:lolhit: How funny is this???



Associated Press
Scooter Libby's Check Bounced
38 minutes ago

WASHINGTON DC: Banking officials have notified the Federal Prosectutor's office in Washington, D.C. that Irving "Scooter" Libby's check for payment of a fine levied against him as part of his conviction in his trial for obstructing justice and for lying to federal prosecutors has been returned for insufficient funds.

*snerk*

Funny, but surprisingly not shocking. ;)

:lolhit: How funny is this???



Associated Press
Scooter Libby's Check Bounced
38 minutes ago

WASHINGTON DC: Banking officials have notified the Federal Prosectutor's office in Washington, D.C. that Irving "Scooter" Libby's check for payment of a fine levied against him as part of his conviction in his trial for obstructing justice and for lying to federal prosecutors has been returned for insufficient funds.

Wonder of we could just return the whole Bush administration to Crawford Texas for insufficient competency?

*snerk*

Funny, but surprisingly not shocking. ;)

I doubt it's even true.

A Google search turned up this from almost a month ago.

"July 06. 2007 6:41AM

In erasing the prison sentence of former Cheney aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby, President Bush left a $250,000 fine. Libby paid the fine yesterday.

Libby's friends and supporters have raised more than $5 million to cover legal fees and were continuing to raise money, but Libby paid the fine himself, according to someone close to the fund who spoke on condition of anonymity because details of the account are private. The cashiers check filed with the court was issued in Libby's name.

Rep. John Conyers, a Democrat from Michigan, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has scheduled hearings Wednesday on Bush's commutation of Libby's 2½-year sentence for perjury."

I'm not a banker, but it seems difficult to "bounce" a cashiers check.

Rep. John Conyers, a Democrat from Michigan, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has scheduled hearings Wednesday on Bush's commutation of Libby's 2½-year sentence for perjury."

And then a book about the press conference answering questions about the report on the investigation into the hearing on the commutation of the sentence for the perjury of the testimony for the trial about..... the....
Now what was that trial about?

Yeah, doing the people's work.

And then a book about the press conference answering questions about the report on the investigation into the hearing on the commutation of the sentence for the perjury of the testimony for the trial about..... the....
Now what was that trial about?

Yeah, doing the people's work.

You got me, Brooks. I don't know what the heck you're talking about. :)

This is the sum total of what the Democrats got out of the entire Superspy story. A perjury charge with no underlying crime (see Martha Stewart).

So the big "it'll go all the way up to Bush/Rove" trial of the century boils down to a hearing on a perjury commutation.

Personally I'm glad this congress has done absolutely nothing since their big 2006 "victory". I'd think the left in this country would rather they do something more constructive.

I'm not a banker, but it seems difficult to "bounce" a cashiers check.

While I'm not disputing the possibility that the story in the OP is a fake, it's quite easy to bounce a cashier's check. It happens with increasing (and disturbing) frequency.

Google search: phony cashiers checks (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=phony+cashiers+checks&btnG=Search)

If someone were to fall for this scam and took that check to the bank, more often than not the bank would actually cash it. In fact, the check would even clear in most cases.

The bank will eventually figure out that the cashier's check you deposited was phony. Often times it takes four to six weeks for them to figure out, but if you deposit a phony cashier's check, you will have to pay back the money. The bank will hold you responsible. In some cases depositing phony checks is actually a crime, so there even could be criminal consequences. --Be Wary of Cashier's Checks (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/147758/be_wary_of_cashiers_checks.html)

While I'm not disputing the possibility that the story in the OP is a fake, it's quite easy to bounce a cashier's check. It happens with increasing (and disturbing) frequency.



"Bouncing" a check, and passing a counterfeit check are two distinctly different things, and no one, not even the OP, suggested that Libby attempted to pass a counterfeit. Typically, a check is "bounced" because the account it is drawn on has insufficient funds to cover the amount of the check. This seems impossible to do with a cashiers check because such an instrument is issued by the bank in which the funds are deposited.

At any rate, I can find no corroboration that there was any problem with the check that was used to pay Libby's fine.

This is the sum total of what the Democrats got out of the entire Superspy story. A perjury charge with no underlying crime (see Martha Stewart).

So the big "it'll go all the way up to Bush/Rove" trial of the century boils down to a hearing on a perjury commutation.

Personally I'm glad this congress has done absolutely nothing since their big 2006 "victory". I'd think the left in this country would rather they do something more constructive.

Oh. Ok. I thought this thread was about a check. :)

I was commenting on a sentence in the original post. Perhaps the title of the thread was misleading.

In any case if this congress continues to go after the administration rather than legislate a Democrat agenda then we're all happy.

Finally some politicians who can unite us.

It seems exceedingly strange to me that Libby would be issuing any sort of check. In this world of instant (or nearly so) bank transfers, why on earth would he use a cashier's check?

I thought he was a big time corporate lawyer once upon a time. Surely he knows of such banking products. Perhaps he's merely a Luddite.

:confused:

Personally I'm glad this congress has done absolutely nothing since their big 2006 "victory".

Of course you are in favor of Republican obstructionism.

You regressives hate progress. :rolleyes:



I'd think the left in this country would rather they do something more constructive.

Of coure, but we all know that it is the Republicans and conservatives who are responsible for keeping Congress from making any progress.

:thumbs:

Of course you are in favor of Republican obstructionism.
Of coure, but we all know that it is the Republicans who are responsible for keeping Congress from making any progress.
Damn those Republicans forcing Patrick Leahy to issue more and more subpoenaes. Those un-American louts who hold a gun to John Conyers' head and make him hold more hearings on Scooter Libby. How I wish those GOPers would just let go of Alberto Gonzalez.

They have brought this nation to a standstill.

Damn those Republicans forcing Patrick Leahy to issue more and more subpoenaes. Those un-American louts who hold a gun to John Conyers' head and make him hold more hearings on Scooter Libby. How I wish those GOPers would just let go of Alberto Gonzalez.

They have brought this nation to a standstill.

Er.. um. If Gonzales weren't such a lying sack of shit, there wouldn't be anything to investigate, now, would there?

Er.. um. If Gonzales weren't such a lying sack of shit, there wouldn't be anything to investigate, now, would there?
Charles Schumer, my "Senator", and one of the prime movers in this investigation, said last week that he didn't know if any laws have been violated or rules broken in the firing of the attorneys.

If you know otherwise I suggest you call his office immediately. He needs some help.

Charles Schumer, my "Senator", and one of the prime movers in this investigation, said last week that he didn't know if any laws have been violated or rules broken in the firing of the attorneys.

If you know otherwise I suggest you call his office immediately. He needs some help.

He's got plenty of help. The problem is Republican obstructionists. Up to and including our "President."

:rolleyes:

He's got plenty of help. The problem is Republican obstructionists. Up to and including our "President."
Obstructionists can't prevent him from telling what laws or rules have been violated. The fact is he doesn't know (in fact he probably knows none have been).

This is not about obstructionists blocking an investigation. It's about a fishing expedition.

Guess the Dems need Alberto Gonzales to campaign against. If they didn't need him so much they would be calling for his impeachment and removal from office. And they would not go on vacation until that happened!

[QUOTE=Brooks]This is the sum total of what the Democrats got out of the entire Superspy story. A perjury charge with no underlying crime (see Martha Stewart). QUOTE]

You mean like asking a man about an extra-marital blow job under oath, knowing he will lie. And then getting him for perjury!!

Yes..you are right.

You mean like asking a man about an extra-marital blow job under oath, knowing he will lie. And then getting him for perjury!!
Yes..you are right.
The Whitewater investigation lead to several people going to jail for major offenses including an Arkansas Governor.

The Superspy investigation achieved Martha Stewart acclaim.

PS - President Clinton did not commit perjury and was not convicted of same.
Read up.

Obstructionists can't prevent him from telling what laws or rules have been violated.

Oh really? I suppose Bush's demand that Harriet Miers AND Karl Rove AND J. Scott Jennings AND Joshua Bolten defy congressional subpoenas and refuse to testify before the House panel investigating the U.S. attorney firings was just... what? A joke? A whim? And if Bush is preventing people from testifying about what they know/what they did, how will we ever learn how many laws or rules were violated?

The fact is he doesn't know (in fact he probably knows none have been).

And you have irrefutable proof of this "fact," I suppose. :rolleyes:

And you have irrefutable proof of this "fact," I suppose. :rolleyes:Proof? No.

Charles Schumer isn't your Senator but you probably know a little about him by now.

Recently he finally admitted that he doesn't know if any rules or laws were violated which, as I said, makes him less intelligent than many here who seem to know.

And further, they can't even definitively say if the administration isn't entitled to Executive Privelege.

Schumer's a cry-baby, but he isn't stupid. He already knows.

I shouldn't have used the word "proof" so flippantly, but when Schumer has even a scintilla of evidence of something he's good for four to five press conferences a month. He's been uncharacteristically quiet about certain aspects about this issue.

It seems exceedingly strange to me that Libby would be issuing any sort of check. In this world of instant (or nearly so) bank transfers, why on earth would he use a cashier's check?

I thought he was a big time corporate lawyer once upon a time. Surely he knows of such banking products. Perhaps he's merely a Luddite.

:confused:

That is a good question - a bank transfer would be the way to pay, I would think he would know of it too :rolleyes:

I was commenting on a sentence in the original post. Perhaps the title of the thread was misleading.

In any case if this congress continues to go after the administration rather than legislate a Democrat agenda then we're all happy.

Finally some politicians who can unite us.

Oh. Ok. I thought this thread was about a check. quote vilepagen

Perhaps the title of the thread was misleading. [QUOTE=Brooks]

??:confused: Brooks, the title of thread is "Scooter's Check to pay Fine Bounced"

Oh. Ok. I thought this thread was about a check. quote vilepagen
Perhaps the title of the thread was misleading. [QUOTE=Brooks]
??:confused: Brooks, the title of thread is "Scooter's Check to pay Fine Bounced"The full quote:
Vile: "I thought this thread was about a check"
Brooks: "I was commenting on a sentence in the original post. Perhaps the title of the thread was misleading."

Do you really not understand?

It seems exceedingly strange to me that Libby would be issuing any sort of check. In this world of instant (or nearly so) bank transfers, why on earth would he use a cashier's check?
This may be a limitation on the part of the receiving agency.