Maybe it takes a woman to handle these morons ...

Let's see, Clinton was the focus of an investigation into whether or not he had an improper relationship with an intern. He said no, a lie. He was attacked viciously for months on end for the lie, was impeached and was forced to offer a public and embarrassing apology.

Fredo and all the guys who Plame is suing outed a member of the Central Intelligence Agency because they needed to discredit her husband's claims so we could, as a country, start a war, in which 2,500-plus Americans have died. In the end, her husband was absolutely 100 percent correct and we've now lost those soldiers for absolutely no reason whatsoever. To date, not one person in the administration has ever accepted an ounce of responsibility for those deaths and has never apologized to Plame or anyone else for their illegal and immoral actions.

You equating these two while asking that I not respond with hypocrisy is the very definition of hypocrisy, or stupidity. Take your pick.

 

Better go back to eighth-grade civics class, dogturd. The president has the authority to start a war. The president does not have the authority to obstruct justice.

I'll let your brilliant mind puzzle out who's who in that equation.

 

It would be a start. You have to chip away at these people. Small strokes felled great oaks.

And Idaho, by the way, you suck.

 

I see you chose stupidity. Not surprising. Not at all.

Why don't you go back through the posts and see if you can figure out why Clinton and the Monica scandal has absolutely nothing to do with what we're discussing here.

I would suggest you stop posting until you figure that out since you're making yourself look like an even bigger dipshit with each post. But then, you're just about to the peak of the dipshit mountain, so what differnce does it make.

 

Just exposing your hypocrisy, you rolling piece of maggot-infested shit.

My original point, which you seem to have lost amid your agenda-based nonsense, is there was clear obstruction of justice by our previous president, and not much in the way of penalties seemed to stick to him.

The issue isn't Monica. The issue is lying under oath.

 

Let me help you, so maybe, only if just for tonight, you'll go the hell away.

The issue that you're missing -- how, I don't know, since it's pointed out quite clearly -- is that this isn't a CRIMINAL CASE. It's a CIVIL CASE. That's why there's this "maybe this shit will bring some things out" discussion going on. That's the difference here. And that's why your "point" makes no sense. Apples and oranges.

I know it's easy for you to overlook such small details, what with them being place in such inconspicuous places like the middle of posts. Good Christ, you're a dipshit.

 

If it's a civil case, you can "bring out" all the things you want. It's still not the same as clear-cut obstruction of justice, which went basically unpunished.

 

Look, just continue on with this dumb shit if you like. You look like a complete dumbass, but what else is new.

I'm not wasting any more of my time trying to break this down into the small pieces your tiny brain can comprehend. But hey, don't let not having a rational point keep you from posting.

 

It went unpunished because he was found not guilty by the Senate.

 

'Yab --
Saw a lawyer last night on TV who said that the kind of lawsuit that is being brought here -- something called a "Bevins" action, based on a SC decision regarding some federal drug agents back in the day -- is very narrow and would preclude Novak as a defendant. In other news, the lawyer also said that the bar is set pretty high on these kind of suits and that it's 50-50 that this one gets past a motion to dismiss.
That said, please god, six months of discovery process is all I ask.

 

The president does not have the authority to start a war.
The president does not have the authority to release classified information to cover his own ass because he lied about it.

 

So what happens when Joe is on the stand and is asked why he told guests at the various dinner parties he attended that his wife worked for the CIA?

Wilson's the one who needs to be prosecuted for lying in his report on Niger and lying to the Senate because he wrote contradictory claims in his NYT piece. He also the one who put his wife's name in his vanity Who's Who entry.

Fitgerald will also get to explain how no one broke the law.

This is all a diversion to keep people from noticing the pack of lies Wilson told that Novak reported in his piece.