 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Libby convicted
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Libby convicted From: mrdux Date: 06 Mar 07 - 01:04 PM This just in: WASHINGTON -- Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was convicted Tuesday of obstruction, perjury and lying to the FBI in an investigation into the leak of a CIA operative's identity. here's the full story |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Wesley S Date: 06 Mar 07 - 01:08 PM Gee - couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. |
|
Subject: BS: A bit harsh From: Jean(eanjay) Date: 06 Mar 07 - 01:08 PM Lewis Libby faces up to 30 years in prison and a $1 million fine for lying - well, actually perjury and obstruction of justice. Seems a bit harsh - or could the consequences have been so serious? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Peace Date: 06 Mar 07 - 01:10 PM Yes it could. It coulda happened to Cheney. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: wysiwyg Date: 06 Mar 07 - 01:14 PM The jury spent almost as long, reviewing the facts presented and applicable case lawy to reach this sentence, as it spent hearing the evidence. In the end they convicted only on the better-supported portion of the charges and let reasonable doubt lead them to acquit on the rest. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Jean(eanjay) Date: 06 Mar 07 - 01:14 PM mrdux - sorry, I started a thread on this just after you; I must have been typing as you were pressing submit. What I said in mine was that he faces up to 30 years in prison and a $1million dollar fine. This seems a bit harsh. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Donuel Date: 06 Mar 07 - 01:20 PM The prosecutor said the door is still open for Libby to come clean and inform on Dick Cheney. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A bit harsh From: Donuel Date: 06 Mar 07 - 01:22 PM Rush Limbausgh says, What we have here is a criminalization of politics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Stilly River Sage Date: 06 Mar 07 - 01:23 PM We wish. . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: jeffp Date: 06 Mar 07 - 01:24 PM Actually, he now only faces up to 25 years, as he was acquitted on one of the 5-year charges. He will actually serve a good deal less than that, as sentencing guidelines indicate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A bit harsh From: John MacKenzie Date: 06 Mar 07 - 01:29 PM Sorry it's the other way round Donuel. Crime is just like politics, but without all those nasty lies! G |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A bit harsh From: Donuel Date: 06 Mar 07 - 01:29 PM The most Libby will spend in an upscale prison will be 2 years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Donuel Date: 06 Mar 07 - 01:33 PM 2 years tops |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Donuel Date: 06 Mar 07 - 01:35 PM 2 years, I'll bet you 2 moandolins and raise you 1 autoharp |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Jean(eanjay) Date: 06 Mar 07 - 01:41 PM This has been a long investigation but it doesn't say how much it will have cost. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: jeffp Date: 06 Mar 07 - 01:57 PM Well, they can also soak him for up to a million bucks, so maybe he can finance part of it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: mrdux Date: 06 Mar 07 - 02:12 PM One wonders if Scooter will spend any time behind bars at all: the office pool is on when Libby gets his presidential pardon: before or after sentencing. Or maybe he's pissed off enough to cooperate with the prosecution, which would substantially reduce his sentence. . . Realistically, though, the estimates I've been hearing are substantially less than even two years -- comparisons are being drawn to the sentence given to Martha Stewart: a combo of less than a year at Club Fed, followed by home confinement, probation and a whopping fine. Wouldn't surprise me if Libby got something like that. The jurors' reaction was interesting. One juror, a former Washington Post journalist, said: "I will say there was a tremendous amount of sympathy for Mr. Libby on the jury. It was said a number of times, 'What are we doing with this guy here? Where's Rove? Where are these other guys?' I'm not saying we didn't think Mr. Libby was guilty of the things we found him guilty of. It seemed like he was, as Mr. Wells put it, he was the fall guy." michael ps to eanjay -- thanks, but no apology needed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 06 Mar 07 - 02:40 PM If Cheney and Rove aren't indicted, they should at least pay a generous chunk of Libby's fine in exchange for his taking the fall for them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Stilly River Sage Date: 06 Mar 07 - 02:50 PM Yup. You pegged that one, BWL. |
|
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. |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Donuel Date: 06 Mar 07 - 08:32 PM Has anyone found Novak lately? |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 01:53 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 02:19 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: Dickey Date: 07 Mar 07 - 02:21 PM I guess that separates me from the Bush apologists. |
|
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: 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: 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 - 02:37 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 - 02:40 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: 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 - 02:47 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 03:55 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: 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: 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: Jean(eanjay) Date: 07 Mar 07 - 04:12 PM Don Firth - you've got mine! :-) |
|
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: 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: 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: 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 - 08:19 PM Lets put it to bed, give it a rest, settle it once and for all, call it a day, spread the dirt on top and resolve in the hearts and minds of ALL men and women for all time..... IF CLINTON WAS NEVER BORN EVERYTHING WOULD BE DIFFERENT IF CLINTON WAS NEVER BORN IN THIS TIMELINE IT IS LIKELY THAT BUSH JR WOULD NOT HAVE BECOME PRESIDENT EITHER. IF CLINTON HATED SEX EVERYTHING WOULD BE DIFFERENT AND FINALLY - CLINTON LIED ABOUT SEX |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Peace Date: 07 Mar 07 - 08:37 PM "What the CIA Lost in the Libby Case Wednesday, Mar. 07, 2007 By ROBERT BAER This week's conviction of Lewis "Scooter" Libby for perjury will surely give the CIA some measure of vindication. Libby was a key figure in the White House" s campaign to pressure the CIA to cook the books on Iraqi WMD. And, although he was not tried for it, Libby certainly was at the center of the campaign to expose and smear one of its former employees, Valerie Plame, and her husband Joe Wilson. Libby is the kind of political operative the CIA is more than happy to see go down. However, it's going to be a Pyrrhic victory. That's because in the course of the Libby investigation and trial the CIA effectively lost the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. In deciding not to charge Libby or anyone else in the administration with exposing a covert operative, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald all but proclaimed the act virtually unenforceable. If it had any teeth, Fitzgerald would have used it not only against Libby but also Karl Rove and Undersecretary of State Richard Armitage, the two who leaked Plame" s name in the first place. Or even possibly Washington Post columnist Bob Novak, who first published it. And let there be no doubt about it: according to press reports, all three knew exactly what they were doing. Despite what they may claim, Rove and Armitage either knew Plame was under cover, suspected she was, or should have assumed she was. As for Novak, the CIA asked him not to print the name, but he did anyway, apparently deciding he would decide who the CIA should have under cover and who it shouldn't." from here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Don Firth Date: 07 Mar 07 - 09:00 PM Not that I am singling out Novak over all of those involved in this Bush League sponsored slime pie, but I think Novak's ass ought to be kicked right out through the door. That's just irresponsible journalism. A lot of peoples' asses should be kicked out of a lot doors over this whole thing--as in illegal war and all. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Peace Date: 07 Mar 07 - 09:03 PM I feel that way about the reporter who talked about JTF2 in the press. There are some things ya just shut the hell up about, and people doing dangerous work, giving info about them is one of those things. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Stringsinger Date: 07 Mar 07 - 09:14 PM How about lying us into a war and occupation that will kill over 3,000 Americans and countless Iraqis? beardedbruce give me stains on a blue dress. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: mrdux Date: 08 Mar 07 - 12:59 PM From yesterday's Washington Post: Guess Libby's Pardon Date, Win a T-Shirt By Al Kamen Wednesday, March 7, 2007 "The verdict is in! Now it's time for the In the Loop Pardon Scooter Contest! Yes, simply pick the date that President Bush will pardon Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who, according to federal sentencing guidelines, is looking at 18 months to three years in the slammer. * * * "Send your entries -- one date only: month, day and year -- to: intheloop@washpost.com. Ten people closest to the pardon date will receive a coveted In the Loop T-shirt. You must include your name and telephone numbers to be eligible. Deadline is March 14, assuming Bush doesn't act before then." full article here |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Greg B Date: 08 Mar 07 - 03:03 PM I'll put it out there--- Libby had no right to lie, because what he lied about was the questioner's (official) business: i.e., the outing of a CIA operative in contravention of Federal law. Clinton had every right to lie. He was correct to lie. Because what he and Monica Lewinsky did as consenting adults was the business of only three people--- Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky, and Hilary Clinton, the woman to whom Bill Clinton had pledged sexual fidelity. It wasn't Paula Jones' lawyer's business, it wasn't the grand jury's business it wasn't the special counsel's business. The idea that the government can make what happenes between consenting adults its business is totally uncivilized. Clinton's only mistake was in not saying 'I'm not going to answer that question because it's none of your damned business.' I bet he could have made it stick. To the good of all of society. I guess we don't need to go back to the total deference and discretion that let the Kennedy's get away with what they did, but also to a great extent, they had the right idea then. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Peace Date: 08 Mar 07 - 04:42 PM I agree with Greg. Clinton should have told them to fuck off. In that many words. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Greg B Date: 08 Mar 07 - 06:17 PM Or perhaps 'on.' He'd have enjoyed that even more. There is something to be said for not allowing a sitting president to be the subject of 'nuisance' law-suits. In our 'anybody can sue anybody anytime for anything' society it's very disruptive to the nation, and opens the door for cynical uses of the civil justice system to manipulate the executive branch of government. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Scoville Date: 09 Mar 07 - 08:43 AM Speaking of Clinton: Gingerich Acknowledges Affair While Impeaching Clinton. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Mar 07 - 12:51 PM Fitzgerald's Folly A Textbook Case for a Speedy Pardon By Charles Krauthammer Friday, March 9, 2007; Page A21 There are lies and there are memory lapses. Bill Clinton denied under oath having sex with Monica Lewinsky. Unless you're Wilt Chamberlain, sex is not the kind of thing you forget easily. Sandy Berger denied stuffing classified documents in his pants, an act not quite as elaborate as sex, but still involving a lot of muscle memory and unlikely to have been honestly forgotten. Scooter Libby has just been convicted of four felonies that could theoretically give him 25 years in jail for . . . what? Misstating when he first heard a certain piece of information, namely the identity of Joe Wilson's wife. Think about that. Can you remember when you first heard the name Joe Wilson or Valerie Plame? Okay, so it is not a preoccupation of yours. But it was a preoccupation of many Washington journalists and government officials called to testify at the Libby trial, and their memories were all over the lot. Former presidential press secretary Ari Fleischer testified under oath that he had not told Post reporter Walter Pincus about Mrs. Wilson. Pincus testified under oath that Fleischer definitely had. Obviously, one is not telling the truth. But there is no reason to believe that either one is deliberately lying. Pincus and Fleischer are as fallible as any of us. They spend their days receiving and giving information. They can't possibly be expected to remember not only every piece but precisely when they received every piece. Should Scooter Libby? He was famously multitasking a large number of national security and domestic issues, receiving hundreds of pieces of information every day from dozens of sources. Yet special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald chose to make Libby's misstatements about the timing of the receipt of one piece of information -- Mrs. Wilson's identity -- the great white whale of his multimillion-dollar prosecutorial juggernaut. Why? Because on his essential charge as special prosecutor -- find and punish who had leaked Valerie Plame's name -- he had nothing. No conspiracy, no felony, no crime, not even the claim that she was a covert agent covered by the nondisclosure law. Fitzgerald knew the leaker from the very beginning. It was not Libby but Richard Armitage. He also knew that the "leak" by the State Department's No. 2 official -- a fierce bureaucratic opponent of the White House, especially the vice president's office -- was an innocent offhand disclosure made to explain how the CIA had improbably chosen Wilson for a WMD mission. (He was recommended by his CIA wife.) Everyone agrees that Fitzgerald's perjury case against Libby hung on the testimony of NBC's Tim Russert. Libby said that he heard about Plame from Russert. Russert said he had never discussed it. The jury members who have spoken said they believed Russert. And why should they not? Russert is a perfectly honest man who would not lie. He was undoubtedly giving his best recollection. But he is not the pope. Given that so many journalists and administration figures were shown to have extremely fallible memories, is it possible that Russert's memory could have been faulty? I have no idea. But we do know that Russert once denied calling up a Buffalo News reporter to complain about a story. Russert later apologized for the error when he was shown the evidence of a call he had genuinely and completely forgotten. There is a second instance of Russert innocently misremembering. He stated under oath that he did not know that one may not be accompanied by a lawyer to a grand jury hearing. This fact, in and of itself, is irrelevant to the case, except that, as former prosecutor Victoria Toensing points out, the defense had tapes showing Russert saying on television three times that lawyers are barred from grand jury proceedings. This demonstration of Russert's fallibility was never shown to the jury. The judge did not allow it. He was upset with the defense because it would not put Libby on the stand -- his perfect Fifth Amendment right -- after hinting in the opening statement that it might. He therefore denied the defense a straightforward demonstration of the fallibility of the witness whose testimony was most decisive. Toensing thinks this might be the basis for overturning the verdict upon appeal. I hope so. This is a case that never should have been brought, originating in the scandal that never was, in search of a crime -- violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act -- that even the prosecutor never alleged. That's the basis for a presidential pardon. It should have been granted long before this egregious case came to trial. It should be granted now without any further delay. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/08/AR2007030801499.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Ebbie Date: 09 Mar 07 - 12:54 PM And we *know* how non-partisan Charles Krauthammer is, right? Check out his writings. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Mar 07 - 12:59 PM And no-one post ANY comments from the anti-Bush press? Or is it an opinion that does not agree with your pre-set ideas that is so objectionable? I did not hide who wrote it- Are the liberals here so close-minded that they refuse to even read what others have to say? This is on topic, and appropriate to the discussion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Mar 07 - 01:26 PM Ebbie, " mrdux - PM Date: 08 Mar 07 - 12:59 PM From yesterday's Washington Post: Guess Libby's Pardon Date, Win a T-Shirt By Al Kamen Wednesday, March 7, 2007" You made no comment here, about a Post editorial. Why did you feel required to comment on my posting a Post editorial, if not for the reasons posted by me above? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Donuel Date: 09 Mar 07 - 01:30 PM Charles Krauthammer (aka Bat Guano) is a loyal American who will never back down from any Republican talking point memo no matter how laughable it is. You can always count on Krauthammer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: mrdux Date: 09 Mar 07 - 02:05 PM I think Krauthammer is certainly entitled to his opinion, and his column is certainly germane to the discussion. And I've read the column. His complaint seems to be that a grand jury, in the first instance, and a trial jury, in the second, simply didn't believe that Scooter was suffering from a lapse of memory. Rather, they believed that Scooter was lying -- and in the case of the trial jury, they believed it beyond a reasonable doubt. That's how the jury system works: the jury gets to make the call. I note an absence in the column of any suggestion that either Judge Walton or the prosecutor was in any way unfair or biased or politically partisan. Krauthammer does note a disagreement with one of the judge's rulings. Judge's make rulings all the time, and one party or another is typically disappointed. Did the judge commit reversible error in his conduct of the trial? I have no idea -- I didn't follow the trial that closely -- but that's what appellate courts are for. Krauthammer also disagrees with Fitzgerald's decision to prosecute in the first place. But. . . that's what prosecutors do. Krauthammer does not suggest that it was an abuse of his discretion, nor does he suggest that Fitzgerald didn't produce evidence that a crime had been committed. His complaint seems to be. . . he didn't like the verdict? It was no big deal and shouldn't have been prosecuted in the first place? Hard to tell. Sounds like not much more than sour grapes to me. michael |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Mar 07 - 02:12 PM "It was no big deal and shouldn't have been prosecuted in the first place?" And where have I heard that comment before? Oh, yeah- there are TWO sets of rules for opinions, too... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Mar 07 - 02:32 PM Armitage's Leak By Robert D. Novak Thursday, September 14, 2006; Page A21 When Richard Armitage finally acknowledged last week that he was my source three years ago in revealing Valerie Plame Wilson as a CIA employee, the former deputy secretary of state's interviews obscured what he really did. I want to set the record straight based on firsthand knowledge. First, Armitage did not, as he now indicates, merely pass on something he had heard and that he "thought" might be so. Rather, he identified to me the CIA division where Mrs. Wilson worked and said flatly that she recommended the mission to Niger by her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson. Second, Armitage did not slip me this information as idle chitchat, as he now suggests. He made clear that he considered it especially suited for my column. An accurate depiction of what Armitage actually said deepens the irony of his being my source. He was a foremost internal skeptic of the administration's war policy, and I had long opposed military intervention in Iraq. Zealous foes of George W. Bush transformed me, improbably, into the president's lapdog. But they cannot fit Armitage into the left-wing fantasy of a well-crafted White House conspiracy to destroy Joe and Valerie Wilson. The news that he, and not Karl Rove, was the leaker was devastating for the left. A peculiar convergence had joined Armitage and me on the same historic path. During his quarter of a century in Washington, I had had no contact with Armitage before our fateful interview. I tried to see him in the first 2 1/2 years of the Bush administration, but he rebuffed me -- summarily and with disdain, I thought. Then, without explanation, in June 2003, Armitage's office said the deputy secretary would see me. This was two weeks before Joe Wilson outed himself as author of a 2002 report for the CIA debunking Iraqi interest in buying uranium in Africa. I sat down with Armitage in his State Department office the afternoon of July 8 with tacit rather than explicit ground rules: deep background with nothing said attributed to Armitage or even to an anonymous State Department official. Consequently, I refused to identify Armitage as my leaker until his admission was forced by "Hubris," a new book by reporters Michael Isikoff and David Corn that absolutely identified him. Late in my hour-long interview with Armitage, I asked why the CIA had sent Wilson -- who lacked intelligence experience, nuclear policy expertise or recent contact with Niger -- on the African mission. He told The Post last week that his answer was: "I don't know, but I think his wife worked out there." Neither of us took notes, and nobody else was present. But I recalled our conversation that week in writing a column, while Armitage reconstructed it months later for federal prosecutors. He had told me unequivocally that Mrs. Wilson worked in the CIA's Counterproliferation Division and that she had suggested her husband's mission. As for his current implication that he never expected this to be published, he noted that the story of Mrs. Wilson's role fit the style of the old Evans-Novak column -- implying to me that it continued reporting Washington inside information. Valerie Plame Wilson's name appeared in my column July 14, 2003, but it was not until Oct. 1 that I was contacted about it by Armitage, indirectly. Washington lobbyist Kenneth Duberstein, Armitage's close friend and political adviser, called me to say that the deputy secretary feared he had "inadvertently" (the word Armitage used in last week's interviews) disclosed Mrs. Wilson's identity to me in July and was considering resignation. (Duberstein's phone call was disclosed in the Isikoff-Corn book, which used Duberstein as a source. They reported that Duberstein was responsible for arranging my unexpected interview with Armitage.) Duberstein told me Armitage wanted to know whether he was my source. I did not reply because I was sure that Armitage knew he was the source. I believed he contacted me Oct. 1 because of news the weekend of Sept. 27-28 that the Justice Department was investigating the leak. I cannot credit Armitage's current claim that he realized he was the source only when my Oct. 1 column revealed that the official who gave me the information was "no partisan gunslinger." Armitage's silence for the next 2 1/2 years caused intense pain for his colleagues in government and enabled partisan Democrats in Congress to falsely accuse Rove of being my primary source. When Armitage now says he was mute because of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's request, that does not explain his silent three months between his claimed first realization that he was the source and Fitzgerald's appointment on Dec. 30, 2003. Armitage's tardy self-disclosure is tainted because it is deceptive. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/13/AR2006091301572.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Arne Date: 09 Mar 07 - 02:35 PM BeardedBruce says: ["Clinton's penis! Look!!! Clnton's PENIS!"] 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? In the words of "Modern Major General" Rehnquist, "not guilty". Just a FYI too: The perjury statute (18 USC § 1621) requires that the lie be about a material fact. Not just about something embarrassing that some Starr Chamber wants to dig up using $60 million of our tax money and leak like a sieve for political purposes. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Mar 07 - 02:43 PM Arne, old chum, I know you have this penis fixation, but please do try to get a handle on it. The articles of impeachment, and the DOJ ruling show that the questions to which Clinton lied under oath were about facts material to the original investigation. Maybe we can get you some help in learning to read. But I see that you, too, believe in "separate and unequal" treatment of those you agree with and those you disagree with. You help keep my faith in the devout closed-mindedness of the extreme Left. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Arne Date: 09 Mar 07 - 02:43 PM BeardedBruce [thinking he's talking about Clinton]: Lying to a grand jury investigating a felony... But that is ok, as long as it was someone YOU support. What "felony" are you talking about? As for Clinton suposedly lying to the grand jury, even the rabidly partisan House refused to even pass that article of impeachment. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Mar 07 - 02:47 PM Arne, " As for Clinton suposedly lying to the grand jury, even the rabidly partisan House refused to even pass that article of impeachment." Obviously false, see my post of 07 Mar 07 - 02:02 PM on this thread. Maybe we can find someone to read it to you who will explain to you the words of one or more syllables. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: mrdux Date: 09 Mar 07 - 02:55 PM Sorry BB, perhaps I wasn't clear. I was trying to figure out what Krauthammer's gripe was about the Libby verdict, because he wasn't terribly clear about it. Krauthammer wrote: "This is a case that never should have been brought. . . That's the basis for a presidential pardon. It should have been granted long before this egregious case came to trial." Now, it seems clear to me that there was enough evidence that a jury -- the selection of which was done by both the defense and prosecution -- believed believed beyond a reasonable doubt that Scooter committed 4 crimes by lying to the FBI and to a grand jury. So, if a prosecutor has evidence that a crime has been committed -- felonies, no less -- why shouldn't the prosecutor prosecute them? Of course, the evidence was disputed, but that's the case in almost every trial, and is certainly not a reason not to prosecute -- otherwise, there never would be any prosecutions at all. So, I figured that the fact that there was disputed evidence couldn't be what he was talking about and there was something more to it than that. Perhaps I was reading more into Krauthammer's complaint than was there. Then again, that's why I put the question mark at the end -- merely my speculation as to what the columnist was thinking. Or not. michael PS -- "'It was no big deal and shouldn't have been prosecuted in the first place?' And where have I heard that comment before?" Wherever you may have heard it, it wasn't from me. PPS -- And just so my position is clear, I agree with Peace, who wrote: "I agree with Greg. Clinton should have told them to fuck off. In that many words." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Arne Date: 09 Mar 07 - 03:02 PM Oooops. Sorry, the "perjury" article that did pass was the one relating to the grand jury testimony. The one relating to the deposition failed. See here Mea culpa. From the article of impeachment (of which Clinton was found not guilty-: "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." Notice they don't bother saying what statements were false. If they're talking about the (in)famous "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is", Clinton's response was in fact accurate (it was the questioners who used the present tense in asking if there "is" a relationship, when Clinton had terrminated the relationship prior to the questioning). But FWIW, the legally ignerrent Republicans didn't know that misleading testimony is not perjury (see, e.g., the U.S. v. Bronston case). And Clinton is hardly responsible legally for what his lawyer says, even if they made any misrepresentations to a judge (which Bennett did not do). This is how legally slipshod the Republican impeachment was, and it's forever a blot on the Republicans that voted for it that they thought it had any legal justification. Regardless, cooler heads prevailed in the Senate, where none f the articles of impeachment garnered even a majority, much less the two thirds needed for conviction (and even less the unanimity that would be required in a courtroom using the actual law and a judge that would be bound to heed legal precedent such as Bronston and Gaudin). Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Mar 07 - 03:06 PM IMO, I feel that Libby SHOULD have been prosecuted, and should serve jail time for perjury. It is the two-level system I object to. I also feel thet the individual who committed the felony of releasing Plume's name should have been held accountable. Krauthammer's point is that if the person committing the crime is not charged, then the lack of recall under questioning "was no big deal and shouldn't have been prosecuted in the first place" To quote Arne, "The perjury statute (18 USC § 1621) requires that the lie be about a material fact. Not just about something embarrassing " If the crime was not prosecutable, how could a lie be material? Or do you agree with me that Clinton, who lied, admitted lying, and lost his right to practice law for a couple of years because of his lies, should be held to the same standard as a ( shudder) conservative, and have the same laws apply to him? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Arne Date: 09 Mar 07 - 03:07 PM BeardedBruce: Clinton was protecting HIMSELF, while Libby was protecting ... what? Oh, I know, [waving hand in the air madly] I know!!! Call on me!!!: Cheney and Dubya. That came out in the trial. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Ebbie Date: 09 Mar 07 - 03:07 PM Novak's column has an implication that I have not heard commented upon. He says that Armitage, fairly out of the blue, contacted him and during the meeting mentioned that Valerie Plame (NOT 'Mrs. Wilson'- as a professional, Plame deserves her own title) worked at the CIA. Question: Was someone official behind Armitage's efforts? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Arne Date: 09 Mar 07 - 03:11 PM BearedBruce: 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. The 'evidence' (and this before the war) was perhaps most pithily summed up by one U.N. weapons inspector as "garbage, garbage, and more garbage". BeardedBruce likes to pretend that nothing happened between November, 2002 and end of March, 2003. That simply is not true. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Arne Date: 09 Mar 07 - 03:16 PM BeardedBruce: [Don Firth]: "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." Which makes it not perjury. Perjury requires that the facts be material. 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. What was this "felony"? And, JOOC, what were the "lies" you think were made concerning this "felony"? Let's get specific here. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Mar 07 - 03:17 PM "Question: Was someone official behind Armitage's efforts? " From Novak: "An accurate depiction of what Armitage actually said deepens the irony of his being my source. He was a foremost internal skeptic of the administration's war policy, and I had long opposed military intervention in Iraq. Zealous foes of George W. Bush transformed me, improbably, into the president's lapdog. But they cannot fit Armitage into the left-wing fantasy of a well-crafted White House conspiracy to destroy Joe and Valerie Wilson. The news that he, and not Karl Rove, was the leaker was devastating for the left." That COULD have been investigated, but the focus was ONLY on Libby- NO effort was made to charge Armitage, so that would not come out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Arne Date: 09 Mar 07 - 03:20 PM BeardedBruce: 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) Ummmm, Brucie: Clinton v. Jones was a civil case. And you're an eedjit that reads way too much Feeperville/WhirledNutzDaily crapola. Not to mention, Judge Wright tossed the Jones case on a hugely embarrassing (except Republican tools no longer have any capacity for embarrassment) summary judgement motion. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Mar 07 - 03:22 PM "Don Firth]: "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." Which makes it not perjury. Perjury requires that the facts be material." And which was why I pointed out that Don's statement was FALSE. The questions were material to the case at hand, ie Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. at 692-93. Let me get you some help in reading comprehension- you obviously have special needs to deal with. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Mar 07 - 03:25 PM So, if the case is dismissed, the testimony is NOT material? Then, with no charges against anyone for releasing the name of Plume, which was the purpose of the grand jury, HOW can they hold Libby responsible, even if he did lie? You just keep insisting on two sets of rules- one for the liberals, and a different one for conservatives. THAT is what I object to. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Mar 07 - 03:27 PM "And you're an eedjit that reads way too much Feeperville/WhirledNutzDaily crapola." And you are a shit-for-brains that has a problem in simple reading comprehension. But don't let that stop you from passing judgement on the rest of the world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Ebbie Date: 09 Mar 07 - 03:35 PM bb, in my opinion you are being insulting. This ia an interesting subject but unless it can be discussed dispassionately and with a certain amount of respect for each other, I'm gone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Arne Date: 09 Mar 07 - 03:38 PM Greg B. said: Clinton had every right to lie. He was correct to lie. Because what he and Monica Lewinsky did as consenting adults was the business of only three people--- Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky, and Hilary Clinton, the woman to whom Bill Clinton had pledged sexual fidelity. It wasn't Paula Jones' lawyer's business, it wasn't the grand jury's business it wasn't the special counsel's business. The idea that the government can make what happenes between consenting adults its business is totally uncivilized. Clinton's only mistake was in not saying 'I'm not going to answer that question because it's none of your damned business.' I bet he could have made it stick. To the good of all of society. Say amen. Greg has it right (and the law backs him up too; perjury requires that the fact be material, something lacking in a consensual blowjob under these circumstances, even if highly embarrassing [which would also go to exclusion at trial in any case under FRE Rule 403]). I was suggesting just that at the time on Usenet; that Clinton should have lied his ass off and told them the moon was made of bleu cheese or just told them to stuff it. But because this was a political witch-hunt more than a legal one, Clinton was conscious of that and not looking for something they could trun against him politically either. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Arne Date: 09 Mar 07 - 03:52 PM BeardedBruce quotes the rabid "Dr." Krauthammer: There are lies and there are memory lapses. Bill Clinton denied under oath having sex with Monica Lewinsky.... WFT cares? But FWIW, Clinton did this under the very strange and contrted definition of "sexual relations" that the judge approved after objection to the original definition by Clinton's lawyer. And under that asymmetric definition, it is arguable whether there was "sexual relations" as defined. ... Unless you're Wilt Chamberlain, sex is not the kind of thing you forget easily.... Irrelevant. ... Sandy Berger denied stuffing classified documents in his pants, an act not quite as elaborate as sex, but still involving a lot of muscle memory and unlikely to have been honestly forgotten.... Nor did he. That was RW Smear Machine lies. But FWIW, Berger did acknowledge mishandling of classified information, and pleaded quilty to such. Scooter Libby has just been convicted of four felonies that could theoretically give him 25 years in jail for . . . what? Misstating when he first heard a certain piece of information, namely the identity of Joe Wilson's wife. "Misstating". Such a polite word for lying. There were four separate counts (for perjury, lying to an FBI agent, and obstruction of justice), all proved beyond reasonable doubt to a unanimous jury. Libby's "my memory just failed me" was contradicted by so many pieces of evidence (including that Cheney's office was in the thick of things, and Libby was tasked by Cheney with tearing down Wilson for his impudence) that the jury basically laughed at it. This demonstration of Russert's fallibility was never shown to the jury. The judge did not allow it. He was upset with the defense because it would not put Libby on the stand -- his perfect Fifth Amendment right -- after hinting in the opening statement that it might. He therefore denied the defense a straightforward demonstration of the fallibility of the witness whose testimony was most decisive. Toensing thinks this might be the basis for overturning the verdict upon appeal. I hope so. Toensing is such a bought-and-paid-for Republican flack that no one ought to listen to a word she says, law degree or not. I'll bet money with whoever wants to here that Toensing is just full'o'it here. Here's your chance to make a fortune, Brucie.... Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Arne Date: 09 Mar 07 - 04:08 PM BeardedBruce: Krauthammer's point is that if the person committing the crime is not charged, then the lack of recall under questioning "was no big deal and shouldn't have been prosecuted in the first place" To quote Arne, "The perjury statute (18 USC § 1621) requires that the lie be about a material fact. Not just about something embarrassing " If the crime was not prosecutable, how could a lie be material? There was a criminal investigation (specifically, as requested by the CIA, of -- amongst other things -- a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act), and as Fitzgeral explained on more than one occasion, Libby's lies had the effect of hindering that investigation and possibly preventing any prosecution of such violations (by Libby or by others). Let's deal with this foofrah about Armitage here once and for all: It doesn't matter if Armintage (legally or illegally under the IIPA) disclosed the classified information to Novak first or later. That someone else has also committed a murder will not excuse you for yours. And if there was a conspiracy to get this information out to the public in an attempt to discredit Wilson (or punish him, or whatever stoopid rationale they had for it), that would also be a crime. Libby's obstruction prevented a full investigation of the corcumstances of the outing, and that is a crime. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Arne Date: 09 Mar 07 - 04:09 PM Why BeardedBruce continues to defend a criminal maladministration is beyond me.... Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Arne Date: 09 Mar 07 - 04:16 PM BeardedBruce: Or do you agree with me that Clinton, who lied, admitted lying, and lost his right to practice law for a couple of years because of his lies,.... MRPC Rule 8.4(c) makes any kind of deceit ("dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation") misconduct subject to administrative sanction as a lawyer. Of course, didn't help that all the Democrats on the Arkansas committee recused themsleves from the lynch party, leaving a bunch of foaming Republicans to mete out "appropriate punishment". But this ethical "standard" is a bit higher than the legal standard for "perjury" (as pointed out above). And FWIW, if we were to rigourously and strictly apply 8.4(c) to all lawyers after six-year, $60 million dollar investigations for each and every one of them, we'd perhaps achieve Shakespeare's "solution". Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Wesley S Date: 09 Mar 07 - 04:17 PM I must have wandered into the wrong thread. It's labeled "Libby convicted" but y'all are arguing about Bill Clinton?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Arne Date: 09 Mar 07 - 04:25 PM BeardedBruce: And which was why I pointed out that Don's statement was FALSE. The questions were material to the case at hand, ie Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. at 692-93. Ummm, who says you get to decide, Brucie? Who appointed you Grand Inquisitor? If you simply maintain that it is your opinion that it should be "material", feel free to argue it and support your argument with appropriate caselaw and cites. "Argument by assertion" just doesn't cut it with me..... FWIW, I've already pointed out FRE Rule 403 as a basis for exclusion of such, but I'd also argue that FRE Rule 404 supports my assertion, as well as the exclusive nature of Rule 415. Not to mention, Judge Wright eventually ruled that all the dirt that Starr and the rest of the Arkansas Project had been digging up would be excluded and further inquiry on those lines ceased. But she doesn't get to determine materiality (although her exclusion argues heavily against such being found). Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Wesley S Date: 09 Mar 07 - 05:23 PM Sorry Arne - but you're being played if you've been sucked into a conversation about Bill Clinton. It's called "bait and switch". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: GUEST,TIA Date: 09 Mar 07 - 06:03 PM Yeah, but Arne kicked the living shit out of those arguments didn't he? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: 282RA Date: 09 Mar 07 - 07:06 PM My heart leaps ecstatically with unrestrained joy. But, yeah, he'll get pardoned. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Arne Date: 09 Mar 07 - 07:08 PM Wesley S: Sorry Arne - but you're being played if you've been sucked into a conversation about Bill Clinton. It's called "bait and switch". Multitasking. I was covering BeardedBruce's Libby horse manure too. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Wolfgang Date: 05 Jun 07 - 12:39 PM 30 months for him is a good start. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Rog Peek Date: 05 Jun 07 - 07:20 PM Shame he doesn't have a cell mate named Dick. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Dickey Date: 05 Jun 07 - 10:19 PM "The idea that the government can make what happenes between consenting adults its business is totally uncivilized. Clinton's only mistake was in not saying 'I'm not going to answer that question because it's none of your damned business.' I bet he could have made it stick. To the good of all of society." Mike Wallace to Mit Romney: "Did you have pre-marital sex with Ann?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 06 Jun 07 - 04:05 PM Betcha he never gets to serve one day in prison. |
