Bush Appointed Judge Orders Libby to Report to Jail - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 06-14-2007, 10:12 AM

....after a Bush appointed US Attorney, appointed as Special Counsel for the CIA Leak Investigation, by Bush appointed assistant Attorney General, successfully prosecutes Libby on charges of obstructing the leak investigation and committing perjury before the grand jury investigating the leak....

What, if anything, am I missing? Isn't that what has happened? I think it is, and I think that Libby was so successful in obstructing the investigation, that the special counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald, concluded that he could not make a case against anyone else, without Libby's cooperation, which does not seem to ever be forthcoming.

I see the potential for those extremists who do not accept the jury verdict and the judge's ruling to attempt to gain an immediate stay of Libby's sentence, pending the outcome of his appeal, and I see a renewed effort by them to persuade president Bush to inappropriately intervene on behalf of Libby, but I see none of these people demanding that Libby stop obstructing and start cooperating with the investigation, so that it can proceed, finally, and determine if a crime of leaking classified information actually took place.

Quote:

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/06/1...-blog-part-ii/
Sentencing Scooter Live Blog Part II
By Pachacutec on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 09:31 am

libbyverdict.jpg

The live blog continues, with updates roughly every fifteen minutes. My fingers are not as fast as Marcy Wheeler’s, so this should be considered a kind of paraphrase of events. It is not a transcript and will be filled with typos.

Anyway, here we go.

[missed some weedy legal stuff here]

Fitz: AUSA’s handle CIPA material, so this notion that the alleged technical violation of CIPA was an issue of whether courtroom should be closed. These were issues that AUSA’a could have argued.

Walton: But if you signed something that you may arguably not have had the authorityto sign, does this go to you being a superior officer? One could infer you presumed such authority.

Fitz: If the defense thought this was an obvious error we could have dealt with it then. If there was a violation that I signed under one authority versus another authority, this is waiver and harmless error if it is error. We can’t turn around for filing on 6a and go through a whole trial and bring this out later.

Re, Morrison, her mandate was a person specific mandate, but I was authorized to investigate a specific crime. I was not authorized to investigate on a specific statute, which was the question at the time. It was not limited to a person, but to crimes related to the disclosure. Defense is comparing apples to oranges.

I was not authorized for any related matter, just to the disclosure.

Walton: re: reporting issue?

Fitzgerald: the idea that people did not know what I was doing, everyone know. Mr. Gonzales was recused. The idea that I should report to someome who had been in WH while the crimes were committed is wrong. I was subject to being fired at will.

We can make very serious charges without required reporting.

Walton: re 28cfr600, is three anything else in writing that requires reporting to AG?

Fitz: urgent matters AG should be aware of. We don’t seek permission, we notify. We have one of these in Chicago for Monday. It is not a matter of getting authority to charge, but we notify so they will not be surprised.

Walton: did the delegation of authority here relieve you of this obligation?

Fitz: I told Mr. Margolis before we returned the indictment.

Walton: whether or not you did, did the delegation of authority relieve you of this duty?

Fitz: I did not feel obligated but I did. If I can indict someone for a charge with life without parole as an AUSA, that’s still being an inferior officer. I could still be fired. They had the power to revoke me at will. That can’t be the test for what an inferior officer is. I can’t imagine any reading of the case law that would bring another reading.

12:32

Bonamici: Emphasized Fitzgerald removable at will. Re relief from followng DOJ policies and regs, he still had the obligation. There’s not other way to conduct a fair and honest investigation when there is possible wrongdoing at the highest level of US govt. No way, as in Morrison, the DC Circuit will ignore this.

There was an enormous amount of information about this case in the public domain on this case. . .

Walton: Is that relevant if at the time of the delegation there is relief from compliance?

Bonamici: Two points under Morrison. One is removability, and to this point, information in the public domain is relevant. Right of removal not illusory as defense argues. The issue of whether the appropriate officers have access to the information, no matter how obtained. But also, every part of this case involved the executive branch, every witness almost, every document. The idea that principle officers in this case did not know what’s going on is made up. Removability was an ever present consideration and all in the special counsel office were aware of it every day.

On issue of obligation to comply with DOJ regs, the language which applies to a person, as written, who is outside the DOJ. But Mr. Fitzgerald was already part of DOJ, so it clear he was bound by DOJ regulations. Authority to investigate any related laws to the initial disclosure, not the broad authority to investigate anything related.

Because this issue of 26cfr510 versus CIPA, this is 11th hour.

Walton: isn’t CIPA more specific?

Bonamici: wrt to classified information yes, but not more specific as to potential conflicts. This delegation was done specifically not to avoid a conflict. But none of these issues were addressed at the time. The mere signing of the document is not evidence that Fitz was a superior officer. There was not dispute from the defense. It did not even require a lot of discretion. It’s not weak evidence, it’s not even evidence. It was based on reasonable and undisputed situation.

Re: Mitchell, we agree with your honor entirely.

12:43

Walton: Jury based on their deliberations were clear on defendant’s guilt. So even if I did make error re: Mitchell, given the jury deliberations and leaps of inference it required, it would be harmless error given the view of Russert’s testimony by jury. [lengthy recitation here] On the record that existed in this case, I had no choice but to act in my responsibility as gatekeeper. I’m conviced this is no close issue. I do have to grapple with the appointment clause issue.

Bonamici: Morrison is powerful and Circuit will not find this argument meets burdens under Morrison.

Robbins: We prevail under Morrison.

Walton: What about the related case limitation argued by government?

Robbins: he’s authorized to eamine any violations related. . .

Walton: But isn’t it limited by the leak?

Robbins: you can imagine anything. . .

Walton: Related to the leak?

Robbins: This is what Alexia Morrison sought and was denied.

Walton: But her authority was limited to person.

Robbins: She wanted to go to any related violation.

Walton: But if she found another conspirator violation?

Robbins: She could not prosecute. She sought it and was denied. He filed a 6c2 and claims it was a mere ministerial act, but this is not the case, and it’s not the role Morrison had, it’s much more broad. It related to national security. The fact that Mr. Fitzgerald may have talked to the AG from time to time does not matter. He was not required. When Walsh was asked to sign the very same kind of thing, he went to the AG to get this authority. Fitzgerald assumed this authority.

Walton: Can I assume that Mr. Comey knew he was not acting in compliance with CIPA when he issued his memo? If Fiztgerald did something conceivably in violation of CIPA, how do I conclude he was in fact authorized to do so?

Robbins: Comey said Fitz had all the plenary authority of the AG. Fitz thought he had all this power.

Walton: I’ll take 5 minutes and let you know if I will rule today or later.

12:56 5 Minute Break. [Walton may want to take more time to review the arguments. We may not have a decision today, apparently. He’s consulting with law clerk.

1:13 PM Still in break.

Quote:

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/06/1...loses-liberty/
Libby Loses Liberty
By Pachacutec on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 10:32 am

jailcell.jpg

1:21 PM

Walton: As a prelude to my ruling, the fact that I’ve written lengthy decisions does not suggest I think an issue is close. We are expected to give significant consideration to what we do. My effort is to try to get it right, so this is why I tke my time so length does not suggest I believe something is a close issue.

This issue today is a significant issue. No matter what I do, an appellate court could see things differently. That’s our system. I don’t buy the proposition that somehow Edmond altered Morrison on how appointment clause issue should be addressed. Two of four factors in play in Morrison were not in play in Edmonds and so other scrutiny and review was required based on the fact situation.

Edmonds says inferior officers are directed and supervised at some level, and the author here was Scalia who authored dissent in Morrison. Scalia says if Morrison were removable at will then she is inferior. Here there is no question that Fitzgerald was removable at will by AG or DAG despite authority he was given. So based on Scalia, if we have the situation we have here, removable, Scalia I assume would have concluded inferior official and therefore he would have been part of majority in Morrison case.

That being the case, I will apply the four Morrison factors to this case. Subject to removal? Yes, even more than was Morrison. Second: were his duties limited? Was there a imitation on jurisdiction? Defense suggests the use of the term “related” makes for unlimited. But government points out Morrison case was to specific individual. But Fitz could only investigate and eventually prosecute related to leak, so this is a limitation on jurisdiction. Re limitation on tenure, while there was no specific date, there is a limit because once the investigation is done then his tenure expires.

So, these four factors are met and any differences are not large enough to be of note. This case seems further from a violation of the appointments clause than Morrison was. This is not a close issue in my view. I’ve already indicated my view on the other issues, and it is my view those are not close issues.

He is not a flight risk or danger to the community, but I don’t see the issues raised as close, so I deny his request to be released pending appeal. I will allow him to self report, but unless I am overruled, he will have to report.

I will rule on the obstruction charge sentence to 30 months, to perjury 24 months, to false statements 6 months, all to run concurrently.

Robbins: Ask for a stay the surrender pending filing motion.

Walton: Denied. Mr. Libby, you have right to appeal [boilerplate notification of right to appeal].

1:34 PM Court Dismissed

Okay, so now the process goes to Bureau of Prisons, which will likely take six to eight weeks to process the matter and require Libby to report so he can begin serving his sentence.

1:43: No press conferences. Both Fitz and Libby are gone. Libby exited the court room escorted by marshalls through the door the judge uses to enter from chambers. That’s a wrap, but I’ll have an audio summary of the day later on.

aceventura3 · 06-14-2007, 10:36 AM

What question(s) remain unanswered in the investigation?

Bill O'Rights · 06-14-2007, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

What question(s) remain unanswered in the investigation?

In politics, no matter what your political affiliation, it always boils down to same two questions. No matter what. "What did the President know, and when did he know it?"

The rest is just fluff.

host · 06-14-2007, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

What question(s) remain unanswered in the investigation?

The answer to your question has been widely reported, ace...

(scroll down 65 percent from top of page: )

Quote:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politic...tin_070221.htm
<h3>
<a name="p6"></a>Fitzgerald: "Cloud" Hangs Over Cheney</h3>
Prosecutors and defense attorneys on Tuesday delivered closing arguments in the perjury and obstruction of justice trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. The CBS Evening News reported prosecutors "told the jury today there is a cloud over the Vice President's role in the case because they say Libby obstructed justice. The defense contends Libby did nothing wrong and the case is about faulty memories." Fox News' Special Report says special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald "got the last word saying that the Vice President's office was obsessed with the Wilson trip and used his wife as a weapon against him." And NBC Nightly News reported Fitzgerald "got political too, saying because Libby lied and obstructed justice, 'a cloud still hangs over the Vice President.'"



The <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-libby21feb21,1,3565678.story">Los Angeles Times</a> also notes "Fitzgerald argued that Cheney's office was behind many of the prewar claims that Iraq had stockpiles of banned weapons and that it had aggressively sought to silence critics." The <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/washington/21libby.html?hp">New York Times</a> notes that "the prosecutors presented a detailed and businesslike summing up of their case."


The <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/c8e42f0e-c121-11db-bf18-000b5df10621.html">Financial Times</a> and <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/20/AR2007022000122.html">Washington Post</a> run similar reports on the closing arguments, while Dana Milbank in his <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/20/AR2007022001435.html">Washington Post</a> "Washington Sketch" column is critical of the "cohesion of" defense attorney Ted Wells' "closing arguments. Libby was alternately portrayed as a man who told the truth, a man who inadvertently misspoke, and the victim of conspiracies involving everybody from President Bush to Tim Russert."



In a widely-distributed story, the <a href="http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-cia-leak-trial,0,7096756.story">AP</a> reports deputy prosecutor Peter Zeidenberg pointed to a flow chart showing arrows tracking information from several officials to Libby and on to other sources. With each conversation, it became less likely the CIA operative would just slip Libby's mind." Using a "similar chart," Wells "noted their memory inconsistencies." <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20070221/a_libby21.art.htm">USA Today</a> notes "a tearful" Wells told jurors, "Don't...sacrifice Scooter Libby for how you may feel about the war in Iraq or about the Bush administration." The <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/20/AR2007022001858.html">Washington Post</a> also runs a generally sympathetic profile of Wells, saying "a portrait emerges of a tough defense attorney who has mastered the balance between easygoing and hard-charging."

tecoyah · 06-14-2007, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

What question(s) remain unanswered in the investigation?

You are of course....Kidding here, Right? Tell me you're kidding....please.

Unless you have selectively removed information from your mind, or simply paid no attention to the investigation you cannot deny the obvious implications for not only Karl Rove, but possibly Dick Cheney. The only other possibility is a completely partisan blindfold preventing you from seeing what is so blatantly obvious to anyone capable of reading.

aceventura3 · 06-14-2007, 11:05 AM

I think we know that the office of the Vice President was fully aware of the fact that they were attempting to discredit Wilson by using Plame. I think we know they "outed" her. I think they knew she was covert.

O.k., what is missing, that is important?

ratbastid · 06-14-2007, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I think we know that the office of the Vice President was fully aware of the fact that they were attempting to discredit Wilson by using Plame. I think we know they "outed" her. I think they knew she was covert.

O.k., what is missing, that is important?

Maybe... why the whole pack of them isn't in jail instead of just this one scapegoat?

aceventura3 · 06-14-2007, 12:32 PM

I have been asking why Fitzgerald did not bring charges for the "outing" of Plame from the begining. Never got a clear answer.

ratbastid · 06-14-2007, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I have been asking why Fitzgerald did not bring charges for the "outing" of Plame from the begining. Never got a clear answer.

I'm not clear about that either. Host seems to be implying that it's due to Libby's stonewalling.

jorgelito · 06-14-2007, 05:43 PM

This is great news. Glad to see that Libby is being brought to justice.

Rekna · 06-14-2007, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I have been asking why Fitzgerald did not bring charges for the "outing" of Plame from the begining. Never got a clear answer.

Thats funny because I keep answering this question when ever you ask it...... again it comes down to proving intent which is nearly impossible to do without a confession. Please stop saying you haven't got a clear answer on this.

tecoyah · 06-15-2007, 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I have been asking why Fitzgerald did not bring charges for the "outing" of Plame from the begining. Never got a clear answer.

It does not get much clearer than this:

Quote:

Mr. Libby initially told the Grand Jury that he first learned about Ms. Wilson in conversations with NBC reporter Tim Russert and then passed on that information to Ms. Miller and Time magazine reporter Mathew Cooper.

When confronted with evidence that Vice President Cheney told him about Ms. Wilson a month before that conversation with Mr. Russert, Mr. Fitzgerald says Mr. Libby changed his story. "He said that in fact he had learned from the vice president earlier in June of 2003 information about Wilson's wife but he had forgotten it. And when he learned the information from Mr. Russert during this phone call, he learned it as if it were new. And when he passed the information on to reporters Cooper and Miller late in the week, he passed it on thinking it was just information that he received from reporters and that he told the reporters that in fact he didn't even know if it was true. He was just passing gossip from one reporter to another at the long end of a chain of phone calls. It would be a compelling story that would lead the FBI to go away if only it were true. It is not true, according to the indictment," he said.

The special prosecutor says Mr. Libby was involved in at least half-a-dozen conversations about Ms. Wilson before he started talking to reporters.

The indictments against Mr. Libby do not end the probe. The president's senior political advisor Karl Rove spoke with some of the same reporters and remains under investigation.

Mr. Fitzgerald says he is making no allegations that Vice President Cheney or anyone else involved in discussing Ms. Wilson has done anything wrong. "I can't give you answers on what we know and don't know other than what is charged in the indictment. It's not because I enjoy being in that position. It's because the law is that way. I actually think the law should be that way. We can't talk about information not contained in the four corners of the indictment," he said.

Mr. Fitzgerald says when citizens testify before grand juries they are required to tell the truth because without it the criminal justice system could not serve the nation or its citizens. He says that requirement applies equally to all citizens, including those who hold high government positions.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell...1029-voa04.htm

Not exactly hard to find Ace....unless you dont want to see it. He lied to the grand jury while they were investigating his involvement, you dont issue charges until the investigation is complete.

aceventura3 · 06-15-2007, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Thats funny because I keep answering this question when ever you ask it...... again it comes down to proving intent which is nearly impossible to do without a confession. Please stop saying you haven't got a clear answer on this.

This does not answer the question. I understand the legal standard, I also understand that it is a high standard, but I don't understand why Fitzgerald doesn't step up to that challenge - given what is common knowledge. Fitzerald basically has unlimited resources to bring this case to trial. Even if he does not win the case, at least there would be a judicial record of the evidence, at least we can minimize the speculation, at least he can get the key players to testify on the stand. Perhaps we can bring closure to the issue one way or the other. The point of his investigation, I thought was to come to a conclusion. He needs to say a crime was not comitted or he needs to bring the matter to trial in my opinion. I don't think he has done either.

So you give an answer telling me about the burden of proof, but that response does not address what I want to know. I believe my question is valid and perhaps Fitzerald needs to go on record an explain why he is not going to bring the case to trial, and perhaps the public should pressure him into addressing the question.

I admit it is possible that he has given a detailed explanation and I have not read it, if so a link would be helpful, rather than telling me to stop saying I don't have a clear answer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

It does not get much clearer than this:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell...1029-voa04.htm

Not exactly hard to find Ace....unless you dont want to see it. He lied to the grand jury while they were investigating his involvement, you dont issue charges until the investigation is complete.

I don't get it. I am asking about the crime of "outing" a covert CIA agent. Is someone guilty of this crime or not? If someone is guilty of that crime, why hasn't the matter been taken to court? If the answer is - the investigation continues - at least that is something - but it is disappointing, how much longer is he going to investigate?

joshbaumgartner · 06-15-2007, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I don't get it. I am asking about the crime of "outing" a covert CIA agent. Is someone guilty of this crime or not? If someone is guilty of that crime, why hasn't the matter been taken to court? If the answer is - the investigation continues - at least that is something - but it is disappointing, how much longer is he going to investigate?

As I understand it, Libby may well have succeeded a great deal in impeding and perhaps even effectively roadblocking the investigation. That would make the hard line the courts are taking with him make sense. It's one thing when you lie but the truth comes out anyway, its another when your dishonesty and lack of cooperation continues to hold up an investigation from getting to the bottom of the crime. It appears the later is Libby's situation. Dissappointing? Of course. But I don't know what can be done about it.

host · 06-15-2007, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

This does not answer the question. I understand the legal standard, I also understand that it is a high standard, but I don't understand why Fitzgerald doesn't step up to that challenge - given what is common knowledge. Fitzerald basically has unlimited resources to bring this case to trial. Even if he does not win the case, at least there would be a judicial record of the evidence, at least we can minimize the speculation, at least he can get the key players to testify on the stand. Perhaps we can bring closure to the issue one way or the other. The point of his investigation, I thought was to come to a conclusion. He needs to say a crime was not comitted or he needs to bring the matter to trial in my opinion. I don't think he has done either.

So you give an answer telling me about the burden of proof, but that response does not address what I want to know. I believe my question is valid and perhaps Fitzerald needs to go on record an explain why he is not going to bring the case to trial, and perhaps the public should pressure him into addressing the question.

I admit it is possible that he has given a detailed explanation and I have not read it, if so a link would be helpful, rather than telling me to stop saying I don't have a clear answer.

I don't get it. I am asking about the crime of "outing" a covert CIA agent. Is someone guilty of this crime or not? If someone is guilty of that crime, why hasn't the matter been taken to court? If the answer is - the investigation continues - at least that is something - but it is disappointing, how much longer is he going to investigate?

ace......just to add to your confusion, and to our own satisfaction with the "just" outcome.....DO YOU WONDER ABOUT THE DOUBLE STANDARD OF CONSERVATIVES WHO SUPPORT THE DEATH PENALTY....A PENALTY THAT IS IRREVERSIBLE AND LARGELY BEFALLS FOLKS WITHOUT THE RESOURCES TO BE REPRESENTED AGAINST CRIMINAL CHARGES WITH A MULTI MILLION DOLLAR, ELEVEN LAWYER DEFENSE TEAM....LIKE LIBBY ENJOYED.

IF CONSERVATIVES BELIEVE SO STRONGLY THAT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM DID NOT "GET IT RIGHT", IN CONVICTING LIBBY....HOW COME THERE IS NO OBJECTION FROM THEM WHEN POORLY DEFENDED FOLKS ARE SENTENCED TO DEATH BY THE SAME SYSTEM?

Judge Walton noted, in response to a Libby appeal drafted by an even more prestigious "dream team" of lawyers than Libby's defense team:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=sec-politics
"It is an impressive show of public service when twelve prominent and distinguished current and former law professors of well-respected schools are able to amass their collective wisdom in the course of only several days to provide their legal expertise to the Court on behalf of a criminal defendant," Walton wrote in granting the scholars' request.

He added: "The Court trusts that this is a reflection of <h3>these eminent academics' willingness in the future to step up to the plate and provide like assistance in cases involving any of the numerous litigants, both in this Court and throughout the courts of our nation, who lack the financial means</h3> to fully and properly articulate the merits of their legal positions."

ace....this is a contest about justice vs. class and privilege and there already are two standards of justice....one for Libby and the elite who support him, and another for the rest of us. Why not save your confused indignation for an instance where it can possibly aid someone who is treated unfairly and is unable to properly defend himself. Libby can take care of himself.....

Quote:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/bl...is_pardon.html

Begging His Pardon

by Bill Moyers

We have yet another remarkable revelation of the mindset of Washington's ruling clique of neoconservative elites—the people who took us to war from the safety of their Beltway bunkers. Even as Iraq grows bloodier by the day, their passion of the week is to keep one of their own from going to jail.

It is well known that I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby—once Vice President Cheney’s most trusted adviser—has been sentenced to 30 months in jail for perjury. Lying. Not a white lie, mind you. A killer lie. Scooter Libby deliberately poured poison into the drinking water of democracy by lying to federal investigators, for the purpose of obstructing justice.

Attempting to trash critics of the war, Libby and his pals in high places—including his boss Dick Cheney—outed a covert CIA agent. Libby then lied toLibby cover their tracks. To throw investigators off the trail, he kicked sand in the eyes of truth. "Libby lied about nearly everything that mattered,” wrote the chief prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. The jury agreed and found him guilty on four felony counts. Judge Reggie B. Walton—a no-nonsense, lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the-key type, appointed to the bench by none other than George W. Bush—called the evidence “overwhelming” and threw the book at Libby.

You would have thought their man had been ordered to Guantanamo, so intense was the reaction from his cheerleaders. They flooded the judge's chambers with letters of support for their comrade and took to the airwaves in a campaign to “free Scooter.”

Vice President Cheney issued a statement praising Libby as “a man…of personal integrity”—without even a hint of irony about their collusion to browbeat the CIA into mangling intelligence about Iraq in order to justify the invasion.

“A patriot, a dedicated public servant, a strong family man, and a tireless, honorable, selfless human being,” said Donald Rumsfeld—the very same Rumsfeld who had claimed to know the whereabouts of weapons of mass destruction and who boasted of “bulletproof” evidence linking Saddam to 9/11. “A good person” and “decent man,” said the one-time Pentagon adviser Kenneth Adelman, who had predicted the war in Iraq would be a “cakewalk.” Paul Wolfowitz wrote a four-page letter to praise “the noblest spirit of selfless service” that he knew motivated his friend Scooter. Yes, that Paul Wolfowitz, who had claimed Iraqis would “greet us as liberators” and that Iraq would “finance its own reconstruction.” The same Paul Wolfowitz who had to resign recently as president of the World Bank for using his office to show favoritism to his girlfriend. Paul Wolfowitz turned character witness.

The praise kept coming: from Douglas Feith, who ran the Pentagon factory of disinformation that Cheney and Libby used to brainwash the press; from Richard Perle, as cocksure about Libby’s “honesty, integrity, fairness and balance” as he had been about the success of the war; and from William Kristol, who had primed the pump of the propaganda machine at THE WEEKLY STANDARD and has led the call for a Presidential pardon. “The case was such a farce, in my view,” he said. “I’m for pardon on the merits.”

One beltway insider reports that the entire community is grieving—“weighted down by the sheer, glaring unfairness” of Libby's sentence.

And there’s the rub.

None seem the least weighted down by the sheer, glaring unfairness of sentencing soldiers to repeated and longer tours of duty in a war induced by deception. It was left to the hawkish academic Fouad Ajami to state the matter baldly. In a piece published on the editorial page of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, Ajami pleaded with Bush to pardon Libby. For believing “in the nobility of this war,” wrote Ajami, Scooter Libby had himself become a “casualty”—a fallen soldier the President dare not leave behind on the Beltway battlefield.

Not a word in the entire article about the real fallen soldiers. The honest-to-God dead, and dying, and wounded. Not a word about the chaos or the cost. Even as the calamity they created worsens, all they can muster is a cry for leniency for one of their own who lied to cover their tracks.

There are contrarian voices: “This is an open and shut case of perjury and obstruction of justice,” said Pat Buchanan. “The Republican Party stands for the idea that high officials should not be lying to special investigators.” From the former Governor of Virginia, James Gilmore, a staunch conservative, comes this verdict: “If the public believes there’s one law for a certain group of people in high places and another law for regular people, then you will destroy the law and destroy the system.”

So it may well be, as THE HARTFORD COURANT said editorially, that Mr Libby is “a nice guy, a loyal and devoted patriot…but none of that excuses perjury or obstruction of justice. If it did, truth wouldn’t matter much.”

Quote:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Pol...3277944&page=1

....Trial Judge Threatened

At the top of the hearing, Walton said he had received hate mail and phone calls since the sentencing. "Unfortunately, I received a number of angry and meanspirited letters and phone calls … wishing bad things on me and my family," Walton said.

Walton said he discarded the letters but then, given the volume, decided to keep them in case anyone acted on the threats.

The judge said the harassment would not influence his decision. ........

Quote:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politic...tin_070615.htm
Walton Puts The Squeeze On Libby, Bush

Judge Walton yesterday denied "Scooter" Libby's request to stay out of prison while he appeals his conviction for perjury. Not only that: ABC World News notes the judge said that "he's received so much hate mail, from Libby's supporters and critics, that he saved the letters in case something happens to him." The Washington Post reports Libby "remained stoic as Walton announced his decision, while his wife, Harriet Grant, wiped away tears."

It now appears that unless a higher court rules in Libby's favor in the "emergency" appeal his lawyers are filing, Dick Cheney's former chief of staff is going to jail. USA Today reports Libby's attorneys will argue that "when Attorney General John Ashcroft and other senior Justice Department officials recused themselves from the leak investigation, they gave" prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald "unconstitutional and unchecked authority." Most analysts do not expect that argument to carry much water.

Therefore, says the New York Times, "the only thing standing between Mr. Libby and prison is a pardon," and President Bush "has so far shown no inclination to intervene." Democrats "have said that any pardon would be improper and a display of favoritism. The discussion among Republicans has been occasionally vitriolic, demonstrating the vexing political situation the Libby conviction has thrown up for Mr. Bush." The Washington Post notes that as president and as the governor of Texas, Bush "has been sparing in granting pardons and has typically done so only after those involved served partial sentences." But "he is under substantial pressure from conservatives who are indignant that Libby was convicted of lying in an investigation that never charged anyone with the illegal leak of information." White House spokeswoman Dana M. Perino said, "Scooter Libby still has the right to appeal, and therefore the president will continue not to intervene in the judicial process. ... The president feels terribly for Scooter, his wife and their young children, and all that they're going through." The Los Angeles Times and Washington Times, among other news outlets, also note the conservative pressure on Bush.

dc_dux · 07-02-2007, 09:04 AM

A Republican appointed US Attorney prosecuted Libby.

A Republican appointed District Court Judge presided over the trial that found his guilty on 5 counts.

and today...

An Appeals Court panel (2 Repub appointed and 1 Dem-appointed) said his plea to remain free on bond pending appeal has no merit:

Quote:

Appeals court rejects Libby’s bid for bail
A federal appeals court Monday rejected former White House aide Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s request to remain free on bond while appealing his March conviction on perjury and obstruction of justice charges.

In an order handed down Monday, a three judge panel wrote Libby “has not shown that the appeal raises a substantial question” that regular appeals court will consider when its next term begins in September.

A trial judge ordered Libby to serve 30 months in prison, to start when a location is determined by the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, and a date is decided for him to surrender himself at that location.

A court official told CNN Libby’s attorneys may still file for relief from the US Supreme Court, to try to keep Libby out of confinement pending his appeal.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...-bid-for-bail/

The perp walk (federal prisoner number 28301-016) should be soon...pending a last gasp hope for Supreme Court intervention or a WH pardon....both of which would be a mockery of justice.

It does restore my faith in the system, at least to a small degree, to see that there are still some in the federal judiciary who place the rule of law above partisanship or political loyalty.

tecoyah · 07-02-2007, 02:05 PM

So much for "Faith in the system"

Quote:

WASHINGTON - President Bush commuted the sentence of former aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby Monday, sparing him from a 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case. Bush left intact a $250,000 fine and two years probation for Libby, according to a senior White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision had not been announced.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/cia_leak_...QxV.2BA5Ws0NUE

Freakin' Disgusting......and welcome to the latest monarchy

Silvy · 07-02-2007, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

So much for "Faith in the system"

Freakin' Disgusting......and welcome to the latest monarchy

I just heard it on the news. Tecoyah said it right: disgusting.

How could anybody be so oblivious to their laws, their justice system, their population to make such an idiotic move?
Note to Bush: you've been caught. Not enough to be charged, but everybody damn sure knows what's going on. Or at least they think they do. The little thread of innocence you may have had, has just evaporaded.

When the announcement is made officially, I really wonder what the motivation for this descision is.
(I mean, I can guess the real motivation, a reward for staying hush-hush as much as possible, but what will the official story be?)

Superbelt · 07-02-2007, 02:22 PM

Ooh fuck him.

Well, fuck us too, I guess....

But completely expected. I actually thought he wouldn't have the balls to be this blatantly corrupt about it though and wait until his last week.

Rekna · 07-02-2007, 02:23 PM

Good to know that obstructing justice is ok as long as you do it to protect Republican ideals.....

Elphaba · 07-02-2007, 02:35 PM

I'm back to the notion that Libby agreed to take the fall under the condition that he would never spend a day in jail.

I guess Bush wasn't worried about his poll numbers going any lower since all that is left of his supporters will drink any flavor of kool-aid he has to offer.

ratbastid · 07-02-2007, 02:36 PM

Don't presidents usually wait until the last few days of their terms to do this sort of thing?

George W. Bush just spat in the face of America. Will THIS finally wake America up?

Silvy · 07-02-2007, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

I'm back to the notion that Libby agreed to take the fall under the condition that he would never spend a day in jail.

I guess Bush wasn't worried about his poll numbers going any lower since all that is left of his supporters will drink any flavor of kool-aid he has to offer.

My sentiments exactly.
And that $250,000 fine? I'm guessing he won't be much poorer after it has been paid. That money will come from somewhere...

Perhaps a one-off "consulting" job at Haliburton?

highthief · 07-02-2007, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

So much for "Faith in the system"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/cia_leak_...QxV.2BA5Ws0NUE

Freakin' Disgusting......and welcome to the latest monarchy

Wow! Did you guys ever consider taking such powers away from your President? To an outsider, this sounds more like a monarchy than a democracy. I'm amazed the President can wave his magic schlong and wish everything away for his pals.

Rekna · 07-02-2007, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

Wow! Did you guys ever consider taking such powers away from your President? To an outsider, this sounds more like a monarchy than a democracy. I'm amazed the President can wave his magic schlong and wish everything away for his pals.

I'm not sure why the president has this pardoning power (nor governors). Does anyone know have any information why the founding fathers gave that power to the president?

dirtyrascal7 · 07-02-2007, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

George W. Bush just spat in the face of America. Will THIS finally wake America up?

One can only hope.

I should be recieving my passport in a week or so. I don't have plans to go anywhere, just thought it would be good to have mine in case. How sad is it that we're starting to think like that?

Elphaba · 07-02-2007, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Don't presidents usually wait until the last few days of their terms to do this sort of thing?

George W. Bush just spat in the face of America. Will THIS finally wake America up?

Rat, there is a tradition of waiting until the last few days of the administration, and after the individual has served 2 or 3 years (can't remember which). However, Bush was fully within his authority to do what he did today. Ford did much the same thing for Nixon before he was convicted of anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

I'm not sure why the president has this pardoning power (nor governors). Does anyone know have any information why the founding fathers gave that power to the president?

Rekna, I don't know the answer to your question but I think I can make a good guess. Much of our constitution is based upon the Magna Carta which would likely give the monarch the right of pardon. But that right goes back much further to at least biblical times.

If politicophile is about, he might be able to give us a definitive answer.

host · 07-02-2007, 05:08 PM

Just as he promised:

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030930-9.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 30, 2003

.....THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There's leaks at the executive branch; there's leaks in the legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. <h2>And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of </h2>....

powerclown · 07-02-2007, 05:41 PM

It must be good to be Dick Armitage right about now.

host · 07-02-2007, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

It must be good to be Dick Armitage right about now.

In Patrick Fitzgerald's sentencing memorandum to the court, regarding Libby, he wrote that the investigation knew about Armitage, Rove, and Libby, "early on". ...and on page 3, Fitzgeral wrote:

Quote:

........In many respects, the manner in which witnesses from the President to ordinary
citizens participated in this criminal investigation, disclosing to investigators information that
few of them were eager to share, with the guidance of the courts when disputes arose, is a
testament to the strength of a fundamental principle of our nation’s justice system: that the
law is entitled to every man’s evidence.........

....but, Libby, Fitzgerald said, after the jury had already convicted him, chose not to do what everyone else who was questioned, seemed to be doing.....you can read for yourself, powerclown, on page 4 of the sentencing memorandum, what Fitzgerald told the court, Libby decided to do, instead.....at every opportunity......

powerclown..... you've got a chance here to claim that yer kiddin'...you are, "kiddin'"....aren't you....because, if you are serious.... you sound like a more rabid partisan, clueless winger than even Judge Sentelle...the guy who committed the ethics breech by pushing out republican watergate prosecutor Fiske, and replacing him with the compromised incompetent, Ken Starr...the partisan witch hunter who spent seven years and $60 million to find....????...a man openly bribed by Richard M. Scaife while he was still serving as white water special counsel...... he almost accepted the job as Dean of Pepperdine Law School in Malibu...... but he's there now, isn't he?

....and Sentelle was one of the three judges who today found that Libby did not have a strong enough appeal argument to receive a stay of his sentence....

.....but..... you think that he does deserve a stay or a commutation by our president, because... Armitage ..........

Quote:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...28/ai_18116298

The senator, the judge, his wife and the coverage: Hillary and Bill aren't the only ones with some explaining to do in the Whitewater saga - Sen. Lauch Faircloth, Judge David Sentelle, Pres. Bill Clinton, Hilary Rodham Clinton and the Whitewater case
Washington Monthly, March, 1996 by George III Clifford

In July 1994, Senator Lauch Faircloth and Judge David Sentelle lunched together in the quietly elegant Senate dining room. Just days later, a three-judge panel headed by Sentelle removed Robert B. Fiske Jr., a moderate Republican, from his position as independent counsel in the Whitewater affair - and replaced him with an active Republican partisan, Kenneth Starr.

Sentelle was supposed to be making his decisions free from political influence. Faircloth was a leader of the Republican charge against the Clintons on Whitewater; just weeks before, he had written Attorney General Janet Reno to complain about Fiske. So the lunch raised considerable controversy: Had Faircloth used the occasion to lobby or pressure Sentelle? Fiske's axing - after nine months and $2.5 million worth of work that had yet to produce material damaging to the Clintons - was precisely what Faircloth was after.

A year later came the news that approximately five months after the lunch and Fiske's replacement, Faircloth had hired Jane Oldham Sentelle, the judge's wife, as a receptionist for his Senate office. She had started in January 1995 at a salary of $20,000, which was later raised to $22,500......

Quote:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n3007498.shtml

......It apparently wasn't too close a question for the appeals court panel -- it was a unanimous decision dismissing the appeal with a one-paragraph order........

Quote:

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-s...memo052507.pdf
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
) CR. NO. 05-394 (RBW)
v. ))
I. LEWIS LIBBY, )
also known as Scooter Libby )
GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by its attorney, PATRICK J. FITZGERALD,

.....It was apparent from early in the investigation that classified information relating to
a covert intelligence agent had been disclosed without authorization. Also early in the
investigation, investigators learned the identities of three officials – Deputy Secretary of State
Richard Armitage, Senior Adviser to the President Karl Rove, and Mr. Libby, the Vice-
President’s Chief of Staff – who had disclosed information regarding Ms. Wilson’s CIA
employment to reporters. What was not apparent, however, were the answers to a series of
questions central to whether criminal charges arising from the unauthorized disclosure of Ms.
Wilson’s identity as an intelligence agent were both viable and appropriate. These questions
included the following:
• Were Mr. Armitage, Mr. Rove, and Mr. Libby the only government officials
to disclose information about Ms. Plame’s CIA employment to reporters?

------------------------------------- 2

• Was each particular disclosure by the government officials to journalists
deliberate, reckless or inadvertent?
• How did those government officials learn about Ms. Wilson’s CIA
employment?
• What did those government officials know about the classified nature of Ms.
Wilson’s employment?
• Precisely what information regarding Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment did
government officials disclose to reporters, and to how many reporters?
• Were the disclosures made as part of a concerted effort to disclose this
information? and
• Did other government officials direct or approve these disclosures?
Consistent with the seriousness of the allegations, the criminal investigation that
followed sought both documentary and testimonial evidence from a wide range of sources.
The unusual nature and context of this investigation required witnesses to divulge
extraordinarily sensitive information to investigators. The President, Vice President, and
many of their closest advisers met with investigators and disclosed communications and
deliberations that occurred at the highest level of our government. Multiple government
agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency, disclosed classified information to
investigators. Journalists disclosed sources. Witnesses disclosed sensitive personal
information relevant to the investigation. The need to balance the important and varied
interests affected by this investigation at times led to difficult negotiations resulting in

________________________________________ 3

compromises by both witnesses and investigators, and in the case of certain journalist
witnesses, to litigation over the journalists’ claims of privilege to protect their sources.
In many respects, the manner in which witnesses from the President to ordinary
citizens participated in this criminal investigation, disclosing to investigators information that
few of them were eager to share, with the guidance of the courts when disputes arose, is a
testament to the strength of a fundamental principle of our nation’s justice system: that the
law is entitled to every man’s evidence. Inherent in this principle is the obligation of a
witness to tell the truth, particularly under oath. As the Supreme Court said in United States
v. Mandujano, 425 U.S. 564, 576 (1975):
In this constitutional process of securing a witness' testimony, perjury simply has no
place whatsoever. Perjured testimony is an obvious and flagrant affront to the basic
concepts of judicial proceedings. Effective restraints against this type of egregious
offense are therefore imperative. The power of subpoena, broad as it is, and the power
of contempt for refusing to answer, drastic as that is -- and even the solemnity of the
oath -- cannot insure truthful answers. Hence, Congress has made the giving of false
answers a criminal act punishable by severe penalties; in no other way can criminal
conduct be flushed into the open where the law can deal with it.
See also Nix v. Whiteside, 457 U.S. 157, 185 (1986) (“[t]his Court long ago noted: ‘All
perjured relevant testimony is at war with justice, since it may produce a judgment not resting
on truth. . . .’”) (quoting In re Michael, 326 U.S. 224, 227 (1945)). Despite the many
competing public and private interests implicated by this investigation, and the high stakes
for many of those asked to provide information, witnesses from all stations in life were
required to accept and comply with their legal obligations.

__________________________________________ 4

It is against this background that Mr. Libby’s conduct must be judged. As an
experienced attorney, Mr. Libby knew well both the seriousness of this investigation and the
range of options available to him as the investigation progressed. He, of course, could have
told the truth, even if, as was the case for many other witnesses, doing so risked the
possibility of criminal prosecution, or personal or political embarrassment. He also could
have declined to speak to the FBI agents, invoked his Fifth Amendment rights before the
grand jury, or challenged any lines of inquiry he believed improper. And the evidence at
trial showed that Mr. Libby had access to counsel and had adequate time to review relevant
documents and contemplate his conduct before he testified.
Regrettably, Mr. Libby chose the one option that the law prohibited: he lied. He lied
repeatedly to FBI agents and in sworn grand jury testimony, and he lied about multiple facts
central to an assessment of his role in the disclosure of Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment. He
lied about when he learned of Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment, about how he learned of her
CIA employment, about who he told of her CIA employment, and about what he said when
he disclosed it. In short, Mr. Libby lied about nearly everything that mattered.
These lies had two direct results. First, they made impossible an accurate evaluation
of the role that Mr. Libby and those with whom he worked played in the disclosure of
information regarding Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment and about the motivations for their
actions. Second, the lies required the government to expend substantial time and resources.....

__________________________________________ 5

aceventura3 · 07-02-2007, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

So much for "Faith in the system"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/cia_leak_...QxV.2BA5Ws0NUE

Freakin' Disgusting......and welcome to the latest monarchy

Faith in the system would have involved the belief that there would be an investigation of a real crime and then bringing those responsible for that crime to trial. Fitzgerald failed in his responsibility. There was no crime, Libby's testimony was not material to his investigation of the alleged crime and Fitzgerald knew Libby's testimony was not material when he was entrapping Libby.

Who is surprised by the fact that Libby is not going to serve time in prison? You shouldn't be. Everyone who hates Bush and thinks his administration is the most corrupt in history, and now acting surprised, actually thought Bush would let Libby serve time in jail? The rest of us saw this for what it was worth. Justice would not have been served by Libby going to prison. Fitzgerald wasted all this time and all of those resources for nothing.

What a waste. There is enough "real" stuff to address in Washington - there was no need for this circus, and no need to heighten the hopes and dreams of Bush haters over something with no substance.

powerclown · 07-02-2007, 06:27 PM

I didn't say Libby deserved a commute - but isn't Dick Armitage the one acknowledged to have leaked Plame to begin with?
Why didn't Fitzgerald have him thrown in jail, for the crime this whole investigation is supposedly about?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Everyone who hates Bush and thinks his administration is the most corrupt in history, and now acting surprised, actually thought Bush would let Libby serve time in jail?

Nevermind the Bush haters, what about Fitzgerald? Why would he go ahead with the whole thing if he knew (and I can't imagine he didn't know) Bush was going to release the guy he worked so long and hard to incriminate?

host · 07-02-2007, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Faith in the system would have involved the belief that there would be an investigation of a real crime and then bringing those responsible for that crime to trial. Fitzgerald failed in his responsibility. There was no crime, Libby's testimony was not material to his investigation of the alleged crime and Fitzgerald knew Libby's testimony was not material when he was entrapping Libby.....

....ace....that's bullshit...it's bullshit from some fringe, winged out opinion page, an IBD editorial...an "article" by Vicky Toensing, or a complaint to the OPR at DOJ about the conduct of special counsel Fitzgerald, by Clarice Feldman.....but what it is not,,,,is a reliable part of the record of the court proceedings or actial news reporting.

If we were to discuss what happened on 9/11 ace....what the government knew, and when it knew it..... would you accept at face balue, an opinion that contradicted a oublushed finding in the 9/11 Commission report?

If you attempted to post a persuasive argument that countered a 9/11 Commission oublished fining, wouldn't you need to post photos from an authenticated source and publication date....and the same would apply to a witness's opinion......

So, what is the basis of your opinion? I read quite a bit....and I've never read any news reporting from a non-Moonie, non-Murdoch, non-RNC, non-Bozell or Horowitz source, or from the court record, that ever supported the opinion that you just posted, ace.....

I've read bullshit on the ed and op-ed pages...even of the WaPo....but that isn't news, and it isn't from the court record....so why do you cite it.....

do you do it just to incite? Is it all you've got? Is that how you make up your mind? Do you ignore the news, ignore the record....and just react to the filtered bullshit printed on opinion pages?

Show us where you got that...... where it appeared in news reporting....not in a Novak column, or on some other page at townhall.com...... Have you wondered where you got that....how you could feel so persuafed by that "message", that you would repeat it as fact, in a post?

Rekna · 07-02-2007, 06:47 PM

Powerclown who told Armitage?

host · 07-02-2007, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

I didn't say Libby deserved a commute - but isn't Dick Armitage the one acknowledged to have leaked Plame to begin with?
Why didn't Fitzgerald have him thrown in jail, for the crime this whole investigation is supposedly about?

Nevermind the Bush haters, what about Fitzgerald? Why would he go ahead with the whole thing if he knew (and I can't imagine he didn't know) Bush was going to release the guy he worked so long and hard to incriminate?

I answered your question, powerclown....I showed you the page in the RECORD of Libby's sentencing report where it was last explained to the court by the prosecutor....and....it had to pass the muster of Libby's elite, eleven lawyer multi million dollar legal team, a Bush appointed trial judge, and a 3 jusdge appeals court panel that include Sentelle and another republican, AFTER the same argument convinced Libby's jury of eleven citizens, off the street.....

....read it again, powerclown....Libby stopped the investigation....blocked it's progress....and Fitzgerald stated that

<h3>"Mr. Libby lied about nearly everything that mattered."</h3>
Libby's prosecution was not about what Armitage or Rove did..... first or after Libbt lied and obstructed. What incentive is there for any reluctant witness to tell the truth, if norhing happens to the ones who choose to deliver deliberately deceptive answers?

....and the questions that Fitzgerald's investigation attempted to answer?

Quote:

.....• Were the disclosures made as part of a concerted effort to disclose this
information? and
• Did other government officials direct or approve these disclosures?....

...thanks to Libby lying and obstructing, and now, to Bush's commutation....we will probably never know the answers....and I guess that is OK with ace, and with powerclown.....

....and it wasn't Bush "haters" who investigated, tried, convicted, and were sending Libby to jail, was it? Not a one......

powerclown · 07-02-2007, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Powerclown who told Armitage?

I don't know, but Armitage told reporter Novak, and Novak was the first to reveal Plame publically. The way I understand it.

Elphaba · 07-02-2007, 07:57 PM

Wow...the 24% are still clinging to "Bush Haters" as some sort of argument rather than discussing actual facts. Amazing.

Superbelt · 07-03-2007, 03:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

I don't know, but Armitage told reporter Novak, and Novak was the first to reveal Plame publically. The way I understand it.

I don't know why Armitage wasn't charged himself. I don't get a lot of what happened in that investigation.

But Armitage wasn't the only traitor funnelling that particular bit of national security info to reporters. It was him, Libby and Rove that we know of for sure.
They were passing it out to any reporter who would listen and hoping that it would stick on at least one. And they got lucky with the prince of darkness.

aceventura3 · 07-03-2007, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

So, what is the basis of your opinion?

One, Fitzgerald did not bring charges against anyone for "outing" Plame. Hence, my assumption that he did not believe there was a crime involving her "outing".

Two, Fitzgerald knew who initiated the leak.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Wow...the 24% are still clinging to "Bush Haters" as some sort of argument rather than discussing actual facts. Amazing.

I assume I am in-part the target of this comment. Arguments for my views have been posted for all to read in several threads on this topic. I have included facts, asked questions, and have shared the basis of my opinions.

The truth is actually coming out about Bush haters as it relates to this case. In the minds of many this was some kind of a litmus test for the entire case for war and how many think Bush misused intelligence information. Many admit Libby is a scapegoat, but fail to explain how his trial conviction and excessive sentence relates to justice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Nevermind the Bush haters, what about Fitzgerald? Why would he go ahead with the whole thing if he knew (and I can't imagine he didn't know) Bush was going to release the guy he worked so long and hard to incriminate?

It would be nice if Fitzgerald actually answered some questions like this honestly. All we can do is speculate at this point. I think his motives were political. I would like to know what the Bush haters think about why he did it.

Ironically, if the sentence had been reasonable, Bush, in my opinion, may not have taken any action.

tecoyah · 07-03-2007, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

One, Fitzgerald did not bring charges against anyone for "outing" Plame. Hence, my assumption that he did not believe there was a crime involving her "outing".

Quote:

He tried to get the evidence required, and was kept from doing so by a combination of inaccessibility to witnesses, and stonewalling by those he did get access to. Thus his many comments explaining exactly that.

Two, Fitzgerald knew who initiated the leak.

Quote:

Knowing who committed a crime, and gathering the evidence to "Prove" such a thing are very different matters, as I am sure you are aware. Such weak and obviously questionable logic used to form a conclusion does not do you justice.

I assume I am in-part the target of this comment. Arguments for my views have been posted for all to read in several threads on this topic. I have included facts, asked questions, and have shared the basis of my opinions.

The truth is actually coming out about Bush haters as it relates to this case. In the minds of many this was some kind of a litmus test for the entire case for war and how many think Bush misused intelligence information. Many admit Libby is a scapegoat, but fail to explain how his trial conviction and excessive sentence relates to justice.

Quote:

The trial of Libby was directly tied to the issue of selective intelligence used to take us to war, this should be obvious:

1)Evidence is gathered that disputes a primary reason given for invasion.
2)Administration officials target the messenger to quiet the Data.
3)Investigation into the alleged details of said targeting is stonewalled.
4)One of the key witnesses Lies to the courts under oath, and is charged on multiple accounts.
5)Said witness is found guilty, and sentanced.

Seems like a cut and dry case of justice served, and in fact he was given a very small prison time when comparison is made.

It would be nice if Fitzgerald actually answered some questions like this honestly. All we can do is speculate at this point. I think his motives were political. I would like to know what the Bush haters think about why he did it.

Quote:

Because he didn't have sufficient evidence....and likely never will now. There is no longer any compelling reason for people to come forward other than conscience, and we all know how likely that will be. The individuals involved are not allowed to testify, and the power to hide information lies with the very entity that needs to hide it.

Ironically, if the sentence had been reasonable, Bush, in my opinion, may not have taken any action.

One case in millions:

Quote:

Defendant's Testimony=Perjury=Obstruction Enhancement. Today, in U.S. v. Barajas, no. 02-10668, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the conviction and 210-month sentence of a criminal defendant convicted of aiding and abetting the cultivation of marijuana.

In a unanimous opinion authored by Arthur L. Alarcón, the court rejected the appellant's claims that (1) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction, (2) the district court erred in not adjusting his offense level score downward based on his minor role in the offense pursuant to USSG sec. 3B1.2, and (3) the district court erred in adjusting his offense level score upward two levels for obstruction of justice pursuant to section 3C1.1 of the USSG.

The upward adjustment for obstruction of justice was based on the defendant's trial testimony, which the district court found perjurious.

Federal sentencing guidelines would suggest that anywhere from 1.5 to 3 years; some people take a more rigid interpretation and think that the time frame could be a little bit longer.

06-14-2007, 10:36 AM	#2 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	What question(s) remain unanswered in the investigation? __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

06-14-2007, 11:05 AM	#6 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	I think we know that the office of the Vice President was fully aware of the fact that they were attempting to discredit Wilson by using Plame. I think we know they "outed" her. I think they knew she was covert. O.k., what is missing, that is important? __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

06-14-2007, 12:32 PM	#8 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	I have been asking why Fitzgerald did not bring charges for the "outing" of Plame from the begining. Never got a clear answer. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

07-02-2007, 02:35 PM	#21 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	I'm back to the notion that Libby agreed to take the fall under the condition that he would never spend a day in jail. I guess Bush wasn't worried about his poll numbers going any lower since all that is left of his supporters will drink any flavor of kool-aid he has to offer. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

07-02-2007, 02:36 PM	#22 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Don't presidents usually wait until the last few days of their terms to do this sort of thing? George W. Bush just spat in the face of America. Will THIS finally wake America up? Last edited by ratbastid; 07-02-2007 at 02:52 PM..

06-14-2007, 05:43 PM	#10 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	This is great news. Glad to see that Libby is being brought to justice.

07-02-2007, 02:22 PM	#19 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Ooh fuck him. Well, fuck us too, I guess.... But completely expected. I actually thought he wouldn't have the balls to be this blatantly corrupt about it though and wait until his last week.

07-02-2007, 02:23 PM	#20 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Good to know that obstructing justice is ok as long as you do it to protect Republican ideals.....

07-02-2007, 05:41 PM	#29 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	It must be good to be Dick Armitage right about now.

07-02-2007, 06:47 PM	#34 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Powerclown who told Armitage?

07-02-2007, 07:57 PM	#37 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Wow...the 24% are still clinging to "Bush Haters" as some sort of argument rather than discussing actual facts. Amazing. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007