Al Gore's son arrested for drug possession again.

He actually committed a real crime.

Commuting a sentence doesn't negate the conviction... it let's the jury verdict stand.

I learned that from watching the news!

lying to FBI and lying to Grand Jury isn't "real crime"

Interesting.

What did he "lie" about, hmmmm? If there was a crime, why was he not charged, hmmmm?

Oh, wasn't this supposed to be the "smoking gun" for impeachment?

On the other hand, driving while intoxicated and possessing drugs IS a crime.

report a crime that didn't happen,

How ya' doin'?

I notice you didn't say that lying to the FBI and lying to the Grand Jury wasn't a "real crime"


he was found guilty

Has the President said he wasn't guilty?

He said the punishment was too harsh.

NOT that he wasn't guilty.

No. I did.

What was he "lying" about, hmmmmm?

I guess that was just a 90s thing.

Gee! What a surprise!

In your opinion, is a lie in court perjury regardless of what is being lied about, or isn't it?

I'm not a lawyer. But I don't think he lied.

A Prosecutor can find a "lie" in any testimony.

Joe Wilson on the other hand...

Thanks for the clarification.

If you don't remember something it's not a lie. Do you remember the details and dates of all your unimportant conversations?

You WANT it to be a lie because of your bias, but it is clear and obvious that there never was a case here; there was no crime. WHY have Plame and Wilson never been charged for their lies? Why has Richard Armitage, who REALLY "outed" Plame not been charged?

Could it be that no one was ever REALLY concerned about her status but instead was hellbent to besmirch the Administration?

Hmmm?

All a person has to say is I forget.

I know nothing! Sgt Shultz Hogans Heros

As the "Church Lady' used to say

How Conveeeenient!

And you want it to not be a lie because of your bias?

The Jury is biased, Prosecutor is biased, everyone is biased EXCEPT you.

As my mother told our neighbour as I marched by in a parade.

Everyone is out of step but my son.

I am not the only one who thinks that, by a long shot.

Look, the entire premise of this case was that Libby "outed" Plame. The guy who really did has been revealed. Libby was never even charged with that particular "crime". It is OBVIOUS to all what is going on.

At least try tot pretend to be fair.

If a person says someone is guilty BEFORE they have a trial

You say wait until they have a trial

AFTER they have a trial and are found guilty

You say

Try and be fair.

Did Gore's son have a trial yet?

Be fair?

The jury heard the evidence, they heard the "way the people said what they said", they made the decision.

IN MY OPINION, the jury was wrong.

Look at the facts. WHY was Libby not charged with the "crime" of outing Plame? The case falls apart on that point. IF you are fair, that should bother you. He was obviously railroaded.

I said nothing about the guilt or innocence of Gore III. Just reported the news.

Who said this?

He actually committed a real crime.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

I COULD have been referring to the LAST time he got caught, but...

In this case a real crine was committed, regardless of whether he's convicted of it or not. I did not say he was guilty.

My point was that possessing drugs and driving 100 mph on public roads is a real crime. Libby has not even been charged with a real crime, because none occurred.

And I do believe you know this very well. No more ride please,'kay?

I COULD have been referring to the LAST time he got caught,

Since you did. you didn't let me down.

I remember several analysts discussing Libby's testimony during the initial hearings. Their comments were exactly that it is next to impossible to remember all details of conversations days, weeks, and even months later.

If you don't remember something it is not a lie.

BUT>>>

The reason why these analysts were making these comments was because Libby had made some pretty definitive statements denying any possibility of involvement. Their analysis was that if Libby was to continue in the direction he had previously set that he would almost certainly be indicted. They remarked that all Libby had to do was come back during later testimony and say... "I was wrong before about my certainty that my office was not involved... in fact I can't be certain." Problem is... he never did. Evidence came out that showed he was wrong in his statement. Thus the perjury charge and his later conviction.

All Libby ever had to do was admit the possibility he was wrong. In his arrogance he never did and paid the price for it. The fact that all his compatriots allowed that they couldn't be sure in their hearings sealed Libby's fate. Man, Libby must have had a bad feeling as he saw everyone else leave him out in the desert to take the heat.

"Could it be that no one was ever REALLY concerned about her status but instead was hellbent to besmirch the Administration?"...

Yeah, but with all the legal brains available to Libby et al... they should have been able to see what would have flew with the special prosecutor's office and what wouldn't. I suggest that it was Libby's hardline boss that set the tactics where no doubt and 100% denial was the game plan. Something that this same office has done to this day when ever any... ANY... cooperation and accountability has been expected. Plausible deniability always plays well in DC but Libby did not say "he didn't know" which could be proven... instead he said "he knew he didn't" which couldn't be proved.

I totally agree with you that people were out to get anyone involved. I can't feel sorry for libby though because his side was out to get people too. In short, how can you get too upset when one criminal busts another? Simply means instead of 2 crooks out there, there is now 1.

First you admit it was a lie but discount it because of what he lied about; now you deny it was a lie at all. Which is it?

to distort what people say?

WHEN exactly did I "admit" it was a lie?

You know perfectly well that the case against Libby was so much doggy-doo and your side once again is shown to be completely bogus. Try not to be too bitter.

Josh, how do you feel about an attorney testifying before a grand jury saying she does not remember many details about the work she did on the transactions of a company, and later Officials of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation tell a grand jury that a document that attorney drafted previously was used ''to deceive regulators'' about that company's financing?
If she was allowed to get away with that memory "lapse", should the same be allowed with Libby?

No wonder your memory is shaky!

Does WJC or HRC ring any bells?

... it's "real" crime.

Just like possession of pain killers or viagra without prescription or gained through doctor shopping is a real crime.

The pot is clearly recreational. Of course viagra could be considered recreational too... hmmm.


Any which way you look at it, the fellow did break the laws of the land... but as long as no violence occurred from his drug use I would be more concerned about stopping him from future use. If he continues to resist... like blowing off substance abuse treatment like a young debutant recently did, then jail is the best place to drive home the severity of his infractions and socially destructive behavior.

you'll find that "viagra" case you are referring to was NOT a crime at all.

But, whatever.