President Bush said the 30-month sentence of Scooter Libby was “excessive,” but the Los Angeles Times found that, under Bush’s Justice Department, the average sentence for those convicted of obstruction of justice — just one of four charges against Libby — was 70 months.
Will Bush show these felons awaiting commutation the same mercy?
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- DavidB on Health care reform would save state money
- DavidB on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
164 Comments
If he doesn’t commute all their sentences he is a lying hypocrite. How many of those serving time had the outing of a Covert agent as the underlying crime? 0.
Will Bush pardon Al Gore for setting the land speed record for a Prius? Or does Bush only pardon those who protect Cheney from prosecution?
A Profile in CowardiceBy Frank RichThe New York TimesSunday 08 July 2007
There was never any question that President Bush would grant amnesty to Scooter Libby, the man who knows too much about the lies told to sell the war in Iraq. The only questions were when, and how, Mr. Bush would buy Mr. Libby’s silence. Now we have the answers, and they’re at least asincriminating as the act itself. They reveal the continued ferocity of a White House cover-up and expose the true character of a commander in chief whose tough-guy shtick can no longer camouflage his fundamental cowardice.
The timing of the president’s Libby intervention was a surprise. Many assumed he would mimic the sleazy 11th-hour examples of most recent vintage:his father’s pardon of six Iran-contra defendants who might have dragged him into that scandal, and Bill Clinton’s pardon of the tax fugitive Marc Rich, the former husband of a major campaign contributor and the former client of none other than the ubiquitous Mr. Libby.
But the ever-impetuous current President Bush acted 18 months before his scheduled eviction from the White House. Even more surprising, he did so when the Titanic that is his presidency had just hit two fresh icebergs, the demise of the immigration bill and the growing revolt of Republican senatorsagainst his strategy in Iraq.
(READ THE WHOLE THING AT
http://tinyurl.com/2r92ppHere’s how it ends:
“No one can stop Mr. Bush from freeing a pathetic little fall guy like Scooter Libby. But only those who paid the ultimate price for the avoidable bungling of Iraq have the moral authority to pardon Mr. Bush.
Though voters have notoriously short memories, we can hope they don’t forget this when they go to the polls.
This could be a body blow to the republic Party. Great example of GOP priorities.
How soon we forget that Richard Armitage was the one who actually admitted to the crime! Scooter happenned to be the victim of an out of control, NiFong-Like, prosecutor with a score to settle!
If that is an “all american viewpoint” then we are in deep deep trouble. Since when is a person who obstructs justice by lying to FBI investigators and lying to a grand jury a VICTIM!!!!
If President Bush thought that Libby’s sentence was excessive, why didn’t he just reduce the sentence to six or three months. Can you say COVER-UP?
Bush was a gutless coward. He should have given full amnesty to Libby instead of just setting aside his prison sentence. Clinton gave full pardons. None of this half way stuff for him.
Lovely.
Another Scooter Libby thread to keep the liberal panties in a wad.
With a link to that paragon of journalistic ethics, the LA Times!
Three questions for any of the liberal nitwits to answer:
1 What exactly was the crime that Fitzgerald was investigating?
2. What exactly were the lies that Scooter Libby told?
3. How did Scooter’s testimony obstruct the investigation?
Hank,
1. How is it that you personally know the answers to this case, and you have access to court records, evidence, and testimony, to be so sure of Libby’s innocence?
Please, share your insight with us nitwits. I would love to see transcripts from the case.
Hehehe, good one, Hank.
Lying under oath is only a crime when Clinton does it.
Also, it is only a crime if the right-wing says it is.
If the CIA and the Justice Dept. say it’s a crime, and a jury convicts, and a judge sentences, and the sentence is upheld in appeals, that’s not good enough, because the right-wing knows everything better than the people involved.
Kinda like Iraq. Flowers and candy, etc.
I have a B.O.H.I.C.A. file (bend over here it comes again); one for local politics, one for national politics. I keep notes, cut-out newspaper and magazine articles, things I print from the internet in a handy-dandy refresh my memory right before I go to the polls file. Voters memories are short but my file keeps me from forgetting.
I’ll share!
bushco belong in jail and this voter hopes investigations continue. I want this president and his evil brains cheney and rove to be held accountable.
My BOHICA file grows thicker daily.
delsol,
I would like to have an intelligent dialogue about this case. Answer the questions. Then we can start.
The LA Times article linked by Randy is full of inacuracies and lies. If this crime of Libby’s is so serious why can’t the liberals discuss it without twisting the facts?
1 What exactly was the crime that Fitzgerald was investigating?
And how does persecuting Libby aid in finding the truth?
Hank
Good morning Capn!
Can you respond without bringing up Clinton?
Can you answer the questions?
Hank
B.O.H.I.C.A. file eh lindainks? :D
=================
And how does persecuting Libby aid in finding the truth?Posted by: Hank Price | July 09, 2007 at 08:54 AM
And that statement by Hank nails its.=================I wonder when Plame’s book tour starts? :D
Um excuse me, but what gives Democrats the right to point their self-richeous fingers at Bush for commuting the sentence of one convicted felon when Bill Clinton pardoned over 130 convicted felons ranging from forgery to bank robbery?
Actually Bill,
Slick Willie pardoned a lot more that 130, that’s just the total of his last hour in office.
Hank
walk on by…
I leave town for a few weeks and the same discussion is taking place when I get back.
Hank they won’t talk the merits of the case because it doesn’t fit the scenario in their minds.
Rove and Cheney did it! Whatever it was. Bush was the dupe they pulled along kicking and screaming. Nifong – I mean Fitz went after them and all he could pull in was Scooter – the real victim in this whole case.
Fitz entered into an investigation of who disclosed the identity of Plame. He knew BEFORE starting that it was Richard Armitage. Forget that!! He wasn’t in the White House. Gotta look somewhere else.
That is why more than one juror said they thought Libby should be pardoned. They were upset with Fitz for not giving them all of the facts of the case. He and the judge made sure that fact was not allowed into the trial evidence. Only in the penalty phase was it allowed and even then the name of Armitage was left out.
For any Clinton supporter to be critical of this commutation – not pardon-is more than hypocritical.
Same ole, same ole. Politics as usual.
Not a Clinton supporter. Libby lied.Do the crime, do the time. Bush should have stayed out of it
“Foolish prideIs all that I have leftSo let me hideThe tears and the sadness you gave me
Walk on by”
Farmie I think it is ironic that the lib sheeple on this blog have picked this song as their theme song. As you can see it is just ‘foolish pride’ that got you all in this mess in the first place.
But we will just ‘walk on by’. Someday you will see the light and admit that your boy ‘billy’ was the maverick of pardons.
Littlejohn, What did he lie about? I have yet to see a serious discussion on this blog about the facts of this case. They are out there. Read them. This was a case that never should have been tried.
Fitz should be shown the same door Nifong was. Nifong hid the DNA, Fitz hid the name of the leaker. No difference.
“The maverick of pardons”…
When this topic first came up I made the point that pardons are quite a problematic business.
1. Truman: 5,030 petitions, 93 months in office, pardons granted 1,913 (38%).
2. Eisenhower: 4,100 petitions, 96 months in office, pardons granted 1,110 (27%)
3. Kennedy: 1,749 petitions, 34 months in office, pardons granted 472 (27%)
4. Johnson: 4,537 petitions, 62 months in office, pardons granted 960 (21%)
5. Nixon: 1,699 petitions, 67 moths in office, pardons granted 892 (53%)
6. Ford: 978 petitions, 29 months in office, pardons granted 382 (39%)
7. Carter: 1,581 petitions, 48 months in office, pardons granted 534 (34%)
8. Reagan: 2,099 petitions, 96 months in office, pardons granted 393 (~19%)
9. Bush Sr.: 731 petitions, 48 months in office, pardons granted 74 (10%)
10. Clinton: 2,001 petitions, 96 months in office, pardons granted 396 (~20%)
it knows no party bounds, OK?!!!
ksgrm-Was he or was he not found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice?
LJ, with all due respect, you cant debate with germie. She swallowed the whole pitcher of kookaide.
Libby was only convicted of lying to the FBI and to the grand jury. I guess germie, like many of her ilk, just trust the jury of peers when she agrees with the verdict.
Let her keep denying. The facts are there for all but the 26%’ers to see.
Just walk on by…
Stay tuned for more of the “If the investigation is obstructed, and the investigators can’t get to the information needed to prosecute, Ergo; “Where’s the Crime”? argument!Bush says no to Congress in prosecutors’ case 38 minutes ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The White House told Congress on Monday it would not comply further with demands for documents and testimony in the probe of fired prosecutors, setting up a constitutional battle with the Democratic-led Congress.
ADVERTISEMENTFred Fielding, counsel to President George W. Bush, in a letter to lawmakers, said the demand for additional information was “unreasonable because it represents a substantial incursion into presidential prerogatives and … it would impose a burden of very significant proportions.”
Fielding also said “the president feels compelled to assert executive privilege” on testimony sought later this week from former White House aide Sara Taylor and former White House counsel Harriet Miers in the controversy over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys last year.
… and if the uber cons here cant see the difference between pardoning folks with no connection to the pardoner, and pardening someone who could (should) provide damaging information concerning the pardoner…
then you see why we just walk on by.
Hush money is hush money. No matter how much lipstick you put on a pig, it’s still a pig. It is still a jury conviction.
And it is still a pardon of someone who could bring the preznit and his whole corrupt administration down.
But please feel free to continue to deny germie. It’s what we have come to expect from you.
Oh, and germie? If you are critical of the bush admn. justice dept for even prosecuting this case, you would be in good company of those who believe this DOJ is a complete farce.
Like this veteran DOJ employee…
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×1277698
… and if the uber cons here cant see the difference between pardoning folks with no connection to the pardoner, and pardening someone who could (should) provide damaging information concerning the pardoner…
Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | July 09, 2007 at 10:33 AM
Actually, it makes no difference to me. He was convicted. Do the crime, do the time. Doesn;t matter if clinton pardoned his brother, or bush commuted the prison term. They should stay out of it. Period. Do the crime, do the time. Doesn;t matter if there was no underlying crime. Perjury is in itself a crime. Do the crime, do the time.
Agreed, LJ!
At least, in the case of Clinton’s half brother, he’d served his time a decade before, Clinton just cleared his relatives name. Susan McDougal served time too, steadfastly saying she’d not lie on someone else to save herself. There’s no comparison between the motivation of any of clinton’s pardons, and the motivation of Bush’s libby pardon.Bush just had to prevent Libby from ending up in the Can. It’s called self preservation.
Phantom you and others keep saying this but do you have even one iota of evidence to support your claim?
If so what is it?
Denial comes in many form Farmie and you are like Phantom in assigning fault where none has been proven to exist. Susan McDougal could have conceivably taken the Clinton’s down according to her late husband.
I don’t know that for a fact so won’t go there. What do you know for a fact that would take Bush/Cheney down?
I’m waiting.
ksgrm-
It makes no difference. He committed perjury. The only relevant point is: did he or did he not commit perjury? Are you saying he did not?
Just curious, littlejohn,
Do you know anything about the specifics of this case? Or, do you just know the liberal talking points?
Answer the questions.
1 What exactly was the crime that Fitzgerald was investigating?
2. What exactly were the lies that Scooter Libby told?
3. How did Scooter’s testimony obstruct the investigation?
Hank-
I don;t need talking points. I know this: He was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice. Bush did not set aside his conviction, only his sentence. Bush should have stayed out out of it. Libby was convicted, Libby should serve the sentence. Don;t get all caught up in the hyperbole of this case. He was tried, he was fouond guilty. Bush did not even argue publicly about the conviction. Those are the facts on which I base My argument. Do the crime, do the time.
Susan Mcdougal was at worst a Mench;Libby was a Wench!
Littlejohn I watched an interview with a member of the jury that convicted him. He felt they were duped by the way fitz presented the evidence. Yes given the facts they were presented he was convicted of perjury. Given the facts they weren’t presented he would have been found innocent according to this jurior.
Research it. There is so much outrage that it is laughable. He remembered something differently than Tim Russert and it was automatically assumed that Tim remembered it right and Libby was wrong because of the preconceived notion that Libby had outed a CIA agent. Anyone living in DC had to know what the case was all about unless they lived in a bubble. No impartial jury here.
Just presenting the facts as this jurior told them.
ksgrm-
I am not going to argue the merits of the guilty verdict. I am not going to wade through days of tetimony. Apparently, neither did the President. He did not argue the merits of the guilty verdict either. He only said the sentence was too harsh. In fact, he said”"I respect the jury’s verdict,” Bush said in a statement.”
Quit arguing the case. he was fouond guilty, the President respected that verdict. He should have let the sentence stand. The rest is all BS
Quit arguing the case. he was fouond guilty, the President respected that verdict. He should have let the sentence stand. The rest is all BS
Posted by: littlejohn | July 09, 2007 at 11:48 AM
Is that another way of expressing I don’t want to hear your opinion lj? :)
The topic will be discussed and re-hashed over and over, get used to it.
Wait till the Democrites in Congress get a hold of it when they meet in session. It will be more of the same and justification in their minds to demonize whoever isn’t in lockstep with their way of thinking.
“Is that another way of expressing I don’t want to hear your opinion lj? :)”
No, go ahead and argue the merits of the verdict. Waste of time, and makes you look bad. but go ahead, I believe in free speech
“The topic will be discussed and re-hashed over and over, get used to it.”
And so will Paris Hilton. over and over. Doesn’t make it any more worthy.But again, I believe in free speech so have at it.
As a Republican, I still believe in the rule of law. Bush commuting the sentence had nothing to do with the rule of law. He didn;t argue the law, he just thought the sentence was “escessive”. He didn;t do anything to advance the rule of law, conservatism, or anything else. And all the crap about Clinton doing the same, while it may be a good example of poor government from a Democrat, means nothing. The ‘he did it too” excuse is so childish.
I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors. GHW Bush
2004
If there’s a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of. GWBush
1999
In the week before (Karla Faye Tucker’s) execution, Bush says, Bianca Jagger and a number of other protesters came to Austin to demand clemency for Tucker. “Did you meet with any of them?” I ask. Bush whips around and stares at me. “No, I didn’t meet with any of them,” he snaps, as though I’ve just asked the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed. “I didn’t meet with Larry King either when he came down for it. I watched his interview with (Tucker), though. He asked her real difficult questions, like ‘What would you say to Governor Bush?’” “What was her answer?” I wonder. “Please,” Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, “don’t kill me.” — Talk Magazine
1998
If we ignore this evidence, I believe we undermine the rule of law that is so important that all America is. Mr. Speaker, a nation of laws cannot be ruled by a person who breaks the law. Otherwise, it would be as if we had one set of rules for the leaders and another for the governed. We would have one standard for the powerful, the popular and the wealthy, and another for everyone else.
(Oh but that was about a little bj and not about putting the nation at harms way by blowing an entire covert operation)
1998
As the Supreme Court said in the “United States vs. Holland,” quote, “Perjury, regardless of the setting, is a serious offense that results in incalculable harm to the function of the legal system, as well to private individuals,” end quote. In my judgment, perjury goes to the heart of our judicial process and our very system of government and constitutes a “high crime and misdemeanor.” What happens if we fail to act? It appears to me that we quietly embrace and even aid in the gradual subversion of our core belief that we are a nation of laws and that all of us regardless of wealth or power, deserve equal treatment in the eyes of the law.
Asa Hutchinson
But when circumstances require you to participate in a formal court proceeding and under oath mislead the parties and the court by lying, that is a public act and deserves public sanction. Perjury is a crime with a five-year penalty. — Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL)
1998
I fear for my country when conduct such as perjury and obstruction of justice is no longer viewed with approbrium but instead is viewed as a sign of legal finesse or personal sophistication. — Former Rep. James Rogan (R-CA)
1998
First, perjury and obstruction of justice drive a stake in the heart of the rule of law. When the Constitution was ratified, it was christened as the grand American experiment. America stood alone in being governed by the rule of law as opposed to the rule of kings, tyrants, czars, monarchs, emperors, chiefs, sheiks, lords, barons and lords, and even nobles. To our founders’ credit, they created a republic based on the rule of law rather than a nation being based on the whims of man. The American legacy is that we have become the beacon of liberty to nations around the world who seek systems of government just like ours. We have an obligation to preserve the heritage of the rule of law now and for future generations. — Rep. Steve Buyer (R-IN), 1998
how quick they change their tune when it is about a worthless repug
They are all corrupt
Hank Price,
“Do you know anything about the specifics of this case? Or, do you just know the liberal talking points?
Answer the questions. …”
Hank, why don’t YOU tell us EXACTLY what the jury did wrong? Prove to us that Libby was not guilty as charged.
cosmos,
I don’t think the jury did anything wrong.
Hank
they got nothing yet when they are pressed for facts they all say”clinton clinton clinton”
that is when you know they know they are supporting crooks
bush commutted libby for the simple fact that libby’s wife was going to sing like a bird
And you know this how?
A of _twelve_ of Libby’s peers found him guilty.
The judge in his case denied his request to stay out of jail pending appeal, reasoning that Libby didn’t have a chance of prevailing on appeal.
The three judge panel of the appellate court _also_ ordered Libby to jail, for the same reason as the trial judge: He didn’t appear to have a chance to prevail on appeal.
Protest Libby’s innocence all you want, folks. It doesn’t matter.
Interesting article on this:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19649910/site/newsweek/page/0/
Sentencing Law and Policy Bloghttp://sentencing.typepad.com/(this blog was cited by the Supreme Court, so I would think it a good source)
Even President Bush agreed that Libby was guilty.Why is that even part of the debate now?
And still no one answers Hank’s questions….
Nathan-
Hank’s questions don;t matter. Bush didn’t disagree with the verdict, only the sentence. Bringing up irrevelant information or questions is, well, irrelevelant
Wilson outed Plame
Plame was not covert
The CIA has no authority to enforce the law
The CIA’s opinion of the law carries no more weight than any other legal opinion of the law, and less weight than that of attorney Toensing who wrote the law in question.
Toensing says that the law she wrote was not broken
The reporters who spoke against Libby, at trial, contridicted themselves, and each other, yet they were not even prosecuted
Libby might have lied. I am more inclined to believe that he just didnt remember everything. Libby should have taken the stand and said so.
This is what she said after the verdic
Libby’s wife, Harriet Grant, was not as composed. In the first row of spectators, she hunched over and shook. A young member of Libby’s defense team put his arm around her shoulders. After judge and jury left, Grant went over to hug her husband with a furious look on her face. Three reporters heard her say what sounded like, “We’re gonna ‘em.”
Who, Harriet? Who are you going to *? Patrick Fitzgerald and the Democrats? Or those in the Administration who allowed your husband to be the sole fall guy for a concerted plot that included several participants from the White House?
Answer the questions.
1 What exactly was the crime that Fitzgerald was investigating?
************ The potential deliberate leak of the identity of a covert CIA operative and whether that leak had been ordered for political purposes.
2. What exactly were the lies that Scooter Libby told?
************ He lied about telling reporters the identity of Valerie Plame.
3. How did Scooter’s testimony obstruct the investigation?
************ Fitzgerald was trying to determine who ordered the leak – Libby’s lies prevent that investigation from going forward.
Everyone should be capable of finding answers to any questions they have since we all have computers and access to the internet. In fact, we could probably all find answers we will believe and a different set of answers we won’t believe. Seems to be an exercise in futility. Just another of my opinions; we all have (at least) one.
oh my god Econ…wilson did not “out” his wife, and it has been proven over and over she was covert.
The issue at hand is whether scooter lied and it was proven that HE DID>
the same crap you all were so outraged over with Clinton. Now you all want scooter to be forgiven
you can’t have it both ways, yet you seem to say that you deserve it both ways.
like I said
I have NO USE for any REPUKE ever again. They are all a bunch of corrupt selfish pigs
“I am more inclined to believe that he just didnt remember everything. Libby”
Libby tried the “I have a terrible memory” defense.
heck with the way bush has screwed up the world the nation and the repuke party, Jesus himself could run for president as a repuke and I would NOT vote for him.
Repukes are worthless
Jesus himself could run for president as a repuke and I would NOT vote for him.
Repukes are worthless
Posted by: leave | July 09, 2007 at 01:13 PM
The sanity of the liberals shows itself again.
ANd leave- you’ve already stated you hate me, so saying it again doesn;t bother me any more than when you said it the first time.
Libby’s crime wasn’t just obstructing justice or lying to the FBI, it was carrying out a plan to reveal the identity of an undercover CIA agent who was working overseas in a program that was tracking the sale of non-conventional weapons.
The act of outing Plame wasn’t just political retribution against her husband; it’s consequences were far reaching, resulting in the arrest and deaths of CIA contacts working through Brewster Jennings and destruction of their covert program.
Its a massive distraction to focus only the charges that Fitz was able to bring against Libby, the consequences of his actions were far greater and more destructive to US defense and foreign policy.
Let’s keep reminding the media the true nature and breadth of Libby’s crimes.
It wasn’t just lying or obstruction of justice, it was treason.
my sanity is just fine.
its those who back the most corrupt bush admin ever whose sanity I question
I gotcha
“The jury of seven women and four men concluded Libby lied to FBI agents and a grand jury throughout the course of the investigation into the leaked identity of Valerie Plame, a one time undercover CIA operative.”
Leave,
Why was he not convicted of outing Plame then?
Many working against the A.Q. Khan network were “revealed” by these traitors
LJ…you are growing on me :)
soldev
if you were not as ignorant you would already know…
but…
he was convicted of PERJURY and then bushy made sure he wouldn’t get PRISON time so his little wifey wouldln’t spill the WH corruption secrets.
WSClark,
Very good!
1 What exactly was the crime that Fitzgerald was investigating?
************ The potential deliberate leak of the identity of a covert CIA operative and whether that leak had been ordered for political purposes.
You’re close. He was to determine if the disclosure of Plame’s employment with the CIA violated the law and if so, the guilty party.
Before anyone ever talked to Libby about Plame Fitzgerald had already determined that 1. No law was broken by Plame’s CIA employment disclosure and 2. Armatage ws the one that did it.
2. What exactly were the lies that Scooter Libby told?
************ He lied about telling reporters the identity of Valerie Plame.
Close, he admitted that he had talked to various reporters on various occasions about Valerie Plame. He was wrong on the time line. Also, he was confused about where he first learned of her identity and when and who he told.
3. How did Scooter’s testimony obstruct the investigation?
************ Fitzgerald was trying to determine who ordered the leak – Libby’s lies prevent that investigation from going forward.
Wrong. Fitzgerald knew who ordered the so-called leak. He also knew that Cheney’s office was instrumental in putting out that information. Novak’s column started it all. Fitzgerald never went after Novak. Fitzgerald knew that Armatage told Novak and he never went after Armatage either. In fact, he never even interviewed Novak or Armatage.
Do you need any more evidence that the liberals are merely trying to make it a crime to be Republican?
Hank
“if you were not as ignorant you would already know…”
Hmmmmmmm.
Ever study grammar?
Oh yeah, I’m the ignorant one…
Hmmmm. His wife outing information. Wonder why the prosecution couldn’t find it on their own…
oh typical …
can’t refute the facts so you attack grammar…
this isn’t english class
You are the one that brought up intelligence. Get frustrated, attack the poster?
So apparently you were okay with leaking the name of a CIA covert operative, Hank.
WS,The point being, it wasn’t Libby that leaked the name. Why aren’t they going after who outed Plame?
oh this is rich…bwhaha
Let me begin by conveying a note of concern over your letter’s tone and apparent direction in dealing with a situation of this gravity. We are troubled to read the letter ’s charge that the President’s “assertion of Executive Privilege belies any good faith attempt to determine where privilege truly does and does not apply.” Although we each speak on behalf of different branches of government, and perhaps for that reason cannot help having different perspectives on the matter, it is hoped you will agree, upon further reflection, that it is incorrect to say that the President’s assertion of Executive Privilege was performed without “good faith.”…
One final observation underscores the preordained futility of any White House compliance with this demand. When your letter states that your Committees ”will take the necessary steps to rule onmuch more at:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003626.php
If I were the one that got this memo, I would tell the WH to go cheney themselves
Leave-
:-)
SolDevVB-
Because he wasn;t charged with outing Plame.
oh so now you all admit the name was leaked?
“Why aren’t they going after who outed Plame?”
Apparently Armitage was not aware of Plame’s covert status, therefore no intent, therefore no crime.
Dear Hank,
If your bogus claims in your 1:32 PM post were true, the jury would not have found Libby guilty.
Of course the name was leaked, by Armitage.
and then you must make the next step…if it was leaked…SHE WAS COVERT
I don’t know what her status was. I just think Scooter was a red herring. That the investigation went belly up and they needed SOMEONE to drag thru court.
Leave,
They want it both ways. “ARMITAGE ARMITAGE!!” and “SHE WASN’T COVERT!!”
Hank, Nathan, Econ101, etc.
I understand your frustration, and your belief that this is just about the “liberals” and Bush haters getting their way. But just face it. Libby was convicted. Bush did not once say convicted wrongly. The appeals court believes that the conviction will be upheld. BUsh interfered with the sentencing. While it is his COnstitutional right to do so, it didn;t make it any more proper. Libby did the crime, he should have done the time. It really is simple as that.
Oh, I understand the principles of trial by proxy, no underlying crime, should have charge someone with outing Plame, etc. none of that really is relevant to the questions, 1) did Libby commit perjury (lying) 2) did he obstruct justiceApparently, the jury, the judge, Bush, and the appeals court all think probably so.
I do think that the underlying crime Fitz was going after was WHO told Armitage…. I think Fitz believed that Libby knew that answer, since he was chief of staff to Cheney… Libby claimed he couldnt remember… THAT was the obsturction of justice part…
That has been made very clear since the beginning of the entire trial phase…
Not “probably so” on the part of the jury, LJ; just “so”, beyond a reasonable doubt. The three judges on the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit certainly think “probably so” at this juncture, based solely on the briefs filed and arguments presented.
The other thing… If BUSH isnt arguing against the conviction… why are all of these right wingers here getting their panties in a wad over it… BUSH only commuted the “sentence” as being excessive… Hey, he could have done worse….
Thanks for that distinction Tolle… that is significant…
Vaughn Tolle-
you are right, of course. I carelessly lumped everyone together. I shouldn;t have done that. The jury believed so beyond a reasonable doubt. My bad.
“So apparently you were okay with leaking the name of a CIA covert operative, Hank.”
Actually, Clark, Yes I am. In Valerie’s case. But, under the law, Valerie wasn’t covert. When she entered the political arena by sending her husband to Niger she is open game in my book.
She used her status at the CIA to work against the policies of the Administration. If she wants to enfluence US policy she should run for office.
So Clark, I guess that your OK with pestering Libby and then closing the investigation even if as you believe someone broke the law by leaking Valerie’s status?
Hank
Dear Chas,
“I do think that the underlying crime Fitz was going after was WHO told Armitage…”
Then why not talk to Armatage?
Slip sliding away,
Slip sliding away,
They tried to get Cheney and he’s
Slip sliding away!
Hank
“Actually, Clark, Yes I am.”
End of debate.
Dear Chas,
“BUSH only commuted the “sentence” as being excessive… Hey, he could have done worse….”
I’m perfectly happy with what Bush did. Libby hasn’t petitioned for a pardon. He still wants to go through the appeals process and clear his name.
Bush merely commuted the jail time so Scooter could stay out of jail during the appeals process.
The only case I know of that a president issued a pardon without being petitioned is when Clinto pardoned the 5 Puerto Rican terrorists to help Hillary win her Senate seat.
Hank
Hank Price,
“Bush merely commuted the jail time so Scooter could stay out of jail during the appeals process.”
You think Libby has to go to jail when the appeals fails???
And Libby’s probabtion may even be canceled.
Afraid to consider my entire post, Clark?
The point I was making is that Valerie wasn’t covert under the law.
Have you read Joe Wilson’s book?
He outed her!
Hank
Dear cosmos,
Huh?
Hank
Hank… you’re wrong… Bush commuted the jail time totally… not just until the appeals hearing… The 3 judge panel said he had to go to jail until the hearing… So, Bush commuted the entire 30 month sentence…
If Bush pardons Libby now, he won’t get his $250,000 back. He will be taken off probation.
Hank
Yea Chas, I know.
Hank
Hank, the ONLY thing that Bush commuted was the 30 month sentence… He would get back his fine, IF he is pardoned…
Dear Hank,
Your sentence implied that the commutation applied only during the appeals.
Also,’NYT’: Libby May Not Even Serve Probation — Due to Possible Bush Errorhttp://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003607208
“Afraid to consider my entire post, Clark?”
You KNOW better than that, Mr. Price, but if you can justify outing a covert CIA operative, then there is no point in debate.
And the CIA – her employer – our intelligence agency – SAID that she was covert.
Who are you to say differently?
But, if you are okay with outing an agent, the debate is over.
I’m sorry for the confusion, you inferred that which I did not mean to imply.
Hank
“Wilson acknowledged his wife was no longer in an undercover job at the time Novak’s column first identified her. “My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity,” he said.”
Dear Clark,
You can insist on picking the white stuff out of the chicken shit but in the end you still have chicken shit.
I justified explaining Valerie Plames status as an employee of the CIA. I don’t think she was covert. She wasn’t covert under the law.
Hank
“Actually, Clark, Yes I am. In Valerie’s case. But, under the law, Valerie wasn’t covert. When she entered the political arena by sending her husband to Niger she is open game in my book.”
Plame did not send Joe Wilson to Niger – that has already been proven.
But EVEN if she had, does politics trump National Security? Plame was covert according to the CIA. She had been working in sensitive WMD investigations. Bush was supposedly interested in the spread of WMD by rogue nations and groups. Plame was doing the nation’s work.
There is not much in your post open to interpretation, Mr. Price.
Yep, I guess Valerie was instrumental in all of the faulty intellegence concerning WMD’s.
Valerie recommended her husband for the job. She set up his interview for the job. She was instrumental in him getting the job.
All you got is chicken shit.
Hank
“But EVEN if she had, does politics trump National Security?”
No concern for the foreign operatives that were exposed by the leak of her status? No concern for the investigations that she was conducting on our behalf?
Politics trumps all, according to Republicans.
And she wasn’t investigating Iraqi WMD.
“She was instrumental in him getting the job.”
The record states otherwise, but apparently the facts mean little to Republicans.
Politics trumps all – unless it is a Democrat politicking.
Hank, according to the CIA, Plame WAS Covert when she was OUTED originally, by Cheney, or Armitage, or Libby, or whoever…. That is the CIA talking… NOT Joe Wilson… NOT Plame… the CIA Even AGAG wanted an investigation of who OUTED Valeie Plame… This is all FACTUAL data…. doesnt leave much room for interpretation… I do not see HOW you keep putting Talk Radio spin on this very factual matter…
Hank Price,
“Valerie recommended her husband for the job.”
Another CIA officer suggested to Valerie that her husband was qualified for the job. She passed his suggestion on to her supervisor.
She was “ambivalent” about it, since they had 2-year-old twins.
Gotta go guys, taking Momma out for our aniversary.
Play nice, I’ll check in tomorrow.
Hank
The CIA is not the trier of fact, their say in interpreting the law is irrelevant.
Hank,
Tell me: Who do you think would have been called to testify regarding Plame’s status as covert, had it come to that? Head of the FDA, maybe? Governor Sebelius? The bag lady with the shopping cart who hangs out at 2nd & Central? Or perhaps a fictional character, like Mickey Mouse?
And, of course, the answer to the “If he outed Plame, why wasn’t Armitage charged?” meme is simply this:
The Armitage defense would be to put Libby on the stand. Regardless of how Libby testified the defense would ask about the two different stories Libby told the Grand Jury. You know, “Were you lying then or are you lying now?” Two distinctly different answers given under oath to the same question constitutes perjury one time or the other (if not both times) and those two distinctly different answers constitute obstruction of justice.
Why is there no discussion of the fact that Bush agreed with the conviction, then overturned Federal sentencing guidelines that he has been so strongly for in other cases.He does not review other cases of a similar nature for extenuating circumstances; rather, his stance is that the sentencing guidelines are there to avoid light sentences on convictions when there are other circumstances.Then he gives his buddy the get out of jail free card, bypassing federal law (which is within his power to do) and the stance he had previously taken on the sentencing guidelines.
How can a man with any integrity stand up and tell courts to sentence according to sentencing guidelines (30 months for perjury), then turn around and say a conviction of 30 months for perjury is excessive?
How can a man with any integrity stand up and tell courts to sentence according to sentencing guidelines (30 months for perjury), then turn around and say a conviction of 30 months for perjury is excessive?
Posted by: brian | July 09, 2007 at 04:37 PM
Short answer, he can;t. Longer answer. People in position of power, and sometimes not in positions of power, all the time try to help their friends and family slide by. It’s the nature of the beast. “my friend” and “my family member” are always different than the rest of the criminals
“The CIA is not the trier of fact, their say in interpreting the law is irrelevant.”
So who decides you is and isn’t covert?
You?
Does every covert CIA agent need the permission of the right wing to be covert?
If the CIA cannot determine the status of an agent, who else could possibly be in a position to make the determination?
WS,
My vote is for the 2nd & Central bag lady. Or Mickey.
Littlejohn,
Are you beginning to see why so many “moderate,” traditional Republicans have abandoned the party?
Littlejohn,
Are you beginning to see why so many “moderate,” traditional Republicans have abandoned the party?
Posted by: Tom | July 09, 2007 at 04:45 PM
This certainly has been an excercise in futilty. I do see your reasoning. However, in my opinion, the democrat party is no better option. After all, I think I saw a poll that said 30% of polled Democrats think Bush was in on 9/11. Either caused it directly, or knew about it in advance.I will stick with either independent or Republican, and attempt to change the party fro within.
which may also fe an excercise in futility :(
I think I saw a poll that said 30% of polled Democrats think Bush was in on 9/11.Posted by: littlejohn | July 09, 2007 at 04:50 PM
Those people are insane. But no less sane than an equal number of Republicans who think we’re “winning” in Iraq, or that AGAG is doing a good job, etc…
I guess what I’m trying to say is: There are loons on both sides. The unfortunate thing is, the loons on the Republican side are the ones in charge. ;(
The unfortunate thing is, the loons on the Republican side are the ones in charge. ;(
Posted by: Tom | July 09, 2007 at 04:55 PM
yeah, I hear you on that one. I would like to have a new party, one that I think represents the center left to center right positions, but I think such is impossible. Sadly.
Heck, even one that stood for centrist Republican values would be good.
Littlejohn,
It could be that I live so close to the political forest, all I see are the trees, but: As Republicans move to the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party becomes more centrist. It’s also having an effect on the Republican Party: As the traditional Republicans leave, the radicals are the only voices heard.
Tom-You could have a point. I never really thought of that. I will watch this latest election cycle with great interest. And vote for the candidate of choice, not the party. I identify with the Republican party, but vote and financially support individual candidates. So far, none of the Presidential nominees thrill me.
So far, none of the Presidential nominees thrill me.Posted by: littlejohn | July 09, 2007 at 05:09 PM
Me either.
I still want Fred Thompson to run and win. It would be really cool to hear the “dooomp dooomp” Law and Order ditty on the evening news. :D
Yep, that is a good reason to elect a president.
Republican: The CIA is obviously not the trier of Fact… However, the CIA IS the agency that determines if an agent is COVERT or not COVERT… And the CIA said more than once that Valerie Plame was COVERT… The Court has no jurisdiction of that determination…
Oh, and by the way, those links where the CIA said Plame was COVERT have been posted in the Blog numerous times… You most likely have them yourself… If not, perhaps somebody will feel like posting those links AGAIN…
If you want to argue the point with the CIA, I sure would urge you to do so…
When it enters a court of law Chas, the CIA’s opinion is valued, but the interpretation of the Law as written is the deciding factor.
Therefore, the Courts do have jurisdiction on deciding who is or isn’t covert under the law as written.
so it doesn’t bother you that sexy freddie was involved in the Nixon mess???
that is just what we need more criminals in the White House…just like rummy, cheney, et all
So the courts need to determine whether an agent is covert or not?
Bullshit!
If the Plame outing had happened under a Democratic president under similar circumstances, the right wing would be SCREAMING for treason charges.
Christ, what hypocrites!
Since when did those liberal ack-tee-vist courts get to meddle in the internal affairs of the holy Central Intelligence Agency?
When a case enters the court it falls under the interpretation of the Court. Unless the CIA was called as an expert witness on the Law regarding the “covertness” the statement of the CIA is irrelevant to consideration by Judge, Attorney and Jury.
At least that’s how I understand the law, perhaps an attorney will correct me on whether a “statement” by an agency is the final say in a deliberation of a trial.
Libby’s trial wasn’t about the covert status of Valerie Plame.
The JURY has the final say. The CIA was the employer. If they say she is covert, that is a statement of fact. If the employer doesnt get to designate who is covert and who is not covert, who IS the final say?
Of course, the preznit will be the choice of the 26 percenters.
Yeah Clark, but they sure dont want to talk about THAT, now do they?
It was about lying to the FBI and the grand jury. He was found guilty.
Of course, in wingnuttia, it’s all a vast left wing conspiracy.
Plame’s COVERT status was not, nor is not before a Court of Law to determine… Republican, even AGAG asked for an investigation into the “outing” of Plame… NO COURT has been asked to decide if Plame was COVERT — So, YES the CIA is the determining agency in that definition…. Like I said, if you want to challenge it, be my guest…
guys, the repukes will all defend bushy to the sinking of the titanic. Anything he does is fine with them. It is quite comical to see them twist away when in 98 they were saying just the exact opposite about the “little issue of perjury”
hehe
You ususally don’t have to wait too long for the shoe to be on the other foot with the Repubs. But, they just keep on walking funny, and denying it!
yea, and when I posted facts today, they tried to critisize my grammar, spelling ect…
anything to deflect I guess
“MSNBC host Chris Matthews spoke with Libby juror Ann Redington on HARDBALL. Juror [#10] says she would support a Bush pardon for Libby.
Transcript:
Chris: You’re for a pardon out of sympathy for the defendant.
Ann: Yeah, I think in the big picture, um, it kind of bothers me that there was this whole big crime being investigated and he got caught up in the investigation as opposed to in the actual crime that was supposedly committed.
Chris: Which is the leaking of a CIA agents name.
Ann: Exactly.”
This from an interview with a very liberal Chris Matthews. This is the second juror interviewed that thought the trial was about Plames outing. Fitz handled the trial as if it was. He and the judge refused to let the defense bring up the fact that it wasn’t about Plame.
Leave you have mentioned many times that Bush, Cheney, Rove and Libby were all guilty. The biggest problem here is that it was a worthless trial, held for the wrong reasons and the wrong person was on trial. If anyone it should have been Armitage.
Deny all you want. He didn’t prosecute the crime he was supposed to investigate. The jurors themselves saw this after the fact. They felt used.
Well libs let those tears keep falling and walk on by. It’s done – get over it.
End
Developing…
The good news is that bushco are the very best ambassadors for everything that isn’t of the Republican Party!
It’s a lot like ramming your head into a brick wall trying to get a bushie to see anything except the ideas they are possessed of. The 26%ers have their minds (?) made up along with their facts.
ksgrm…proves NOTHING except that that juror is one of the stupid base repukes
Leave,
A juror, we should add, who voted for conviction.
Chris Matthews liberal? Bwhahahaha
that is why he practically drools over rudi and sexy freddie…
jebus you guys have drunk so much Rush koolaid you don’t know what end is up
Tom,
I would venture that that juror probably got a hefty little pay check
KSGrm wanted Clinton imprisoned for perjury, but she feels that Libby should have been given a pass.
And then she wonders why she is called a hypocrite.
they are all hypocrites. I posted some comments from 98 upthread and all they could do was talk about my spelling and grammar.
when the shoe is on the other foot…
Some info on Plame being covert, IIPA, and a link to Fitz’s May 25 sentencing memorandum.
‘Taranto repeated stale falsehood that there’s “no evidence” Plame was a “covert agent” ‘http://mediamatters.org/items/200707080001?f=h_latest
Well, so much for being “tough on crime.”
Ah, I can see it now. . .2008 Newspaper Story:
BUSH COMMUTES MURDER SENTENCE OF GONZALES (AP)
President Bush today commuted the life sentence of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to 200 hours of community service, saying the original sentence was “excessive.” Gonzales was convicted this year of mowing down 8 schoolchildren with an unregister Uzi.
Bush said, “. . . .
And So On.
IOKIYAR
Clark,
Come on, man, we all know germ is just nuts. If she had a responsible family, they would do an intervention and take her keyboard away.
If Bush or Cheney were caught red-handed doing unspeakable crimes to small children, she would find a way to say that it was Clinton’s fault or the result of over zealous prosecution.
Get real, the Germ is completely out of her mind and is in more of a “pass-on-by” position than the consumer of free health care, who will not be named.
Thank you.
“Deny all you want. He didn’t prosecute the crime he was supposed to investigate. The jurors themselves saw this after the fact. They felt used.
Well libs let those tears keep falling and walk on by. It’s done – get over it.
Posted by: ksgrm | July 09, 2007 at 08:37 PM ”
Where were you for Martha Stewart? What is your take on Paris Hilton, let her go because those damn paparattzi keep pushing her to drink and drive?
I think what they did to Martha Stewart was a shame.
Paris Hilton? Who really cares? Four days in jail is the average for her offence, real jail, not the dispensary.
But, in the grand scheme of things what do they have to do with Scooter? Is your argument so weak that you have to bring in Martha?
Hank
I think what they did to Martha Stewart was a shame.
Paris Hilton? Who really cares? Four days in jail is the average for her offence, real jail, not the dispensary.
But, in the grand scheme of things what do they have to do with Scooter? Is your argument so weak that you have to bring in Martha?
Hank
Scroll down on this link, a Dick Morris piece on all of Clintons pardons:
http://www.vote.com/mmp_printerfriendly.php?id=279
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0823132920070708
“Why were they pursuing the matter long after there was no underlying crime on the outing of the CIA agent? Why were they pursuing it after we knew who the leaker was?” Specter said.
In Iran, Putin Warns Against Military Action:http://salihome.info/show/index.html