It's so easy to see Greenwald is lying.
— Seixon

Hmmm, I said, reminds me of Bart who was banned from the old UT for constantly calling Glenn a liar without being able to back it up except by lying himself. For those who don't remember Bart, he was a lot like shooter with a somewhat better vocabulary but with a shallower learning curve.

But then I remembered that Jim Montague had informed us:

Marty Lederman at Balkinization has an interesting post on the legal significance of data mining: http://balkin.blogspot.com/ seems that Marty has turned off the comments section of his blog, so our old friend Bart De Palma no longer has a home there.

And suddenly, before the thread is even over, here is "Seixon" taking over exactly were "Bart" left off last year. Now I know that "Seixon" has been who he is for a long time since I have seen him polluting threads on other sites for years as well as running his own blog; and of course "Bart" has been who he is for years as well since he corrupted the old UT from its inception until he was tossed off and went to set up headquarters at Balkinization. Quae cum ita essent, I would not normally think that "Seixon" was a Bart De Palma sock puppet (or vice-versa), but the fact that Seixon, who has never graced the pages of Salon previously just happens to show up, calling Glenn a liar, mere hours after Bart De Palma's stomping ground at Balkinization gets shut down is a bit too much of a coincidence to swallow.

LWM says:

First-- What makes you think he is a Democrat?

He has principles and he recognizes illegal and unconstitutional activity when he sees it. This precludes him from being a Republican. I suppose it is possible that there is a Republican somewhere who is principled and does not condone illegal or unconstitutional activity (the name James Comey comes to mind), but I can't imagine that shooter is capable of envisaging such a creature. Anyone who wants to report illegal and unconstitutional activities to Congress must be a Democrat in shooter's eyes.

shooter says: Like the Plame case where no crime was prosecuted, just fishing for a perjury trap.

If you were familiar with what the administration-appointed prosecutor said when the indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice was handed up (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340.html), you would know that the perjury made it impossible to determine if a crime had been committed. That's why what Libby was convicted of was called obstruction of justice.

You do know how to avoid a perjury trap, don't you. There are two basic ways: You can just tell the truth or you can refuse to say anything at all, especially under oath. This administration almost invariably goes for the latter since the former is not an option.

So you have it quite backwards, shooter. Fitzgerald didn't want Libby to commit perjury or lie to the FBI; Fitzgerald wanted to investigate the possible commission of a crime. The fact that Libby's perjury prevented this actually left him somewhat exercised. If Libby had told the truth, Fitzgerald might have been able to prosecute a crime other than perjury or obstruction of justice, but we'll never know, will we? And someone, somewhere, has probably breathed a hearty sigh of relief over that.

shooter says:

Gosh it must be. Explain to me again how it is that Plame's status as a CIA employee never figured into the investigation?

There's not much point since you admit that you are too dense for the information to penetrate. But if you really want to try, you can go back and read it again:

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/05/30/plame_covert/permalink/b853c8d3c5f51deb3a1261fbe28b163a.html

and

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/06/27/nsa_eavesdropping/permalink/a301b65b3b38fa3fdaca9a7925a83848.html

But seven to ten you won't understand it this time either.

Or how Russert was believable but Libby wasn't?

If it had just been a matter of who to believe between Russert and Libby, it might have been a tough call for the jury, but when it becomes a matter of believing Russert or Libby and believing Matt Cooper or Libby and believing Judy Miller or Libby, the odds in favor of believing Libby get progressively slimmer.

It is indeed so confusing. Like the US Atty firings for instance. How is it that it's illegal? Oh it isn't? You mean like outing Plame by Armitage wasn't prosecuted? Well gee, then why are all those Democrat Senators getting all red in the face. Because Gonzales didn't lie after all? Does this mean Democrats are just trying to find something, anything, to criminalize? Why would they do that? Heh.

I'm sorry, shooter, but this string of non sequiturs forces me to conclude that you really must be as stupid as you seem. I realize that such a conclusion would require that you have the IQ of a turnip, but it is hard to dispute such clear evidence.

Perhaps Glenn could return the favor the next time he has a radio gig. Something along the lines of: "I want to thank Pucker.. er, Clucker.. er, Sucker.. er Whatever. Anyway I want to thank Mr. Carlsberg (or was it Coors?) for mentioning my name on the air (or at least for almost mentioning my name on the air)."

I think there will be more to the report: "It would get better faster if we had more troops."