| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Harry Hope" |
| Date: |
19 Oct 2005 12:07:51 PM |
| Object: |
No CIA leak special counsel report signals coming indictments |
From The New York Times, 10/19/05:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/19/politics/19leak.html?ei=5094&en=adcf3adabff56617&hp=&ex=1129694400&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1129741346-BRjyZqV263H+TJ7TnQcIvQ
No Final Report Seen in Inquiry on C.I.A. Leak
By DAVID JOHNSTON and RICHARD W. STEVENSON
WASHINGTON -
The special counsel in the C.I.A. leak case has told associates he has
no plans to issue a final report about the results of the
investigation, heightening the expectation that he intends to bring
indictments, lawyers in the case and law enforcement officials said
yesterday.
The prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, is not expected to take any
action in the case this week, government officials said.
A spokesman for Mr. Fitzgerald, Randall Samborn, declined to comment.
___________________________________________________________
Lotsa frantic Republican folks are gonna be buying lotsa tissues this
week.
Harry
.
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: No CIA leak special counsel report signals nothing |
19 Oct 2005 05:20:57 PM |
|
|
No report is required
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky " |
|
| Title: Re: No CIA leak special counsel report signals nothing |
23 Oct 2005 10:15:05 PM |
|
|
Billy wrote:
No report is required
Not when indictments will do quite nicely.
RT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: No CIA leak special counsel report signals nothing |
23 Oct 2005 10:17:28 PM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:435C51B9.1AA5DEEF@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
No report is required
Not when indictments will do quite nicely.
Think Wilson will get indicted?
RT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky " |
|
| Title: Re: No CIA leak special counsel report signals nothing |
24 Oct 2005 12:15:55 AM |
|
|
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:435C51B9.1AA5DEEF@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
No report is required
Not when indictments will do quite nicely.
Think Wilson will get indicted?
For what?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: No CIA leak special counsel report signals nothing |
24 Oct 2005 06:59:31 AM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:435C6E0B.91148118@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:435C51B9.1AA5DEEF@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
No report is required
Not when indictments will do quite nicely.
Think Wilson will get indicted?
For what?
perjury
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky " |
|
| Title: Re: No CIA leak special counsel report signals nothing |
25 Oct 2005 10:31:14 PM |
|
|
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:435C6E0B.91148118@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:435C51B9.1AA5DEEF@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
No report is required
Not when indictments will do quite nicely.
Think Wilson will get indicted?
For what?
perjury
What perjury?
RT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: No CIA leak special counsel report signals nothing |
26 Oct 2005 07:51:42 PM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:435EF882.9EDB0CBC@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:435C6E0B.91148118@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:435C51B9.1AA5DEEF@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
No report is required
Not when indictments will do quite nicely.
Think Wilson will get indicted?
For what?
perjury
What perjury?
Grand Jury testimony
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: No CIA leak special counsel report signals nothing |
27 Oct 2005 10:43:45 AM |
|
|
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:435EF882.9EDB0CBC@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:435C6E0B.91148118@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:435C51B9.1AA5DEEF@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
No report is required
Not when indictments will do quite nicely.
Think Wilson will get indicted?
For what?
perjury
What perjury?
Grand Jury testimony
yeah, and...? Cites?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: No CIA leak special counsel report signals nothing |
27 Oct 2005 05:14:22 PM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4360F5B1.F8DBDCA2@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:435EF882.9EDB0CBC@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:435C6E0B.91148118@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:435C51B9.1AA5DEEF@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
No report is required
Not when indictments will do quite nicely.
Think Wilson will get indicted?
For what?
perjury
What perjury?
Grand Jury testimony
yeah, and...? Cites?
You want a cite for me asking a question?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: No CIA leak special counsel report signals nothing |
27 Oct 2005 05:43:06 PM |
|
|
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4360F5B1.F8DBDCA2@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:435EF882.9EDB0CBC@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:435C6E0B.91148118@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:435C51B9.1AA5DEEF@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
No report is required
Not when indictments will do quite nicely.
Think Wilson will get indicted?
For what?
perjury
What perjury?
Grand Jury testimony
yeah, and...? Cites?
You want a cite for me asking a question?
For the grand jury testimony and the evidence of perjury. duh
I *dare* you to be more stupid. I dare you!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: No CIA leak special counsel report signals nothing |
27 Oct 2005 08:14:54 PM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:436157FA.A6CE4786@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4360F5B1.F8DBDCA2@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:435EF882.9EDB0CBC@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:435C6E0B.91148118@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:435C51B9.1AA5DEEF@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
No report is required
Not when indictments will do quite nicely.
Think Wilson will get indicted?
For what?
perjury
What perjury?
Grand Jury testimony
yeah, and...? Cites?
You want a cite for me asking a question?
For the grand jury testimony and the evidence of perjury. duh
I *dare* you to be more stupid. I dare you!
I can't be more stupid than you. you got me there.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky " |
|
| Title: Re: No CIA leak special counsel report signals nothing |
27 Oct 2005 09:17:17 PM |
|
|
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:436157FA.A6CE4786@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4360F5B1.F8DBDCA2@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:435EF882.9EDB0CBC@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:435C6E0B.91148118@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:435C51B9.1AA5DEEF@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
No report is required
Not when indictments will do quite nicely.
Think Wilson will get indicted?
For what?
perjury
What perjury?
Grand Jury testimony
yeah, and...? Cites?
You want a cite for me asking a question?
For the grand jury testimony and the evidence of perjury. duh
I *dare* you to be more stupid. I dare you!
I can't be more stupid than you. you got me there.
So this means you can't back up your mouth? Gosh, what a surprise there.
No perjury by Wilson then.
RT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: No CIA leak special counsel report signals nothing |
27 Oct 2005 10:24:45 PM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:43618A2D.83203D96@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:436157FA.A6CE4786@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4360F5B1.F8DBDCA2@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:435EF882.9EDB0CBC@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:435C6E0B.91148118@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
news:435C51B9.1AA5DEEF@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
No report is required
Not when indictments will do quite nicely.
Think Wilson will get indicted?
For what?
perjury
What perjury?
Grand Jury testimony
yeah, and...? Cites?
You want a cite for me asking a question?
For the grand jury testimony and the evidence of perjury. duh
I *dare* you to be more stupid. I dare you!
I can't be more stupid than you. you got me there.
So this means you can't back up your mouth? Gosh, what a surprise there.
It means I can't be as stupid as you
No perjury by Wilson then.
I did not say he committed perjury, I ask if he would be indicted. Not the
sharpest tool in the shed are you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: No CIA leak special counsel report signals nothing |
28 Oct 2005 10:10:29 AM |
|
|
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:43618A2D.83203D96@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:436157FA.A6CE4786@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4360F5B1.F8DBDCA2@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:435EF882.9EDB0CBC@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:435C6E0B.91148118@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
news:435C51B9.1AA5DEEF@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
No report is required
Not when indictments will do quite nicely.
Think Wilson will get indicted?
For what?
perjury
What perjury?
Grand Jury testimony
yeah, and...? Cites?
You want a cite for me asking a question?
For the grand jury testimony and the evidence of perjury. duh
I *dare* you to be more stupid. I dare you!
I can't be more stupid than you. you got me there.
So this means you can't back up your mouth? Gosh, what a surprise there.
It means I can't be as stupid as you
It means you're stupider ;)
No perjury by Wilson then.
I did not say he committed perjury, I ask if he would be indicted. Not the
sharpest tool in the shed are you?
Yes, you did claim that. It's right up above.
you: Think Wilson will get indicted?
me: For what?
you: perjury
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: No CIA leak special counsel report signals nothing |
28 Oct 2005 05:51:00 PM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:43623F65.8089224@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:43618A2D.83203D96@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:436157FA.A6CE4786@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4360F5B1.F8DBDCA2@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:435EF882.9EDB0CBC@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
news:435C6E0B.91148118@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
news:435C51B9.1AA5DEEF@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
No report is required
Not when indictments will do quite nicely.
Think Wilson will get indicted?
For what?
perjury
What perjury?
Grand Jury testimony
yeah, and...? Cites?
You want a cite for me asking a question?
For the grand jury testimony and the evidence of perjury. duh
I *dare* you to be more stupid. I dare you!
I can't be more stupid than you. you got me there.
So this means you can't back up your mouth? Gosh, what a surprise
there.
It means I can't be as stupid as you
It means you're stupider ;)
No perjury by Wilson then.
I did not say he committed perjury, I ask if he would be indicted. Not
the
sharpest tool in the shed are you?
Yes, you did claim that. It's right up above.
you: Think Wilson will get indicted?
me: For what?
you: perjury
Do you have a reading problem? Asking a question and making a claim are
totally different, spend some time learning English before you try to use
it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky " |
|
| Title: Re: No CIA leak special counsel report signals nothing |
30 Oct 2005 08:38:06 PM |
|
|
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:43623F65.8089224@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:43618A2D.83203D96@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:436157FA.A6CE4786@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4360F5B1.F8DBDCA2@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:435EF882.9EDB0CBC@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
news:435C6E0B.91148118@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
news:435C51B9.1AA5DEEF@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
No report is required
Not when indictments will do quite nicely.
Think Wilson will get indicted?
For what?
perjury
What perjury?
Grand Jury testimony
yeah, and...? Cites?
You want a cite for me asking a question?
For the grand jury testimony and the evidence of perjury. duh
I *dare* you to be more stupid. I dare you!
I can't be more stupid than you. you got me there.
So this means you can't back up your mouth? Gosh, what a surprise
there.
It means I can't be as stupid as you
It means you're stupider ;)
No perjury by Wilson then.
I did not say he committed perjury, I ask if he would be indicted. Not
the
sharpest tool in the shed are you?
Yes, you did claim that. It's right up above.
you: Think Wilson will get indicted?
me: For what?
you: perjury
Do you have a reading problem? Asking a question and making a claim are
totally different, spend some time learning English before you try to use
it.
Do you have a reading problem? You answered "perjury". On what basis? You
replied "Grand Jury testimony".
Duh...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: No CIA leak special counsel report signals nothing |
30 Oct 2005 10:18:57 PM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4365838E.5587410B@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:43623F65.8089224@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:43618A2D.83203D96@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:436157FA.A6CE4786@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4360F5B1.F8DBDCA2@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
news:435EF882.9EDB0CBC@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
news:435C6E0B.91148118@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
news:435C51B9.1AA5DEEF@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
No report is required
Not when indictments will do quite nicely.
Think Wilson will get indicted?
For what?
perjury
What perjury?
Grand Jury testimony
yeah, and...? Cites?
You want a cite for me asking a question?
For the grand jury testimony and the evidence of perjury. duh
I *dare* you to be more stupid. I dare you!
I can't be more stupid than you. you got me there.
So this means you can't back up your mouth? Gosh, what a surprise
there.
It means I can't be as stupid as you
It means you're stupider ;)
No perjury by Wilson then.
I did not say he committed perjury, I ask if he would be indicted.
Not
the
sharpest tool in the shed are you?
Yes, you did claim that. It's right up above.
you: Think Wilson will get indicted?
me: For what?
you: perjury
Do you have a reading problem? Asking a question and making a claim are
totally different, spend some time learning English before you try to use
it.
Do you have a reading problem? You answered "perjury". On what basis? You
replied "Grand Jury testimony".
You never answered my question, Do you think Wilson will be indicated for
perjury during his grand jury testimony? that question makes no assumptions
except that you are familiar with the case and familiar with the english
language. I was wrong
Duh...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky " |
|
| Title: Re: No CIA leak special counsel report signals nothing |
01 Nov 2005 09:37:51 PM |
|
|
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4365838E.5587410B@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:43623F65.8089224@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:43618A2D.83203D96@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:436157FA.A6CE4786@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4360F5B1.F8DBDCA2@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
news:435EF882.9EDB0CBC@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
news:435C6E0B.91148118@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
news:435C51B9.1AA5DEEF@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
No report is required
Not when indictments will do quite nicely.
Think Wilson will get indicted?
For what?
perjury
What perjury?
Grand Jury testimony
yeah, and...? Cites?
You want a cite for me asking a question?
For the grand jury testimony and the evidence of perjury. duh
I *dare* you to be more stupid. I dare you!
I can't be more stupid than you. you got me there.
So this means you can't back up your mouth? Gosh, what a surprise
there.
It means I can't be as stupid as you
It means you're stupider ;)
No perjury by Wilson then.
I did not say he committed perjury, I ask if he would be indicted.
Not
the
sharpest tool in the shed are you?
Yes, you did claim that. It's right up above.
you: Think Wilson will get indicted?
me: For what?
you: perjury
Do you have a reading problem? Asking a question and making a claim are
totally different, spend some time learning English before you try to use
it.
Do you have a reading problem? You answered "perjury". On what basis? You
replied "Grand Jury testimony".
You never answered my question, Do you think Wilson will be indicated for
perjury during his grand jury testimony? that question makes no assumptions
except that you are familiar with the case and familiar with the english
language. I was wrong
First, I have to know WHAT perjury. You keep running from showing that...
Duh...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: No CIA leak special counsel report signals nothing |
02 Nov 2005 05:38:43 PM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4368348F.FBBA87C7@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4365838E.5587410B@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:43623F65.8089224@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:43618A2D.83203D96@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:436157FA.A6CE4786@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4360F5B1.F8DBDCA2@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
news:435EF882.9EDB0CBC@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
news:435C6E0B.91148118@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote
in
message
news:435C51B9.1AA5DEEF@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
No report is required
Not when indictments will do quite nicely.
Think Wilson will get indicted?
For what?
perjury
What perjury?
Grand Jury testimony
yeah, and...? Cites?
You want a cite for me asking a question?
For the grand jury testimony and the evidence of perjury. duh
I *dare* you to be more stupid. I dare you!
I can't be more stupid than you. you got me there.
So this means you can't back up your mouth? Gosh, what a surprise
there.
It means I can't be as stupid as you
It means you're stupider ;)
No perjury by Wilson then.
I did not say he committed perjury, I ask if he would be indicted.
Not
the
sharpest tool in the shed are you?
Yes, you did claim that. It's right up above.
you: Think Wilson will get indicted?
me: For what?
you: perjury
Do you have a reading problem? Asking a question and making a claim
are
totally different, spend some time learning English before you try to
use
it.
Do you have a reading problem? You answered "perjury". On what basis?
You
replied "Grand Jury testimony".
You never answered my question, Do you think Wilson will be indicated for
perjury during his grand jury testimony? that question makes no
assumptions
except that you are familiar with the case and familiar with the english
language. I was wrong
First, I have to know WHAT perjury. You keep running from showing that...
You didn't need the Grand Jury testimony to think others should be indicted,
why do you need it for Wilson?
Duh...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky " |
|
| Title: Re: No CIA leak special counsel report signals nothing |
05 Nov 2005 01:35:08 AM |
|
|
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4368348F.FBBA87C7@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4365838E.5587410B@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:43623F65.8089224@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:43618A2D.83203D96@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:436157FA.A6CE4786@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4360F5B1.F8DBDCA2@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
news:435EF882.9EDB0CBC@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
news:435C6E0B.91148118@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote
in
message
news:435C51B9.1AA5DEEF@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
No report is required
Not when indictments will do quite nicely.
Think Wilson will get indicted?
For what?
perjury
What perjury?
Grand Jury testimony
yeah, and...? Cites?
You want a cite for me asking a question?
For the grand jury testimony and the evidence of perjury. duh
I *dare* you to be more stupid. I dare you!
I can't be more stupid than you. you got me there.
So this means you can't back up your mouth? Gosh, what a surprise
there.
It means I can't be as stupid as you
It means you're stupider ;)
No perjury by Wilson then.
I did not say he committed perjury, I ask if he would be indicted.
Not
the
sharpest tool in the shed are you?
Yes, you did claim that. It's right up above.
you: Think Wilson will get indicted?
me: For what?
you: perjury
Do you have a reading problem? Asking a question and making a claim
are
totally different, spend some time learning English before you try to
use
it.
Do you have a reading problem? You answered "perjury". On what basis?
You
replied "Grand Jury testimony".
You never answered my question, Do you think Wilson will be indicated for
perjury during his grand jury testimony? that question makes no
assumptions
except that you are familiar with the case and familiar with the english
language. I was wrong
First, I have to know WHAT perjury. You keep running from showing that...
You didn't need the Grand Jury testimony to think others should be indicted,
why do you need it for Wilson?
Didn't think you could back up your mouth.
Duh...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: No CIA leak special counsel report signals nothing |
05 Nov 2005 07:11:01 PM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:436C60AC.AE0C48C1@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4368348F.FBBA87C7@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4365838E.5587410B@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:43623F65.8089224@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:43618A2D.83203D96@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:436157FA.A6CE4786@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
news:4360F5B1.F8DBDCA2@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
news:435EF882.9EDB0CBC@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote
in
message
news:435C6E0B.91148118@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com>
wrote
in
message
news:435C51B9.1AA5DEEF@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
No report is required
Not when indictments will do quite nicely.
Think Wilson will get indicted?
For what?
perjury
What perjury?
Grand Jury testimony
yeah, and...? Cites?
You want a cite for me asking a question?
For the grand jury testimony and the evidence of perjury.
duh
I *dare* you to be more stupid. I dare you!
I can't be more stupid than you. you got me there.
So this means you can't back up your mouth? Gosh, what a
surprise
there.
It means I can't be as stupid as you
It means you're stupider ;)
No perjury by Wilson then.
I did not say he committed perjury, I ask if he would be
indicted.
Not
the
sharpest tool in the shed are you?
Yes, you did claim that. It's right up above.
you: Think Wilson will get indicted?
me: For what?
you: perjury
Do you have a reading problem? Asking a question and making a claim
are
totally different, spend some time learning English before you try
to
use
it.
Do you have a reading problem? You answered "perjury". On what
basis?
You
replied "Grand Jury testimony".
You never answered my question, Do you think Wilson will be indicated
for
perjury during his grand jury testimony? that question makes no
assumptions
except that you are familiar with the case and familiar with the
english
language. I was wrong
First, I have to know WHAT perjury. You keep running from showing
that...
You didn't need the Grand Jury testimony to think others should be
indicted,
why do you need it for Wilson?
Didn't think you could back up your mouth.
Backup a question?
Duh...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky " |
|
| Title: Re: No CIA leak special counsel report signals nothing |
09 Nov 2005 12:17:56 AM |
|
|
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:436C60AC.AE0C48C1@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4368348F.FBBA87C7@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4365838E.5587410B@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:43623F65.8089224@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:43618A2D.83203D96@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:436157FA.A6CE4786@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
news:4360F5B1.F8DBDCA2@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
news:435EF882.9EDB0CBC@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote
in
message
news:435C6E0B.91148118@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com>
wrote
in
message
news:435C51B9.1AA5DEEF@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
No report is required
Not when indictments will do quite nicely.
Think Wilson will get indicted?
For what?
perjury
What perjury?
Grand Jury testimony
yeah, and...? Cites?
You want a cite for me asking a question?
For the grand jury testimony and the evidence of perjury.
duh
I *dare* you to be more stupid. I dare you!
I can't be more stupid than you. you got me there.
So this means you can't back up your mouth? Gosh, what a
surprise
there.
It means I can't be as stupid as you
It means you're stupider ;)
No perjury by Wilson then.
I did not say he committed perjury, I ask if he would be
indicted.
Not
the
sharpest tool in the shed are you?
Yes, you did claim that. It's right up above.
you: Think Wilson will get indicted?
me: For what?
you: perjury
Do you have a reading problem? Asking a question and making a claim
are
totally different, spend some time learning English before you try
to
use
it.
Do you have a reading problem? You answered "perjury". On what
basis?
You
replied "Grand Jury testimony".
You never answered my question, Do you think Wilson will be indicated
for
perjury during his grand jury testimony? that question makes no
assumptions
except that you are familiar with the case and familiar with the
english
language. I was wrong
First, I have to know WHAT perjury. You keep running from showing
that...
You didn't need the Grand Jury testimony to think others should be
indicted,
why do you need it for Wilson?
Didn't think you could back up your mouth.
Backup a question?
Backup your claim of perjury.
Duh...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: No CIA leak special counsel report signals nothing |
10 Nov 2005 01:19:03 AM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:43719494.28CABC8@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:436C60AC.AE0C48C1@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4368348F.FBBA87C7@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4365838E.5587410B@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:43623F65.8089224@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
news:43618A2D.83203D96@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
news:436157FA.A6CE4786@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
news:4360F5B1.F8DBDCA2@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote
in
message
news:435EF882.9EDB0CBC@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com>
wrote
in
message
news:435C6E0B.91148118@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com>
wrote
in
message
news:435C51B9.1AA5DEEF@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
No report is required
Not when indictments will do quite nicely.
Think Wilson will get indicted?
For what?
perjury
What perjury?
Grand Jury testimony
yeah, and...? Cites?
You want a cite for me asking a question?
For the grand jury testimony and the evidence of
perjury.
duh
I *dare* you to be more stupid. I dare you!
I can't be more stupid than you. you got me there.
So this means you can't back up your mouth? Gosh, what a
surprise
there.
It means I can't be as stupid as you
It means you're stupider ;)
No perjury by Wilson then.
I did not say he committed perjury, I ask if he would be
indicted.
Not
the
sharpest tool in the shed are you?
Yes, you did claim that. It's right up above.
you: Think Wilson will get indicted?
me: For what?
you: perjury
Do you have a reading problem? Asking a question and making a
claim
are
totally different, spend some time learning English before you
try
to
use
it.
Do you have a reading problem? You answered "perjury". On what
basis?
You
replied "Grand Jury testimony".
You never answered my question, Do you think Wilson will be
indicated
for
perjury during his grand jury testimony? that question makes no
assumptions
except that you are familiar with the case and familiar with the
english
language. I was wrong
First, I have to know WHAT perjury. You keep running from showing
that...
You didn't need the Grand Jury testimony to think others should be
indicted,
why do you need it for Wilson?
Didn't think you could back up your mouth.
Backup a question?
Backup your claim of perjury.
I made no such claim, I mearly ask a question.
Duh...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Captain Compassion" |
|
| Title: Re: No CIA leak special counsel report signals coming indictments |
20 Oct 2005 01:47:54 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 17:07:51 GMT, Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
From The New York Times, 10/19/05:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/19/politics/19leak.html?ei=5094&en=adcf3adabff56617&hp=&ex=1129694400&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1129741346-BRjyZqV263H+TJ7TnQcIvQ
No Final Report Seen in Inquiry on C.I.A. Leak
By DAVID JOHNSTON and RICHARD W. STEVENSON
WASHINGTON -
The special counsel in the C.I.A. leak case has told associates he has
no plans to issue a final report about the results of the
investigation, heightening the expectation that he intends to bring
indictments, lawyers in the case and law enforcement officials said
yesterday.
The prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, is not expected to take any
action in the case this week, government officials said.
A spokesman for Mr. Fitzgerald, Randall Samborn, declined to comment.
___________________________________________________________
Lotsa frantic Republican folks are gonna be buying lotsa tissues this
week.
Most of the investigation was before the Grand Jury. Seeing that Grand
Jury information can't be made public then there is little to actually
report.
--
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography" -- Ambrose Bierce
"America is a vast conspiracy to make you happy." -- John Updike
"Long term commitment in relationships is only necessary because it takes
so damn long to raise children. Marriage may well be some kind of trick
to keep the males around beyond sexual satiation." -- Captain Compassion
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
