libby sentence commuted - why the fuss?
 

undoubtedly the recent partial commuting of scooter libby's sentence will provoke a lot of passion on this board and elsewhere. can someone explain to me what all the mania is about?

scooter libby was investigated thoroughly for years and years. the prosecution found NOTHING related to national security leaks for which mr. libby could be held legally accountable.

he was eventually indicted on 5 offenses, all of which supposedly occurred DURING the investigation of a incident for which the prosecution couldn't build a case against him. in the end, he was convicted of 4 of the 5 counts and sentenced to 30 months in prison, 2 years probation and a $250K fine. keep in mind that these punishments were given in response to obstructions during the investigative process... not for being guilty of the crime for which he was being investigated.

so, very recently, the president has decided to partially commute mr. libby's sentence. the prison time was commuted though he will still endure the 2 years probation and the $250K fine. mr. libby has endured years of public scorn and has undoubtedly racked up thousands upon thousands of dollars in legal fees. all these miseries rooted in being suspected of a crime for which a federal prosecutor can't prove he committed.

in the course of all the moaning and groaning to follow, many people will fool themselves into thinking that their indignation is rooted in a commitment to rule of law. in fact, given the historical usage of presidential pardons, this is in fact a very mild application. president clinton pardoned 140 in his two terms. president bush, by comparison, has exercised the privilege less than 115 times.

the list of pardonees is particularly striking. mr. libby is the current president's first notable pardon. president clinton's roster includes 2 democratic congressman, several close business associates (some of whom were dealing with iran during the hostage crisis), and his own brother. pretty big stuff compared to mr. libby pardon of obstruction of justice.

it's plain that given the history of pardons, the current outrage at libby's pardon is entirely a cynical political maneuver. that, or a manifestation of a personal dislike for the sitting president. in any case, it does not take into account a sober judgment of the circumstances of the situation.

the only way to justify outrage is to view this as just another abuse in a long string of abuses. given the absolute silence at some recent examples of pardons being used more liberally, it will be difficult to make that case without employing strictly partisan motivations.

irateplatypus, where do you get the opinion that is so contrary to what special counsel Fitzgerald, the judge, the grand jury, and the convicting jury determined happened? I find nothing similar to it, except in opinion pieces....

Libby was obviously convicted of blocking the investigation from determining asnswers to the questions detailed in Fitzgerald's senyencing memorandum.....why is that so hard for you to accept....and do you think that the investigation should have simply stopped when Libby blocked the path to obtaining answers?

Are you not aware that others have been convicted and sentenced. in other cases, for soing exactly what Libby was convicted for doing?

<h2>If you were Fitzgerald, how would you have reacted when it became obvious that Libby was lying and obstructing?</h2>

....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..... on page 4 of the sentencing memorandum, what Fitzgerald told the court, Libby decided to do, instead.....at every opportunity......</b>

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 ..........





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

Hi irateplatypus.
I agree with you about the partisan bit.
On a strictly political level, I can't argue too much against Bush's decision.
It appears quite sound, managing to both assuage the republicans and deny the democrats.

....and the reaction to Bush's commutation from Libby prosecuotr, Patrick Fitzgerald:

Those that would continue a willing ignorance are beyond my comprehension.

Elitist hypocrisy is the enemy of equal justice. I can understand why Bush and Cheney and Libby would embrace it....at least they get something out of it.....but you guys???? How can I ever respect your enabling approval of these criminals using their power to corrupt our system of justice
....you know what, you guys make me sick...... my "hobby" is displaying the details, alongside your posts....the "devil" is in the details..... and, I think that it is effective, because we don't see much of your unsubstantiated opinion posted around here, anymore.....but your substantiated opinion always holds the potential of teaching the rest of us something....as I hope you would know....
<h3>What was this guy's "underlying crime" ? What does Bush's commutaion of Libby's sentence, on identical, but more numerous conviction than Mr. Rita's convictions....convey to the SCOTUS, to Mr. Rita, and to the rest of us, watching this play out, but less admiring of Mr. Bush, than you guys are?</h3>

....and really, guys....for you, isn't this really what this is all about:
....and this....?????

...Is that what it is, guys...in the face of facts, of justice, of fairness. you gravitate towards tje guy with the cowboy hat....the manly smelling, manwich, eating. beer drinking son of a gun who can say fuck you to the supreme court, to Victor Rita, and to the rest of us.....because he can????

<b>Not for fucking much longer</b>.....the pheremone sniffing don't want to hear this. but you can take that to the bank !

Host, were you this irate when Slick Willie pardoned one of the top 1% wealth holders (as you call them) Marc Rich and his 48 million dollar tax bill?
Thats alot cash that could have be redistributed.

Libby was convicted of obstruction and perjury, thats all, did it warrant 30 months? Maybe, maybe not.

GW's explaination for the commutation seemed reasonable.

Irate he committed and was found guilty of four felonies. That isn't something to just brush off. When Libby first lied he wasn't being investigated but instead an investigation was being done to see if an illegal leak occurred. Libby obstructed this investigation. That is against the law. People are guilty of perjury all the time who are not guilty of a crimes. Should we commute all their sentences also?

Wait, so you guys (irate and powerclown) actually believe that this isn't a simple act of favor repayment? You think that the president, with all his judicial experience, simply weighed the facts of the matter and correctly concluded that the sentence handed down by a judge for crimes involving the obstruction of a federal investigation was too harsh? And you think you have any sort of business taking some sort of intellectual high ground here?

I personally don't care much about whatever bullshit the president is spreading about why he commuted his friend. I also think that taking the president's word at face value is a sign of naivete. Presidents hook-up people to whom they owe favors; it's what they do. If you want to pretend that they don't so you can convince yourself that liberals are whiny then by all means. It's not like you didn't already think liberals were whiny in the first place.

It is nice to see a few "conservatives" back in the mix now that there's something that could conceivably be spun as good news for a "conservative". You folks all seemed to have disappeared following the most recent election. Can you guys admit that iraq was completely mishandled -perhaps even a horrible mistake- yet?

Jeez, where to start.
The mania is about two counts of perjury, one count obstruction of justice, and two counts of making false statements when interviewed by federal investigators. Not only that, but the misinformation he provided, of which he was found guilty, are about his relationship to the Plame case specifically distancing himself from his wrongdoing. He lied about his involvement. The mania is that this particular situation is suspected of having strong ties to the office of the Vice President, and how quick the president was to excuse a man who lied to probably protect those in higher office who should have been brought to justice. The mania is about how justice doesn't apply to those who ally themselves with the current administration.

Maybe you'd like to explain how 'years of scorn' can compare to 0 months in federal prison. Did we widdle liberals make Scooter cwy? Boo-fucking-hoo. The man should be in prison, as he was legally sentenced.


BTW, I really enjoyed how quickly the name 'Clinton' came up when Bush was suddenly the issue, Recon. It's a massive red herring, and everyone knows it. Instead of trying to defend the indefensible —I say indefensible because you clearly wouldn't need a massive red herring if you could defend Bush or Scooter—you run away and pull out your slick willie t-shirt.

There is a much larger picture here, that deserves scrutiny. The Congress is charged with attempting to keep our system of checks and balances in place,which sometimes requires investigating possible wrongdoing from the executive branch of government. If this ability is compromised, there is literally no second tier of accountability to fall back on, and a free pass is in effect for the white house to do as they please. Under many circumstances this might not be such an issue as it has become today, but we are dealing with the most secretive administration in recent history and questions have been raised concerning the integrity of a large portion of the officials in power.
When a similar situation arose during the Clinton Era a full investigation was implemented resulting in a good portion of the truth coming to light, and an impeachment trial of the highest ranking official in this country. Testimony was ordered and given which implicated the President and proved he was not truthful, and in fact he was justifiably charged and had to deal with the results of his actions. He Lied to the investigators in a failed attempt to cover his ass,and paid a small price for his indescretions.
At that point in history the DOJ was extremely active in its pursuit of justice, and actually did its job. The Congress was capable of compelling testimony which was used to incriminate the POTUS, and accomplished what it is charged to do by our system of government regardless of attempts to prevent it by the executive branch. This was primarily accomplished by well documented Republican influence pushing for investigation, to the point of documenting and forcing the president to discuss his sexual life in under oath....and he lied.
Congress is now attempting to accomplish a similar feat without the DOJ helping. In fact they are somewhat hamstrung at this point by a breakdown in the very foundation of the criminal justice system we rely on to maintain order, and punish the guilty. In essence there is no longer a system available to Congress which compels truthful testimony, and thus the major tool used as a check and balance is compromised. Most people understand there are major problems with what is happening to the executive branch in this country, and now also fear that nothing can be done to find out the details of its problems, and fix it.

If you do not see this as a problem, you have limited understanding of our constitution, and to use the term so easily spewed by those who support this rape of our Republic.

Are acting Un-American.

What will the house judiciary committee do about this?

Only if you're predisposed to consider GW's pronouncements reasonable.

This has nothing to do with Scooter being a Presidential Buddy, hunh? Then I wonder if there's anybody else out there who George feels was given too harsh a sentence. Shouldn't he be commuting all those sentences too? Is George suddenly soft on crime?

The WILLFUL naivete of those would would defend Bush at this time is just shocking to me. And it's shocking to the nearly 80 percent of Americans who are seeing through the bullshit.

Likely they will do nothing as of yet, the integrity of the system has been compromised to the point that those in power can prevent investigation. In fact that is exactly what we have just witnessed. Unless someone with knowledge falls prey to honesty and volunteers testimony there seems little chance of finding out what is truly happening. By eliminating the punishment handed down by the courts, Bush has proven he can protect those who will remain silent from prosecution.
With he recent overturning of precedent by the SCOTUS, we also see a major change in the dynamics of the highest court that may very well limit any higher level prosecution and at the very least force those thinking impeachment to seriously consider the chances of success, hampering further the inclination to delve deeper into investigation.
This seems a very well thought out and patient approach to changing the foundations of power in our country, and though I personally am disturbed by these changes I must give credit to those who have worked to create the atmosphere required to pull this off. We are likely watching a reworking of the United States Republic from the sidelines, and are mostly powerless to stop it. The Executive branch has pulled off a sort of Coup, and it would seem they have been mostly successful. By controlling the Executive, Judiciary, and Justice Dept. they pretty much control the country and can minimize the House for all intent and purpose.

Regardless of how much information the opposition may find in investigation, they are castrated when it comes to doing anything with the Data.

It's Marc Rich deja vu all over again. Hooray for the corrupt Republocrat Party!

You see Will I was asking a legitimate question of Host and not invoking a red herring. He has a hard on for people with money in this country, enough to the point of wanting to rise up and slice throats. So I was just asking him if in fact he was this upset when Marc Rich was pardoned for not sharing the wealth he owed the US people.
I got rid of my slick willie t-shirt, I was afraid to have it, we all know what happens to slick willie detractors, they wind up dead.

In this country with its laws there is something called precedence, and the act of pardon or commutation are legal acts, so to see what legally can be done one can look to the past to see if it has been done. And if your going to rate how atrocious the Libby sentence commutation was, it is only fitting to judge it according to what other presidents have done.

And RB, sure this is all about Libby being his buddy, and a very good buddy at that, he took the fall, kind of clamed up like the old mafia days when no one rolled over on anyone. And now he has be rewarded for his loyalty.

The Issue becomes one of acceptability. Alot of people simply do not think its a good Idea to look the other way when this type of thing takes place in the Highest Levels of Government.

Do You?

so wait.

first off, i doubt seriously that anyone is actually surprised by this action.

second: what is with the conservative-set resurfacing at this particular moment in order to outline the limbaugh-esque relativism thing? you know, whatever bush has done can be balanced against action x done by clinton such that everything is ok----as if in the last remaining theater in conservativeland there is a film running that outlines a series of imaginary injustices---the film only plays for conservative crowds, whcih get smaller and smaller every day--and this film is the basis for all conservative judgments about libby, the trial, its meaning and that of cowboy george's commutation of the prison term.

in threads here about the fiction of "illegal immigration" you see conservative shrieking about how undocumented workers "break the law" and so are necessarily Alien Other Bad...so when it comes to the poor, conservatives are sticklers for the trappings of legality...but when it comes to the actions of the bush administration, the terrain suddenly transforms and anything goes...anything at all...and why is that? because the film says that clinton did x and so cowboy george gets to do -x and there we are.

in responses to the bushpartialcommuntation in various papers, you get the same division of positions: the conservativeset uses the same fucking arguments in every last place. marc rich's name comes up in post after post.

what is amazing is the emptiness of this momentary surge amongst the inhabitants of conservativeland, emboldened to stray from beneath the rock they have been hiding under since november. the rationale? "o boy those lefties are pissed. it is a good time to be a conservative."---this speaks to a truly adolescent sensibility, doesnt it?
what's the argument behind it?
the argument is: "nyah nyah."

there is one interesting additional element, though: the virus that is far right ideology has been institutionalized in the legal system and so the bushwork is in a sense done...and now as lameduck or dronebee after mating with the queen, cowboy george slips, spent of precious bodily fluids, into a kind of dotage and the gratitude the felt by the far right for institutionalizing their backwater politics is expressing itself in a displaced form via cheerleading for liddy/libby.
this is one of the sources of real and lasting damage that the backwater politics of the american far right can do and continue to do.
well this and the debacle of a war in iraq...between the two, the right has left the credibility of the american system in shambles all the while hallucinating that they defend that system. and so it is that folk find themselves in iraq defending "democracy" american style by imposing it incoherently on a society they do not understand because their leader did not think it necessary to understand it just as it was seen as unnecessary to have a fucking plan.
and there is nothing to be done: the american system does not allow for anything to be done.
paralysis is what we have.
paralysis is all there is.
yay america.

then we have the rationale floated by cowboy george for his action: the sentence was "excessive" and george all merciful (when it comes to wealthy, politically allied white men, who are of course the only people who matter).
the claims behind this amount to a wholesale whitewashing of the entire plame affair in a manner consistent with rightwing talkingpoints of the past 3 years. nothing major was involved. why? well clinton did x, y, z....

a pathetic state of affairs.

von trier was right in dogville. the us is a gangster state. the only thing to be done is to burn it down. the error he made was in imagining that it would require someone outside the system to light the fire. it turns out that the far right attempts to defend/remake the system have already done that.

a fucking pathetic state of affairs.

You are wrong. Precedence does not always make things right. There is precedence for owning slaves in this country. There is precedence for being able to shoot people down in the streets. Just because it has happened in the past doesn't make it right. Clinton's pardon was wrong and so is Bush's. The reason people are so much more upset is the appearance and likely existence of an overwhelming conspiracy to circumvent the constitution by this administration. There are no longer checks and balances. The DOJ has been turned into an attack dog for the white house. The last 2 supreme court justices were appointed as yes men for the neo-con movement. The executive branch is refusing to acknowledge any of the power of congress and is preventing any investigations into its actions. This country is teetering on the edge of destruction. And all you and many others can say is "well Clinton". Stop it!

I love America, I think the constitution was very well designed but in our quest for power we have begun destroying the very thing that gives us our freedoms every day. At some point in time our brethren from across the isle became our worst enemy and now we spend more time battling with each other than any of our real enemies. Bush said he was a uniter and not a divider but he has fractured this country more than I have ever known.

Do you want this trend to continue? Do you really want the dems to polarize the DOJ when they are in power? To stack the system so that they will stay in power? If we continue setting "precedence" for skirting the constitution and the checks and balances it creates then that is what we will be left with and America will no longer be the land of the free.

i'm confused, you say it's not a big deal that he was not found guilty of the initial crime, but was found guilty of obstruction of justice investigating that crime. so if i commit a crime and cover my ass, but get caught covering my ass, i'm cool?

huh?

filtherton, the basis of this series of events that led up to the commute is the Iraq War. I think it helpful to see it in that light. This is about political retribution for someone who went against this administration's cause for war. Understand that some conservatives and others in favor of the war see Joe Wilson as a disingenuous cretin who deliberately, with the help of his CIA agent wife, went to great (and shady, to some) lengths to discredit that war effort. This shaped the atmosphere of a prosecution already seen by some as a politically biased, anti-war fueled witchunt from the start.

As far as geting back into the discussions, I haven't had anything constructive to say in threads such as "Ok....Can Anyone Tell Me Why Congress Does Not Impeach Bush Now?" or "Iraq was not invaded for oil" or "Does Bush really say what he means and do what he says - part II" or "Who is worse; George Bush or Hugo Chavez?" or "Support Our Troops: Stop Bush" which seem to be the norm here now.

I can't see how anyone is defending this. Bush and the Republican party are crooks. Clinton and the Democratic party are crooks. Why is anyone arguing "who did it first" or which law-breaking is "worse" than the other?

Perhaps they are all crooks, but they're our crooks. This is our country, and our political system. The issues these people differ on ideologically are universal to all of us, so while I understand the frustration and I understand a congressional approval rating in the teens, I see these things as cyclical events within what is basically a sound political structure.

And why should we settle for a government like this? It is within the power of the people to change change this government and I think it is time we do just that through our voting. Stop voting party and start voting for the candidates!

In other words you have no way of countering the enormous amount of information pointing to behavior that is Irresponsible and incompetent at best, and Illegal or subversive at worst?

I'm glad you understand the situation. We've honest to god got gangsters in the White House.

I shudder to think what would have happened to poor Scooter if he'd turned. Cement overshoes?

Wrongly framed question imo. While it might seem petty or irresponsible to deliberately attack an opponent of an administration, it certainly isn't a unique occurence here or in any other political system in the world. I can't speak to the morality of it - lets just say I'm not as idealistic as I was as a youth. Critics of administrations will always be targetted by those in power, either literally as in the case of the outspoken Russian journalist and Putin critic who had a few bullets pumped into her head by the State, or somewhat more benignly, as in what happened here.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/10...sp_rofl0ne.gif


"Libby sleeps wid da fishes." http://img.photobucket.com/albums/10...dis/Fedora.gif

Sorry, i didn't mean to put in the same box with the folks who vanished. Mea motherfucking culpa.:thumbsup:

OK...allow me to rephrase:

Regardless of political considerations, but taking a robust history of Government actions into consideration, do you feel there is no reason to be concerned with the current consolidation of power we have in this country?

Secondly, does the lack of consideration for transparency continuously expressed by the administration make you in any way ....uncomfortable?

That sort of discussion is actually mostly the norm in America in general right now. Unless you've kept yourself in a right-wing echo-chamber bubble, you know that.

I think its a good thing that people are allowed to express themselves like they do in America. People are talking, articles are being written, ideas are freely expressed, opinions are flowing unimpeded...in a way an indicator of the health of the republic, imo.

I would start to worry if things were otherwise: if opinion was stifled, if presidential/congressional approval was in the 90s (or artificially published to be so), if people in my neighborhood started "disappearing" for their political views, if tv and radio was only broadcasting state propaganda, if there weren't to be a presidential election in a years time, etc.

As to being in an echo-chamber, the same could be said in reverse. For example, some conservatives are livid that Libby wasn't pardoned outright, and that such a fuss and expense was made over what they consider partisan politics. And what is "normal"? It's not only the left that is pissed off with Bush anymore.

Oh it is so harsh that a man convicted of four felonies in Federal court should have to spend a couple years in jail!

And this from a man who killed 150 Texans while being so darn proud of the fact he never once spent more than 15 minutes reviewing one of their cases. Not once did he even consider mercy or justice when it came to handing out the death penalty, but oh, one of his buddies might have to spend a year or two in jail, oh heavens, best show mercy there!

*shakes head* Is it just me that sees this as the least bit disingenuous on W's part?

The sad part, josh, is that it's worse than being disingenuous. For it to be disingenuous, W would have to have some concept of the fact that there is serious cognitive dissonance between the two decisions. He'd have to be lying to himself about one or the other for that to happen.

The problem I think most of us have with all this is that he lacks whatever wiring is necessary to make that fact apparent in his shriveled little brain. The man lives in some la la land alternate universe where the idea of being wrong ever can't happen. Bush lives in the instant and at this instant he is doing (in his very selective book) the right thing, as he did the right thing at the instant he "reviewed' those death penalty cases and as he did when he reviewed Iraq. The magic of being George W. Bush is that there is no future and no past, there's just now and he goes with his gut (or his advisers) every time.

The next two years in this country could be a very dangerous time and we're going to have some serious internal issues that need to be taken care of once Bush finally leaves office. Again and again I look at his possible successors and I simply don't know what to do.

Total agreement.....

the debate will go where it will... but we've strayed from the intent of my OP.

as i demonstrated, the facts of the libby case as well as president bush's use of the privilege place his conduct well within the historical precedents set for presidential pardons by any objective measure. if a person claims to view this example of its usage as a threat to the rule of law (as many here say they do), then sober judgment would have to conclude that this is only the latest in a long string of similar abuses stretching back to the origin of the constitution.

so, given that this event has many antecedents, those who disapprove of the pardon on the grounds that it flouts the law must fall into one of two categories:
1) those who object to the general usage (or existence) of presidential pardons
2) those who object to this particular instance

given the general dismissal of past pardons as major issues, i conclude that those who object must object to this particular one for a reason not rooted in a love for the rule of law. the most likely motivation left is simply a political ax to grind. hardly worth getting worked up over.

as i see it, the only way to counter this line of reasoning is to prove that the libby case is objectively more serious than past cases or that the president acted in an unprecedented way. a quick wikipedia search of the history of presidential pardons will show the difficulty in those making arguments.

I would suggest that`this case differs from most presidential pardons/commutations, particularly in recent history, in that it involves a person in the highest level of government convicted of four felonies.

Should those in the highest level of the federal government be held to a higher standard than say a bootlegger that Bush pardoned earlier. I believe so because they pledge or affirm to uphold the law and public trust when they accept the responsiblity of serving in government (and the highest level in the WH).

The most nearly comparable cases would be Halderman, Erlichman and Mitchell of Watergate fame, all of whom were convicted and served prison time. Neither Nixon nor Ford even considered a pardon or commutation.

The only other marginally similar recent case would be former Secy of Defense Cap Weinberger, who was indicted for perjury in Reagan's Iran-Contra scandal. Bush Sr. pardoned Weinberger....others, like Bud McFarland, Reagan's National Security Advisor, were not so fortunate and served time for perjury.

I think its also reasonable to expect Bush to stand by his word. His spokespeople said repeatedly for the last year +, even after knowing of the sentence, that Bush would not interfere with the judicial process until it is fully played out.

To say that he respects the jury's decision, then to act with disdain for the judicial process by making a non-judicial value judgement on the "harshness" of the sentence (which was well within federal sentencing guidelines) is the ultimate hypocrisy...only further heightened by Bush circumventing the DoJ pardon/commutation process and guidelines.

irate: i am not sure that i see the point of you simply restating your argument as if host's no. 2 (and in a more incidental way no. 6) did not happen. it seems to me that he responded to most of your pseudo-objective claims (using a stentorian tone will give this impression every time, as you obviously know).
so why not start with that, rather than with no. 36.

personally, i posted as i did to this thread because i thought host responded to you so that there wasnt really much left to talk about.
i assume that you disagree?

Well this is what gets me - he even said that as Governer he never felt it was right for him to overrule a judge and jury to commute a sentence, even in cases where there was doubt.

To me, based upon his past history, his actions concerning Libby are simply scandalous. Whether you are right wing or left wing, Republican or Democrat (or as so many of you tend to claim "Libertarian") don't you think that letting your buddy out of a small jail term, given your past history of not commuting more serious sentences on the basis of it being "inappropriate" to override the judicial system, is incorrect?

I'm amazed that so many Americans are so comfortable with this whole "commuting" business. There is a judicial system; no one since King John should be overriding it.

Oh, I think he's just not up for being, you know, told anything.

Look, I know nothing of the history of Presidential pardons (or commutations as the case may be), but I can say this: ANY presidential pardon that serves to exculpate one of the chief actors in a scandal dogging that administration is worthy of very high suspicion and scrutiny.

Yes, even if Clinton did it. As far as I know he didn't, but as I said a few lines up, I don't know all that far. If he did, shame on him.

Here's the bottom line: there's a miscarriage of justice happening right now. I don't really care about the historical perspective: wrong is wrong and something should be done about it.

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>

Cut and dry, who said the name PLAME was a CIA covert op? was it Armitage or Libby?

And Host if ya want to get personal, you would still be in Canada if it werent for a by golly a PARDON by the US president Jimma Carter.

I never went to Canada, reconmike...because I didn't do anything wrong. President Ford, in all of his unelected magnanimity, pardoned Nixon, the criminal, UNCONDITIONALLY, and then offered refuseniks like me....a "pardon" that required working two years in a community or human services related low paying job, and the signing of a "reaffirmation" of "loyalty" to the US.

I already had spent years in low paying jobs...the only kind you can get if you had no selective service classification and you refused to provide a false one on a job application.....but the Ford oath was an insulting to my beliefs.



Ford didn't grasp that he was a criminal because he obstructed justice by pardoning Nixon, and that I ignored selective service because it was the right thing, the legal thing, and the moral thing to do at the time. The crime was the contrived Gulf of Tonkin resolution, the suppression of Daniel Ellsberg and others trying ro publish the Pentagon papers, and the Nixon approved break in of Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office, and the strategy if bombing North Vietnamese rice fields, ambassador GWH Bush's denial, at the UN, of the intent to bomb the rice field dikes in North Vietnam...and Cheney's support for the war while obtaining 5 deferments for himself because he had "other priorities". If everyone had come to the decision I came to in that era reconmike, LBJ and Nixon could not have gotten so many people killed for nothing, and Reagan would not have had a failed, avoidable, criminal war to shill as "noble".

I was an 18 year old who caught a glimmer of what it took Gen. Smedley Butler a 30 years carer in the Marines to figure out. Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and Adams knew it, too. It is confirmed that Bush and Cheney know it....for sure..... It's a racket , reconmike...and the ones who see it become POTUS or VP, and the ones who don't...... end up like Jessica Lynch, or like thousands of low income minorities who ended up etched in stone on the walls of the Vietnam memorial.

Cassius Clay was one of the smartest, selfless, courageous men of that period, reconmike, and you probably considered him a coward.

They can't fuck with you if you opt out, reconmike...and they'll kill a lot less innocents if you refuse to be complicit....to cooperate. They put the gun in your hand...and they tell you who to shoot it at....but, only if you let them.

You always have that choice....and if you respect yourself, it becomes an obligation.......the potential for large numbers of us to know that is the greatest fear in the minds of the Bushes and the Cheneys....

recon, this is really simple. Armitage AND Libby leaked. It doesn't matter that one did it before the other one. They BOTH LEAKED. BOTH LEAKED. BOTH LEAKED. Leaking = bad.

That's my whole point from my previous post. They both did it. That's it. And they were both wrong to do it.

Well host the people defending Libby are the same ones who believe Iraq had WMD when we went in and that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. Does it surprise you that they won't believe Libby lied under oath?

Alot of people beleived Saddam had WMDs when we went in, and some small traces were found, nothing to jump up and down and say, see he had them!! but there were some, I never said he had anything to do with 9/11, it is quite possible he did but there was never any proof he did.

And as I posted many times in this very thread, Libby did commit perjury and obstruction. Thats all I have to say about that.

Reconmike I wasn't referring to you directly nor anyone directly but instead the class of people who are in denial about what is going on (Rush and many of his listeners). Sorry if you took it as me implying you directly.

Something to ponder, is their any justice remaining in the federal system? Convicted Duke Cunninhgam briber, Brett Wilkes, released from federal prison, pending his appeal, after just over a month in the slammer:


It took a former democratic governor of Alabama eight months and a CBS 60 minutes expose to win release from federal prison, pending outcome of his appeal, and Brett Wilkes, convicted of much more serious charges than Gov. Siegelman, managed to get released from prison in just over a month!

my two cents....this might be the most obnoxious thread ever.

Regardless of ideology or perspective, Libby lied under oath. Our law requires that he should be in prison. I'm very disappointed with the decision to commute. I believe anyone that lies under oath, willfully violates civil-rights, uses the power of office to suborn purgery, etc., should be fully prosecuted and sentenced. This would include folks like the the Iran-Contra clowns, anyone found guilty under the current administration, and absolutely Bill Clinton and friends. Sorry, it's the way I see it, I don't mean to open another can of worms here. :paranoid:

What ever you believe about Libby's trial, it was politics as usual on all sides (shady actions and character assassination) ... Libby was a willing patsy. Right or wrong, the trial evidence was not enough to convict. If he didn't purger himself, he would have walked.

If anyone needs a pardon, it's border agents like Ramos and Campean who are serving time for essentially doing their jobs (IMO, political prisoners to satisfy Mexico). Much more deserving than Mr. Libby.

An article from http://ramos-compean.blogspot.com/
I love this topic. But shouldn't we take it over to the appropriate thread? ... just saying.

It could be fun!

Meanwhile, Jeralyn Merritt over at TalkLeft says there is a good chance Jeffrey Skilling's (Enron CEO) conviction will be reversed on appeal. That means the govt's poor record in getting non-plea convictions from the Enron fiasco will now be even worse than before.