Well why not. This seems the way the Bush administration works. Pure corruption.
Printable View
Well why not. This seems the way the Bush administration works. Pure corruption.
Not a pardon (that will come just after the election), the conviction stands.
All Bush has done is give into the right wingers and keep one of theirs out of prison.
Get real, seriously.... :dry:Quote:
Originally Posted by thewizeard
All he said was that he didn't have to sit in prison for 2+ years while appealing the conviction.
The conviction, fines, etc. all stick.
Did you bash Clinton when he showed everyone how pardons work?
Quote:
Clinton issued 140 pardons as well as several commutations on his last day of office (January 20, 2001).[11] When a sentence is commuted, the conviction remains intact, but the sentence can be altered in a number of ways. Some controversial actions include the following:
* Carlos A. Vignali had his sentence for cocaine trafficking commuted, after serving 6 of 15 years in federal prison.
* Almon Glenn Braswell was pardoned of his mail fraud and perjury convictions, even while a federal investigation was underway regarding additional money laundering and tax evasion charges.[12] Braswell and Carlos Vignali each paid approximately $200,000 to Hillary Clinton's brother, Hugh Rodham, to represent their respective cases for clemency. Hugh Rodham returned the payments after they were disclosed to the public. Braswell would later invoke the Fifth Amendment at a Senate Committee hearing in 2001, when questioned about allegations of his having systematically defrauded senior citizens of millions of dollars.[13]
* Marc Rich, a fugitive, was pardoned of tax evasion, after clemency pleas from Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, among many other international luminaries. Denise Rich, Marc's former wife, was a close friend of the Clintons and had made substantial donations to both Clinton's library and Hillary's Senate campaign. Several months after her last donation, emails reveal Republican attorney "Scooter" Libby asked her to approach Clinton about pardoning Marc Rich. Clinton agreed to a pardon that required Marc Rich to pay a $100,000,000 fine before he could return to the United States. According to Paul Volcker's independent investigation of Iraqi Oil-for-Food kickback schemes, Marc Rich was a middleman for several suspect Iraqi oil deals involving over 4 million barrels of oil.[14]
* Susan McDougal, who had already completed her sentence, was pardoned for her role in the Whitewater scandal; McDougal had served 18 months on contempt charges for refusing to testify about Clinton's role.
* Dan Rostenkowski, a former Democratic Congressman convicted in the Congressional Post Office Scandal. Rostenkowski had served his entire sentence.
* Melvin J. Reynolds, a Democratic Congressman from Illinois, who was convicted of bank fraud, 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice, and solicitation of child pornography had his sentence commuted on the bank fraud charged and was allowed to serve the final months under the auspices of a half way house. He had served his entire sentence on child sex abuse charges before the commutation of the later convictions.
* Roger Clinton, the president's half-brother, on drug charges after having served the entire sentence more than a decade before. Roger Clinton would be charged with drunk driving and disorderly conduct in an unrelated incident within a year of the pardon.[15] He was also briefly alleged to have been utilized in lobbying for the Braswell pardon, among others.
No one person should have the right to overrule the law of the country. Stinks of dictatorship or sovereignty.:whistling
Oh in that case I look forward to the prison time being reinstated if he loses his appeal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skizo
This was a political move not a case of correcting an injustice. The proper procedures where followed by the judiciary and the sentence was well within the guidelines.
I am happy to say I am not a fan of presidential pardons ANY president.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skizo
is there anyone, anyone at all, who thought libby would go to jail?
So the same President who has no problems extending the duty cycle of National Guardsmen thinks that it's inappropriate for Scoot to serve some time in prison...yup, no surprise there.
Of course, when a President has been skating along on the lowest public approval ratings ever,what has he got to lose?
Besides, with Cheney positioning himself as the forth branch of government, Bush probably figures that Dick will pardon him.
I don't believe anyone does. Hence why they do it last day.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
I am happy to say I am not a fan of presidential pardons ANY president.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skizo
Also, my point wasn't that I approve it, but that it thewizeard poke was at Bush, not the ridiculous pardons themselves.
It's not just Bush that Americans have lost confidence in, it's the confidence of the government to do anything straight forward. They aren't a voice of the people any longer it seems to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
Congress as a whole has an approval rating of 48%.
Judged on his trespass alone, and as a singular matter, let us say Libby ought to serve some time.
What, then, of democrat Richard Armitage, THE guilty party in the Plame affair, and who has not even been called on anyone's carpet.
Could someone explain precisely how this fact escapes being designated as prosecutorial ineptitude, or political, or corrupt.
in your opinion....Quote:
Originally Posted by Skizo
Was Bush right to commute the sentence?
and....
Should Libby have his conviction upheld on appeal should Bush issue a full pardon?
I do like the way Clinton's pardons are being raised by the talking heads right now but never the pardons of Bush 41 or Reagan etc.
I confess I didn't bother reading your copy paste earlier because....well it's just another "Clinton did this" talking point, and as a parent I now fully appreciate questions from my mother when I was a child such as "if so and so jumped off a cliff would you jump off as well?" ( I can't do the accent)
HOWEVER.......I have read it now and was pleasantly surprised to see that it didn't neglect to mention who Marc Rich's attorney was at the time.
Could you post a link to your source please? Because I read a lot of right wing blogs, listen to a lot of right wing talk radio and media in general and particularly since the commutation they have mentioned Marc Rich a lot, but I haven't seen mentioned that Libby was his attorney in any of them......the independent and left side has mentioned it in passing it for a long time, but never made a thing of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skizo
Not to put too fine a point on things, but, while Libby had represented Rich dating back to 1985, he was not retained by Rich at the time he importuned Rich's wife to intercede.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
In other words, he was not Rich's attorney when he did this.
Just so that's clear. :dabs:
Armitage was one leaker, not the only leaker.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Perhaps if there was no obstruction of justice then a prosecution could have occurred over the leaking.
Armitage was determined to have done the leaking which instigated the entire issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidccArmitage was one leaker, not the only leaker.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Perhaps if there was no obstruction of justice then a prosecution could have occurred over the leaking.
Unmitigated fact.
I cannot make any sense of your last...the fact of Armitage's complicity was known to Fitzgerald at the absolute outset of his investigation.
What was there about anything that followed that would preclude Fitzgerald prosecuting Armitage?
Apart from politics, I mean.
Ok let's say that this is correct (just for the sake of the debate)Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
The investigation that this spurred found out that he wasn't the only leaker. Had fate played a different card perhaps rove's or libby's leaking could have set the investigation off.
No matter how you try to spin this the fact remains that there was more than one leaker.
If someone is attacked on the street and has their wallet taken, we still go after the person that came soon after and took the victims watch.
As I've said before I think they all should have been prosecuted, however to secure a prosecution there has to be proof. In this case not just that there was a leak but that it was done intentionally with knowledge of Plame's status. The investigation was obstructed so that proof was no achievable.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
So, by your reckoning, if Libby had originated the leak, and Armitage had "lied" to the Grand Jury, Libby should have skated, and Armitage should be facing prison time?Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Okay.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
If your theoretical "someone" is Ms. Plame, and Libby has thieved her watch, then Armitage walks off with her wallet scot-free.
Strange notion of justice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Proof?Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Armitage's self-incriminating confession doesn't suffice? :blink:
FFSQuote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Libby was not convicted of the leaking, the two are unconnected as crimes and to try to link the two is a false defense with no legal bearing
However if Armitage had been found to have lied under oath and/or obstructed the investigation then yes he should be convicted and punished.
But the answer to the complete balls up of an interpretation is NO
Who leaked first doesn't matter. I don't think Armitage,rove or Libby should have gotten away with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
I suspect the commutation has more to do with concerns that Libby could cut a deal and tell the investigation what he really knows.
This is nonsensical. Libby was not convicted of outing plame, nobody was charged and nobody was convicted. You are making an argument on a conviction that didn't happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Armitage admitted (as did Rove) that he leaked the name, he (and Rove) didn't admit that they knew she was covert.
The law was written in such a way as to make it almost impossible to convict as it has to be shown they knew her status.
I'm guessing that if Armitage and Rove had said under oath they didn't leak they would be up on perjury and obstruction of justice charges as well. The document release of the investigation showed that Rove was within a gnats hair.
My analogies are perfectly applicable and accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidccFFS
Libby was not convicted of the leaking, the two are unconnected as crimes and to try to link the two is a false defense with no legal bearing
However if Armitage had been found to have lied under oath and/or obstructed the investigation then yes he should be convicted and punished.
But the answer to the complete balls up of an interpretation is NO
Who leaked first doesn't matter. I don't think Armitage,rove or Libby should have gotten away with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
I suspect the commutation has more to do with concerns that Libby could cut a deal and tell the investigation what he really knows.
This is nonsensical. Libby was not convicted of outing plame, nobody was charged and nobody was convicted. You are making an argument on a conviction that didn't happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Armitage admitted (as did Rove) that he leaked the name, he (and Rove) didn't admit that they knew she was covert.
The law was written in such a way as to make it almost impossible to convict as it has to be shown they knew her status.
I'm guessing that if Armitage and Rove had said under oath they didn't leak they would be up on perjury and obstruction of justice charges as well. The document release of the investigation showed that Rove was within a gnats hair.
BTW-
A false defense?
Whom do you believe I am attempting to defend?
No, your analogy is that the first to steal from the victim got away with it but the second thief didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
When the reality was that both (actually a third thief as well) got away with it.
Libby wasn't convicted of the analogical theft. He was convicted of a different crime that the other two had no hand in.
And no one (please allow me to repeat this: NO ONE) was convicted of the crime for which the investigation was undertaken, even though the crime's perpetrator(s) - chief amongst them a certain individual named Armitage - were known to the prosecutor right from the get-go.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidccNo, your analogy is that the first to steal from the victim got away with it but the second thief didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
When the reality was that both (actually a third thief as well) got away with it.
Libby wasn't convicted of the analogical theft. He was convicted of a different crime that the other two had no hand in.
So, then, to sum up:
Pat Fitzgerald, at huge taxpayer expense, convicted a peripheral character, but not the one(s) he should have, though to no ill-effect, as it happified liberals across the land.
It strikes me that a more apt analogy would be Cheney's misguided hunting expedition, wherein the ostensible targets were field fowl, but I'm sure you remember that outcome, don't you. :dry:
It doesn't matter that fitz was unable to prove the exposure of a covert agent was intentional, it doesn't matter who you think did the leaking first, all 3 were equal, it doesn't matter one bit.
Libby (and I repeat) was convicted properly and given all due process for A SEPARATE CRIME all your bitching is pointless, THE TWO CRIMES ARE UNCONNECTED. Get over it
Your supposition is not mystifying, it is merely inane.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
I understand full well Libby's technical guilt; you, however, do not acknowledge the irony of the situation, as is your wont, politically-speaking.
You are, after all, a liberal, as I am a conservative.
The situation is not ironic because the two crimes are unconnected. You and your wingnut comrades keep bringing it up as if there was a connection, but there isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
You and your wingnut comrades keep bringing it up as if it's not Libby's fault he lied and obstructed an investigation.
Perhaps it's impossible for you to notice that I bemoaned the fact that fitz was unable to convict the leakers when we know they did it.
It annoys me that they got off unpunished, but I don't look at the libby conviction as a consolation prize. I look at it as a different case.
You bemoan the fact Libby and Cheney weren't skewered, truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidccThe situation is not ironic because the two crimes are unconnected. You and your wingnut comrades keep bringing it up as if there was a connection, but there isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
You and your wingnut comrades keep bringing it up as if it's not Libby's fault he lied and obstructed an investigation.
Perhaps it's impossible for you to notice that I bemoaned the fact that fitz was unable to convict the leakers when we know they did it.
It annoys me that they got off unpunished, but I don't look at the libby conviction as a consolation prize. I look at it as a different case.
BTW-
What's with the "wingnut" appellation, doofus?
Is it mandated for use in your Official Guide To Liberal Rhetoric, or something.
Who mentioned Cheney? The three people that we know leaked the name are Armitage, Rove and Libby. Perhaps you have more insider information. If Cheney was involved then he should feel the full weight of the law as well, if he wasn't then he shouldn't. But all that is a moot point now.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I will add to my response of your "isn't it ironic" meme.
Had Libby been convicted of leaking the name you would have a point.........but then that's not the case..
Yes. Also Libby should sit in prison just like anyone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skizo
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
:OQuote:
And, yes, Armitage did leak Plame's name to columnist Robert Novak, who was the first to report it to the public. But Armitage was not the first or the only leaker. Weeks before Novak reported Plame's name in his July 14, 2003, column, Libby revealed Plame's CIA job in meetings with then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller on June 23 and July 8. Novak also received confirmation of Armitage's tip from Karl Rove, Bush's senior political adviser. Rove also discussed Plame, without mentioning her name or covert status, with Matt Cooper, then of Time magazine
You see the talking point that Armitage was the leaker is based on the fact that Novak was the one to break the story, not who leaked it first.
Irony?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4Your supposition is not mystifying, it is merely inane.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
I understand full well Libby's technical guilt; you, however, do not acknowledge the irony of the situation, as is your wont, politically-speaking.
You are, after all, a liberal, as I am a conservative.
Like lying about an affair that has nothing to do with a case that went nowhere?
Oh come on now.........are you turning into another "but...but...but Clinton did it first" poster as well :shifty:Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
:P
It has been going on for a wee while.:whistling
Found this while surfing'.
Quote:
Even before I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's perjury conviction Tuesday, there was speculation that if he was convicted, President Bush would issue a pardon for him. Presidential pardons are a prerogative that began with another George — Washington — in the country's infancy
It's a damn shame. "Scooter" sounded like a nice prison-bitch name!
Shhh. I was waiting for jay to correkt has to had.:ermm:Quote:
Originally Posted by vidccOh come on now.........are you turning into another "but...but...but Clinton did it first" poster as well :shifty:Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
:P