Why do all the Dems. on this morning's talk shows let the Rs get away with the "no underlying crime"

[jenmito]

lie? David Gregory had a Repub. guest, sorry, can't remember who he was, that said Fitzgerald knew from the very beginning that there was no underlying crime and that Armitage was THE leaker but went on with the investigation anyway. Nobody challenged that. Same on Faux News Sunday when Brit Hume said the same exact thing and the Dem., Congressman Chris Van Hollen, accepted the talking point. WHY? It's maddening!

[Totally Committed]

1. Why do we expect anything different than the normal wimp-ass, no-guts,

missing backbone, cat-got-their-tongues behavior they have given us now for YEARS?

I'm so disgusted with them all I could just SPIT.

TC

[jenmito]

2. I bet Debbie Wasserman-Schultz would've set them straight...

but these people just accept the RW BS that Armitage was THE leaker and there was no underlying crime. Do they even KNOW that Libby prevented Fitzgerald from getting to who leaked Plame's name?

[bluestateguy]

3. I'd like to just see a defendant try to use that "no underlying crime" defense in court

By that logic, Martha Stewart should never have been convicted, as she was not charged with insider trading, but rather, with lying to federal investigators. She actually went to prison too.

What if, for example, all of the perverts arrested in Chris Hansen's "To Catch a Predator" on Dateline NBC, went before a judge a jury and based their defense on having committed no underlying crime? What if they claimed that they did not actually solicit a minor because the person they were talking to all along was an adult decoy? Well you know as well as I do that a judge and jury would laugh them all the way to a conviction and a jail sentence.

[jenmito]

5. I've heard more than one defense attorney say...

they're going to use this as their defense as to why their clients should get off.

[Totally Committed]

6. Brilliant!

I'd like to just see a defendant try to use that "no underlying crime" defense in court... By that logic, Martha Stewart should never have been convicted, as she was not charged with insider trading, but rather, with lying to federal investigators. She actually went to prison too.

That is EXACTLY what they should say! Very well-put.

They could also add "But Martha Stewart is a Democrat..." as a coup des gras, but I still like the to-the-point brilliance of your quote, as-is, I think.

TC

[jenmito]

8. They SAID they're going to use that defense in court!

That this was a gift to defense attorneys all over the country.

[Totally Committed]

12. I can't wait to see what happens if/when a few dozen "felons" go free

because of this bullsh*t, can you?

This is such a refreshing thread, jenmito! Thanks for giving us something besides you-know-who to talk about. :)

TC

[jenmito]

13. I agree...

And it WILL happen! Thanks a lot! :hi:

[C_U_L8R]

4. Assuming Armitage was one of the the leakers...

that does not make anyone else's leaking of a covert CIA agents identity any less of a crime
and it certainly does not absolve Libby of LYING to a Grand Jury and OBSTRUCTING justice.

Geez.. are Republicans seriously this braindead ???? WTF !!!!

Really.... WTF !!!

[jenmito]

7. The problem is the DEMS. are accepting their talking point...

that Armitage was THE (only) leaker and there was no underlying crime. I can't stand it!

[C_U_L8R]

10. I can't stand it either

I wish our guys would start poking those repukes in the chest
and call them out on their so-obvious lies and distortions.

If our elected representatives keep wimping out and
hiding from confrontation, the outcome is pretty elementary.

C'mon... busting lying pukes is FUN !!!!!!

[jenmito]

15. Maybe we should call these congressmen and senators...

and give them a piece of our mind!

[nancyr]

14. It's all just a game.

I think I figured this all out years ago. Politicians are all one and the same. They pretend to rile each other up in order to fool us dimwits out here into thinking there are actually Democrat and Republican parties, and that we might actually have some say in what happens. I think they all get together and snigger at how dumb we are, while they go about their little game of pretense. Yes, I know I sound sort of nutty, but what else can explain the utter lack of accountability that is taking place now? Every day brings yet another sickening outrage....and yet they all merely look "concerned" and pontificate endlessly....while doing nothing. They all march to the same beat and they all owe the entities that own them. Seems fairly obvious to me at this point. I'm thinking it's way past time for us all to wake up from this charade of a two-party system. They throw us an occasional bone or a circus to keep our attention while they continue to do as they please.

[jenmito]

9. Arlen Specter said the same thing and Leahy didn't refute it!

THAT I couldn't believe, but the two DID agree to have Fitzgerald testify, and Specter wants him to testify to explain why he kept on with the investigation "even though he knew early on there was no underlying crime." Maybe THEN Fitzgerald will set the record straight.

[0007]

11. Why do 40% of Americans still believe that Iraq was involved in 911?

I'll tell you why. Because FAUX Nooz and all the folks from the weekly standard sez so!

Pricks like William Kristol and David Rivkin pack a big punch, as does James A. Baker.

The Carlyle Group

[jenmito]

16. Exactly. It's as if all we have are Olbermann and Shuster!

Shuster was great correcting the lying RWers, but nobody else has.

[0007]

17. Shuster was magnificent - if only we could get Shuster on his own

program on prime time. Phil Donahue is one I indeed miss and needs a slot on prime time also.

[jenmito]

23. "If only" is right...

He didn't let ANY of the talking points go unanswered. He cut them off, shut them down, and set the record straight!

[IndianaGreen]

18. The Democratic establishment is opposed to impeaching Cheney

Any discussion that supports the notion that Libby's commutation was part of the White House coverup of crimes by Bush and Cheney, could lead the public to conclude that impeachment was not only warranted but imperative.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

19. saw that too...

with Hatch and ? on, I think, This Week.

pissed me off.

[jenmito]

24. I don't think that ws "This Week"...

I think it was Face the Nation...not sure, but it wasn't This Week.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

33. You're right...

It was early, and I was hungover. :blush:

[barack4prez]

20. I still don't know why

Rove and Harlow were not indicted. I guess Fitzgerald didn't think he could prove that Armitage knew that Plame was covert, but that doesn't apply to Rove and Harlow.

[jenmito]

25. I guess Rove's 4 or 5 testimonies...

made Fitzgerald unable to prove Rove lied purposely and just didn't remember? I heard Fitzgerald doesn't like to indict unless he's SURE he'll get a conviction.

[Greyhound]

21. Because they all work for the same company.

Two faces, one beast.

[jenmito]

26. Not all of them. n/t

[Greyhound]

34. No, there are a few. They're the ones who's names nobody knows

that don't have any important committee assignments, and who certainly will never be seen on any of the "Sunday morning shows".

[here_is_to_hope]

22. Its because they are all in

one big bed together...its maddening and really scary at the same time.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

27. The underlying crime is "treason" and every one is afraid to utter the word. nt.

[struggle4progress]

28. Perhaps the President could posthumously pardon Alger Hiss as well.

[depakid]

29. Learned helplessness

it's almost as though the "representatives" on these shows want to look pathetic.

[jenmito]

30. But why?

On This Week, Katrina Vanden Houvel was getting into it but G.S. cut her off because they had no time to continue on that topic. :eyes:

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

31. Why not spread this everywhere you can

Knowledge is power

http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Plame_Leak_timeline

[jenmito]

32. Hey, thanks!

I will! :hi: