|
herfacechair -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/5/2007 4:02:33 PM)
|
farglebargle: By "Lawyer type" you mean Former UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, don't you?
Doesn’t matter, a former US Attorney that bases her argument on things that people have already seen on the news, vice more substantial documentations and evidence, isn’t one to be taken seriously, especially if she’s got an ax to grind against a president she’s ideologically opposed to, and especially if she hasn’t come under cross examination.
farglebargle: And no, I don't take her words about Bush's potential guilt. I have studied her legal argument and concluded that there exists Probable Cause to believe that Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, et. al. committed violations against, specifically, 18 USC 371.
Oh really?
“Because you were fucking IDIOTS to fall for Bush's Criminal Fraud,” -farglebargle
“IN FACT, Bush had to commit Felony Fraud in violation of 18 USC 371 to invade and occupy Iraq,” -farglebargle
As “evidence” to back those statements, you referenced a former US Attorney who is ideologically opposed to President Bush.
This isn’t you saying that there’s probable cause that they probably committed something, that’s you arguing with conviction that the President committed fraud under 18 USC 371.
Also, I don’t consider that a real legal argument when it’s based on reports that take the administration way out of context, and assumes that the people involved sees the same things she sees.
farglebargle: And I observe that YOU did not provide any positive defenses to the alleged overt acts. Well, there may have been a reply, but it was obvious that the reasoning was flawed, and the understanding of applicable law was imperfect, but I pointed that out at the time, IIRC.
See the contradiction here?
Not much of an observation if you’re not sure if there was a reply or not. Having said that, if you’re not sure if there was a reply, how could you, in good conscience, say what was obvious or not, and what kind of counter argument I’ve presented?
Your statement that the reasoning was “flawed” isn’t based on your reading what I’m saying with the intentions of understanding what I’m saying, but based on the no brainer reality that you and I are in disagreement.
However, the reality is that Elizabeth De La Vega didn’t introduce anything that wasn’t introduced in the news, and her reasoning was seriously flawed, assumed that her views were “no brainers” to the administration, and so on.
Her lack of understanding and knowledge of asymmetrical warfare and the geostrategic threats we faced PAINFULLY SHOWED throughout her “overt acts” screed.
I presented a logical argument proving her dishonest tome wrong.
farglebargle: No EVIDENCE == No Sarin. Of course, the clinically paranoid will disagree.
On one hand, we have the news, the troops in the field, the people treating those troops, and Iraq inspection team all saying that this was sarin.
On the other hand, we have farglebargle saying that since he hasn’t seen the lab results, there’s “no” sarin.
HMMM. Who should I believe? Lets make this comparison easier:
“No EVIDENCE == No Sarin. Of course, the clinically paranoid will disagree.” -farglebargle
“A roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent recently exploded near a U.S. military convoy” -U.S. Military
“The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt
“Tests on an artillery shell that blew up in Iraq on Saturday confirm that it did contain an estimated three or four liters of the deadly nerve agent sarin.” Department of Defense officials
You DID read the article before posting this, didn’t you farglebargle?
quote:
ORIGINAL: farglebargle
quote:
ORIGINAL: herfacechair
Farglebargle, do you have the official federal court ruling, conviction, jury verdict, or plea deal indicating that George Bush committed what you claimed he committed? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Um, let's see. Since de la Vega's point is that there should be a Grand Jury convened, and her presentments are a simulation of that Grand Jury presentation, then of course there is no ruling, conviction, verdict or plea that the alleged criminals committed the enumerated offenses.
You DIDN’T answer the question!
First, copy and paste that question over to your reply, and place an “X” in the option that applies to your response.
YOUR responses to the other posters indicate that there has to be a CONVICTION FIRST before you could label someone as having committed a crime. YOU made statements about Bush of committing fraud, and referenced Elizabeth De La Vega’s “charges” as “proof” that Bush committed fraud.
I noticed that you used “Alleged criminals”, vis a vis Bush and co, in committed the offenses.
What YOU said:
quote:
ORIGINAL: farglebargle
The phrase is ALLEGED CRIMINAL.
And Scott Ritter IS NOT AN ALLEGED CRIMINAL.
There are no charges, there is no prosecution, there is no alleged crime.
Yet, here you are insinuating that the people in Elizabeth De La Vega’s list of defendants are “alleged criminals”.
You killed two birds with one stone in your response to my question. You proved yourself wrong with regards to Bush and co’s “guilt”, per your own argument, and you prove our statements right that you use double standards when looking at other people’s guilt.
farblebargle: I would suggest, however, that since the Grand Jury voted to indict the Enron Gang, and the offense is pretty similar, that given the simulated Grand Jury presentation de la Vega created, that the Bush Grand Jury *would* vote to indict.
First, neither you nor Elizabeth De La Vega have proven that Bush and CO have done what you accused him of doing. You haven’t proven his “guilt”. You’ve got no legs to stand on when saying that these are similar.
Second, you’re comparing apples and oranges.
Enron’s case was black and white, and clear cut. They had a paper trail, and there were applicable laws. The Iraq War is part of an asymmetrical war, where not even the United Nations has laws effectively dealing with unrestricted warfare, or how to react to such.
Two totally different scenarios.
Based on what Elizabeth De La Vega presented, alone, and especially without being subjected to a cross examination, no logical and level headed person would vote to indict or convict Bush and co.
However, here you are again, insinuating that Bush is “guilty” of fraud based on your assumptions of what a Jury would vote in this case.
Not quite the same thing as having an actual indictment, or conviction, in hand. Which is what you argue should be available before you say that someone committed a criminal act.
farblebargle: Of course, that's hypothetical,
Therefore, by your own argument, you’re wrong in saying that Bush committed fraud.
farblebargle:since Monica Goodling made sure there are ONLY Fundamentalist Religious Extremists subscribing to HER religious and political litmus tests working at the DOJ, you won't find anyone to actually bring the case before a Grand Jury. RED HERRING.
First, this is a red herring statement, as you make assumptions about the character of people working at the Department of Justice.
Second, the DOJ has held investigations that involved people from the White House. For your theory to be true, this wouldn’t have happened.
Third, we have a congress that’s under Democratic control. The House could initiate impeachment proceedings against the President. But they haven’t. That speaks volumes against your arguments that the President would get away with this if he actually committed “fraud”, because the people that make the decisions are “religious extremists.”
And for extra fun, I’ll point out another contradiction in your statement.
Religious “extremists” excusing fraud, involving “lies”, doesn’t’ quit go hand in hand.
farblebargle: Now, are you ignorant of the Grand Jury process, or do you have some sort of point to make? RED HERRING.
I’ve always had a point in these arguments. I can’t help it if you refuse to see that I have a point.
I’m aware of the grand jury process, but we’re not arguing about the grand jury process.
We’re talking about your arguments indicating that you can’t call someone a certain label until they’ve had a conviction. This is right after you’ve called the President a certain label, one that would have to be proven with a conviction.
This part of the debate is about your double standards, and about whether you can walk the walk instead of just talk the talk. This part of the debate is also about whether you could hold yourself to the same standards you hold the other side of the argument or not. The latter is about your double standards.
Then there’s the rest of the debate where you’re constantly failing to answer simple, straightforward questions that has everything to do with what we’re arguing.
|
|
|
|
