BS: Libby convicted

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.

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: 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: Wolfgang
Date: 05 Jun 07 - 12:39 PM

30 months for him is a good start.

Wolfgang

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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 04:16 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: 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 - 04:08 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 03:22 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: 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 - 03:17 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 - 03:16 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: 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: 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 - 03:07 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: 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 - 03:02 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: 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: 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: 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 - 02:43 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 - 02:35 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 - 02:32 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 12:51 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: Scoville
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 08:43 AM

Speaking of Clinton: Gingerich Acknowledges Affair While Impeaching Clinton.

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: 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 - 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: 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: [e-mail]. 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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