tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5194776.post115301044234556369..comments2023-11-05T23:25:31.498+11:00Comments on Wot Is It Good 4: Specter's FISA bill "must not pass"Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5194776.post-1153096421613630942006-07-17T10:33:00.000+10:002006-07-17T10:33:00.000+10:00oldschool and leeb - thanks for that.very interest...oldschool and leeb - thanks for that.<BR/><BR/>very interesting.<BR/><BR/>i can only presume/hope that leeB is correct and that they had everything covered (re the timing).<BR/><BR/>re VP-ishness, oldschool makes a good argument. let's hope that sticks.lukeryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13280906371216516750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5194776.post-1153087940890692692006-07-17T08:12:00.000+10:002006-07-17T08:12:00.000+10:00Thanks, oldschool!I wonder how much of the strateg...Thanks, oldschool!<BR/><BR/>I wonder how much of the strategerizing over timing was influenced by Fitz's goals on the criminal side of this event. I have serious doubts that the Wilsons' attorneys just slapped this thing together late Wednesday afternoon. There must have been a fair amount of discussion around the issue of choosing the exact day.<BR/><BR/>No doubt the defendants will be treating us all to serious acrobatics as they use every theory they can muster - or create from thin air - to move for dismissal. <BR/><BR/>It will be interesting to see how it plays out. I'm hoping for some kind of nifty fireworks that leave Shooter, Scooter, TurdBlossom (and the assorted "Does", whoever they are) fuming 'round about the end of October.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5194776.post-1153076945145463572006-07-17T05:09:00.000+10:002006-07-17T05:09:00.000+10:00"VP-ishness"Good one! Alert Dictionary.com. Luke..."<I>VP-ishness</I>"<BR/><BR/>Good one! Alert Dictionary.com. Lukery's house is becoming a hotbed of vocabulary evolution!<BR/><BR/>Now, about the statute of limitations . . . <BR/><BR/>If a person runs a red light and smashes their car into another vehicle, the police report and citations, if any, pretty much nail down the time period allowed for the injured party to file claims for property loss or personal injury. <BR/><BR/>In some other kinds of cases, it can begin to run when an offending act is discovered. When a criminal investigation has produced evidence of a conspiracy that, in turn, led to the event that caused the losses to the victims, we may have more information about when the offending conduct was planned. But, does that necessarily mean the victims of the plan should have an abbreviated window in which to file? <BR/><BR/>The Wilsons certainly had no reason obvious <I>to us</I> to believe anyone was leaking the facts about Valerie's NOC and classified employment to any members of the press up until the date the wretched Novak's column appeared in print. The Wilsons would not have suffered any harm at all if the leakers had never found a willing publisher.<BR/><BR/>It seems odd to me that an otherwise valid claim could be tossed out of court because the lawyers didn't file the claim prior to the anniversary date of the legal and non-tortious act of one of the victims - the publishing of Joe Wilson's op-ed in the NY Times.<BR/><BR/>Just my 2 cents . . .Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5194776.post-1153075127990397912006-07-17T04:38:00.000+10:002006-07-17T04:38:00.000+10:00Question:With regard to the statute(s) of limitati...Question:<BR/><BR/>With regard to the statute(s) of limitations, where there is continuing whitewash activity by the usual GOP talking heads, and indeed, the Wilsons are still under attack by those same talking heads and others, can the point be made that the conspiracy aspect of the case (at least) does not constitute a point or points in time passed, but is indeed still ongoing?Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09909379290909753137noreply@blogger.com