ArizonaSunSwitch
Posts: 205
Joined: 11/14/2005 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: philosophy ...or even worse it was the White House........and suppose that, in order to silence the critic they outed his wife......who happens to be working undercover for the US......and then, once someone had been charged and convicted in relation to the offence that the president pardoned the perp. Appalling eh? And suppose this woman wasn't undercover, that in fact her grade school child knew and told his whole class. In fact, what if she actually worked at CIA headquarters (no one undercover does, by defination) ? Suppose she sent her clueless about nuclear technology husband to a do an "investigation" about yellowcake inquiries by Saddam's regime in order to embarass the President. Both of them should of been out on their asses, unemployed, immediately. England and every other country that has intelligence assets in the area and commented about it still stand by the original story. And as far as the conviction goes. He was tried in a DC district that was 9 to 1 democrat. His counsel ran out of pre-empertory challenges to potential jurors because there's no one in DC that will give a republican a fair shake. Hence, his conviction for obstruction of justice *DESPITE* there being no underlying crime. A first in the US justice system. And boys and girls, if they can do it to him, they can do it to anybody. If you don't believe me just look at the outrage that Bush commuted his sentence instead of pardoning him. Since he wasn't pardoned he still has a right to appeal, an appeal that won't revolve around DC socialist jurors. Seems certain people in the government would rather see him pardoned instead of him getting a true hearing.
|