Posted on 03/07/2005 4:13:42 PM PST by Libloather
Don't let that optimism overwhelm you!!
I'm not going to point you to anything.
You said, "you can make book on it".
Please show me what evidence you have to support that statement - and past history has nothing to do with it.
Your statement is just your wishful thinking - and you have nothing of substance to support your contention that I "can make book on it".
-------Please show me what evidence you have to support that statement - and past history has nothing to do with it.------
It has everything to do with it. The Republicans have not shown the ability or willingness to get in close and slide a blade in the ribs for the last 35 years. More to the point, what evidence do we have that they are willing to do it now? None.
Wishful thinking is when you hope they will do something that they have not to come close to doing in the past.
Do you not, in your life, have reasonable expectations that those around you will behave tomorrow pretty much as they behaved yesterday, and the days preceeding?
If you asked a woman for a date 50 times in 2 years, and she always said emphatically NO, would it be reasonable to assume that she will eagerly embrace you on the 51st try? Past experience does count.
Legally, SB rates 15 years in leg irons. And if he gets them, I'll leave cookies and milk out for Santa.
United States Code Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure
Part I. Crimes
Chapter 37. Espionage and Censorship
§ 793. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense,
(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or
(2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer--
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Berger has been under investigation since fall of 2003. 2003! Could this be any more investigated? Berger is liable under 793(f)1 for sure, RIGHT NOW. Indicting him for either 793(f)(1) or 793(f)(2) is a lock. I understand that you think there may be some other reason for a slow indictment on the charge. But the man is not getting any more guilty, and he's not going to talk about it if he hasn't by now. Besides, what would he possibly add to make him MORE guilty? He's going to be stupid enough to say, "Oh, I did it for Bill!" Really? The DOJ is expecting a Clintonista to roll over? The only Clinton cronies that have done that have ended up dying in prison, while the ones that keep their mouths shut get pardoned or get off.
But if you want to pontificate about how closed-mouth our administration is about this stuff, you should listen to the chief weasel for the other side point out how that simply isn't true here. And for that matter, whatever happened to THIS, which is what Waxhead is bitching about? It got awful quiet over there all of a sudden.
DOJ may well have some ace up its sleeve, but there is no good reason for them to hide it, and it's bad precedent if that's what they're doing. There is no reason that this little weasel hasn't been prosecuted, and if he isn't, it's a travesty of justice. AFN runs ads all the time talking about how the average buck private can go to jail for doing what he did. The SOB was a former NSA guy! He shoulda been strung up a long time ago!
Bump to that.
Sorry .. I don't conform to your standards.. I'm not a trained monkey!
The Grim Burglar was pardoned by ex-TRIMPOTUS in anticipation of this...j/k
Well .. if your choice is knife wielding - rude - arrogant - jackasses - you don't want republicans. That description more properly fits the democrats - who are good at getting in close and sliding a blade in the ribs - just like they did to the repub chairman on the Intelligence Committee.
And .. what has that type of attitude gained them ..??
I really doubt you're rooting for the republicans at all. Just a guess.
Well .. if you were stupid enough to ask the same woman for a date 50 times and she turned you down - then you're not very good at checking to see if the problem might have been YOU.
You sure do know your limitations. Sorry I pressed you to live up to too high a measure. Next time I run into you on FR, I'll remember you can't do what a trained monkey could, and ensure any posts to you take that into account.
And a wrong assumption at that. I simply don't have unrealistic expectations of how they will behave.
Well .. if you were stupid enough to ask the same woman for a date 50 times and she turned you down - then you're not very good at checking to see if the problem might have been YOU.
Thanks for making my point. And BTW, I am not stupid enough to do that. Which is why I don't expect to see the Republicans act differently than they have the last 50 times.
if your choice is knife wielding - rude - arrogant - jackasses
That's your [incorrect] inference. What I want is for the Republicans to go onto the football field wearing pads and cleats.....not tutus. Politics is a rough and tumble enterprise. You do not win by leading with your chin.
"Thanks for making my point"
No I didn't - you actually missed the point.
You ask Joan 50 times for a date.
50 times Joan says no.
You then blame Joan.
Excuse me .. what if you are not doing your part - no bath, no shaving, no dressing neatly. Aren't you the problem - not Joan ..??
As yes .. when we can't get people to jump through hoops - just start the arrogant name calling. Perfect!
Why do you have your panties in such a twist?
You are arguing ad absurdium about the wording of a metaphor I used to describe Republican timidity; as if, by deconstructing the metaphor, you will somehow defeat the argument I am making.
You ask Joan 50 times for a date. 50 times Joan says no. You then blame Joan.
No, that is not at all what I said. Go back and read it again. I said that if you (meaning anyone) repeatedly gets rejected, then it is not logical to think that the 51st attempt will turn out any differently than the first 50.
Thus, my postulate: The Republicans have never (or very rarely) played hardball in similar situations. Ipso facto, it is not logical to expect them to do it now.
You are free to disagree with that. However, IMO you are betting on it because you want it to happen. I want it to happen, also. I just don't believe it will.
Realism is not defeatism.
"Why do you have your panties in such a twist?"
Good bye!!
Caught stuffing secret doc's down his PANTS!!!!
What excuse could ther possibly be?
Oh yeah, I forgot, all the doc's got returned - except the ones that got "accidentaly" destroyed.
The case isn't closed.
I still say - it takes time to put this kind of case together. We need to be patient. I know it's hard, but we must be sure we have a good case before we go to court or we waste our time and money and they escape. Better to spend a little more time in preparation and be sure.
Last I heard the FBI agent in charge of the investigation was caught sleeping with a Chicom agent.
I believe Clinton signed a document on the last day of his term - which forced him to acknowledge certain crimes. What he was given in return I don't remember.
What people don't realize is that you can have a lot of evidence and believe you can get a conviction - but if all the judges WHERE YOU ARE REQUIRED TO FILE THE CASE - are all appointed by Clinton .. Just what action do you think you're going to get ..?? And why is the democrat senate trying so hard to keep Bush's judges off the DISTRICT courts where the stuff about Clinton would be presented. I've been wondering lately if the push is on from the senate because the statute of limitations on prosecution might be running out and the dems want to keep our judges off the courts until then. Just a guess.
If you're unable to understand how that works - you're not paying attention. You want vengence and how our justice system works just doesn't even compute. I'm sick of hearing all this stuff - the law can only do what it can do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.