So, a crooked hypocrite gets rewarded. Only in America. The guy is scum. And no, I'm not going to get into why he's scum. There have been countless posts in this forum detailing the crap he pulled. Truly a disgusting individual. I'm sorry he is now associated with something in Texas. I always had a soft spot for Baylor. Maybe because of Singletary, maybe because of that cute Baptist girl I once knew... I don't know and now it doesn't matter. Baylor's dead to me now.
I don't know much about the guy. All I'm hearing around Waco is that he is a polarizing figure, but I haven't understood the reasons for the claim. Could someone give me a brief explanation of what rimrocker is talking about? It sounds serious.
He was the guy who was supposed to investigate Clinton/Whitewater as a special prosecutor, didn't find anything, but just hung around on the government's dime until he could back Clinton into a corner on the Monica Lewinsky thing, which was entirely unrelated to what he was supposed to be going after. He was essentially the special Congressional Republican "get Clinton" man. It was very sorted. He was a key figure in helping steer the political dialogue toward the current partisan rancor. If you think the Democrats treated dubbya wrong, he was the guy who ushered in the "gloves off" and "gotcha" approach.
As a Baylor alum, all of my thoughts were wrapped up in Chris Seay's Open Letter to the Regents of Baylor University. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- The key to the success of great movements or institutions is the ability to gather a diverse constituency around a common mission, for Baylor University the mission is clear, “Pro Ecclesia, Pro Texana”. If we are to reach our vast potential, unity is an absolute necessity. Aesop said it well, “United we Stand, and divided we fall” while Dr. Jack Shepherd of the ABC hit show LOST boldly declared “We can live together, or we can die alone”, and better than either of these Jesus prayed that “We (Ecclesia) would be One, in the same way He is one with the Father”. The unity and diversity that once made Baylor strong, for reasons that remain unclear, became the source of intense bickering, verbal assaults, and entrenched separations in the late 1990’s. The Baylor Family has been continually fractured and divided and our previous President was dismissed for one reason, because he was unable to unite the deep-rooted divisions in Baylor Life. It seemed clear to all that the next President of our great University must be more Billy Graham than Karl Rove. We need someone who is able to remind us that our diverse views and experiences allow for the kind of educational environment that we can all be proud to offer our children. Instead of seeking a peacemaker, the Board of Regents has selected one of the most polarizing public figures in recent history, and in doing so, has injected partisan politics as one more reason to seek division rather than unity in the Baylor family. I know and respect many who serve as Regents of Baylor University. In the end, I must trust their judgment. But, I do not understand a selection that increases division and on the surface makes the work of healing much more difficult. I am choosing to be supportive of this new President; primarily because I have seen the way that resentment distracts us all from our mission. But I encourage the Board of Regents to take significant steps toward bringing all of Baylor together. If this is to happen they must begin to give influence to a new generation of leaders that will move Baylor into the future, instead of fighting the battles of our divisive past. May Baylor University find it’s place as a blessing to the Church and the Great State of Texas as we move forward together. Sic Em! Rev. Chris Seay Pastor of Ecclesia Houston President of Ecclesia Bible Society
No, the situations are so far apart that they are not even apples and oranges, they are apples and submarines.
Please go back and read up on the Plame case. The conviction in the Plame case was, indeed, directly related to the Plame case.
Fitzgerald knew almost immediately that the leak did not come from the VP's office. However he continued to grill people until he was able to get a guy on a he-said-she-said charge. Pretty much sitting around until someone screws up.
what? Scooter Libby is from the VP's office. He was guilty of obstructing justice and false statements to Federal investigators and perjury all concerning the Plame leak. He was the VP's chief of staff. I would say that comes from the VP's office. Your facts on the case are very misinformed. It's almost like you've been relying on basso for your information.
Richard Armitage, who worked for Secretary of State Colin Powel, was the source of the leak, not Libby. Fitzgerald knew from the begining who the source of the leak was and that the leak was inadvertant. Rather than just come out and say there was nothing there, he had Armitage keep quiet while he went on a witch hunt. He was finally able to get a conviction on Libby for covering up a non-crime. The U.S. Government spent nearly $3 million dollars investigating what amounts to nothing. Very similar to the Clinton investigation.
The "leak" was not a crime according to Fitzgerald. If the leak was a crime why was no one prosecuted for it?
People were murdered by Jack the Ripper. If nobody was prosecuted for it does that mean there was no crime committed? Again not having the evidence needed to get a conviction is far different than whether or not a crime was committed.
Because Libby obstructed justice to cover it up. If someone commits a murder and the only witness to the crime lies about it, so that the murderer cannot be prosecuted, that does not mean murder is not a crime. Why wingnuts fail to grasp this basic concept continues to mystify me.
What part of "Patrick Fitzgerald knew who the leaker was from the very begining and it wasn't from the VP's office," do you guys not understand? Armitage himself admited to it on national TV. Plenty of evidence to get a conviction if it was a crime.
