Eeww… Mr Whistler, isn’t that considered to much information

Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something.

It was a cowardly act! Either pardon Libby, which means its like he was never found guilty, or leave it alone. This threading the needle nonsense accomplishes nothing, the Left will say he is a criminal no matter what, it won’t help Bush’ poll numbers and it avoids the issue that Libby was prosecuted and convicted when the original accustations fell apart and there was no crime to lie about.

We’ll never survive!

Nonsense. You’re only saying that because no one ever has.

Neiman’s the one that started it, he said I was slightly dead,

You’re RIGHT! Neiman started it!

You’ve been chasing me your whole life only to fail now? I think that’s about the worst thing I’ve ever heard.

Well at least the commutation means he still will want to clear his name with the appeal.

You’re just stalling now.

Although my dishes are calling me so I’ll give you a break

I told you, “I would always come for you.” Why didn’t you wait for me

That may be the first time in my life a (wo)man has dared insult me.

I want to duel him left-handed…Well, it’s the only way I can be satisfied. If I use my right — tch — over too quickly.

Get some rest — if you haven’t got your health, you haven’t got anything.

See, there’s a big difference between mostly dead, and all dead. Now, mostly dead: he’s slightly alive.

I do not envy the headache that you will have when you awake, but ’til then, sleep well and dream of large women.

Am I going MAD, or did the word “think” escape your lips? You were not hired for your brains, you hippopotamic land mass.

So I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.

I hope this doesn’t mean that slackers won’t support Republican policies anymore.

Yes Whistler, and you do know many things, but you are slightly dead!

I might be bluffing. It’s conceivable, you miserable, vomitous mass, that I’m only lying here because I lack the strength to stand.

“This guy is going to sing like a canary if he goes to jail. I’d better set him free or my goose is cooked.”

None so dumb as those who will Nazi.

What’s the matter Ronald? Your cartoon run out and no one there can reset the VCR?

Whistler: Oh oh oh, I know this one! Pick me! Pick me! Okay the answer is “moron” is the middle name of all the Democrat Party Presidential candidates?

Free,

You are not only premature in your assessment (the appeals process is far from complete, and there is very good grounds for a successful appeal), you are also appallingly in accurate in you comparison.

First, Clinton’s impeachment trial was not a criminal proceeding, but a political trial. Mr. Clinton was found guilty by a federal district court judge, and subsequently forfeited his license to practice law, again not a criminal penalty. Ultimately, Clinton acknowledged his lies and publicly apologized. Libby has maintained his innocence from the beginning.

Actually, in a back-handed way, Clinton’s supporters also acknowledged his perjury, stating”it was only about sex…” a hopeless parody with no meaning at all, except as an acknowledgment that Clinton lied under oath, and suborned others to do the same.

The notion that the two situations are analogous, or that Republicans are obliged to keep silent because Clinton was clearly guilty is not only ridiculous, but stupid as well.

You’re smarter than this.

My brains, his steel, and your strength against sixty men, and you think a little head jiggle is supposed to make me happy?

Anyone who faults Clinton for the Rich pardon/commutation has to see the irony in this:

The irony being one guilty man pardons another guilty man, while one innocent man only commutes the sentence of another innocent man?

So I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.

You seem a decent fellow… I hate to kill you.

Obviously your blind loyalty to Libby fails your senses to the see the irony here, that Clinton consulted three republican attorneys one of which was Scooter Libby.

If you would have bothered to read the piece, you would see that even Clinton would agree that Bush had the right and authority to do what he did.

But your blind hatred of Clinton requires you to miss the point and send you down the Monica/Jennifer/Paula. oh, and don’t forget he killed Vince Foster,or had him killed.

I’m sure he and Scooter will have a nice conversation about all this one day. But keep on hatin’ B1.

The decision at the time made no sense
in a perjury trial.

It made no sense to you. The fix was in when Scooter was prosecuted. There was no underlying crime, and Fitz already knew the identity of the “leaker”. This was a show trial to generate propaganda(“culture of corruption”) and to try to unseat the President, using the courts; a typical leftie political move.

Republicans are now Democrats of 9 years ago.

Regarding your 9 yr. analogy…It is an analysis befitting a nine yr. old! Clinton intentionally lied for personal gain…to cover his arse against a civil suit from Paula Jones. Scooter Libby did not testify repeatedly that he “could not recall”. He honestly tried to reconstruct conversations about an incident that was NOT a crime, that did NOT involve his monetary gain and he was made a political scapegoat.
I hope political analysis isn’t your day job…

Of course, since it’s really a political persecution by “perjury trap” to try to effect a coup against the Bush admin, it makes sense.

There is no such thing as a perjury trap unless you believe there are circumstances under which you are justified in not telling the truth. Perjury always comes down to the credibility of witnesses. The jury believed the prosecution witnesses, which was probably butressed by them being TV stars. But when Libby didn’t testify his fate was sealed. It was poor strategy. However the believability of witnesses is very difficult to appeal, unless you can prove they knowingly gave false testimony. I see almost no chance on appeal.

Anna,

Just step back and enjoy the show. Its not an event you are likely to see repeated any time soon.

The Whistler on July 2, 2007 at 07:30 pm: You been nipping the sheri again, the drink, not the girl?

Anyone who faults Clinton for the Rich pardon/commutation has to see the irony in this:

Puzzle,

When you’ve got something on the Libby family’s massive donations to the Bush presidential library, please be sure to post it. In the meantime, try to bear in mind that the guy who denied his “relationships” with Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Wiley, Juanita Broderick, and, oh yeah, Monica, isn’t considered to have a whole lot of credibility where explanations of his behavior and motivations are concerned. If you wish for us to consider just what sort of man Bill Clinton really is, you’ll first have define what the meaning of the word “is” is.

The whole trial was a test of republican ethics. It was entrapment for sure. People do all sorts of unethical things to stay out of trouble. They lie, destroy documents, rat on others, falsely accuse others, kill people, etc. I have to say, I am really surprised that the republican party stood up so well to such a stress test. The only person they could catch in a “he said, she said” was poor scooter. The words “That what I heard” and “that’s what he said” and Scooter’s claim that he and Charlie Rose discussed Valerie was all the prosecution could come up with. Scooter would have been wise to say, “I don’t recall.” Instead, with the fact he had no motivation to lie, he tried to reconstruct events for a sickening prosecuter (why didn’t Alberto fire this piece of work?). The prosecuter had the nerve to say that people will be detered from lying under oath. What a flipping moron. If anything people will be terrified to even mention events that could be disputed or accused of inaccuracy. Everyone who has a brain will say, “I don’t recall.” This is not a victory for justice. It is not even a victory for democrats. It is a victory for political blood thirst. Too bad people who destroy documents don’t experience the wrath of the republicans. I would like to see one of their skinny little necks strung up for actually doing something wrong.

One more thing, I am sure glad the Charlie Rose who does hundreds if not thousands of interviews remembers exactly what was said when he and Scooter met over a year ago. What an impressive memory!!! The whole thing is bulls***. It is stuff like this that makes me want to smack dems in the face. They make me sick. It is ok to get a blow job from an interm, BUT YOU BETTER NOT IM THEM!!! Under age male prostitutes in your condo, no problem. But ask for a photo from an intern of legal age, YOU BETTER RESIGN!!! Those sick, lying, perverted, corrupt republicans. I think July 3rd should be “Knock Some Sense into a Liberal Day”.

Hold it, hold it. What is this? Are you trying to trick me?

Rob, since you weren’t on the jury, I won’t hold your bias against you. But it is clear that an inordinate amount of time was spent by this administration trying to downplay and dispute Wilson’s oped piece to the point three people outed her.

The point is he “misremembered” numerous times. Now I know this is the line you all have pledged to continue parroting. But you are right, Libby was convicted of lying to so many reporters he couldn’t remember who he told which lie to. It’s still perjury when you lie under oath and that’s what he was convicted of.

Now with that said, he certainly was rewarded with his commutation and he should have for what Bush/Cheney made him go through to cover their lies. So he was a loyal soldier and Cheney/Bush didn’t leave their man on the field of battle. Oh whoops they wouldn’t know about that.

Oh and Rob,the irony here is that Clinton consulted Scooter Libby,a republican on the Mark Rich pardon. It is ironic. And it is laughable that you are trying to draw some kind of line between Scooter and Clinton when the point of my post was that I thought it was ironic that Clinton consulted Scooter Libby on the Rich pardon and here comes Scooter getting a commutation.

Don’t get so bent out of shape here.

Good heavens, are you still trying to win? You’ve got an over-developed sense of vengeance. It’s going to get you in trouble some day.

Lestat,

Come back tomorrow and I’ll explain it to you. Its late, and at the moment I’m too tired, and too dazzled, to make the effort.

Bravo to you both! A first rate performance worthy of a far larger, more appreciative audience.

My way’s not very sportsmanlike.

Proof said about Whistler: “(He started it!)” and Whistler brags about how strong he is, you know you if you both keep this up you might have to do time out in your rooms.

This is your last chance! Surrender now!

I knew he was bluffing.

Neiman’s the one that started it, he said I was slightly dead, when in fact the proper usage is “mostly dead” and “slightly alive”.

We face each other as God intended. Sportsmanlike. No tricks, no weapons, skill against skill alone.

You seem a decent fellow. I hate to kill you.

Yes, you’re very smart. Shut up.

Ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?…Morons.

That may be the first time in my life a (wo)man has dared insult me.

lol, that one doesn’t work because we know, I for one, have dared several times.

I used that one at 9:03. I win!

Rodents of Unusual Size? I think they don’t exist.

Go away or I’ll call the Brute Squad.

That should be: “Thithilian”.

Proof, do try and clarify if you are suggesting an erotic dream or nightmare please.

Anna,

Again… this has nothing whatsoever to do with you, or anything at all that you have written. Step back and enjoy. They are having the time of their lives doing this!

Get used to disappointment.

Proof:

Have you ever considered piracy? You’d make a wonderful Dread Pirate Roberts.

I would have rather seen him freed on appeal. The entire trial was bogus. This was a political persecution.

I used that one at 9:03. I win!

You know Fez…er, Whistler, you finally did something right!

HELLO! MY NAME IS INIGO MONTOYA. YOU KILLED MY FATHER. PREPARE TO DIE!

Bush pardons Libby
Clinton pardons mark rich
Mark rich’s atty was scooter libby.

they all spent a weekend at kevin bacons house.

I think July 3rd should be “Knock Some Sense into a Liberal Day”.

LOL! Need more than a day, Bubba!

You’re trying to trick me into giving away something — it won’t work.

The King’s stinking son fired me. And thank you so much for bringing up such a painful subject. While you’re at it, why don’t you give me a nice paper cut and pour lemon juice on it? We’re closed!

We face each other as God intended. Sportsmanlike. No tricks, no weapons, skill against skill alone.

You’re RIGHT! Neiman started it!

Not only did Neiman start it, he got it wrong! I think we should feed him to the ROUC’s.

Proof,

You just wiggled your finger. That’s wonderful!

Oh, the sot has spoken.

It’s not my fault being the biggest and the strongest. I don’t even exercise.

We are but poor, lost circus performers. Is there a village nearby?

“He claims he forgot nine conversations with eight people over a four-week period,” prosecution lawyer Peter Zeidenberg said in his closing statement.

Maybe Scooter was stoned

“Everybody here uses Ambien” C Powell

Everybody in the whitehouse has this in
their pocket.
Do the resigned Justice Dept guys grt them also?

, don’t you think (no) that he would have insisted on a full pardon? No fines? A clean slate?

George did it. Made sure that Scooter wouldn’t flip rather than do jail time. He commuted Libby’s sentence, guaranteeing not only that Libby wouldn’t talk, but retaining Libby’s right to invoke the Fifth.

Marc Rich was an actual criminal guilty of serious crimes. Libby was not.

There is no comparison.

Puzzle, Clinton actually lied about getting a blow job from a fat ugly chick. There is no reasonable doubt that he misremembered that.

Libby, on the other hand, was convicted for forgetting which reporter he told what.

Do you really think anyone can draw an honest comparison between the two?

Lestat, perjury requires intent. Libby had to have intended to lie when he was questioned. Do you really think Fitzgerald proved that intent beyond a reasonable doubt? That doubt being that Libby simply misremembered something he said to a reporter about something that wasn’t even a crime a year or so before he gave his testimony?

I certainly don’t think that, and I think any objective review of the case (from a point of view that has little to do with “GET BUSH!” attitudes), would conclude the same.