because you evidently didn t like my conditonal point

Close.

I didn’t like the fact that you weaseled out of your own argument by appending a pro forma “conditionalization.” That’s just b.s.

You wrote: “He spent a lot of money and didn t find that person – if that person exists. What he did do is in the process of the investigation, after eliciting tons of testimoney, catch somebody in an inconsistency.”

You have no way of knowing what Fitzgerald did or didn’t find. You have no way of knowing if he intends to bring charges based on “catch(ing) somebody in an inconsistency.”

When this is pointed out to you, you reply, “Aha! Conditionalized!” If you’re willing to lower your standards to engage in this kind of two-bit sophism, I’m willing to lower mine with a few intimations of baryard misconduct.

No, no, no. There was no  semi-personal crudity. I conditionalized it!

Right. It was a personal cheap shot because you evidently didn’t like my conditonal point. I make note of it because was below your typical standards of discourse. I’m done with it.

Dugger

You seldom lapse into such semi-personal crudity.

No, no, no. There was no “semi-personal crudity.” I conditionalized it!

Why you must be proud of yourself, Quaker. You seldom lapse into such semi-personal crudity.

Dugger

I conditionalized (not a word) my statement to the effect if this was the case.

Yes. Nifty rhetorical fakery, that.

“The commentor who calls himself ‘Dugger’–if that poster actually exists–is known among lifestock farmers throughout northern Georgia. He is not welcome around barns and feed pens unescorted.”

Conditionalized.

Dugger

ewk, You’re a day late and a dollar short. I think it was overkill re Clinton and have said so. His actual harm to other individuals was minimal (Paula Jones). Likewise as the thread above now perfectly illustrates, the leak has been forgotten here and its just get Rs any way possible – even as collateral damage in an unsuccessful leak investigation.

And ewk, while I fully assert no major harm was done by Bubba’s shenanigans, why do progressives insist on saying his ‘crime’ was lying about sex? I mean did OJ just lie about gloves or shoes? That it? He fibbed in a sexual harassment depostion. I could more easily argue that there should have never been a deposition than lie about it by characterizing it as a lie about sex. It was a lie about sexual harassment. OJs lies were about murder.

Dugger

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/chap_28.htm

Leo: I thought about it later, and I realized someone would probably say that.

But I thought it would be someone more imaginative than you. Sorry I had such low expectations.

Should I get in touch with alexcorrigan?

After years of this GOP monopoly of federal government I was thinking there were no checks and balances left. But when criminal acts are committed, eventually law enforcement comes around. ‘Bout time.

Bill O’Reilly needs bodyguards, and so he’s thinking of retiring.

http://tinyurl.com/9z5zf

As for criminalization of politics, it happens when politicians are criminals.

This should be the obvious retort to the talking point. When Fox News, or anyone else, uses the phrase “criminialization of politics,” rational people need to turn the phrase around.

Yes, Mr. Fox anchor, you’re right: the Plame leaker criminalized politics by committing a crime for political gain.

He spent a lot of money and didn t find that person – if that person exists. What he did do is in the process of the investigation, after eliciting tons of testimoney, catch somebody in an inconsistency

Sounds like you’ve been on the receiving end of a few leaks yourself. What leads you to believe any of this?

Truly one of Dugger’s more idiotic utterances.

First, it’s always difficult to prosecute any crime when those involved lie or omit relevant details or otherwise obstruct or impede an investigation. That’s why doing so is a prosecutable crime.

Second, if as Dugger erroneously maintains, a crime wasn’t committed–why not tell the truth? The truth is always your best defense. Why commit perjury–why obstruct justice?

You tried that, Special Prosecutor with a virtually unlimited budget and power could only come up with lying about sex. How many millions did he spend to find that Whitewater didn’t implicate Clinton in anything? It would be interesting to see a SP with similar powers digging into all of Bush’s bizness deals back in Texas (Rangers stadium anyone?)

What is telling about the current round is that this is all being done via standard law enforcement; Fitzgerald was appointed by Ashcroft and has worked with a standard Grand Jury and had to get judges to approve all his subpoenas (he doesn’t have any special powers), The FBI is after Abramoff. Local grand juries are indicting Delay. The SEC is investigating Frist on their own.

Congressional Democrats can’t even hold hearings let alone appoint prosecutors; there is no vast left wing conspiracy that has any actual official power at the moment