 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Libby convicted
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Bobert Date: 07 Mar 07 - 08:06 PM First of all, Clinton was wrong, wrong, wrong... He shouldn't have messed around with Monika dn he shouldn't have lied about it and in the end, he was punished for his misdeeds... Okay, maybe some folks don't think that being impeached is enough punishement but that is a sentencing discussion... Period... Nuthin' more and nuthin' less... Now, To Wit: We have just witnessed a massive conspiracy by an administration to get even with one of it's detractors, Joe Wilson, who blew the whistle on a false claim used to take our country to war and after hearing weeks of testimony a jury has found one of the conspirators guilty... Right??? Yeah, a spokesman fir the jury has stated publicly that this defendent was taking a bullet for folks above him but that's what we have fir now... These are the facts... So, regardless of what side of the isle one might find him or herself, this is the way it is... The two crimes (Clinton's and Libby's) are seperate ansd any attempts to link them is dishonest and a down right waste of time... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Donuel Date: 07 Mar 07 - 07:39 PM Today Bush Jr. said "A jury convicted Mr. Libby and we have to respect a jury's decision. (then he smiled) How do I feel about it? I am deeply saddened for Mr. Libby and his wife and children" .... What about the bill that W's father signed into law as president that made it a felony to out a CIA agent? What about Valerie Plame and family? W's conspicuous omission of her name is a great big heart felt F**K YOU VALERIE. Couey was convicted today too. I'm sad for the victim and her family. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Don Firth Date: 07 Mar 07 - 04:23 PM Not true, BB. Already covered in the above discussion. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: beardedbruce Date: 07 Mar 07 - 04:15 PM I just want to know why there are two sets of laws, one that apply to those you dislike, and one that applies to those you approve of? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Jean(eanjay) Date: 07 Mar 07 - 04:12 PM Don Firth - you've got mine! :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: TIA Date: 07 Mar 07 - 04:08 PM Correction again. Why was Clinton impeached? "Because we could." --Newt Gingrich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Don Firth Date: 07 Mar 07 - 04:04 PM I don't buy any of that, BB. But the whole point is this: Why do you feel the necessity of bringing up Clinton's transgressions when this thread is about Libby? Purely to draw attention away from the issue being discussed. And the tactic is really getting hackneyed. Sorry about the HTML, but I'm just trying to get your attention! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: beardedbruce Date: 07 Mar 07 - 03:55 PM Correction: The Grand Jury investigation at which Clinton committed perjury was not about Monica! The impeachment was about Clinton's felony act of Prejury, and did include Monica as one of the witnesses. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: beardedbruce Date: 07 Mar 07 - 03:51 PM In Clinton v. Jones, the Court declined to extend the immunity recognized in Fitzgerald to civil suits challenging the legality of a President's unofficial conduct. In that case, the plaintiff sought to recover compensatory and punitive damages for alleged misconduct by President Clinton occurring before he took federal office. The district court denied the President's motion to dismiss based on a constitutional claim of temporary immunity and held that discovery should go forward, but granted a stay of the trial until after the President left office. The court of appeals vacated the order staying the trial, while affirming the denial of the immunity-based motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed, permitting the civil proceedings to go forward against the President while he still held office. In considering the President's claim of a temporary immunity from suit, the Court first distinguished Nixon v. Fitzgerald, maintaining that "[t]he principal rationale for affording certain public servants immunity from suits for money damages arising out of their official acts is inapplicable to unofficial conduct." Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. at 692-93. The point of immunity for official conduct, the Court explained, is to "enabl[e] such officials to perform their designated functions effectively without fear that a particular decision may give rise to personal liability." Id. at 693. But "[t]his reasoning provides no support for an immunity for unofficial conduct." Id. at 694. http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/sitting_president.htm it is fair to say that there exists an important national interest in ensuring that no person -- including the President -- is above the law. Clinton v. Jones underscored the legitimacy and importance of allowing civil proceedings against the President for unofficial misconduct to go forward without undue delay. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: beardedbruce Date: 07 Mar 07 - 03:45 PM Jaysus, Don! Go back and read what I actually wrote! The GRAND JURY investigation was not about MONICA! BC was accused of a FELONY, against another person, and he lied to avoid being indicted. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Ebbie Date: 07 Mar 07 - 03:37 PM You seem to like the word 'felony', bb. Why not call it what it was? As for 'contradictory evidence', have you heard of Douglas Feith? Maybe you are right that George W. Bush is the epitome of niceness and compassion and a great leader besides but he sure hangs out with a scurvy crowd. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Don Firth Date: 07 Mar 07 - 03:34 PM Jaysus, BB! Go back and read what I actually wrote! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: beardedbruce Date: 07 Mar 07 - 03:28 PM "had no bearing on anything beyond Clinton's family's and Monica Lewinsky's private lives. It did not have any bearing on anything beyond that." The FELONY being investigated was NOT about Lewinsky. YOU seem to ignore that fact. READ the impeachment, don't make up what YOU want to believe about it. I had thought you might have enough intelligence to understand that the FELONY investigation was the point- as you seem to think in the Libby case. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: TIA Date: 07 Mar 07 - 03:24 PM We openly defied the UN in order to "enforce UN resolutions". That's contradictory. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Don Firth Date: 07 Mar 07 - 03:23 PM Try to grasp this principle of jurisprudence, BB. A judge, when sentencing a convicted person, is generally allowed to take into consideration the seriousness of the possible consequences of the convicted person's act, and adjust the sentence accordingly. And the public may do the same. What Clinton did—and I am including the lying here—had no bearing on anything beyond Clinton's family's and Monica Lewinsky's private lives. It did not have any bearing on anything beyond that. Nor would it have had were it not for Monica's urge to brag, Linda Tripp's perfidy and betrayal of her friend for personal aggrandizement, and the eagerness of Clinton's enemies to find something—ANYTHING—to attack him with. The judge knew that. Most American people knew that. So the only people who want to keep the thing going as far as Clinton is concerned are those who need something to divert attention from any charges that are made against the Bush administration and it's minions. In Libby's case (and I agree that he is merely the fall guy in the Bush administration's revenge against Wilson for his having the integrity to stick to the truth and not back the Bush lies), the lives of Valerie Plame and possibly some of her associate "spooks" could have been put in danger, not to mention compromising several avenues of intelligence. Notwithstanding that the charges (perjury) were the same, the seriousness of the potential consequences of the core events that precipitated the two trials were quite different. This is why many folks (not just liberals) are willing to cut Clinton a bit of slack, but not Libby and those who put him up to it. Don Firth P. S. But I realize, of course, that it's a waste of time to argue with people whose minds are already made up and just won't budge, not matter what the facts are. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: beardedbruce Date: 07 Mar 07 - 03:22 PM "in the face of what at the very least was contradictory evidence?" The EVIDENCE at the time was indicative of an active program of illicit WMD development, and the UN reports were clear in stating that Saddam had not complied with the "LAST AND FINAL" chance offered. How is that contradictory? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Peace Date: 07 Mar 07 - 03:20 PM Right you are. My screw up. But, send him and Cheney to Iran anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Ebbie Date: 07 Mar 07 - 03:18 PM "So, UNTIL after the impeachment AND conviction of Bush for some reason, shouldn't HE be considered innocent?" bb Wow. What happened to 'the buck stops here'? Are you truly arguing that Bush is not liable for the war he pursued in the face of what at the very least was contradictory evidence? At this point, I only hope that he and his handlers have learned the value of diplomacy versus attack. He seems to have learned it in connection with North Korea- when he signed off on virtually the same political arrangement and agreement that Clinton had made with them. It remains to be seen whether Iran will be handled the same way as NK. On the other hand, if he does to Iran what he did to Iraq his presidency is sunk. He still has time to retrieve some respect. I would think that the prospect of being listed as one of the top three worst US presidents would be galling. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: beardedbruce Date: 07 Mar 07 - 03:11 PM Clinton was protecting HIMSELF, while Libby was protecting ... what? And YOU are more forgiving of Clinton- I hold BOTH of them as guilty of perjury. ( see the admissions made, by both Clinton and his lawyer. It was a POLITICAL trial, and he is as innocent as OJ- Just waiting for the civil suite... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: dianavan Date: 07 Mar 07 - 02:48 PM bb - It always gets down to this point: Clinton and Libby were accused of the same crime. Their lies for were for different reasons. Thats why the public (and notice I didn't say Dems.) is more forgiving of Clinton. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: beardedbruce Date: 07 Mar 07 - 02:47 PM Bush can't serve time for something he was not convicted of. Libby can serve time because he was convicted. Does that make Bush a saint? No. Does that make Libby a felon? Yes. Simple, you know? So, UNTIL after the impeachment AND conviction of Bush for some reason, shouldn't HE be considered innocent? I fail to see that being represented here on Mudcat... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Songster Bob Date: 07 Mar 07 - 02:43 PM "YOU are making excuses for Clinton, not me. I just want to know why there are two sets of laws, one that apply to those you dislike, and one that applies to those you approve of?" Notice that you are asking that convicted perjurers be punished. Libby was convicted. Clinton was not. That's what impeachment and conviction are all about. The House impeaches (indicts, effectively) and the Senate tries (and convicts or not). Clinton can't serve time for something he was not convicted of. Libby can serve time because he was convicted. Does that make Clinton a saint? No. Does that make Libby a felon? Yes. Simple, you know? Bob |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: beardedbruce Date: 07 Mar 07 - 02:40 PM Don, And I'm commenting on both the speed and the consistency with which Clinton apologists pull "blowjob" out of the hat to avoid admitting that he was lying to avoid a felony conviction. But you still seem to approve of "separate and unequal" enforcement of the law in regards to Democrats and Republicans. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Don Firth Date: 07 Mar 07 - 02:37 PM Addendum: The point of constantly bringing up Clinton, of course, is to divert the discussion from the Bush administration's transgressions and try to turn it to Clinton--who is irrelevant to the discussion. The Clinton matter has been discussed ad nauseum and doesn't need to be rehashed yet again. Now, let's get back to the subject. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: beardedbruce Date: 07 Mar 07 - 02:36 PM Ebbie, At the time, B. Clinton was under investigation about a FELONY, not a dalliance. Had he told the truth, he might, or might not have been found guilty of that felony. Since HE chose to lie, my objection is to those who declare that JUSTICE IS DONE when a Republican is convicted of perjury, yet say that the reason B.C. lied was reason to let him violate the same law without punishment. I think BOTH should spend time in jail for violating the law against perjury- WHY do you think that each person ( as long as they are Democrats) gets to decide whether it is important enough to tell the truth about something to a Grand Jury? "2) prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a Federal civil rights action brought against him; (3) prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action; and (4) his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action. ... (1) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to execute a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false and misleading. (2) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to give perjurious, false and misleading testimony if and when called to testify personally in that proceeding. (3) On or about December 28, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly engaged in, encouraged or supported a scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in a Federal civil rights action brought against him. (4) Beginning on or about December 7, 1997, and continuing through and including January 14, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton intensified and succeeded in an effort to secure job assistance to a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him in order to corruptly prevent the truthful testimony of that witness in that proceeding at a time when the truthful testimony of that witness would have been harmful to him. (5) On January 17, 1998, at his deposition in a Federal civil rights action brought against him, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and misleading statements to a Federal judge characterizing an affidavit, in order to prevent questioning deemed relevant by the judge. Such false and misleading statements were subsequently acknowledged by his attorney in a communication to that judge. (6) On or about January 18 and January 20-21, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton related a false and misleading account of events relevant to a Federal civil rights action brought against him to a potential witness in that proceeding, in order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness. (7) On or about January 21, 23 and 26, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton made false and misleading statements to potential witnesses in a Federal grand jury proceeding in order to corruptly influence the testimony of those witnesses. The false and misleading statements made by William Jefferson Clinton were repeated by the witnesses to the grand jury, causing the grand jury to receive false and misleading information. " TRY to read what he was accused of- NOT a "marital infraction " Just as Libby WAS NOT accused of releasing Plume's name. THE CRIME is in lying to the Grand Jury in a FELONY investigation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Don Firth Date: 07 Mar 07 - 02:32 PM I'm not making excuses for Clinton, BB. I'm commenting on both the speed and the consistency with which Bush apologists pull Clinton out of the hat whenever the Bush League screws up and gets caught. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Ebbie Date: 07 Mar 07 - 02:25 PM If Bill Clinton had, from the very beginning, maintained that any marital infraction was none of the United States of America's business, do you think that a special investigator would have been funded and set free to ascertain the facts of the matter? If they had and Clinton had been supoened and he persisted in the view that the matter was not under the nation's umbrella, don't you think it is likely that they would have had to retreat? Damn. That's what I wish he had done. Clinton's infidelity was not the first dalliance - nor will be the last- seen in the august halls of the White House. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Dickey Date: 07 Mar 07 - 02:21 PM I guess that separates me from the Bush apologists. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: beardedbruce Date: 07 Mar 07 - 02:19 PM Don, "some Bush apologist feels ompelled to try to divert attention by mentioning Clinton." I STATED that a convicted perjury should go to jail- no excuse for what he did. What am I diverting attention from? YOU are making excuses for Clinton, not me. I just want to know why there are two sets of laws, one that apply to those you dislike, and one that applies to those you approve of? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Don Firth Date: 07 Mar 07 - 02:16 PM I'm beginning to find it highly amusing to note that whenever someone in the Bush administration gets his ass in a sling, quicker than a bullet ricocheting off a flat rock, some Bush apologist feels ompelled to try to divert attention by mentioning Clinton. Tap-dancing on a patch of black ice. But wotthehell, it's all they've got. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: beardedbruce Date: 07 Mar 07 - 02:02 PM From the Article of Impeachment as passed In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of justice, in that: On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth before a Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following: (1) the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee; (2) prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a Federal civil rights action brought against him; (3) prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action; and (4) his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action. ..... In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a Federal civil rights action brought against him in a duly instituted judicial proceeding. The means used to implement this course of conduct or scheme included one or more of the following acts: (1) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to execute a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false and misleading. (2) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to give perjurious, false and misleading testimony if and when called to testify personally in that proceeding. (3) On or about December 28, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly engaged in, encouraged or supported a scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in a Federal civil rights action brought against him. (4) Beginning on or about December 7, 1997, and continuing through and including January 14, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton intensified and succeeded in an effort to secure job assistance to a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him in order to corruptly prevent the truthful testimony of that witness in that proceeding at a time when the truthful testimony of that witness would have been harmful to him. (5) On January 17, 1998, at his deposition in a Federal civil rights action brought against him, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and misleading statements to a Federal judge characterizing an affidavit, in order to prevent questioning deemed relevant by the judge. Such false and misleading statements were subsequently acknowledged by his attorney in a communication to that judge. (6) On or about January 18 and January 20-21, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton related a false and misleading account of events relevant to a Federal civil rights action brought against him to a potential witness in that proceeding, in order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness. (7) On or about January 21, 23 and 26, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton made false and misleading statements to potential witnesses in a Federal grand jury proceeding in order to corruptly influence the testimony of those witnesses. The false and misleading statements made by William Jefferson Clinton were repeated by the witnesses to the grand jury, causing the grand jury to receive false and misleading information. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: beardedbruce Date: 07 Mar 07 - 01:57 PM Or is it that you consider it OK to lie to a Grand Jury to make yourself look better? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: beardedbruce Date: 07 Mar 07 - 01:53 PM TIA, Lying to a grand jury investigating a felony... But that is ok, as long as it was someone YOU support. And how would you know if I lied? I certainly don't recalL any such false statements on that topic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: TIA Date: 07 Mar 07 - 01:49 PM Lying about a blowjob = lying about the outing of a CIA operative? I've lied about blowjobs (and so have you Bruce), but never about outing a CIA operative (and neither have you Bruce). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: beardedbruce Date: 07 Mar 07 - 01:23 PM Peace, Libby is not convicted of releasing Plume's name.- Just lying about it, committing perjury, and obstruction of justice. He deserves to be convicted. Now, what about the other person in high office, who lied, committed perjury, and obstructed justice? When can we expect Bill Clinto to serve time? Oh, I forgot- Democrats are exempt from the laws of the US that the rest of us are held to. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Peace Date: 07 Mar 07 - 01:12 PM It would be fitting to put Libby into covert ops. Say, uh, Iran. Yeah, Iran. Yeah. And send Cheney as his controller. Yep. "We have an agent in place but he has nothing to do with the company that was bought by Heinz. Noting to do with beans." Let the punishment fit the crime. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Scoville Date: 07 Mar 07 - 12:53 PM I don't think it will stick, but I'm going to enjoy it for as long as it does. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Ebbie Date: 07 Mar 07 - 10:36 AM Last night on As it stands, sentencing is scheduled in June 2007. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Dickey Date: 07 Mar 07 - 02:41 AM I can't understand why someone would lie about something he didn't do. Novack was right there on your favorite news chanel tonight saying Libby didn't do anything, it was Armitage. If the whole thing was about who outed Plame, why was Armitage ignored? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: iancarterb Date: 06 Mar 07 - 11:35 PM Inasmuch as Cheney paid taxes on 39 million in income in his first year as vp, he could easily support Libby for life. Shouldn't be necessary, though, as he'll be pardoned between the election in Nov 08 and inauguration in 09. I.LewLib will not be flipping burgers if he's fined TEN million dollars. I can't think of a more appropriate sentence though- about 25 years at McBurgerQueen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Bobert Date: 06 Mar 07 - 09:23 PM Ebbie, Yeah, I know how ya feel but... ... fir jurors who were constantly told that Cheney and Rove were doing this and that and they were lookin' at a guy who should have been the 3rd or 4th in line in terms of severity to be charged I can understand how they felt... I think had that been the case and the folks above him charged then there wouldn't have been an ounce of pity... Beaubear |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Donuel Date: 06 Mar 07 - 08:32 PM Has anyone found Novak lately? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Charley Noble Date: 06 Mar 07 - 08:26 PM I'm pleased that at least Libby was convicted of several felonies. That verdict might slow down a few other potential fall guys in the Bush Administration. Be nice if Cheney and Rove acknowledged their responsibilities as well but fat chance of that happening. Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Ebbie Date: 06 Mar 07 - 08:06 PM I don't feel sorry for Libby. I wish - and hope - that his 'superiors' will eventually be brought before the bar- but Libby is/was no little innocent. He was a savvy, cynical, ambitious man who knowingly served a corrupt master. I'm surprised that the jurors would report feeling pity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: dianavan Date: 06 Mar 07 - 06:24 PM Libby/Cheney/Rove/Novak were all playing fast and loose with peoples' lives but that sort of sums up the morality of this administration. I'm sure that Libby knows that his only chance is to keep his mouth shut. If he doesn't squeal, he will surely be pardoned. Kinda makes you sick to think that these are role models for today's youth. The message is, of course, lie, steal and cheat if you want to succeed. If the U.S. administration can get away with it, so can we. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Bobert Date: 06 Mar 07 - 06:15 PM I just saw on of the jurors give a statement to the press and in essence he said that the jury felt sorry for Libby because they felt he was a scapegoat and taking the heat for Rove and Cheney... Yeah, I'm sure the usual cast of Bushites will come along and call me a liar or whatever but it's gonna be all over the news thonight and in the coming days so I'd advise the usaul cast to hold their fire or be further embarressed by their narrow little wrong views.. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A bit harsh From: Peace Date: 06 Mar 07 - 05:27 PM Harsh? He put an operative at risk. What's harsh is that the bastard will likely have to take the whole rap by himself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Ebbie Date: 06 Mar 07 - 05:25 PM I'm repeating this post on this thread because I think it's an important point. "As to whether his crime was so serious, Libby really had no way of knowing just what consequences he was setting in motion. Valerie Plame had been a covert CIA operative- (in fact, she was evidently brought home after Ames' perfidy became known for fear that she would be in danger); for all Libby/Cheney/Rove/Novak knew there were people down the line whose covers could have been blown or just possibly who could have lost their lives." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A bit harsh From: Ebbie Date: 06 Mar 07 - 05:15 PM As to whether his crime was so serious, Libby really had no way of knowing just what consequences he was setting in motion. Valerie Plame had been a covert CIA operative- (in fact, she was evidently brought home after Ames' perfidy became known for fear that she would be in danger); for all Libby/Cheney/Rove/Novak knew there were people down the line whose covers could have been blown or just possibly who could have lost their lives. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: mrdux Date: 06 Mar 07 - 05:06 PM As I think about it, my guess is that Scooter will probably be given a Martha Stewart-like sentence. It wouldn't surprise me if his lawyers were able to persuade the judge to let him stay out of jail pending appeal, in which case, look for a pardon in early January, 2009, just before W. leaves the building. I agree that any money that may have to be coughed up -- bond on appeal, fines -- isn't likely to be coming out of Scooter's own pocket. |
