Nobody checks the facts, even when they've

[JackSwift]

checked the facts 100 times. Then they put it in a speech and call it hearsay

http://slate.msn.com/id/2086536/


And its called a "percipient witness", not a "fact witness".

[Friar]

1. damned lawyers...

j/k :silly:

[teryang]

2. "I accept responsibility for everything I say."

Er, what happened to that? This has nothing to do with lawyers.

The chimp in chief eschews fact finding entirely but rather engages in abuse of process, media manipulation, marketing ploys, and intentional misrepresentations before embarking on policy decisions as grave as committing the nation to war. Government a la Hill and Knowlton.

[Wonder]

3. so if he's a fact witness

can he also be an accessory after the fact...? at odds with the fact...? what I mean to say is if he is a fact witness, which in essence use to be an eyewitness, then wouldn't that imply he is out of the loop altogether.

and what was the fact that he witnessed and when...? at the point he uttered the fact in question... ah but there is the problem... the euphermism implies that a fact was witnessed... however the 16 words wasn't a fact at all, but a falsehood... so what was witnessed was a lie... and at which time did the fact cease to be a fact?

which brings us back to the question: who knew what when and why were the lies witnessed as facts to begin with...? just the fact that condi didn't want bush to witness the fact... hmmm anybody have any idea who in this bunch of bushites is the truthwitness?


hmmmm... law ... has it anything to do with the truth at all... or...