Have you been following this womans testimony? The dems on the committee are leading her into lie after lie. Assuming for a moment that someone does the right thing and she gets popped for lying under oath, highly doubtful today, should those who gave her the leading questions allowing her to perjure herself, should they be tried with suborning perjury?
Waxman is definitely leading her to lie.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2NhZWZlODljMjQxZjE4ZGIyNjVkYWQ5MzhiY2FjNDA=
2007-03-20 01:22:10 · 9 answers · asked by rmagedon 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
No, by all accounts it seems that while technically she retained a classified status, possibly covert, she was not, nor had she recently been working in a covert capacity at the time.
As for her status, it is quite apparent that when she was outed, none of the people involved - Armitage, Libby, etc - had any knowledge of her having a covert status. This knowledge is absolutely required for there to have been a crime committed in her outing [for you "J'accuse" liberals].
The most questionable aspect is her continuously changing story about how her husband got the job to go to Niger. It directly contradicts the conclusions reached by the committee that investigated the rationale for the war, and seemingly contradicts her earlier testimony, and the testimony of others in the CIA who said she suggested Willson to them.
But let's let the witch hunt continue. In the end, the Democrats and the complicit media will hopefully be exposed as reprehensible "McCarthy's", for conducting this Soviet-style show trial.
2007-03-20 01:43:34 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Did you and the rest of the dimwits actually listen to the testimony? She had been putting together a network which was going to help us put HUMAN intelligence in place for Iran and their WMD (you know the thing that supposedly existed in Iraq but didn't) and getting ready to leave when she was outted, ya bunch of morons.
It was not only her that was hurt. ALL of the NOCs and others who were "covert" and working for Brewster Jennings were hurt by this. She is just the face of it.
Was Brewster Jennings a company of 1 employee? NO. George Bush is just Jesus and should be on the altar of the party for worship. Get real. The CIA ran the company which meant other "spies" worked for it, or is it because you have your heads so far up your you know whats you have not been able to figure that out yet. Get that through your stupid heads.
The CIA even limited what she could talk about because they are still trying to salvage what networks and intelligence connections were destroyed by these boneheads.
The same way Halliburtonis in Iran, possibly Brewster Jennings could have been trying to get in but that was taken apart to justify a freaking lie.
2007-03-20 02:07:23 · answer #2 · answered by thequeenreigns 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
they're now speaking militia coup (actually, some spell it coupe), armed insurrection, and centred treats in the direction of the Judges. They cry the courts are treasonous for no longer ruling their way, that's ironic as they predicted the courtroom to ignore relating to the form. they do no longer look to have actually examine the quite nicely-written decision. Congress, as actual legal specialists and actual judges shop telling them, is the only thank you to choose for now. Then the 2012 election cycle. Or convince the click to inspect and shop the problem interior the spotlight. State courts for pollquestions and skills for pollget right of entry to for primaries and elections. (As in line with state constitutions and the 10th replace.) The Electoral college until they deliver the outcomes to Congress, Congress up until inauguration, Impeachment technique after. (As in line with the form.) How hard is that to comprehend?
2016-12-18 18:37:56 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Jean, interesting theory. All of the voting problems in Florida were in Democrat counties run democrat election boards, but somehow the republicans were hiding votes? Of course, Al Gore did his best to get democrat recounters to count all of those 'pregnant chads' as votes for him in all of those democrat counties, but he still couldn't 'divine' enough votes to win the election. If this is your proof of republicans hiding votes, then I'd say we more evidence do we need that republicans should be running the country. If they can get the democrats to hide democrat votes in democrat counties then they can accomplish anything.
2007-03-20 01:59:25 · answer #4 · answered by dsl67 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Let's not count all the times Republicans have lied so if a Democrat tells one lie, People ( Republicans ) jump all over it... I SAY IMPEACH BUSH ! DOES CHRISTIANS GET DRUNK AND PLAY GOLF ON SUNDAY'S WHILE CHURCH IS GOING ON ??? HE CHEATED HIS WAY IN ANYWAYS !!! IT'S JUST THAT THE REPUBLICAN HID THE VOTES OR DIDN'T ALLOW SOME RACES TO VOTE. THEN DIDN'T REPUBLICANS KNOW HOW TO COUNT ? = BUSH IN OFFICE....
2007-03-20 01:46:37 · answer #5 · answered by Jean f 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Plame was the victim, it is Cheney and the Bush administration who feed the general public lie after lie.
2007-03-20 01:33:20 · answer #6 · answered by blogbaba 6 · 3⤊ 4⤋
what is the lie--you should get your facts straight--you sound like another rt.winger upset about election--now that the dems can call hearings you will see all the lies coming from the republicans ....
2007-03-20 01:41:32 · answer #7 · answered by pokerplayer16101 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
plame and her husband have had an agenda throughout this whole BS story.
2007-03-20 01:36:40 · answer #8 · answered by 007 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
yes...but since they are in power now it doesnt matter
2007-03-20 01:25:55 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋