WWTBAM Bored

For those who no longer recall, Scooter Libby is the guy who leaked the identity of a covert CIA agent, Valerie Plame, for political reasons and then was convicted for lying to the FBI about it during the investigation. He never spent a day in jail because George W. Bush commuted his sentence, but at least the conviction was still on his record. Now it's not.

I think this is a signal from Donny that he will be equally forgiving of other people who are willing to lie to the FBI. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:For those who no longer recall, Scooter Libby is the guy who leaked the identity of a covert CIA agent, Valerie Plame, for political reasons and then was convicted for lying to the FBI about it during the investigation. He never spent a day in jail because George W. Bush commuted his sentence, but at least the conviction was still on his record. Now it's not.

I think this is a signal from Donny that he will be equally forgiving of other people who are willing to lie to the FBI. --Bob

Jon Ossoff is all about forgiveness. trump is just emulating him.

Bob78164 wrote:For those who no longer recall, Scooter Libby is the guy who leaked the identity of a covert CIA agent, Valerie Plame, for political reasons and then was convicted for lying to the FBI about it during the investigation. He never spent a day in jail because George W. Bush commuted his sentence, but at least the conviction was still on his record. Now it's not.

I think this is a signal from Donny that he will be equally forgiving of other people who are willing to lie to the FBI. --Bob

Hillary Clinton wrote:That's great news!"

Scooter Libby did not leak Valerie Plame's identity and she was not a covert agent.

"I can see Russia from my house" was not a quote

Words. Facts. Interchangeable.

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:Scooter Libby did not leak Valerie Plame's identity and she was not a covert agent.

Agreed on the fact that Libby had nothing to do with the leak of her identity, but I don't get the second part. Are we splitting hairs on the definition of an "agent?" Every source I can find says she was a covert officer of the CIA (NOC) until her outing by Novak.

mrkelley23 wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:Scooter Libby did not leak Valerie Plame's identity and she was not a covert agent.

Agreed on the fact that Libby had nothing to do with the leak of her identity, but I don't get the second part. Are we splitting hairs on the definition of an "agent?" Every source I can find says she was a covert officer of the CIA (NOC) until her outing by Novak.

Whether she had the title "covert agent," the fact that she worked for the CIA wasn't publicly known, and exposing her could harm national security. Many of the customers on programs I worked on were CIA employees, and we couldn't reveal their names.

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:Scooter Libby did not leak Valerie Plame's identity and she was not a covert agent.

Source? Every source I've been able to find says that he leaked her status as a covert agent. Are you splitting hairs based on the difference between leaking her identity and leaking her status as a covert agent? If so, I stand corrected.

His defense was that he couldn't have done so because at the time of the alleged leaks he didn't know she was a covert agent. That's what he told the FBI. He was convicted of lying to the FBI based on proof that he knew at least a month before the critical contacts that he knew her status. His defense to the criminal charges was that he forgot that he'd known that. The jury didn't believe him. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:Scooter Libby did not leak Valerie Plame's identity and she was not a covert agent.

Source? Every source I've been able to find says that he leaked her status as a covert agent. Are you splitting hairs based on the difference between leaking her identity and leaking her status as a covert agent? If so, I stand corrected.

His defense was that he couldn't have done so because at the time of the alleged leaks he didn't know she was a covert agent. That's what he told the FBI. He was convicted of lying to the FBI based on proof that he knew at least a month before the critical contacts that he knew her status. His defense to the criminal charges was that he forgot that he'd known that. The jury didn't believe him. --Bob

Could you point me to a source that says this? All the sources I found said that Novak leaked her status, given the information from Dick Armitage, and that Libby was caught up in the coverup.

mrkelley23 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:Scooter Libby did not leak Valerie Plame's identity and she was not a covert agent.

Source? Every source I've been able to find says that he leaked her status as a covert agent. Are you splitting hairs based on the difference between leaking her identity and leaking her status as a covert agent? If so, I stand corrected.

His defense was that he couldn't have done so because at the time of the alleged leaks he didn't know she was a covert agent. That's what he told the FBI. He was convicted of lying to the FBI based on proof that he knew at least a month before the critical contacts that he knew her status. His defense to the criminal charges was that he forgot that he'd known that. The jury didn't believe him. --Bob

Could you point me to a source that says this? All the sources I found said that Novak leaked her status, given the information from Dick Armitage, and that Libby was caught up in the coverup.

Here's one. --Bob

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/08/leak.armitage/

Looks like my sources got this wrong. I'll know to be more careful about them next time. Thanks for the correction. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/08/leak.armitage/

Looks like my sources got this wrong. I'll know to be more careful about them next time. Thanks for the correction. --Bob

You mean your google, bookmarks got it wrong?

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/08/leak.armitage/

Looks like my sources got this wrong. I'll know to be more careful about them next time. Thanks for the correction. --Bob

You mean your google, bookmarks got it wrong?

For someone who doesn't want to engage in a political discussion, you're doing an awful lot of unfounded jabbering. So I'll ask again, how can you possibly defend Donny, or allow your elected representatives to give him a pass, given all of the misconduct that we already know he's engaged in? Is the R next to his name that important? --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Looks like my sources got this wrong. I'll know to be more careful about them next time. Thanks for the correction. --Bob

You mean your google, bookmarks got it wrong?

For someone who doesn't want to engage in a political discussion, you're doing an awful lot of unfounded jabbering. So I'll ask again, how can you possibly defend Donny, or allow your elected representatives to give him a pass, given all of the misconduct that we already know he's engaged in? Is the R next to his name that important? --Bob

My unfounded jabbering lagged on just before I saw the Syria thing. My last comment re google was really more of a pointy stick.

Flock summed stuff up pretty well.

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:
You mean your google, bookmarks got it wrong?

For someone who doesn't want to engage in a political discussion, you're doing an awful lot of unfounded jabbering. So I'll ask again, how can you possibly defend Donny, or allow your elected representatives to give him a pass, given all of the misconduct that we already know he's engaged in? Is the R next to his name that important? --Bob

My unfounded jabbering lagged on just before I saw the Syria thing. My last comment re google was really more of a pointy stick.

Flock summed stuff up pretty well.

You see, I'd understand this if the alternative right now were a Democrat. But it's not. If Congress ever seriously investigates Donny the way we all know they would if a Democrat had done a quarter of the things Donny has done, then what they'd find would very likely support impeachment. But the result of impeachment and removal from office would be President Mike Pence. I can't stand the guy's politics, but I suspect you may agree with him more than you agree with Donny.

I'd be able to tolerate him, notwithstanding my repugnance for his views, because he certainly wouldn't be attacking left and right the democratic norms that sustain our democracy. As just one example, when he got booed at a performance of Hamilton, he reportedly told his kids, "That's the sound of freedom." Can you for one second imagine Donny reacting that way?

I do think that enough of the American people are sick enough of Congress looking the other way that there's a pretty good chance Democrats will take over at least one House of Congress. I'll certainly do everything I can to help that happen. And when it does, we'll finally see a Congress that takes its oversight role seriously. If Republicans don't want that to happen, they should seriously consider demonstrating that they're willing to investigate an Administration of their own party with even a fraction of the vigor they showed two years ago. --Bob

What?

King of Unfounded Jabbering wrote:For someone who doesn't want to engage in a political discussion, you're doing an awful lot of unfounded jabbering.

Worried about your throne?

Bob78164 wrote:So I'll ask again, how can you possibly defend Donny, or allow your elected representatives to give him a pass, given all of the misconduct that we already know he's engaged in?

What misconduct are you talking about? Before or after he ran for President? What is known, not speculated or accused?

What misconduct would you be O.K. with, besides #metoo with an intern in the Oval Office. We already know that has your blessing.

Bob78164 wrote:If Congress ever seriously investigates Donny the way we all know they would if a Democrat had done a quarter of the things Donny has done, then what they'd find would very likely support impeachment.

If the FBI ever seriously investigated Hillary or Bill the way we all know they are trying their damnedest to get something on Trump, but even after 14 months they've got zilch, they'd both be in jail. As we now know, the investigations into Clinton were conducted by her fan club so drop the crap that they cleared her or found nothing. They weren't looking, or if they were, they looked the other way when something was found.

Fact: The only Russian collusion found in 14 months of intensive investigation is the collusion to create a fake dossier to damage Trump, paid for the the DNC (likely with the full knowledge and support of the then candidate HRC).

Fact: The only election influencing found in 14 months of intensive investigation is the meddling done within the DNC to guarantee a HRC victory over Sanders, and feeding her debate questions ahead of time (can't remember whether it was a debate with Sanders or Trump).

BackInTex wrote:

King of Unfounded Jabbering wrote:For someone who doesn't want to engage in a political discussion, you're doing an awful lot of unfounded jabbering.

Worried about your throne?

Well, poopies. I'm only a pretender?

BackInTex wrote:

King of Unfounded Jabbering wrote:For someone who doesn't want to engage in a political discussion, you're doing an awful lot of unfounded jabbering.

Worried about your throne?

Bob78164 wrote:So I'll ask again, how can you possibly defend Donny, or allow your elected representatives to give him a pass, given all of the misconduct that we already know he's engaged in?

What misconduct are you talking about? Before or after he ran for President? What is known, not speculated or accused?

What misconduct would you be O.K. with, besides #metoo with an intern in the Oval Office. We already know that has your blessing.

Bob78164 wrote:If Congress ever seriously investigates Donny the way we all know they would if a Democrat had done a quarter of the things Donny has done, then what they'd find would very likely support impeachment.

If the FBI ever seriously investigated Hillary or Bill the way we all know they are trying their damnedest to get something on Trump, but even after 14 months they've got zilch, they'd both be in jail. As we now know, the investigations into Clinton were conducted by her fan club so drop the crap that they cleared her or found nothing. They weren't looking, or if they were, they looked the other way when something was found.

Fact: The only Russian collusion found in 14 months of intensive investigation is the collusion to create a fake dossier to damage Trump, paid for the the DNC (likely with the full knowledge and support of the then candidate HRC).

Fact: The only election influencing found in 14 months of intensive investigation is the meddling done within the DNC to guarantee a HRC victory over Sanders, and feeding her debate questions ahead of time (can't remember whether it was a debate with Sanders or Trump).

You have your facts wrong. We now know that Russian agents were meeting with members of Donny's campaign, among other things. And of course, we know that Donny openly called for Russia to hack those e-mails shortly before they did so.

You're applying a grossly hypocritical standard of proof. What evidence was there that President Clinton and Attorney General Lynch discussed anything but her grandchildren? But you joined the Republican hordes who threw a hissy fit about that meeting anyway. Here, we know that Donny actually fired the guy who was investigating his Administration, and if you don't believe that he's been trying to fire Mueller and Rosenstein because of that investigation, you have blinders on.

I took a year of Russian in college. It's a hard language. Lots of consonant clusters, cases, and tenses, not to mention sounds that simply don't get used in English. I'm old enough now that I'd rather not devote the effort to trying to learn it. So I'm gonna continue fighting for my country. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

King of Unfounded Jabbering wrote:For someone who doesn't want to engage in a political discussion, you're doing an awful lot of unfounded jabbering.

Worried about your throne?

Bob78164 wrote:So I'll ask again, how can you possibly defend Donny, or allow your elected representatives to give him a pass, given all of the misconduct that we already know he's engaged in?

What misconduct are you talking about? Before or after he ran for President? What is known, not speculated or accused?

What misconduct would you be O.K. with, besides #metoo with an intern in the Oval Office. We already know that has your blessing.

Bob78164 wrote:If Congress ever seriously investigates Donny the way we all know they would if a Democrat had done a quarter of the things Donny has done, then what they'd find would very likely support impeachment.

If the FBI ever seriously investigated Hillary or Bill the way we all know they are trying their damnedest to get something on Trump, but even after 14 months they've got zilch, they'd both be in jail. As we now know, the investigations into Clinton were conducted by her fan club so drop the crap that they cleared her or found nothing. They weren't looking, or if they were, they looked the other way when something was found.

Fact: The only Russian collusion found in 14 months of intensive investigation is the collusion to create a fake dossier to damage Trump, paid for the the DNC (likely with the full knowledge and support of the then candidate HRC).

Fact: The only election influencing found in 14 months of intensive investigation is the meddling done within the DNC to guarantee a HRC victory over Sanders, and feeding her debate questions ahead of time (can't remember whether it was a debate with Sanders or Trump).

You have your facts wrong. We now know that Russian agents were meeting with members of Donny's campaign, among other things. And of course, we know that Donny openly called for Russia to hack those e-mails shortly before they did so.

You're applying a grossly hypocritical standard of proof. What evidence was there that President Clinton and Attorney General Lynch discussed anything but her grandchildren? But you joined the Republican hordes who threw a hissy fit about that meeting anyway. Here, we know that Donny actually fired the guy who was investigating his Administration, and if you don't believe that he's been trying to fire Mueller and Rosenstein because of that investigation, you have blinders on.

I took a year of Russian in college. It's a hard language. Lots of consonant clusters, cases, and tenses, not to mention sounds that simply don't get used in English. I'm old enough now that I'd rather not devote the effort to trying to learn it. So I'm gonna continue fighting for my country. --Bob

Interesting. I took Russian my freshman year, and later Serbo Croatian. Got A's. Not worried about having to relearn it. Cyrillic alphabet is the main hurdle.

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote: Worried about your throne?



What misconduct are you talking about? Before or after he ran for President? What is known, not speculated or accused?

What misconduct would you be O.K. with, besides #metoo with an intern in the Oval Office. We already know that has your blessing.



If the FBI ever seriously investigated Hillary or Bill the way we all know they are trying their damnedest to get something on Trump, but even after 14 months they've got zilch, they'd both be in jail. As we now know, the investigations into Clinton were conducted by her fan club so drop the crap that they cleared her or found nothing. They weren't looking, or if they were, they looked the other way when something was found.

Fact: The only Russian collusion found in 14 months of intensive investigation is the collusion to create a fake dossier to damage Trump, paid for the the DNC (likely with the full knowledge and support of the then candidate HRC).

Fact: The only election influencing found in 14 months of intensive investigation is the meddling done within the DNC to guarantee a HRC victory over Sanders, and feeding her debate questions ahead of time (can't remember whether it was a debate with Sanders or Trump).

You have your facts wrong. We now know that Russian agents were meeting with members of Donny's campaign, among other things. And of course, we know that Donny openly called for Russia to hack those e-mails shortly before they did so.

You're applying a grossly hypocritical standard of proof. What evidence was there that President Clinton and Attorney General Lynch discussed anything but her grandchildren? But you joined the Republican hordes who threw a hissy fit about that meeting anyway. Here, we know that Donny actually fired the guy who was investigating his Administration, and if you don't believe that he's been trying to fire Mueller and Rosenstein because of that investigation, you have blinders on.

I took a year of Russian in college. It's a hard language. Lots of consonant clusters, cases, and tenses, not to mention sounds that simply don't get used in English. I'm old enough now that I'd rather not devote the effort to trying to learn it. So I'm gonna continue fighting for my country. --Bob

Interesting. I took Russian my freshman year, and later Serbo Croatian. Got A's. Not worried about having to relearn it. Cyrillic alphabet is the main hurdle.

Ой? Вы тоже встречались с русскими?

Bob Juch wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:You have your facts wrong. We now know that Russian agents were meeting with members of Donny's campaign, among other things. And of course, we know that Donny openly called for Russia to hack those e-mails shortly before they did so.

You're applying a grossly hypocritical standard of proof. What evidence was there that President Clinton and Attorney General Lynch discussed anything but her grandchildren? But you joined the Republican hordes who threw a hissy fit about that meeting anyway. Here, we know that Donny actually fired the guy who was investigating his Administration, and if you don't believe that he's been trying to fire Mueller and Rosenstein because of that investigation, you have blinders on.

I took a year of Russian in college. It's a hard language. Lots of consonant clusters, cases, and tenses, not to mention sounds that simply don't get used in English. I'm old enough now that I'd rather not devote the effort to trying to learn it. So I'm gonna continue fighting for my country. --Bob

Interesting. I took Russian my freshman year, and later Serbo Croatian. Got A's. Not worried about having to relearn it. Cyrillic alphabet is the main hurdle.

Ой? Вы тоже встречались с русскими?

Nyet. Professor was Yugoslavian.

Bob78164 wrote:You have your facts wrong. We now know that Russian agents were meeting with members of Donny's campaign, among other things. And of course, we know that Donny openly called for Russia to hack those e-mails shortly before they did so.

You're applying a grossly hypocritical standard of proof. What evidence was there that President Clinton and Attorney General Lynch discussed anything but her grandchildren? But you joined the Republican hordes who threw a hissy fit about that meeting anyway. Here, we know that Donny actually fired the guy who was investigating his Administration, and if you don't believe that he's been trying to fire Mueller and Rosenstein because of that investigation, you have blinders on.

I took a year of Russian in college. It's a hard language. Lots of consonant clusters, cases, and tenses, not to mention sounds that simply don't get used in English. I'm old enough now that I'd rather not devote the effort to trying to learn it. So I'm gonna continue fighting for my country. --Bob

First off, they are not MY facts. They are THE facts, and they are correct.

We now know that Russian agents were meeting with members of Donny's campaign, among other things.

But not the President. And they were Russians, but not all "agents" as defined in your insinuations of extreme wrong doing.

we know that Donny openly called for Russia to hack those e-mails shortly before they did so.

Really? And your candidate is so stupid she didn't know that "wiping an email server" was not "like with a cloth or something". Trump's quip was in jest and you KNOW it, but you are too politically (I want to use the word unethical but won't) bent to admit what you know is the truth.

You're applying a grossly hypocritical standard of proof. What evidence was there that President Clinton and Attorney General Lynch discussed anything but her grandchildren

No evidence yet, but the appearance is bad enough, and if they discussed anything other than grandkids, which by your standards of proof, they did, it is obstruction of justice on Bill's part, which IS a crime.

The President firing Comey, while in appearance is bad, though Comey deserved it based on his "leaking", is not a crime. He served at the President's pleasure.

Let's recap:
No direct evidence of a crime, but the appearance of one on the tarmac.
No crime whatsoever, regardless of the evidence, in the firing of Comey.