Reid demands "no-pardon" pledge from Bush

#76
#76
.
Juror Denis Collins summed up the dilemma that he and his associates faced behind closed doors.

"There was a frustration that we were trying someone for telling a lie apparently about an event that never became important enough to file charges anywhere else," he said Wednesday on ABC's "Good Morning America."
Click to expand...
 
#77
#77
Well when the jurors seem to feel that Cheney was the real one who needed to be on trial,
Click to expand...

I believe you've missed your goal - show me the quote (in context) where the jurors suggest Cheney should have been on trial.
 
#78
#78
Wow...again. Read the whole thing in context. You're a master about clipping one quote and spinning it to your needs. If one says the wrong person was on trial and also indicates that a prosecutor who did not bring anyone else to trial, you can put them both together to say the frustration was very apparent that the prosecutor was not fully doing his job.
 
#79
#79
volinbham said:
I believe you've missed your goal - show me the quote (in context) where the jurors suggest Cheney should have been on trial.
Click to expand...

I have. And I have made the point but apparently the obvious misses you each time. SO why should I bother? You've made it your goal to take little quotes out of context and try to make your point. Watch the interviews. Read the full articles. Then come back and make your point.
 
#80
#80
CSpindizzy said:
Wow...again. Read the whole thing in context. You're a master about clipping one quote and spinning it to your needs. If one says the wrong person was on trial and also indicates that a prosecutor who did not bring anyone else to trial, you can put them both together to say the frustration was very apparent that the prosecutor was not fully doing his job.
Click to expand...


Your whole argument is based on one quote that doesn't say the jury thought Cheney should have been on trial yet you've spun it to do so.

I've added a few more quotes from different interviews that show the jury did not state that conclusion. These quotes could suggest several different things which is the entire point - one quote about where's Rove where are those other guys doesn't hold the power you've attributed to it.
 
#81
#81
Are you that blind? My whole argument, as I have repeatedly stated, is on the entire list of interviews and articles. You've mentioned two sets of quotes that when attached to the entire article, they do not follow your point. Actually your two examples when read in their entirety make the opposite point you are trying to make.

You can keep on dancing around all you want but you've missed out on making your point. You say those quotes could suggest several things. Well here is help...if you take those quotes with the entire article, they suggest one thing. You cannot pick and choose quotes and then drop the rest of the interviews. Keep them in context.
 
#82
#82
CSpindizzy said:
I have. And I have made the point but apparently the obvious misses you each time. SO why should I bother? You've made it your goal to take little quotes out of context and try to make your point. Watch the interviews. Read the full articles. Then come back and make your point.
Click to expand...

Once again you resort to personal attacks - I've read/watched and seen.

Your argument is based on one quote. The quote was made in the middle of the answer to a much more specific question. The quote does not mention Cheney by name. The quote does not say they thought Cheney should have been on trial.

There are other quotes suggesting that they didn't consider Cheney's role, didn't know what information could be provided by his testimony and weren't asked to consider any crimes other than the crime of perjury by Libby.

Can you produce a quote other than the one you keep repeating?
 
#83
#83
CSpindizzy said:
A
if you take those quotes with the entire article, they suggest one thing. You cannot pick and choose quotes and then drop the rest of the interviews. Keep them in context.
Click to expand...

Enlighten me then - show me the interviews I'm missing because the transcript I posted does not point to the one thing you suggest.
 
#84
#84
Am I repeating one quote? Strange. I say I'm repeating to look at the entire debate. You only mention Cheney when I have also mentioned Rove. But I guess you conveniently missed that obvious statement as well.

You use quotes that refer to Cheney being called to the stand regarding Libby's defense but somehow tie the quote to Cheney's guilt or committing a crime. Try again. They didn't consider Cheney's role in the trial as far as testimony. But clearly saying the thought the wrong man was on trial means there were others they thought were involved and should be up there as well or instead of.

Clearly if they didn't consider anyone else's role, why did they debate the wrong man being on trial instead of others? Thinking someone else should be on trial means they thought about someone besides Libby. This also means that the evidence presented to them pointed out some other involvement. But they followed their duty that based on what they were charged with doing. Had they been asked to try Cheney or Rove, they might have found them guilty as well. The fact that they made the comments they did implies that there is more to this than what has been sent to a trial.
 
#85
#85
I am beginning to wonder if you are Cheney, a family member, or someone who is truly obsessed with him. After repeatedly saying this could be plural involvement, you only harp on Cheney.

Let's just agree to disagree. You clearly aren't changing your view and neither am I.
 
#86
#86
CSpindizzy said:
Am I repeating one quote? Strange. I say I'm repeating to look at the entire debate. You only mention Cheney when I have also mentioned Rove. But I guess you conveniently missed that obvious statement as well.

You use quotes that refer to Cheney being called to the stand regarding Libby's defense but somehow tie the quote to Cheney's guilt or committing a crime. Try again. They didn't consider Cheney's role in the trial as far as testimony. But clearly saying the thought the wrong man was on trial means there were others they thought were involved and should be up there as well or instead of.

Clearly if they didn't consider anyone else's role, why did they debate the wrong man being on trial instead of others? Thinking someone else should be on trial means they thought about someone besides Libby. This also means that the evidence presented to them pointed out some other involvement. But they followed their duty that based on what they were charged with doing. Had they been asked to try Cheney or Rove, they might have found them guilty as well. The fact that they made the comments they did implies that there is more to this than what has been sent to a trial.
Click to expand...

You can say you're repeating the entire debate yet you've produced nothing other than the one quote which is used out of context - he is not responding to a question about the VP, or a question about anyone else's involvement.

The quote about Cheney's testimony and the one prior say they didn't discuss Cheney's role nor would they have any perception about what he would say about it. When did they reach the conclusion then that he should be on trial? - again if you can show me just one quote that says that? When asked directly if Libby was the fall guy for the VP - he says that we never came to any conclusion other than Libby was tasked by the VP to talk to the press.

Show me the quotes where they "debated the wrong man being on trial". Other than that same old quote you don't rely on that is.
 
#89
#89
Again, your references are still not proving your point. But I guess that does not matter either.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top