RebelKev Wrote:When you liberals start getting your thongs in a bunch over the pardoning of Marc Rich or the theft of national security documents by Sandy Berger, then we'll talk. Mkay pumpkins?

Why does everything have to factor into some other incident from years ago? Two wrongs make a right?

This is BS. This is now. Bush is an arrogant a-hole and if any of you travel around the world or talk to people in other countries on a regular basis you would be ashamed of this numbskull for the image he has given the office of POTUS.

I don't think Marc Rich compres to someone who violated National Security policies or outed a CIA agent because her husband happened to see the writing on the wall regarding the Bush/Cheney plans to invade Iraq regardless of the evidence.

Libby was sacrificed to spare Cheney, the real evil leader, and once Libby was busted, W comes along to save him. It ain't over til it's over. Justice is coming and he's briging Hell with him.

Al Gore's council in bush v. gore on this case and libby..:

Quote:David Boise on March 7th, 2007:

That's exactly the problem. People can't remember everything. Now, people have got to tell the truth in front of a grand jury. That's very important. And if you are conducting an investigation where you really need to get people's testimony, and they lie, they need to be prosecuted, even if you ultimately conclude there was no underlying crime. That's not really the situation here, as I see it. Because from the outside it looks like the prosecutor knew, before some of this testimony was taken, that there was not an underlying crime. And then to go forward and try to get people maybe to slip up, make a mistake, so you can bring a perjury or obstruction charge, I think that's what's troubling here. The problem is I don't see any evidence that that's right. That is I don't see any evidence that they needed Libby's testimony to determine whether there was a crime or not. They knew who leaked it. Ok? They knew who leaked it."

take notes from an honest lib, the rest of you are dishonest to the core.

the person that wrote the law about 'outing' covert agents even says Plame WAS NOT covert!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! this is why Armitage was not outed, everything else is a witch hunt which you guys are gleefully dupes of.[/quote]

more 'inconvient truths' for the dupes:

Victoria Toensing, who WROTE THE LAW on covert agents.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...01705.html

Quote:· On Dec. 30, 2003, the day Fitzgerald was appointed special counsel, he should have known (all he had to do was ask the CIA) that Plame was not covert, knowledge that should have stopped the investigation right there. The law prohibiting disclosure of a covert agent's identity requires that the person have a foreign assignment at the time or have had one within five years of the disclosure, that the government be taking affirmative steps to conceal the government relationship, and for the discloser to have actual knowledge of the covert status.

Quote:Victoria Toensing:

“She [Plame] was not a covert agent under the Act.”
“Nobody was ever charged with knowing that she was covert” Toensing explained. “Therefore she wasn’t covered by the statute.”

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:Knowingly leaking the identity of a covert agent is a criminal violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA), and the CIA is required by law to report any such possible criminal violations.

Then I'll ask again, why wasn't Armitage charged?

Not everyone who commits a crime is charged. You said so yourself.

Once again you ignore the most basic detail in this, he admitted to the crime junior. How many people do you know that admit to a federal offense aren't charged?I

You are operating under the mistaken assumption that we have a perfectly run legal system.

Wow...just...wow.

It's not like arguing with a brick wall, but with a squishy glob of goo that just slips and slimes and squirms into whatever shape fits the current purposes...prior position(s) be damned. I agree: wow.

blazr Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:Knowingly leaking the identity of a covert agent is a criminal violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA), and the CIA is required by law to report any such possible criminal violations.

Then I'll ask again, why wasn't Armitage charged?

Not everyone who commits a crime is charged. You said so yourself.

Once again you ignore the most basic detail in this, he admitted to the crime junior. How many people do you know that admit to a federal offense aren't charged?I

You are operating under the mistaken assumption that we have a perfectly run legal system.

Wow...just...wow.

It's not like arguing with a brick wall, but with a squishy glob of goo that just slips and slimes and squirms into whatever shape fits the current purposes...prior position(s) be damned. I agree: wow.

Finally something everyone can agree on....

Libby was convicted of four felonies and was sentenced by a George W. Bush-appointed judge.

Those are the facts.

Here's a couple of things to think about:

Quote:Attorneys see irony in Libby case

By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush knew what he was getting in 2001 when he made Reggie B. Walton one of his first picks for a seat on the federal bench: a tough-on-crime judge with a reputation for handing down stiff sentences.

A former deputy drug adviser, federal prosecutor and Superior Court judge, Walton seemed a perfect fit for the new president. And Walton didn't disappoint, proving to be exactly the kind of no-nonsense judge Bush was looking for.

Until now.

When erasing former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case, Bush said Walton was being too harsh.

"The point here is to do what is consistent with the dictates of justice," said White House Press Secretary Tony Snow.

Walton, the son of a steel worker who turned a hardscrabble upbringing into a legal career, declined Tuesday to discuss the case or his views on sentencing.

"To now say anything about sentencing on the heels of yesterday's events will inevitably be construed as comments on the president's commutation decision, which would be inappropriate," the judge said in an e-mail.

But attorneys noted some irony in Bush's decision to override Walton.

"The party who appointed him is now unhappy with what he appointed him to do," said Scott L. Fredericksen, a defense attorney who served as a prosecutor under every president since Ronald Reagan.

Also noteworthy, defense attorneys said, was seeing the White House urge leniency just weeks after the Bush administration announced a tough new crime bill that would bar judges from going easy on criminals. They would be free to impose longer sentences, but not shorter ones.

To hear Snow tell it, Walton ignored the recommendation of probation officials and sentenced Libby to prison. That isn't what happened. Probation officers recommended Libby serve 15-21 months. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald recommended more than 30 months. Libby's attorneys asked for probation.

Walton accepted Fitzgerald's interpretation of the law, which said Libby should be sentenced more harshly because of the seriousness of the investigation he obstructed.

The 2 1/2 years handed Libby was much like the sentences given others convicted in obstruction cases. Federal court records indicate that 382 people were convicted for obstruction of justice over the past two years. Three of four were sent to prison. The average prison term was 64 months, more than five years. The largest group of defendants drew prison terms ranging from 13 months to 31 months.

"This is sort of a standard sentence in that situation," said defense attorney Mark H. Tuohey. "Call it what you want, but that's what it is. This was not some out-of-the-blue-sentence."

Quote:Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon

By BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writer 58 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - President Bush on Tuesday refused to rule out an eventual pardon for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, leaving open the chance he may wipe away the former White House aide's criminal record after already erasing his prison sentence.

"I rule nothing in or nothing out," Bush said when asked about whether he might pardon Libby before leaving office in January 2009.

The president's stance, on one level, was merely practical. When he commuted Libby's 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case on Monday, a court ruling had made jail time imminent. Bush has plenty of time to consider a pardon, depending on how Libby's appeals go.

Bush's words had political significance, too. By keeping his options open, he offered hope to the conservative members of his own party who believe he should go further in pardoning Libby. He also kept alive a controversy that could follow him to the last day of his presidency.

Libby, who once wielded enormous influence as chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was convicted of lying and obstructing justice in a probe into the leak of a CIA operative's identity. The long-running case meant the end of Libby's government career and dovetailed with the broader troubles of Bush's second term in office.

Bush abruptly commuted Libby's prison sentence — an unusual step, given that it had not yet begun — five hours after a federal appeals court panel ruled that Libby could not delay his prison term. Bush left intact the sentence of two years probation and a $250,000 fine, citing a need for some accountability.

In his first public comments on the matter on Tuesday, Bush defended his rationale.

"I felt like the jury verdict ought to stand, and I felt like some of the punishments that the judge determined were adequate should stand," Bush said after visiting wounded soldiers at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. "But I felt like the 30-month sentencing was severe."

"I made a judgment, a considered judgment," the president added. "I stand by it."

Bush took heat from the left and the right.

The conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page said Bush's unwillingness to pardon Libby was "another profile in non-courage."

On the other side, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said of the prospect of eventual pardon for Libby: "The motto of this administration seems to be: When you're in a hole up to your neck, keep digging."

Unlike the commutation, a pardon would wipe away Libby's felony conviction.

White House officials cautioned against reading too much into Bush's comment that he wouldn't rule out a pardon. Spokesman Tony Snow — directly addressing those arguing for a pardon — said the jury system must be respected.

The commutation created confusion about whether Libby could still serve his two-year term of supervised release — a form of probation available only to people who have completed their prison term. U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton ordered prosecutors and attorneys to suggest how to continue.

Under supervised release, Libby would have to submit written reports to probation officers each month and secure full-time employment. He would be prohibited from traveling without permission.

Libby is not yet eligible to apply for a pardon under the Justice Department's guidelines. Criminals must wait at least five years after completing their sentences before they can apply for presidential pardons, although Bush could unilaterally issue him one.

Some lawyers said Bush's statement about Libby's harsh sentence showed that the administration was out of touch with today's federal sentencing guidelines. People like Libby — first-time, nonviolent offenders — receive lengthy sentences every day, they said.

"This was a very common sentence, not a startling sentence," said former federal prosecutor Scott L. Fredericksen, who has served under ever president since Ronald Reagan.

Defense attorney and former prosecutor E. Lawrence Barcella noted that politicians keep making sentencing guidelines stricter. "Nothing turns a conservative into a liberal faster than a conviction. It's amazing how quickly they actually start thinking about people's civil liberties," he said.

Three of every four people convicted of obstruction of justice have been sent to prison over the past two years, a total of 283 people, according to federal judiciary data. The average term was more than five years. The largest group of defendants were sentenced to between 13 and 31 months in prison, exactly where Libby would have fallen on the charts.

Libby, 56, is the only person charged in the leak scandal, which erupted after CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity was revealed in a 2003 syndicated newspaper column. Libby was not the source for that leak and neither of the two Bush administration officials who provided the information were ever charged.

Left open is whether Bush will pardon Libby on his way out the door.

"To do a pardon at the moment in which the president is the least accountable of his entire term — that's problematic," said Brian Kalt, a law professor who studies presidential pardons at Michigan State University. "It's also very tempting, which is why it has happened."

President Clinton pardoned 140 people on his last day in office, including fugitive financier Marc Rich — whose lawyer was Libby.

On Christmas Eve in 1992, just before he left office, the first President Bush pardoned former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and a CIA official as they awaited trial on Iran-Contra charges, as well as four other administration officials who had pleaded or been found guilty in the affair.

Machiavelli Wrote:Niner,

We had this discussion six months ago. We should go back and reread the thread. Prosecutors choose cases every day they think they can win. Armitage told the truth to Fitzgerald. Libby lied. I don't understand how you can't see that distinction.

Yes we did. And you still haven't grasped the fact Dogger that if someone goes to a prosecutor and confesses to a federal crime the prosecutor can't simply say, "Well, since you admitted it we won't prosecute." They are obligated to still bring charges.

Manufacturing chemical weapons is a federal offense. Would you really like us to believe that if someone goes to a prosecutor and confesses to manufacturing chemical weapons that prosecutor can simply say, "no problem, I won't prosecute"? Counterfeiting is a federal crime. Are you really going to argue that if a prosecutor is investigating a counterfeiting operation and you go and simply admit that you're the one that was doing it, that they can just choose not to prosecute you?

So I'd ask you dogger what seems more logical. That Fitzgerald simply forgave Armitage for committing a federal crime? Or that what Armitage confessed to didn't qualify as a federal crime to begin with? I'll give you a hint, pick door number two.

Quote:You can't lie under a subpoena. Plain and simple. I think Fitzgerlad knew there was a cover up that led to the v.p.'s office and he saw Armitage as a lackey. He wanted Rove and Cheney at the beginning, I believe he settled for Scooter because Scoter didn't play ball.

Here's the problem with your conspiracy theory. Armitage still confessed to a crime (according to you lefties). Now even in your world where they above takes place, the only way Armitage gets off is if he cuts a deal to testify against the evil Rove and Cheney. No such thing occurred. Want to know why? BECAUSE NO ONE WAS EVER CHARGED WITH LEAKING HER NAME!!!!!!!!!!!!! EVEN THE SOB THAT ADMITTED TO IT!!!!

I believe we've reached a a brick wall at this point.

HAPPY 4TH EVERYBODY!:patriot:

Libby was convicted of four felonies, and was sentenced by a Bush-appointed judge. Even Bush admits that he agreed with the verdict.

Just not the sentence.

Bush let him off the hook for breaking the law.

But conservatives want a full pardon.

Just because he's Republican.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:Libby was convicted of four felonies, and was sentenced by a Bush-appointed judge. Even Bush admits that he agreed with the verdict.

Just not the sentence.

Bush let him off the hook for breaking the law.

But conservatives want a full pardon.

Just because he's Republican.

Man, you are like a Chatty Cathy doll, except you pull your own string. Thankfully someone invented the copy and paste feature or you would have carpel tunnel syndrome.

Tiger46 Wrote:Libby was sacrificed to spare Cheney, the real evil leader, and once Libby was busted, W comes along to save him. It ain't over til it's over. Justice is coming and he's briging Hell with him.

Cheney? Cheney's a pawn. Rove is the leader. All hail Teh Rove. Don'tcha know? All Rethugs, and a few Indies, WORSHIP at the alter of Teh Rove. He's almighty. He's the chosen. He will take us the the new planet. We dig..............Teh Rove.

I googled "why didn't Fitzgerald prosecute Armitage". You'd be amazed. I suggest you do it. Judges are holding prosecutors across the country in contempt for not prosecuting crimes. So your argument about if someone admits a crime a prosecutor has to bring charges is false. I suggest you try it if you don't believe me. We've went over and over this but I want to get this straight. Let's say it wasn't a crime after it was investigated. Is it your position that it is OK to obstruct and lie to the investigator who is trying to acquire the truth. Even if Armitage was the first to disclose Plame's name is it not the responsibility of Fitzgerald to see if anyone else disclosed the name earlier. Shouldn't Scooter have been honest with Fitzgerald?

RebelKev Wrote:

Tiger46 Wrote:Libby was sacrificed to spare Cheney, the real evil leader, and once Libby was busted, W comes along to save him. It ain't over til it's over. Justice is coming and he's briging Hell with him.

Cheney? Cheney's a pawn. Rove is the leader. All hail Teh Rove. Don'tcha know? All Rethugs, and a few Indies, WORSHIP at the alter of Teh Rove. He's almighty. He's the chosen. He will take us the the new planet. We dig..............Teh Rove.

Good one.

Machiavelli Wrote:I googled "why didn't Fitzgerald prosecute Armitage". You'd be amazed. I suggest you do it.

I did. Quality top hits from such objective sources as The Nation, Salon.com and Media matters.

The one credible source, the Washington Post, the article written completely refutes the position you hold dogger.

Quote:Judges are holding prosecutors across the country in contempt for not prosecuting crimes. So your argument about if someone admits a crime a prosecutor has to bring charges is false.

I swear you kill me sometimes dogger. You take the leap from "judges are holding prosecutors in contempt for not prosecuting crimes to if someone admits to commiting a crime a prosecutor doesn't have to bring charges. Un-freakin-believable.

The fact of the matter is dogger prosecutors have an obligation to bring charges against someone who confesses to a federal crime. The only way they can cut a deal is if that person testifies against others. Neither of which happened in this case.

Quote:Let's say it wasn't a crime after it was investigated.

I see, so all things that are investigated are crimes now dogger?

Quote:Is it your position that it is OK to obstruct and lie to the investigator who is trying to acquire the truth.

Nope, but I applaud your attempt at deflection.

See dogger Libby's guilt has nothing to do with if leaking Plame's name met the standard of a crime. That's what you and other left wingers are unable to grasp.

Quote:Even if Armitage was the first to disclose Plame's name is it not the responsibility of Fitzgerald to see if anyone else disclosed the name earlier.

Sure it is. However he was charged with determining if a crime was committed. See that's one of the pieces you just dont' get Dogger. Fitzgerald was charged with investigating if there was a crime committed by leaking Plame's name. He was not charged with investigating the crime of leaking her name. That's the semantical and factual difference you don't get.

Quote:Shouldn't Scooter have been honest with Fitzgerald?

Yep. And you'll note I've never said any different.

Basic logic, and some point dogger, has to take over. You can ignore it all you want, but it's still there. And when you look at the fact that:

1. Fitzgerald was tasked to investigate if a crime was committed by Plame's name being leaked
2. Armitage confessed to being the source of the leak
3. He was never charged with a crime
4. Libby also leaked her name, yet was never charged with leaking her name.

When you put all that together, a reasonable, logical person comes to the unshakeable conclusion that leaking her name didn't qualify as a crime. Not that Libby didn't lie, not that he wasn't found guilty. But that there was no underlying crime.

I'm done discussing this with you because you simply don't get it. I don't say that to be rude, but there's no point in continuing the discussion at this point.

Quote:The fact of the matter is dogger prosecutors have an obligation to bring charges against someone who confesses to a federal crime. The only way they can cut a deal is if that person testifies against others. Neither of which happened in this case.

No they don't. Prosecutors weigh many things in bringing a case to a trial. Very very basic. The fact that this escapes you. Call your local prosecutor up and ask him this. It's civics 101.

[/quote]I see, so all things that are investigated are crimes now dogger?
[/quote]

No, I never said that. You have to investigate to see if a crime was committed. How you go from Point A to Point B there surprises me. Your usually better than this. On your B game today perhaps.


[/quote]See dogger Libby's guilt has nothing to do with if leaking Plame's name met the standard of a crime. That's what you and other left wingers are unable to grasp.
[/quote]

What we are able to grasp is that Libby obstructed justice and was found guilty by a jury and sentenced by a Bush appointed judge. Hell even Bush agrees with the jury and the prosecutor but the sentence was too harsh????????????? This coming from the guy who wouldn't pardon Carla Fay Tucker or whatever her name was. There are many many people serving time or more time for exactly what Libby did. The sentence was fair.



[/quote]However he was charged with determining if a crime was committed.[/quote]

and he did his job. Only Scooter didn't help him much. Scooter lied to him and obstructed him in trying to get to the truth. For Scooter's actions he was found guilty on four felony counts. So I guess a new standard is set. Lie and Obstruct. Even if you are found guilty you'll get your "Get out of Jail Free Card" as long as you take the fall.

Rejoice........ Rejoice ye merry men. Nixon.... i mean Bush just escaped our generations watergate.

Machiavelli Wrote:No they don't. Prosecutors weigh many things in bringing a case to a trial. Very very basic. The fact that this escapes you. Call your local prosecutor up and ask him this. It's civics 101.

Dogger you of all people are in no position to give me a civics lesson.

And I don't need to call up a local prosecutor, one of them is a good friend of mine. We've discussed this, hell I've even showed him your posts. He agrees with me on the Libby deal and the fact that you don't have a clue.

Quote:No, I never said that. You have to investigate to see if a crime was committed. How you go from Point A to Point B there surprises me. Your usually better than this. On your B game today perhaps.

Dogger my z game still puts me light years ahead of you.

Quote:What we are able to grasp is that Libby obstructed justice and was found guilty by a jury and sentenced by a Bush appointed judge.

Good for you dogger, and you'll take note that view has zero to do with the question of if leaking Plame's name qualified as a crime. I know you keep going back to it cause you have nothing else. But it's truly pointless since I've never once debated it.

Quote:However he was charged with determining if a crime was committed.

Quote:and he did his job.

Yep, he determined no crime was committed. Yet you still try and argue that there was.

Quote:Only Scooter didn't help him much. Scooter lied to him and obstructed him in trying to get to the truth. For Scooter's actions he was found guilty on four felony counts. So I guess a new standard is set. Lie and Obstruct. Even if you are found guilty you'll get your "Get out of Jail Free Card" as long as you take the fall.

That's precious. It also has nothing to do with if leaking Plame's name was a crime.

Peace.

Nice.... you moved the goal. Thet title of the thread is Bush pardons Libby. Not "Scooter didn't have to tell the truth because there was no underlying crime". We are arguing two different things. I'm clear. You won't hear anything more from me on this.

What I would like to talk about is the ramifications. What I think is so damaging is the case goes back to the Iraq war and the justification for going in. I hope this is a thing that hangs on Republicans like stink on _ _ _ _. Hopefully it's a generational thing. What say you?

like the libs, the title of this thread is wrong.

Bush commuted his sentence, did not pardon. This way Libby can still appeal it on the merits and get his name cleared eventually.


Fitzgerald said long time ago the case was closed and he would not be pursuing anymore....does this not tell you clowns anything? of course not, its called B.D.S. which effects rational thought.

My take......according to what has so far been said on here. It appears that Fitzgerald could have determined in about a day whether a crime was committed (the outing of Plame). Plame had been out of the CIA operative world too long to qualify for protection. It seems simple and easy. Does she fit the protection of the law...No - no crime, end of investigation.

However, the real "charge" of the Special Prosecution was to dig dirt, keep stirring the pot & see if we can "get something". Libby got caught. As such, he should live with the sentence and go to prison. Commuting the sentence leaves us with this thought: "I guess Bush had to let him off the hook or he might sing about other stuff!"

Personally, I can't believe that Sandy Burgler was only convicted with a misdemeanor of stealing and destroying classified documents from the archives. That sure leaves one with the same thought as above.

Unfortunately, I think that very few on either side of the political game really wants any of the insiders to go to jail, they just want to be able to use the dirt to smear "where applicable".
I think that way more in Washington are dirty than clean regardless of party affiliation. (Yea, I guess I really am very cynical)

Crebman Wrote:My take......according to what has so far been said on here. It appears that Fitzgerald could have determined in about a day whether a crime was committed (the outing of Plame). Plame had been out of the CIA operative world too long to qualify for protection. It seems simple and easy. Does she fit the protection of the law...No - no crime, end of investigation.

However, the real "charge" of the Special Prosecution was to dig dirt, keep stirring the pot & see if we can "get something". Libby got caught. As such, he should live with the sentence and go to prison. Commuting the sentence leaves us with this thought: "I guess Bush had to let him off the hook or he might sing about other stuff!"

Personally, I can't believe that Sandy Burgler was only convicted with a misdemeanor of stealing and destroying classified documents from the archives. That sure leaves one with the same thought as above.

Unfortunately, I think that very few on either side of the political game really wants any of the insiders to go to jail, they just want to be able to use the dirt to smear "where applicable".
I think that way more in Washington are dirty than clean regardless of party affiliation. (Yea, I guess I really am very cynical)

+1

Especially the last sentence.

Crebman Wrote:I think that way more in Washington are dirty than clean regardless of party affiliation. (Yea, I guess I really am very cynical)

I think that's something we can all agree on (well, the reasonable among us anyways). Although you could have said "everyone in Washington"...and that includes everyone.