sanctioned lying under oath.

[memyselfI]

1. Libby isn't talking
2. Kind of like how Clinton walked?

Yet. You are really impatient today. ROFL

[StcChief]

If you consider living with Hillary the life
No life with sHillary would be nothing short of Hell...

but getting to make up your own dictionary definition of what sex is....
and use that to get off a conviction....

[recxjake]

Yet. You are really impatient today. ROFL

And your response to number 2?

[pikesome]

2. make an example of him for others thinking about lying in an investigation. If they let Libby walk with a light sentence then they've basically sanctioned lying under oath.


On January 17, President Clinton was deposed in the Jones lawsuit. He denied having "sexual relations" with Ms. Lewinsky under a definition provided to him in writing by her lawyers, and also said that he could not recall whether he was ever alone with her. On January 21, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and ABC News reported that Starr had expanded his investigation of the President to include the allegations related to Lewinsky. After repeated media inquiries, on January 26 President Clinton asserted in an appearance before the White House press corps: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky," and denied urging her to lie about an affair.


They've already sanctioned lying under oath.

And no, I don't think Bill should have been impeached either.

[memyselfI]

They've already sanctioned lying under oath.

And no, I don't think Bill should have been impeached either.

Well if Bill had served jail time maybe Libby wouldn't have lied. ;) ROFL

[Donger]

This conversation with this jury member is REALLY interesting.

[memyselfI]

baaaahaaa, juror being interviewed said the jurors kept asking 'where is Rove? Why is Libby the only one paying here?'

They felt sorry for Libby and threw the book at him anyway. :clap:

[Cochise]

Boy, sounds like the prosecution really proved their case in the minds of the jury. :rolleyes:

ROFL

[noa]

This conversation with this jury member is REALLY interesting.

Agreed. He's doing a good job of explaining why they took so long.

[BucEyedPea]

Woo-Hoo! One top NeoCon down, about 19 of 'em to go.......

Was thinkin' 'bout this thread while watching breaking news.

Lying is an impeachable offense.
Incompetence is also an impeachable offense.
Perjury is a serious offense.
Not all the effects of each perjury are as extensive or as harmful.

[Donger]

baaaahaaa, juror being interviewed said the jurors kept asking 'where is Rove? Why is Libby the only one paying here?'

They felt sorry for Libby and threw the book at him anyway. :clap:

Why do you find that amusing?

[noa]

The juror is expressing a sense that the jurors were not at all eager to convict Libby

[memyselfI]

Why do you find that amusing?

Because they weren't going to let him off the hook for his crime simply because he is being sacrificed and is being a martyr. They made him pay anyway.

They followed the law and not their conscience. Sucks, I know. But all those 'law and order' RWNJs out there should be thrilled.

[dirk digler]

Rove and Cheney were the bad guys in this and they chose Libby as their stooge.

[BucEyedPea]

Rove and Cheney were the bad guys in this and they chose Libby as their stooge.
I agree about Rasputin and Che being the bad guys and Libby being the fall guy.

[jAZ]

I would feel badly for Scooter, but he chose to be the fall guy. I'm sure he'll be pardoned and make a great living working for Haliburton or someone.

[jAZ]

The juror is expressing a sense that the jurors were not at all eager to convict Libby
If I thought Libby was being pushed under the bus, I'd feel badly for him. It seems that he jumped under it.

I doubt the case goes any further, but it should, no doubt.

All the way to Cheney.

[pikesome]

If I thought Libby was being pushed under the bus, I'd feel badly for him. It seems that he jumped under it.

I doubt the case goes any further, but it should, no doubt.

All the way to Cheney.

What did Cheney do? I'm not being facetious here, I'd like to know what the charge ought to be.

[noa]

What did Cheney do? I'm not being facetious here, I'd like to know what the charge ought to be.

He shot a lawyer in the face to intimidate Pat Fitzgerald.

[jAZ]

What did Cheney do? I'm not being facetious here, I'd like to know what the charge ought to be.
The most likely charge (were the investigation not obstructed by Libby) would be a conspiracy charge. Basically instigating the outing.

[jAZ]

He shot a lawyer in the face to intimidate Pat Fitzgerald.
ROFL

[Laz]

If I thought Libby was being pushed under the bus, I'd feel badly for him. It seems that he was paid to jumped under it.

FYP

[Chief Henry]

Patrick Fitzgerald might have gotten Libby, but he let Ali Mohammad slip right through his finger tips...
www.peterlance.com

[jAZ]

Patrick Fitzgerald might have gotten Libby, but he let Ali Mohammad slip right through his finger tips...
www.peterlance.com
Quick, change the subject!!!

[dirk digler]

Patrick Fitzgerald might have gotten Libby, but he let Ali Mohammad slip right through his finger tips...
www.peterlance.com

I swear you are the most worthless poster on ChiefsPlanet. I don't know why you are even here.

[Chief Henry]

I swear you are the most worthless poster on ChiefsPlanet. I don't know why you are even here.


and your opinion is of little value to me also

[Laz]

I swear you are the most worthless poster on ChiefsPlanet. I don't know why you are even here.
:clap:



tied neck and neck with Recxjake ROFL

[Chief Henry]

Quick, change the subject!!!

ITs not really changing the subject, just pointing out to the readers
about the history of Patrick Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald is a major player in
the Libby trial after all.

[Chief Henry]

:clap:



tied neck and neck with Recxjake ROFL


and your tied dick with **** to memememefistme

[dirk digler]

and your opinion is of little value to me also

Do you have an opinion on anything besides the typical RWNJ\Hannity talking points?

[Baby Lee]

I swear you are the most worthless poster on ChiefsPlanet. I don't know why you are even here.
Epiphany! Now I know why we have the D.C. ghetto. The people who post here are dicks!!

[Laz]

and your tied dick with **** to memememefistme

[jAZ]

ITs not really changing the subject, just pointing out to the readers
about the history of Patrick Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald is a major player in
the Libby trial after all.
It's changing the subject from Libby's conviction to implications about Fitzgerald. You and I both know that's changing the subject.

And from what I can see, not very well. I didn't see anything about PF on that site. Maybe I overlooked it.

[Laz]

Epiphany! Now I know why we have the D.C. ghetto. The people who post here are dicks!!
says the guy while posting here.


:fire:

[jAZ]

The people who post here are dicks!!
Have you met Brock, Iowanian, Lattimer and a whole host of dicks who post in the lounge?

This board was founded on the premise that being cordial was almost unacceptable. It has nothing to do with DC alone. It's the rather unfortunate culture of the entire site.

If DC is a "ghetto" so is the entire CP.

[Chief Henry]

Epiphany! Now I know why we have the D.C. ghetto. The people who post here are dicks!!



Big ones....Our latest classless Dick most likley hasn't even read
any information on Patrick Fitzgeralds history and he comes on and flames away. Typical stuff from the Bush haters crowd like Laz,
Jiz and mefistmeinazz, now we wallow in dickless crap too.

[dirk digler]

Epiphany! Now I know why we have the D.C. ghetto. The people who post here are dicks!!

Is that why you post here?

[Chief Henry]

And from what I can see, not very well. I didn't see anything about PF on that site. Maybe I overlooked it.


There's plenty.

[dirk digler]

Big ones....Our latest classless Dick most likley hasn't even read
any information on Patrick Fitzgeralds history and he comes on and flames away. Typical stuff from the Bush haters crowd like Laz,
Jiz and mefistmeinazz, now we wallow in dickless crap too.



I don't hate Bush you stupid **** and I am not of the "Bush Haters".

Now if we had a club for the "Cheney Haters" I would be a premium member.

[Baby Lee]

says the guy while posting here.


:fire:
So the question is, are 'conservatives' incapable of self-effacing humor, or are 'liberals' incapable of recognizing self-effacing humor coming from a 'conservative.'

:p

[Cochise]

Do you have an opinion on anything besides the typical RWNJ\Hannity talking points?

You usually sound like just as much, if not a bigger talking points parrot than he does.

[Chief Henry]

I don't hate Bush you stupid **** and I am not of the "Bush Haters".

Now if we had a club for the "Cheney Haters" I would be a premium member.


:deevee:

[Laz]

So the question is, are 'conservatives' incapable of self-effacing humor, or are 'liberals' incapable of recognizing self-effacing humor coming from a 'conservative.'

:p
very good question


ROFL

[Baby Lee]

Is that why you post here?
I'd submit that my ad hominem quotient is among the lowest on here, and is almost always occasioned in response to an existing nuclear strike by the person I attack.
Feel free to argue otherwise.

[noa]

Arguing about which posters in DC are the biggest dicks is futile...

[Baby Lee]

Arguing about which posters in DC are the biggest dicks is futile...
ROFL ROFL - just got the image of Blizzard Man rapping about who's a 'real dingaling.'

[dirk digler]

You usually sound like just as much, if not a bigger talking points parrot than he does.

LMAO

I actually have a brain and I don't watch much news except O'Reilly and I read Drudge.

Good try though.

[jAZ]

...Jiz...
Very cordial.

[dirk digler]

:deevee:

Figures you got nothing to say as usual

[dirk digler]

I'd submit that my ad hominem quotient is among the lowest on here, and is almost always occasioned in response to an existing nuclear strike by the person I attack.
Feel free to argue otherwise.

I don't know sometimes you just strike without provocation but that is ok because at least you say something witty unlike Chief Handicap.

[Chief Henry]

Figures you got nothing to say as usual


Like I said in an earlier post. I doubt if you've even read anything aout Patrick Fitzgeralds history. You might come to grasp that he has one hell of a history with this war on terror.

[dirk digler]

Like I said in an earlier post. I doubt if you've even read anything aout Patrick Fitzgeralds history. You might come to grasp that he has one hell of a history with this war on terror.

I could care less about Fitzgerald or Libby for that matter. Libby did something stupid and lied about a crime he didn't commit. He deserves everything he gets.