Actually, if one wanted to get technical about it, there is a fair case to be made that the sentence was excessive. Fitzgerald knew that Libby didn't out Plame, didn't violate the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the law at issue here from the start. Going ahead with the trial knowing that Libby was innocent of the charge while simultaneously knowing that Amritage was the actual source of the leak could be seen by some as definitive legal grounds for dismissing the case outright.

He also knew Libby was lying. That's the kicker. The trial was about trying to force the truth from him. Of course, Libby had little to fear, knowing Bush would allow him to walk away, thus completing the circle of bullshit.

We participate on a forum, and in a country....where little discussion can take place. Some of us form our opinion under the influence of the context of what is actually happening..... from the quotes reported right from the horses' mouths.....I quote the white house web page quotes often....for that reason.

It's difficult to spin what is actually said and written by the key participants in events......if your intent is to convey the exact opposite of what is happening....

I know why they all do it.....in the tiny, tiny world where this unjust, disrespectful, abuse of authority that is quite possibly another in a series of executive branch obstruction of justice and the investigation of the Plame leak.....<b>is spun as "business as usual"</b>...they do it in lockstep because the ones who still cling to this failed political party and failed presidency, are afraid of confronting their own confidence.

You see it in irate, in ace, and in powerclown...... all posting with such confident pronouncements....backed by....WHAT?

They never tell you. I try to show where I got the confidence to post what I post, almost always. Most of the time, with a foundation at least as strong as this:
We cannot have a "competition of ideas" here....when one side so clearly goes about "making shit up", and the other works to methodically support every key point posted.

This is not routine. The president himself hired a criminal defense attorney, Jim Sharp, in response to Fitzgerald's investigation. Cheney did the same:
The president is experiencing the most prolonged and severe disapproval polling results of any president since Nixon. In the midst of support by independents, for example, declining to 24 percent, he opts to block Libby's serving of even a day in jail, questioning the sentencing judge's determination, and not even consulting the relevant DOJ department or the prosecutor, before he acts.

An NPR contributor commented this afternoon that preemption of an entire prison sentence by a president had not occurred in 80 years.....

This stinks...and it will fuel the further decline of this president and of his party. We post again, and again, why this is so....and your confident, but empty dismissal of our examples of objections and of the serious implications for the reputation of the presidency and the principle of equal justice is all that you post in response.

When you resort to an "argument" that includes your confident assertion that special counsel Fitzgerald should have ignored Libby's perjury and obstruction....that it was he who erred, not Libby.....you would leave no prosecutor with the tool of legal deterrent to discourage future perjury and obstruction...and as Bush has pissed in all of our faces and on the US constitution, and not for the first time.....you shit up these pages, in lockstep....brimming with a confidence as misplaced and pathetic as Bush himself so often displays.....

I agree. Every so often I'll hear somebody complaining about how bad one party is and that things will be so much better if/when the other party comes into power...and it really bugs me. Both parties have done their fair share of immoral and abusive shit, so I see no reason why I should like or trust either one.

Telluride, don't you think that you do yourself a disservice by posting (believing ????) such a simplistic dismissal of "both parties"? Can it really be that simple? I doubt it....

Anyone who wanted to, could have challenged this recent TFP Politics thread's title.....the challenges weren't very supportive of your argument:

<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=116612">
So Tired of the "It's Both Parties" Denial/Dismissal</a>

....please read the following Glenn Greenwald excerpt, and then share with us, what he has wrong in his articulate opinion that is so totally opposite your "it's both parties", POV?

If he and I are incorrect. shouldn't it be only a small challenge for you to write something convincingly rebutting Greenwald's points...or the points in the "It's Both Parties" thread, linked above?

Simple, unsupported dismissals of "both parties", don't cut it here, Telluride.... they're not competitive, compared to the posted record here...unless you can show us otherwise...and they're not practical. Leahy, in the senate, and Waxman and Conyers, in the house, have held power for less than six months. They have demonstrably exercised more methodical practice of checks and balances in that time, than the previous congress performed in six years....

You do them...and us....a disservice by your dismissive opinion...and, from what Greenwald describes below, your POV is neither fair or accurate, IMO:

It seems like this is a variation of the "no underlying crime" theme. I see these arguments put forth over and over, yet they never makes sense to me. Libby wasn't convicted of the things you listed. He was convicted of something else - obstructing justice.

To follow your argument to its conclusion, recreational perjury and obstruction is fine. The only perjury that matters is perjury in cases where a guilty verdict is found in the charges that began the investigation. Of course, this doesn't make sense, in that there is no verdict at the time the perjury or obstruction is committed. To claim that it works itself out to nill is to say that the witness/party in question has the right and authority to decide for his or herself whether the investigation is justified or will be fruitful. That's obviously ridiculous.

The integrity of the entire criminal justice system relies on being able to conduct investigations. You can't allow obstruction or perjury in any circumstance, whether it is material in retrospect or not. That's the thing that got Clinton nailed, and truth be told he deserved more than he got, even if the thing that started it all was a blowjob or sexual harassment. And just because we screwed that one up (in terms of creating accountability) doesn't mean that we have to screw this one up as well.

That doesn't even begin to consider the question of what the outcome of Fitzgerald's investigation would have been without Libby's obstruction, to say nothing of the more informal resistance that was nearly constant.

I didn't claim that there was an equal amount of corruption in both parties right now or even that one party has been more corrupt or abusive within a certain time frame. What I'm saying is that a look at the histories of both parties will show prominent politicians at the state and federal levels endorsing abuses of the rights of American citizens (which is why I don't trust either party or government in general). Do you disagree?

In all seriousness, I'm not sure what your point is ubertuber.

It seems to me that at the point where Armitage came forward, the probability that an actual crime had been committed dropped to about zero. Now this doesn't mean that it was impossible for a crime to have happened, but it does seem unlikely. Dragging people in front of a grand jury to answer questions under oath seems like it should be done to investigate an actual crime, not to satisfy a overzealous prosecutor pursuing a case that originated from profound differences of opinion on U.S. foreign policy.

As neither a lawyer or a constitutional scholar I have no idea what the law says about this, but to me it looks like something that I would like to think would be considered an abuse of the grand jury process.

Are you suggesting that politicians who lie and obstruct justice should always serve jail time, or that only selected ones should?

I think the number of people at Waco was only 87 or so. Their cases were not reviewed because they were killed without trial.

Oh, you meant Bush! *shakes head*

This is one COLOSSAL tempest in a teapot.

Yeah, justice is unimportant. Let's all go watch American Idol and allow the planet to get ass raped by selfish power hungry pricks.

Teapot in a tempest, more like.

Telluride, you've framed your response, and then your question in a measured and reasonable way....and of course, I do not disagree with you. If you are saying that the "history" of the malfeasance of both parties is grounds, at this time, to embrace alternative parties, I don't see that as practical or in the best interests of the majority. The democrats, before this year, did not control the house since Jan., 1995, and the senate, since Jan. 2003. IMO, our country is in a crisis of confidence in it's national leadership...and the only near term hope to mitigate it is to restore checks and balances, via renewal of oversight and accountability of the executive branch by the congress. The congress is now led by a democratic party majority. The house speaker and key senate and house committees are recently led by, so far.... inquisitive, deliberative, methodical, and....when appropriate....aggressive, no nonsense, congressmen and senators. They seem headed in a direction that will reveal whether the DOJ can ever again, under this president, function as the investigative and enforcement agency of the people of the United States, or only of the dictates of the executive branch....and sooner than I would have predicted. It's the wrong time to look elsewhere for a political remedy, IMO.

We deserve better than we've gotten. Use the democrats in the short term, to unseat as many republicans as possible, in November, 2008. Then, if they disappoint, back whoever you prefer in the 2010 mid-term elections. I see no other way to change course as quickly as is needed.....

<b>powerclown:</b>

This is from "one of your own"...he "gets it":
Doesn't Ed Morrissey of captainsquartersblog.com make an identical argument to that of "team Fitzgerald", displayed below?

Doesn't Bush....if this article can be relied on....seem like an unconscionable elitest and hypocrite? He unleashed Judge Walton on the U.S. public....but not on his own Scooter Libby?
<b>I post the influences on my opinion, powerclown....right outta the "record"....and yours come from....where?</b>
You can read Libby's defense team's unsuccessful pleadings to the court here:
It is important to note that the Probation Service's pre-sentencing report on Libby has not been released. We can gain insight into it's unusual (unprecedented...one of a kind...) preferential consideration of Libby, by the frequent citing of it by Libby's attorneys in the pleadings linked below. It shows such concern for convicted felon Libby, that it cannot be viewed as legitimate or impartial work product of a DOJ agency that is not known, in other cases, for anything like what the defense represents that it determined about Libby.


...and Libby showed no remorse and was unapologetic at sentencing:
....further in the link in the preceding quote box.... National Review's Byron York and The Nation's David Corn, engage in a debate identical to the one that <b>I am trying</b> to engage here....

the reaction to the OP is, in general, variations on the certainty of mr. libby's guilt. that's really not relevant and not something i would even begin to contest.

i must restate...

if you are outraged by this libby business, there are only two morally consistent arguments available:

1) this libby case is an extra-ordinary abuse of power and insult to justice!
2) this libby case is just the latest in a never-ending string of abuses and i am opposed to all of them in measure proportionate to their severity

the first is very difficult or impossible to argue (dc_dux is the only one who's attempted it). the second demands a moral consistency that i haven't witnessed on this board. if you can't demonstrate the first and don't qualify to argue to second, you're guilty of the same preferential notion of justice for which you condemn the president.

-------------------------

host, i appreciate your discipline for citing resources... but i find your posting style more distracting than convincing. in addition to helpful source documents you also tend to post op/eds and info from dubious sources. what's more, they're often posted in their entirety. for what it's worth, i think they'd be more effective if your restated the argument in your own words and linked only to sources confirming objective facts that may not be readily accepted.

i do not see what distinction you are trying to make with your repeated "you either think a or b" move, irate. the effect of it is to box in anyone who would take your post seriously--the problem is either pardons in general or this particular pardon/commutation. that is a false binary, as we say in the biz. what it does is erase context, erase this particular context, in order to substitute two alternate contexts--objections in principle to pardons or the list of previous pardons. i do not know what you imagine you accomplish with this move, but you seem quite committed to it, as if this false binary is enough to put those who find this latest move on the part of cowboy george to be problematic in an awkward spot.

the other problem is your insistence on switching away from the category of the political and onto some "moral" grounds in the fashioning of judgments. there is no justification provided for this switch.
there is no rationale for it, so far as i can can tell either.
what it seems cheap to me. like nothing is happening with or through it: except that you get to dictate not only the way the question is framed, but the grounds on which any possible critique of it can be articulated.
which is your prerogative, i suppose--you can try to do what you like--but there is no reason to expect that anyone who is not you will buy your thinking.

so there is no agreement about the way you are framing this question.
none.
so if you dont want to interact with host's posts and dont want to take seriously the response he provided you, then maybe we can start again in another way and you can defend the moves that shape your repetitions of the op.

Irate...

Several more facts that have come to light would further make the case for your 1) this libby case is an extra-ordinary abuse of power and insult to justice:

Presidential pardons and/or commutations are generally made after a portion of the term in prison had been served:

Sentencing experts said Bush's action appeared to be without recent precedent. They could not recall another case in which someone sentenced to prison had received a presidential commutation without having served any part of that sentence. Presidents have customarily commuted sentences only when someone has served substantial time.

"We can't find any cases, certainly in the last half century, where the president commuted a sentence before it had even started to be served," said Margaret Colgate Love, a former pardon attorney at the Justice Department. "This is really, really unusual."

Further, in making his case for the commutation, Bush's position that the prison sentence was "excessive" contradicts the policies and practices of his own DoJ (with whom he did not confer):

....records show that the Justice Department under the Bush administration frequently has sought sentences that are as long, or longer, in cases similar to Libby's. Three-fourths of the 198 defendants sentenced in federal court last year for obstruction of justice — one of four crimes Libby was found guilty of in March — got some prison time. According to federal data, the average sentence defendants received for that charge alone was 70 months.

(I would suggest Libby's obstruction was worse than most of the other 198 sentenced last year because of the violation of the public trust that accompanied his position in the highest level at the White House)

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...tory?track=rss

I dont have a problem with presidential pardons in general. I would prefer they be used by a president to correct an injustice or to acknowledge someone who had accepted responsibility for his actions and expressed contrition (and served time) rather than as a political favor, but even the latter is a perk of the office. I would have had no complaint if Bush pardoned Libby at the end of his term next year and after Libby had served some time.

I do have a problem with the manner in which this commutation was presented and rationalized.

Libby wasn't convicted of outing a CIA officer, although if there was true justice in the world he would be. He was convicted of lying about what he did, under oath, which is illegal. It's called perjury.

So why should he get off while this guy doesn't, if there's no underlying crime and perjury isn't a huge deal?

Both men were convicted of the EXACT same crime. The only difference I can see is that Rita was convicted of lying about a machine-gun registration law, while Libby was lying to cover his role (and almost certainly the role of Cheney, and maybe even Bush) in outing an undercover CIA agent for political gain.

Gee, I wonder who got off?

and yet......

Attorneys see irony in Libby case

Quote:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush knew what he was getting in 2001 when he made Reggie B. Walton one of his first picks for a seat on the federal bench: a tough-on-crime judge with a reputation for handing down stiff sentences. A former deputy drug adviser, federal prosecutor and Superior Court judge, Walton seemed a perfect fit for the new president. And Walton didn't disappoint, proving to be exactly the kind of no-nonsense judge Bush was looking for. Until now. When erasing former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case, Bush said Walton was being too harsh.

What a freakin' joke we have become

There is probably a good reason for springing Libby. There are some pretty big skeletons in the White House closet.

There are always, ALWAYS big skeletons in the white house closet, no matter what party is there.

True that. I guess as long as the bad guys control both parties it'll never change. :paranoid:

It's funny how the CIA just admitted they used to commit crimes, George Sr was CIA leader before he was president. Clinton and the Mena drug thing involved Bush too.

It's like finding out that two rival car dealers that have ads slamming the other dealer are owned by the same person.

I wish Libby had been given a full pardon for his non- crime and that Bush would have had the guts to do it right now.

Jenny

he broke the law, he knowingly exposed an operative, ruining her entire career, a career dedicated to protecting the USA, pissed away for revenge. he should be hung for treason, not pardoned.

Yeah....certainly no favoritism to be seen here...move along/

Oh shit....whats that down there

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2007/07...rita-sentence/

Jenny, my good friend, Bill Henrickson....put it thusly:

(With apologies for lack of attribution of the above, to Marcy Wheeler, aka "emptywheel"...)

Understood. I acknowledge politics being played on both sides of the aisle...spilling over into the public domain. My thing is that this trial was on very, very shaky and partisan ground from the start, initiated by an anti-war politico with a frogmarch agenda. I think what Joe Wilson tried to do policically was shady, and the white house fought back politically.


Playing Politics with Libby
by Alan Dershowitz
Posted July 3, 2007 | 10:09 AM (EST)

The outcry against President Bush's decision to commute Scooter Libby's sentence is misplaced. President Bush acted hours after the U.S. Court of Appeals denied Libby bail pending appeal. That judicial decision was entirely political. The appellate judges had to see that Libby's arguments on appeal were sound and strong -- that under existing law he was entitled to bail pending appeal. (That is why I joined several other law professors in filing an amicus brief on this limited issue.) After all, if he were to be sent to jail for a year and then if his conviction were to be reversed on appeal, he could not get the year back. But if he remained out on bail and then lost the appeal, the government would get its year. In non-political cases, bail should have and probably would have been granted on issues of the kind raised by Libby.

But the court of appeals' judges, as well as the district court judge, wanted to force President Bush's hand. They didn't want to give him the luxury of being able to issue a pardon before the upcoming presidential election. Had Libby been allowed to be out on appeal, he would probably have remained free until after the election. It would then have been possible for President Bush to pardon him after the election but before he left office, as presidents often do during the lame duck hiatus. To preclude that possibility, the judges denied Libby bail pending appeal. The president then acted politically. But the president's action -- whether right or wrong on its merits -- was well within his authority, since pardons are part of the political process, not the judicial process. What the judges did was also political, but that was entirely improper, because judges are not allowed to act politically. They do act politically, of course, as evidenced by the Supreme Court's disgracefully political decision in Bush v. Gore. But the fact that they do act politically does not make it right. It is never proper for a court to take partisan political considerations into account when seeking to administer justice in an individual case.

The trial judge too acted politically, when he imposed the harshly excessive sentence on Libby, virtually provoking the president into commuting it.

This was entirely a political case from beginning to end. Libby's actions were political. The decision to appoint a special prosecutor was political. The trial judges' rulings were political. The appellate court judges' decision to deny bail was political. And the president's decision to commute the sentence was political. But only the president acted within his authority by acting politically in commuting the politically motivated sentence.

powerclown, could you please post your article in a quote box....like the rest of us do.....

The article you posted is the work of an extreme partisan. You ignore that, by posting it, and....in order to hold the opinion that you posted, you must ignore the fact that Joe Wilson had no influence on the decision to prosecute Libby. Libby was prosecuted by a US Atty appointed by Bush, in a trail heard by a federal judge appointed by Bush, and Libby was investigated via a DOJ headed by an Atty General, appointed by Bush. The US Atty who acted as special counsel and prosecutor of Libby was appointed by Asst. Atty. General, Jame Comey, who was appointed by Bush. Two of the three judges on the appellate panel criticized by your articles narrator, Dershowitz were appointed by Reagan or by Bush's father....

You Dershowitz article has to compete with the following information, and, considering that he accuses 3 judges on the appellate panel and the trial judge, Reggie Walton, of somehow "playing politics", I can demonstrate how ludicrous Dershowitz's opinion is, by providing the background of one of the appellate panel judges, David Sentelle, and that of trial Judge Walton.....

On the one hand, your argument consists of the unsubstantiated accusations of Dershowitz, which fly in the face of the record of Sentelle and Walton, and your own opinion that this is "Wilson's fault". You attempt to advance these ideas as "reasonable"...things I'm assuming that you believe that we should consider, when the only non-Republican appointee in "the mix", is one democratic appointee of the three judges on the appellate panel. Even Joe Wilson was a Bush '41 dispatched, (to Baghdad) career diplomat, who Bush '41 once described as a "hero"....and Wilson had no influence over the investigative, indictment, trial process, or over Libbyy's appeal.

If Dershowitz's article is representative of why you feel so strongly opposite to the record of what happened in the Libby prosecution, and <b>the key things that you must deny to reach your conclusions...i.e.... that this is somehow "partisan", even though only Bush appointees took the Libby investigation, prosecution, and sentencing, all the way up to the point of appeal, and then, David Sentelle, of all people....ruled against Libby</b>....if this is how your "opinion gathering process", "works" with other issues....how would someone like me....ever be able to engage you in a substantative discussion on any issue?

powerclown....in order for a prosecution to be "partisan", or politically influenced, wouldn't it be most likely that a Bush appointed judge would be prosecuting a politically connected member if the opposing party. Here is what can happen, when that is the case....does this seem remotely lime the way Judge Walton treated Libby???? Both sentencings took place last month:
<b>Is it even a possibility that David Sentelle, given his own record and reputation.... one of three appellate judges accused by Dershowitz of :
....could possibly have acted as Dershowitz described....AGAINST Libby...out of a partisan motivation?</b>
....and Judge Walton's background:

Isn't it obvious why this pardon is special? I mean, there a dozen reasons, but the big one is that the president pardoned a man who very well might have had information that could have resulted in criminal charges for the Preznit. He pardoned a guy who might have been able to rat on him.

It creates, at the very least (cause I'm like 99.9% sure Libby is guilty as fuck and should go to jail for life for disclosing the name of an undercover CIA agent for political gains, at then covering that up) the perception of a quid pro quo. Bush makes sure he does no time, and Libby doesn't spill the beans.

Host, do you want to paste tons of shit to correct one of your own, guy44 as to who actually leaked Plame's name to the press?

Or should I do it? (just took a cut and paste for republicans course) :P

hey mike...this is not over, and if you would read and not chronically compalin about long posts and your scroll wheel....you might find that much of what you know.....is counter to the actual record. It is as if I have not provided, lately, and over the past year, most of the court filings by both sides in the Libby indictment and trial, and much of the pre-sentencing motions. You show how much you ignore about what Libby's prosecution and conviction was about, when you try to shift the issue to Armitage and Rove. Fitzgerald filed more than one brief, and said more than once in court, and to the press, that Libby was the only witness who lied to investigators and to the grand jury, and <b>obstructed the investigations goal of finding out if the leaks were disclosed at the behest of a high official in the executive branch, and or part of an organized effort authorized by high officials...such as....Cheney or even Bush....</b>and, as you know....Libby was convicted of blocking the investigation's efforts to answer those two questions.....Now...is there anything you still aren't altogether clear about, mike?

Waxman's second installment of <b>Rep. Waxman's Statement - "The Controversial Pardon of International Fugitive Marc Rich -- Day Two”</b>
is even more illuminating and it can be found here: http://oversight.house.gov/documents...1245-54779.pdf

Waxman points out how unfairly Clinton was treated by the republican congress, and contradicts Tony Snow's claim that "Clinton had left office and there was no big reaction by republicans to his pardoning of Marc Rich.
Waxman also relates that Scooter Libby was Marc Rich's lawyer for more than ten years, and that prominent republicans in former presidential administrations lobbied aggressively for Marc Rich's pardon...

Host, let me surmise as to the way I see the whole Plame affair, from what I have read, Plame was outed, someone's head was going to roll, Libby did the best the buck stops here, taking one for the team, even though he didn't out Plame, Amritage did.
He was convicted of obstruction, sentenced to 2.5 yrs even though he didnt out Plame.

He appealed his bail was denied, and then has his sentence commuted.

Did I sum up what I read correctly? Is it factually correct?

...mike, the irony is that your "take" is the way Libby approached his perjury and obstruction. If he could make it seem as if he was covering up...or couldn't recall, or was mistaken about who he heard about Plame's identity from....and who he then told....he could convince supporters....folks like you, mike....that the investigation was not about the executive branch's sensitivity to the controversy of who forged the "evidence" that Iraq was attempting to purchase yellow cake uranium from niger....not about the administration's political revenge that included at least Cheney...and maybe higher...authorizing the leaking of Plame's name, and affiliation with the CIA, during a time of war...when she was working,as Cheney knew....in a covert status in a managerial role, analyzing the WMD threat....

....and the difference between you and I, mike....is that I....as special counsel Fitzgerald did....want to know if Cheney or Bush did...or did not.... do those illegal and inexcusable things....during a time of war that they hyped as an excuse to rape our constitutional protections....

...and you, mike....regard the questions as none of the business of Fitzgerald's investigation....let alone any of my business....to know, and you, yourself, either feign disinterest, or truly have no interest in knowing. I think that your years in the Corps reinforced an acceptance of only needing to know what was required to do your job....

my "job" is to be a citizen in the U.S., taking an active interest in what the officials who serve me, are "up to"......

.....and, you refer to me as partisan?

The problem is that politicians from both parties are already disappointing me and have been doing so for quite some time. Both have worked to increase the size/power of government and both have waged war on people and nations that didn't attack us. My goal is not to simply kick a certain party out of office. It's to kick politicians with certain views out of office regardless of which political party they belong to.

As far as the presidential election goes, the only candidate that I actually like so far is Ron Paul. I don't care much for the rest of the Republican hopefuls, nor am I impressed with any of the Democratic favorites for the nomination. It's certainly possible that some other good, honorable leaders will throw their hats into the arena...but, as it stands, Ron Paul is the only current candidate that I will vote for. If he doesn't get the GOP nomination - and "the powers that be" will probably make sure that he doesn't - I will vote third party. I will be using this same approach for elections for other offices.

Here's the bottom line, for me. I want the President to be above even the perception of ethically inappropriate behavior. In fact, he promised us exactly that.

Can ANYONE deny that this APPEARS to be ethically questionable?

I can't deny it. I can't deny it one bit.

Bush has done a number of things that appear to be ethically and/or logically questionable. Including this situation with Libby.

this is an interesting perspective. source link is itself a link.

source: http://www.prwatch.org/node/6221
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2007/0...omonaco-p.html

If all else fails, Libby can always resume his kinky writing career:

http://wonkette.com/images/thumbs/80...1baa193935.jpg

The book is about a young Japanese man who runs a remote mountain inn and becomes embroiled in a world of intrigue. "A world of intrigue," in this case, involves:

* a scene of incest between two uncles and their niece;
* a hunter asking his companions if they should fuck a freshly killed deer while it's still warm;
* the description of a prepubescent girl's painted "mound" and pleasing lack of vaginal odor;
* a story about a girl who's kept in a cage and raped by a bear to train her to become a prostitute.

http://www.nerve.com/dispatches/libby/dirtypolitician/

Say reconmike, let's do a little correcting of your post, OK?

First, here's what I said:

Now, this isn't very complicated. Armitage was the first person to leak the name. But before that was ever published, Libby was already doing his best to be the one to leak it:

Since Novack's column came out on July 14, six and twelve days after Miller's conversations with Libby respectively, Libby was clearly, as I wrote, disclosing the name of an undercover CIA agent for political gains (even if he didn't technically name her, like a NY Times reporter can't find out who the wife of a former ambassador is).

So, did Libby leak the name to the press? Yes. Did his leak happen to lead to the first article about Plame? No. But that doesn't mean he wasn't trying.

powerclown...re-reading your logic and that of Dershowitz in his oped piece in your post #64, makes me question my own sanity, since I have to assume that you think that what Dershowitz wrote, is sensible and credible, and that there is a comparison between the "partisanship" shown by the SCOTUS majority in Bush v. Gore, and the alleged (by you, and by Dershowitz) partisanship levied against Libby, by...of all people... Judge Reggie Walton, and 4th district appellate court
Judge David Sentelle....

You're blowing my mind, powerclown.....it's as if you are telling me that it is pouring rain, when I see with my own eyes, that the sun is shining, and there isn't a cloud in the sky.

This post describes partisan treatment of a convicted, high profile defendant in a politically charge case, and no opportunity was afforded the sentenced person to remain free while he filed a motion to stay free pending appeal, and then while he was afforded an emergency appellate hearing that contested the trial judges decision:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...49&postcount=3

I grew more incredulous when I compared the opinions of you and Dershowitz, to the facts in the Libby case, Gore v. Bush, and the Gov. Siegelman case, and now I cannot fathom that you and Dershowitz even inhabit the same intellectual planet that I inhabit.....

...are the two of you _________? ...I'll leave it to others to complete my question, and I'm convinced by your opinion and your posting of Dershowitz's oped, that we need two separate forums on TFP to discuss politics.....I concede that we truly are that far apart now, and I cannot accept that any two people, knowing the backgrounds of Judge Walton and Judge Sentelle, and not both diagnosed clinically as paranoid personalities, could independently come up with the idea that those two judges....or anyone at DOJ involved in Libby's case, acted...in any way...from any influences of partisan prejudices AGAINST Libby, in any imaginable, or even unimaginable way...it's just not possible for that to have happened.....

Sorry but Armitage WAS the first person to leak Plame's name, he did it to Novak on july 7, so if ya want to split hairs Armitage actually said Plame was an op a whole day before Libby even insinuated he knew of a undercover op.

Again July 7th is the day Novak found out Plame's name a day before Libby met with Miller.

And to answer your questions here;

No Libby did not leak shit

And I have been trying to fuck Morgan Fairchild for years, doesnt mean I have suceeded.

...reconmiike, Libby was not charged with leaking details of Valerie Plame's employment, or her connection to Joe Wilson....and his oped did not appear in the NY Times until July 6, 2003...so what's this, on June 23?

<b>Background....reported 15 months before Libby's criminal trial, and just days before Fitzgerald indicted Libby:</b>
Reporting of Judith Miller's testimony at Libby's trial:

Unofficial transcript of Fitzgerald's questioning of Miller, at Libby's trial, to further explain preceding WaPo reporting.....
If you were one of the eleven jurors who voted Libby guilty, and you listened to Miller's trial testimony, and then you later read reconmike's post about Armitage, how credible would reconmike seem to you....about as credible as Scooter Libby or Dick Cheney?

<h2>It's as if those remaining supporters of this still outrageous and illegal Bush/Cheney "treason op" are either sniffing glue, were brainwashed by Rove and the RNC, or both !</h2>