Conservative Presidential Candidates Back Libby Pardon
Conservative Presidential Candidates Back Libby Pardon
During tonight’s presidential debate, CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer asked all the candidates to say whether they would pardon Scooter Libby, who was sentenced to 2.5 years in prison today for his felony convictions related to the CIA leak case.
Former mayor Rudy Giuliani said the case “argues more in favor of a pardon,” calling today’s sentencing “way out of line” and “grossly excessive.” Giuliani said the case against Libby was “incomprehensible” because “ultimately, there was no underlying crime involved.”
Likewise, former governor Mitt Romney said it’s “worth looking at a pardon,” because special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald “clearly abused prosecutorial discretion” by going on a “political vendetta” against Libby despite knowing he was not the original source of the leak.
Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) said definitively they would pardon Libby. Former governor Tommy Thompson said he likely would. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) answered, “He’s going through an appeal process. We’ve got to see what happens here.” Former governors Jim Gilmore and Mike Huckabee and Reps. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) and Ron Paul (R-TX) said they would not pardon him, at least without learning more about the case. Watch it:
The fact that Libby didn’t commit the “underlying crime” — i.e., the leaking of Valerie Plame’s CIA status — means nothing. Libby was convicted on obstruction of justice charges precisely because he prevented the special prosecutor from conclusively determining why Plame’s identity was disclosed. As Fitzgerald previously explained: “What we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He’s trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked their view.”
So much for “law and order” conservatism.
UPDATE: Note that Judge Reggie Walton echoed Fitzgerald during the sentencing today: “Your lies blocked an extremely serious investigation, and as result you will indeed go to prison,” Walton told Libby.
Transcript:
BLITZER: I just want to do a quick yes or no. And I’m going to go down the rest of the group and let everybody just tell me yes or no : Would you pardon Scooter Libby?
(UNKNOWN): No.
(UNKNOWN): No. I’m steeped in the law. I wouldn’t do that.
(UNKNOWN): No, not without reading the transcript.
(UNKNOWN): Not without reading the transcript.
MCCAIN: He’s going through an appeal process. We’ve got to see what happens here.
GIULIANI: I think the sentence was way out of line. I mean, the sentence was grossly excessive in a situation in which, at the beginning, the prosecutor knew who the leak was…
BLITZER: So, yes or no, would you pardon him?
GIULIANI: … and he knew a crime wasn’t committed.
I recommended over a thousand pardons to President Reagan when I was associate attorney general. I would see if it fit the criteria for pardon. I’d wait for the appeal.
I think what the judge did today argues more in favor of a pardon because…
BLITZER: Thank you.
GIULIANI: … this is excessive punishment.
BLITZER: All right.
GIULIANI: When you consider — I’ve prosecuted 5,000 cases.
BLITZER: I’m trying to get a yes or no.
(LAUGHTER)
GIULIANI: Well, this is a very important issue. This is a very, very important — a man’s life is at stake. And the reality is, this is an incomprehensible situation.
They knew who the leak was.
ROMNEY: Hey, Wolf, can I explain…
GIULIANI: And ultimately, there was no underlying crime involved.
BLITZER: All right.
ROMNEY: This is one of those situations where I go back to my record as governor. I didn’t pardon anybody as governor, because I didn’t want to overturn a jury.
But in this case, you have a prosecutor who clearly abused prosecutorial discretion by going after somebody when he already knew that the source of the leak was Richard Armitage. He’d been told that. So he went on a political vendetta.
BLITZER: Was that a yes?
ROMNEY: It’s worth looking at that. I will study it very closely if I’m lucky enough to be president. And I’d keep that option open.
BLITZER: Senator?
BROWNBACK: Yes. The basic crime here didn’t happen. What they were saying was that the identity of an agent…
BLITZER: All right.
Governor?
BROWNBACK: … was revealed, but that agent has to be in the field for that to be a crime. That didn’t occur.
BLITZER: Governor?
THOMPSON: Bill Clinton committed perjury at a grand jury, lost his law license. Scooter Libby got 30 months. To me, it’s not fair at all.
But I would make sure the appeal was done properly, and then I would examine the record.
BLITZER: Congressman?
TANCREDO: Yes.
BLITZER: Yes.
All right. We heard from all of them.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
231 Responses to “Conservative Presidential Candidates Back Libby Pardon”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Simply another reason not to vote for JulieAnnie.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:15 pmFunny, I thought outing a COVERT CIA AGENT was a crime!
June 5th, 2007 at 9:15 pmGiuliani should be given a prison sentence for all his corruption in New York, so he needs to shut-up about Libby's paltry 30 months in prison.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:15 pmWHORES
June 5th, 2007 at 9:16 pmShould this come as a surprise?
Neoclowns of a feather, flock together.
They gotta look out for one of their own now, don't they?
June 5th, 2007 at 9:16 pmI had to shower after watching their al Ceeracka circle jerk ...
...they've all got crabs...
...even the audience members...
...where's a fertilizer bomb when you need one?
June 5th, 2007 at 9:18 pmYou guys totally have to post the video of one of the candidates saying if he were elected President he would use Bush in his administration to speak to young people about the importance of honesty. I seriously couldn't stop laughing! The funny part was that he wasn't kidding!
June 5th, 2007 at 9:18 pmGiuliani > go put on your dress for the drag queen show in Soho.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:20 pmUm, wasn't Giuliani a former federal prosecutor? Isn't it a bit odd of him to diss the system he once was so much a part of?
As has been pointed out, Scooter did not just commit perjury. He lied repeatedly and lied even when he knew they knew he was lying. And he never said "Sorry" or correct his previous testimony.
Remember: Most of these Nearly Dead White Guys don't think a crime was ever committed in outing Plame.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:21 pmSo, the fact that Libby actually has to do time merits the get-out-of-jail-free card, huh, Ghouliani?
Thanks for letting us know exactly how you intend to run this country should we be stupid enough to let you get your hands on the Presidency. Word to the wise.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:21 pmI am shocked. Shocked.
Rudy probably really is disturbed by the sentence. All of these nitwits are disturbed by it, because an actual prison sentence for one of their own little group of chums sends chills down all their . . . whoops, almost said "backbones". "Spines" won't work either.
Damnit.
maybe something about emptying their bladders would be more accurate.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:21 pmDrew > Bush is a pathological liar so he has never been honest.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:22 pmThe first "(UNKNOWN): No." was Ron Paul.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:23 pmrule of law! rule of law!
June 5th, 2007 at 9:23 pmGeez, I sure hope someone brought some economy size boxes of Kleenex and Depends to this shindig. Sounds like the cons are going to need 'em.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:26 pmNothing to worry about there. Rudy's never going to be president.
So, outing a covert CIA agent, destroying her team's counter-proliferation operations, and endangering the lives of covert agents and informers all over the world isn't worth a two and a half year sentence? Well, to be precise, lying to a grand jury and federal prosecutors to obstruct investigation of the aforementioned crime. Didn't Giuliani used to be a federal prosecutor? Geez has he gone soft.
This just shows why none of these clowns is going to make the cut.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:27 pmLikewise, former governor Mitt Romney said it’s “worth looking at a pardon,†because special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald “clearly abused prosecutorial discretion†by going on a “political vendetta†against Libby despite knowing he was not the original source of the leak.
Where the hell do they get this crap?
June 5th, 2007 at 9:28 pmThis just sickens me. You basically commit high treason and get a political pat on the back.
I hope each and every one of those a$$wipes burns in hell. God, what has happened to our country? We, as a society, are f&kked.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:29 pmRudy is totally off the wall. He has obviously lost it. He is trying to use 911 as a stepping stone into the White House. The record proves that he mishandled the entire operation. As W has aptly demonstrated, incompetence is not the primary criteria for being President.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:30 pmNow, the really clever question to ask would be Would you pardon Bush & Cheney?
June 5th, 2007 at 9:33 pmSure, pardon him - just as soon as he rolls over on the sack(s) of s$%t he is protecting.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:33 pmWell it is not so much that there was no underlying crime as all these f*cks want to be able to maintain the political loyalty of their bootlickers should they become President. If you want some underling to lie to cover your a** you got maintain the other part of this unspoken, immoral political contract that you will take care of them.
The morals of the mafia and made-men in our national politics.
Integrity - covering up for your boss' crimes with your own lesser crime to protect the powerful.
WWJD?
June 5th, 2007 at 9:33 pmOh, and it's so much better to abuse prosecutorial discretion when you're talking about a BLOWJOB versus friggin treason.
Jesus christ on a crutch.
I am living in some alternate reality, right? This is a Matrix moment, right? This HAS to be a joke - on us, the American populace, right?
UGH!!!!!!!!!!!!
June 5th, 2007 at 9:34 pmSince Gonzo, Goodling, etc haven't met with "tragic accidents" before giving testimony; pardons are the only aces that the Reps. have left in their, collective, holes.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:34 pmI also love how they keep insisting that Fitzgerald was "out of control".
Well, Fitzgerald didn't convict him. A JUDGE AND JURY CONVICTED HIM.
He went through the system, in a proper manner, had a chance to defend himself, AND FAILED TO DO SO.
The Neoclowns are always showing their contempt for the legal system in this country.
When in the hell are people going to wake up and see that these guys are just sh*ting in our faces on a daily basis?
WHEN???
June 5th, 2007 at 9:36 pmWhen you do not believe in our system of justice, then an act of obstructing that justice IS no big deal.
Giuliani is a needle-dick coward who will say anything that he thinks might tingle the nut sacks of the base of inbreds that the Republican's target for manipulation.
But this is no new news. What is news is how many stupid Americans wax nostalgic on ol' Unca Rudy and are so "star struck" that they cannot wait to get down on their knees for a chance at a swallow.
You know, since our government system IS a representative system, the fact that they are virtually ALL corrupt murderous crooks says, irrefutably, that virtually ALL Americans are corrupt murderous crooks.
And for you wimps who will cackle back with "Not us, it's the Republicans", you really should stop sniffing glue and wake up to the reality before it is too late. Your denial is not just harming you, but it is harming this country and its people.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:36 pm#14
Newsflash, chump: pardons are part of the rule of law. Just ask Marc Rich or Roger Clinton.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:38 pm"I thought [knowingly] outing a COVERT CIA AGENT was a crime!"
Indeed, it is. However, Libby was not convicted of -- nor even charged with -- that crime.
Let's get our facts straight, people.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:40 pmNow that's being tough on crime.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:41 pmOh, and it’s so much better to abuse prosecutorial discretion when you’re talking about a BLOWJOB versus friggin treason.
Jesus christ on a crutch.
I am living in some alternate reality, right? This is a Matrix moment, right? This HAS to be a joke - on us, the American populace, right?
UGH!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by MsJoanne
Heh. MsJoanne's gonna fit in nicely around here. :)
June 5th, 2007 at 9:42 pmTotally off-topic: Democrats are about to bend over again:
http://www.slate.com/id/2167564/nav/tap3/
The Mississippi seats on the Fifth Circuit are the province of home state Sen. Trent Lott, who is good at getting his way. Lott made his case for Southwick to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who took it to Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. On the Senate floor, Reid said, "Sen. McConnell and I believe that the process for considering judicial nominees has become too partisan over the years" and "I hope people understand the relationship Senator McConnell and I have, as to how the Senate runs, is extremely important." He hasn't promised McConnell a win on Southwick, but he added, "I would hope this hearing goes well."
June 5th, 2007 at 9:42 pmLet’s get our facts straight, people.
Comment by Exley
Scooter Libby: Convicted Felon
Sweet music, baby.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:43 pm"Newsflash, chump: pardons are part of the rule of law. Just ask Marc Rich or Roger Clinton.
Comment by m12 — June 5, 2007"
you're right! i forgot about how they spread the name of a covert agent who was working on non-proliferation issues during wartime. awesome parallel, smartacus.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:45 pmI heard them say Libby did not commit a crime. I say several counts each of perjury and obstruction of justice are crimes. I heard them say since Plame was not "in the field", no crime was committed. Another lie. I heard them say Bill Clinton was convicted of perjury. Also false---a judge ruled it was immaterial to the Paula Jones case, plus he was using the prosecuter's definition of "sexual relations" which did not include anything they did.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:45 pmBush has the power to pardon Libby, but it looks like a coverup. Reagan pardoned Casper Weinberger and 5 others involved in the Iran-Contra affair. And we should have learned from that that Republicans are hypocrites: They claim to be anti-terrorist, but they lie and trade arms for hostages and engage in the attempted overthrow of governments contrary to the law.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:46 pm"Um, wasn’t Giuliani a former federal prosecutor?"
Indeed, he was, david. And anyone who lived in New York in the 1980s when he was the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York knows that Rudy was an extraordinarily diligent and successful prosecutor, going after organized crime and Wall Street figures (Boesky, Drexel Burnham, etc.) Accordingly, his views are entitled to great respect and deference. I think he knows a little more about sentencing and federal offenses than "Nico."
June 5th, 2007 at 9:46 pmAnd yet, Zooey, people here seem extraordinarily confused about of what he was convicted.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:47 pmHey Zooey,
Had to change my name from keith to keith g since apparently two other keith's appeared.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:48 pmI think Libby should be pardoned if he agrees to sing "Libby, Libby, Libby on the Table, Table, Table" a few times, in front of everyone.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:49 pmYes, Exley, but Fitzgerald is also a respected prosecutor. And Scooter was convicted by a judge & jury. And the sentence was within the range applicable.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:49 pm"Accordingly, his views are entitled to great respect and deference."
i bet some firefighters with respiratory ailments would beg to differ.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:50 pmAccordingly, his views are entitled to great respect and deference. I think he knows a little more about sentencing and federal offenses than “Nico.â€
Comment by Exley
What about Bernie Kerik? Your god, Guiliani, missed at least one. Hmmmm.....
June 5th, 2007 at 9:50 pmre: #35
Actually, david, the arms flow to Iran began BEFORE the hostages were taken in Beirut---therefore it must have been due to the deal described by Gary Sick in the book "October Surprise".
June 5th, 2007 at 9:50 pmAnd yet, Zooey, people here seem extraordinarily confused about of what he was convicted.
Comment by Exley
It will all shake out in the end, won't it? Don't worry your pretty little head about it.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:51 pmEx-prosecuter, rudy, should know better - what a schmuck.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:52 pmWhat we need is a plague...
...that affects ONLY right wing conservative scumbags...
...REALLY!
June 5th, 2007 at 9:52 pmI heard them say that not only did Libby not out an agent, but that no agent was outed since she was not "in the field". This is false. Big shocker---Wolf did not call them on it.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:52 pmHad to change my name from keith to keith g since apparently two other keith’s appeared.
Comment by keith g
Hey keith,
I didn't know if you'd gone around the bend, gone over to the dark side, or what, so I kept my lip zipped. It was really hard, just ask anyone around here. :)
How have you been?
At least you're not kenny g. :D
June 5th, 2007 at 9:54 pm#28,
The fact is he was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice. Serious crimes in their own right assuming, of course, that you respect our judicial system.
It appears you do not and think that he should just get a parking citation and move on.
For you, my ignorant acquaintance, "justice" only occurs when it advances your political agenda. That muted "gag" that you just heard was our founding fathers throwing up in their graves.
The problem with ignorant Americans like you is that you love it when your "guys" are doing the oppressing, but then you go crying home to momma when the table gets turned on you and a bigger bully comes to town. Never realizing, of course, that the problem is not one bully or the other, but the fact that the system is set up for bully management.
This is why our founders set up a bully proof government. Unfortunately our founders gave us too much credit and didn't make the system fool proof and now it is infested with fools.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:55 pmOn the other hand, investing a land deal in Arkansas is totally related to a sexual harassment case which is totally related to whether or not there was a consensual relationship with yet another party. There was no underlying crime in the land deal, no underlying crime in the sexual harassment case, yet the consensual relationship netted an impeachment and trial. For what? Oh, yes, for lying, not for any underlying crime.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:55 pmHey, Bernie was a good driver and bodyguard---not so good as police commish or rebuilding iraq or to head a $40 billion per year agency. Ties to mafia and shady stock deals, you know.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:55 pm#33
You apparently also forgot Libby didn't do any namespreading.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:55 pmtake a whizz on crime
June 5th, 2007 at 9:55 pmHell, in addition to perjury and obstruction of justice, he should also be thrown in jail for being nearly 60 years old, and having the nickname "Scooter".
Give me a break...
June 5th, 2007 at 9:57 pmYeah but Clinton, and hey, Libby didn't run anyone over in his car, c'mon.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:58 pm#31 El Tonno
Lott made his case for Southwick to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who took it to Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
Reid should say "Well, Mitch, if you're going to mess around with the no-confidence vote on Gonzales, you can go tell Lott right now that Southwick is dead. Come to think of it, if the no-confidence vote doesn't pass, Southwick is dead."
Not just hardball. Beanball.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:58 pmYou apparently also forgot Libby didn’t do any namespreading.
Comment by m12
YOU apparently forgot that he was found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice in this matter.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:58 pmM12 needs the minimum wage hike to go through.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:59 pmLuckily, Clinton was never indicted by a U.S. Attorney and tried for real on the very same crimes Libby was sentenced for today.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:59 pmthese republicans simply
take their cues from what the
SITTING vice president -- or the
sitting president of VICE, feels
we americans will let him get
away with. . .
even if i tried, i could
not make this stuff up -- it
just writes itself! -- the vice
president of the united states,
one mister richard b. cheney, on
the white house .gov web site
(and thus funded by us, as taxpayers!),
no less, has offered his support for
the convicted perjurer and justice-
obstructor, lewis libby. did i miss
something? didn't mr. cheney swear to
uphold the law when he took the oath
of office in jan. 2001, and jan. 2005?
this is pernicious.
the candidates read this, before
they went on — c’mon! — this is
a .gov site — that means we are
paying for the sitting vice president
to declare that “what happened†to
scooter (note the lack of first-
person responsibility) was a “tragedy“. . .
i guess i missed the part where
committing crime “happens†to
someone — and it is a “tragedyâ€
for the convicted perpetrator. . .
see — we need heat not light — lightning
not thunder — in the words of sir
frederick douglass. . . this is not
one we should patiently accept.
the man stone-cold obstructed justice
to protect the vice president — now
the vice president tries to influence
the appeals — and hint for a pardon?
and all the republican candidates are
thus emboldened to call for a libby-pardon?!
again — WTF!? — i need to go lie down.
thanks for indulging me. . .
June 5th, 2007 at 9:59 pmI see that nicknames are now crimes.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:00 pmI have a nephew kenny g. Been fine. Been away and had computer problems. Yesterday I noticed a "Keith" and today a "Keith H" so i guess it can be cornfusing.
How are you? Has Idaho left the Union yet?
June 5th, 2007 at 10:00 pm#40,
david,
Good point. I have nothing but respect for Fitzgerald. He is a professional career prosecutor. I take no exception to the conviction. I respect the jury system. Libby was convicted by a jury of his peers after a full trial. The sentence, however, seems excessive to me. I read the live-blogging of the hearing and thought Judge Walton made some excellent points in his pre-sentencing statement. Two and a half year s, however, still seems excessive, especially one considers the fact that Fitzgerald knew very early on who actually was Novak's source (Armitage) and never charged that person because Fitzgerald determined there had been no underlying violation of the IIPA.
So, in sum, I do not question the conviction. I do, like Giuliani, question the severity of Judge Walton's sentence.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:00 pm#47, Keith G. Exactly, Blitzer let them slide as does all the MSM when they pitch Softballs to the Repug Candidates. Bunch of Morons.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:01 pmNow, if this had been the Democratic Debate you can be damm sure Blitzer would have held their feet to the fire. Different Standard, not that the American People notice.
#52,
But he will be doing some cheek spreading, but I can see where you would think that that is a good thing.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:01 pmanyone who lived in New York in the 1980s when he was the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York knows that Rudy was an extraordinarily diligent and successful prosecutor, going after organized crime and Wall Street figures (Boesky, Drexel Burnham, etc.) Accordingly, his views are entitled to great respect and deference. I think he knows a little more about sentencing and federal offenses than “Nico.â€
Comment by Exley — June 5, 2007 @ 9:46 pm
Ah, the familiar "Public figure knows better than anonymous poster does" defense. It's especiialy useful, however, when the cited authority has a reputation for integrity. If he is actually due "great respect and deference". That doesn't really apply to Mr. Giuliani, at least not around here -- for many reasons.
Tell me, Exley, how much of this opinion do you really think is based on Giuliani's respect for the law, and how much on his sense of what the Republican base (to which he's looking to appeal) wants to hear him say?
What about the case that Republican prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald brought strikes you as "politically motivated"?
June 5th, 2007 at 10:01 pmHey, Bernie was a good driver and bodyguard—not so good as police commish or rebuilding iraq or to head a $40 billion per year agency. Ties to mafia and shady stock deals, you know.
Comment by keith g
And old Rudy couldn't spot him from the backseat. Wow.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:01 pmYOU apparently forgot that he was found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice in this matter.
Which in no way implicates him in any namespreading.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:01 pmnolo:
If you were convicted for the same crimes, would THAT be a tragedy?
June 5th, 2007 at 10:02 pmIf I understand what I've read thus far on the case, there was no "underlying crime" committed by Scooter because Bush & Cheney secretly declassified Ms. Plame. Now, some have argued that what Bush & Cheney did in declassifying a spy (and her brass-plate cover operation) is possibly a crime, and could even rise to a High Crime and Misdemeanor, however, Congress has yet to investigate such charges.
Apparently, our covert operatives live, or die, at the pleasure of the President.
Oh, and the CIA is doing a PR campaign to improve its image! CIA, it's not just waterboarding anymore.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:02 pmHow did these repubbys get so far detached from reality?
It is like they have no clue what is going on in the United States.
Why do they all have such thin lips and eyes so far apart. Something is up with that.
jack jett
June 5th, 2007 at 10:03 pmLuckily, Clinton was never indicted by a U.S. Attorney and tried for real on the very same crimes Libby was sentenced for today.
Comment by Jake — June 5, 2007 @ 9:59 pm
If he had been, then by your standards he would have been due a pardon, right, Flakey?
June 5th, 2007 at 10:03 pm"You apparently also forgot Libby didn’t do any namespreading.
Comment by m12 — June 5, 2007"
i guess libby's lawyers aren't any good then, because "[Juror #9] said the jury believed Libby was 'tasked by the vice president to go and talk to reporters.'" sounds like 'namespreading' to me; more importantly, it sounded that way to the jury.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:03 pmM12 needs the minimum wage hike to go through.
It already passed, remember? Democrats attached it on a rider to the Iraq war bill.
Looks like they need a few more Iraq supplementals to actually get anything done.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:03 pm#42
"What about Bernie Kerik?"
Yeah, well, Zooey...When you're right, you're right. I like Rudy, but he didn't show great judgment of people when it came to Kerik.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:04 pmYeah and Clinton....
June 5th, 2007 at 10:05 pmBut he will be doing some cheek spreading, but I can see where you would think that that is a good thing.
What goes on in prison stays in prison.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:05 pmI see that nicknames are now crimes.
Comment by Jake
No... but apparently making jokes are.
Here's a hint, idiot... I WAS MAKING A JOKE!!!
June 5th, 2007 at 10:05 pm"And old Rudy couldn’t spot him from the backseat. Wow."
.............Rudy was often very busy in the back-seat.....
June 5th, 2007 at 10:05 pmExley, you truth-twisting putz:
Guiliani and DeGenova are both Republic Party hacks who used he power of their Federal prosectorial offices for political gain.
Guilani was in tight with Bernie Kerik. Close associates. BFFs. George W. Bush nominated Kerik as Secretary of Homeland Security. Kerik is now under Grand Jury inveatigation for corruption involving mob associates, influence peddling and a home-renovation project. I'm really likin' this guy.
He announced his divorce from his wife during a press conference, and before she knew.
His own children won't talk to him.
But then again, all of this can be explained.
Go ahead.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:07 pmAs predicted.
Here are more burning questions about the Libby sentence.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:07 pmLibby SHOULD HANG FOR TREASON !!!
ALL OF THE TREASONOUS BASTARDS INVOLVED IN OUTING VALERIE PLAME WILSON SHOULD HANG FOR TREASON !!!
THIS INCLUDES BOTH Cheney and Rove.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:07 pmYou guys just now figured out that our covert operatives (and American troops) live, or die, at the pleasure of the Commander in Chief?
June 5th, 2007 at 10:07 pmFitzgerald knew very early on who actually was Novak’s source (Armitage) and never charged that person because Fitzgerald determined there had been no underlying violation of the IIPA.
So, in sum, I do not question the conviction. I do, like Giuliani, question the severity of Judge Walton’s sentence.
Comment by Exley — June 5, 2007 @ 10:00 pm
When did Fitzgerald say that he had determined "there had been no underlying violation of the IIPA"? I must have missed that.
What do you think is a just sentence for a four-count conviction for perjury before the FBI and obstruction of justice? If there were no politics involved? Say, if someone were lying to protect his corporate boss?
You're saying seven-and-a-half months per count is too harsh?
What ever happened to those "law and order" conservatives? Did they all just move to TV so they could set up their presidential bids?
June 5th, 2007 at 10:08 pmtanner:
If he got 2 1/2 years, yes, the next President should consider a pardon.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:08 pm#56,
What a wonderful fantasy. Truth be told is that Senator Reid from Searchlight, Nevada is as corrupt as the other politicians and amazingly cheap.
I know for a FACT that the man can be bought and "take care of" small little items like getting caught stealing an identity (and SSN #) and using it to defraud investors out of millions of dollars. It will only cost you $50,000 to get Harry to get you out of it without even so much as a slap on the wrist.
Go ahead, pin your hopes on "saint" Harry, if you dare.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:09 pmYou apparently also forgot Libby didn’t do any namespreading.
Comment by m12 — June 5, 2007 @ 9:55 pm
Libby did tell many in the media that Joe Wilson's wife was in the CIA. Fitzgerald just decided not to go after him on that.
And remember, this is about retaliation for Wilson telling the truth: that the yellowcake from Africa (eleven months later to be in the SOTU) was based on a poor forgery and totally untrue.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:10 pmFor the record, I never stated that anyone should be thrown in jail for making jokes.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:10 pmI have a nephew kenny g. Been fine. Been away and had computer problems. Yesterday I noticed a “Keith†and today a “Keith H†so i guess it can be cornfusing.
Don't forget Keith Olbermann. He doesn't comment here, he's just in my dreams. :)
Too bad about the computer problems. I think I would have some anxiety about that.
How are you? Has Idaho left the Union yet?
Comment by keith g
I'm good. Enduring a "space invader" since my son is home for the summer. Heh. Idaho is still landlocked, and the rednecks luvs them some Chimpy, so we're staying -- like it or not!
June 5th, 2007 at 10:12 pmI wonder how the left felt about the post office embezzlement, when Rostenkowski got his pardon for Slick Bill and the other guy served 6 months.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:12 pmMcGruff can also lick his own shweaty ballzack.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:12 pmYou guys just now figured out that our covert operatives (and American troops) live, or die, at the pleasure of the Commander in Chief?
Comment by Jake
Oh yeah?
AND IT WAS VITAL TO LEAK HER IDENTITY... BECAUSE???
June 5th, 2007 at 10:12 pmFor the record, I never stated that anyone should be thrown in jail for making jokes.
Comment by Jake
No you didn't.
here's a clue... THAT WAS ANOTHER JOKE!!!
June 5th, 2007 at 10:13 pmFor the record Jake, I don't even know you anymore. What have you become man?
June 5th, 2007 at 10:13 pmBy Jake:
nolo:
If you were convicted for the same crimes, would THAT be a tragedy?
Comment by Jake — June 5, 2007 @ 10:02 pm
Jake: enjoy the crime, you do your time. Why assume that everyone would act in a criminal fashion like Libby did? Most people are law abiding.
Libby should stop obstructing and roll on Fat Boy.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:14 pm"For the record, I never stated that anyone should be thrown in jail for making jokes."
Comment by Jake
Even if you did, you'd never have to fear being incarcerated...
June 5th, 2007 at 10:15 pmThere were 2 that said no, unequivocably.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:15 pmHow about Scooter Libby for U.S. Senator from Wyoming?
June 5th, 2007 at 10:15 pmYeah, well, Zooey…When you’re right, you’re right. I like Rudy, but he didn’t show great judgment of people when it came to Kerik.
Comment by Exley
Exley,
I'm marking my calendar, because that's two "you're rights" in one day.
:-D
June 5th, 2007 at 10:16 pmIf he got 2 1/2 years, yes, the next President should consider a pardon.
Comment by Jake — June 5, 2007 @ 10:08 pm
I'll ask you the same question I asked Exley:
What do you consider a just punishment for convictions on four counts of lying to the FBI and obstruction of justice? Six months per count? Three? What? Tell us.
Why don't you think obstruction of justice is a serious crime?
Why do you think that a Bush-administration-appointed prosecutor and a Bush-appointed judge decided that these WERE serious crimes?
June 5th, 2007 at 10:16 pmhe he
June 5th, 2007 at 10:18 pmi meant "unequivocally"
duh
Due to Libby's perjuries and obstruction of justice we could not get to the bottom of the treasonous act, but that is okay with apologists like Jake.
And Jake, I explained to you many times that a judge ruled that Clinton's testimony could not be perjury or obstruction of justice since it was immaterial to the Paula Jones case---and he used the prosecutors' definition of sexual relations which did not include anything they did. Remember when I showed you using the dolls?
June 5th, 2007 at 10:18 pmI do, like Giuliani, question the severity of Judge Walton’s sentence.
Comment by Exley — June 5, 2007 @ 10:00 pm
Consider the fact that Scooter played a part in outing not only a spy, but everyone she had contact with, and everyone who worked for, or had contact with anyone who worked for Brewster Jennings.
It is quite likely several people died because of what Scooter and others did in outing Ms. Plame and Brewster Jennings.
And, it is quite likely our surveillance of Weapons of Mass Destruction suffered as a result. Another "9/11" could eventually be the result of this. And what did Scooter do? He tried to cover up his and his boss's involvement.
30 months isn't much, considering what he did could lead to the "mushroom cloud" scenario on American soil.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:19 pmnolo:
My question above was "would it be a tragedy?" if you (a person who didn't even say the words "Valerie Plame") were convicted wrongly for the these same crimes.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:19 pmLibby should stop obstructing and roll on Fat Boy.
Comment by smafdy
Yeah.....well, thanks for that visual, smafdy.
Now I have to poke out my eyes. Happy? :D
June 5th, 2007 at 10:22 pmtanner:
For a first-time offender, someone of Libby's standing, I'd go for the lower end of the sentencing guideline -- the defense asked for probation -- if that was the low end, I'd at least seriously consider it. He was not convicted of treason, right?
June 5th, 2007 at 10:23 pmValerie Plame was head of a group within the CIA working on non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. In my opinion, that is sorta important and the false reason for our invasion--so kinda pertinent. She could not say if it was concerning Iraq, or Iran, or both.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:23 pm#99
What can I say, Zooey? You're on a roll today!!!
June 5th, 2007 at 10:24 pmYou guys just now figured out that our covert operatives (and American troops) live, or die, at the pleasure of the Commander in Chief?
Comment by Jake — June 5, 2007 @ 10:07 pm
Oh my god -- Jake didn't actually type this, did he? This has to be an instance of name-jacking. Even Jake isn't this stupid.
Our troops and covert operatives live AND DIE "at teh pelasure of the Commander-in-Chief?
What does he do, go down a list each morning and give a thumbs-up or thumbs-down?
If you actually typed this, jake, you're a friggin' idiot.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:24 pmMy question above was “would it be a tragedy?†if you (a person who didn’t even say the words “Valerie Plameâ€) were convicted wrongly for the these same crimes.
Comment by Jake — June 5, 2007 @ 10:19 pm
Are you saying that Scooter was "convicted wrongly"?
June 5th, 2007 at 10:26 pmDespite NOT being convicted of treason, people here want him hanged, shanked, and/or raped -- not necessarily in that order.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:26 pmYou’re on a roll today!!!
Comment by Exley
I shall remember it always....
June 5th, 2007 at 10:26 pmFor a first-time offender, someone of Libby’s standing, I’d go for the lower end of the sentencing guideline — the defense asked for probation — if that was the low end, I’d at least seriously consider it. He was not convicted of treason, right?
Comment by Jake
HE WAS CONVICTED OF PERJURY AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE FOR A VERY SERIOUS MATTER!!!
WHAT IN THE HELL CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT???
June 5th, 2007 at 10:27 pmComment by Angry One — June 5, 2007 @ 10:07 pm
I appreciate your comments, and your website. May I task you with something?
Could you use your diligence in finding the Corporations that profit from Bush's War, and then (and this is the fun part) find out their major shareholders? especially any Public Pension Funds, Mutual Funds, and/or Insurance Companies?
Your website says, "Bringing Light to Darkness."
Well, that's where we need the light. We need to know who is profiting from death. Not just the companies, but their shareholders.
Peace and Blessings. I look forward to your posts....you have an important role to play.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:27 pmIf you actually typed this, jake, you’re a friggin’ idiot.
Comment by tanner
Bingo.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:27 pmWill Watergate legend, Law and Order star, Libby Defense Fund advisor/fundraiser and soon-to-be presidential candidate Fred Thompson offer to pay Scooter's fine? Will Thompson repeat his May 12 call for a pardon?
June 5th, 2007 at 10:28 pmDespite NOT being convicted of treason, people here want him hanged, shanked, and/or raped — not necessarily in that order.
Comment by Jake
Yeah the rape should come first. It's no fun after their cold.
Then the shanking.
And finally the hanging.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:28 pmNo, Jake, he was not guilty of treason. But his perjury and obstruction of justice prevented getting to the bottom of the treason.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:28 pmtanner:
For a first-time offender, someone of Libby’s standing, I’d go for the lower end of the sentencing guideline — the defense asked for probation — if that was the low end, I’d at least seriously consider it. He was not convicted of treason, right?
Comment by Jake — June 5, 2007 @ 10:23 pm
No, he was not convicted of treason. You know that the penalty for treason is quite a bit more severe than 30 months, right? Nice try at moving the goalposts, since I never said anything about treason.
So you don't consider obstruction of justice a serious crime? Perjury? Not a serious crime? Not even multiple counts? Not even if that obstruction of justice impeded an investigation into the outing of a covert CIA operative, a matter of national security?
You would "consider" probation for that?
Not exactly a tough-on-crime conservative, are you? -- Oh, that's right, you're a "registered independent", aren't you?
June 5th, 2007 at 10:29 pmBut Clinton's nominee for attorney general didn't pay social security taxes on her nanny twenty-five years in the past. Waaaaah!
June 5th, 2007 at 10:30 pmsmafdy,
"Guiliani [is] Republic Party hack[] who used the power of their Federal prosectorial offices for political gain."
So, you are saying the prosecutions of Wall Street powerhoueses Ivan Boesky, Michael Milken, Martin Siegel, investment banking house Drexel Burnham Lambert were some type of Republican Party ruse????
Interesting take.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:30 pmtanner:
You will note I answer all of your questions without resorting to personal attacks.
Did anyone else see the lightning that struck when Rudy was answering about abortion?
June 5th, 2007 at 10:30 pmMy question above was “would it be a tragedy?†if you (a person who didn’t even say the words “Valerie Plameâ€) were convicted wrongly for the these same crimes.
Comment by Jake
WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU??
HE WASN'T "WRONGLY" CONVICTED NAMING PLAME. HE WAS CONVICTED OF PERJURY AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!!!
AAARRRGGGHHH!!!
June 5th, 2007 at 10:31 pmMan they give Rudy all the time he wants don't they?
We have a president that can hardly form a coherent sentence.
And now, they're pushing one who LISPS his way thru them.
The Office is looking good.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:32 pmAnd the christmas card list! Special prosecuter! Waaaah!
June 5th, 2007 at 10:33 pmYou will note I answer all of your questions without resorting to personal attacks.
Comment by Jake — June 5, 2007 @ 10:30 pm
I note that you also answer them all without resorting to logic or reason, either.
Since the only post in which I attacked anyone was the response to your "live and die at the pleasure of the President" quote, am I to assume that, yes, you did in fact type those words, and that you're not ashamed of it?
June 5th, 2007 at 10:33 pmAAARRRGGGHHH!!!
Comment by JPV
You're giving Jake the attention he wants and so desperately needs.
Just sayin'
June 5th, 2007 at 10:35 pmHe said "Joe Wilson's wife" which takes 1 second on google to become "Valerie Plame"
June 5th, 2007 at 10:35 pm#84 Tanner
"When did Fitzgerald say that he had determined “there had been no underlying violation of the IIPA� I must have missed that."
The fact is that Fitzgerald never sought indictments against anyone for violation of the IIPA -- not Libby, not Armitage (who was Novak's source), not anyone.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:35 pmRepublicans would rather be thought of as breathtakingly stupid. That's fine, as long as they never have to admit they're wrong.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:36 pmYou’re giving Jake the attention he wants and so desperately needs.
Just sayin’
Comment by Zooey
Yeah.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:37 pm#
“I thought [knowingly] outing a COVERT CIA AGENT was a crime!â€
Indeed, it is. However, Libby was not convicted of — nor even charged with — that crime.
Let’s get our facts straight, people.
Comment by Exley — June 5, 2007 @ 9:40 pm
#
Yes, and KNOWINGLY obstructing investigation of a crime makes you an accessory to that same crime, so GUILTY is as GUILTY does.
Exley, it's a shame. You seem like such a nice level-headed guy most of the time, but you are always clinging to these losers. What will it take for you to wake up?
June 5th, 2007 at 10:37 pmHe said “Joe Wilson’s wife†which takes 1 second on google to become “Valerie Plameâ€
Comment by keith g — June 5, 2007 @ 10:35 pm
a test revealed the following:
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,390,000 for joe wilson's wife . (0.10 seconds)
June 5th, 2007 at 10:40 pmThe fact is that Fitzgerald never sought indictments against anyone for violation of the IIPA — not Libby, not Armitage (who was Novak’s source), not anyone.
Comment by Exley — June 5, 2007 @ 10:35 pm
That's hardly the same thing as determining that there had been no violation of the statute, right?
You do recognize the very real possibility that Fitzgerald decided that he would be unable to convict anyone for the crime and thus declined to bring charges, right?
June 5th, 2007 at 10:41 pmWar, death, deceit. In essence, more of the same. Have any of these clowns ever heard of the constitution? I didn't think so.
But I am sure that Karl with a K is very happy right now. Wonder who he's been interviewing with.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:41 pmThe fact is that Fitzgerald never sought indictments against anyone for violation of the IIPA — not Libby, not Armitage (who was Novak’s source), not anyone.
Comment by Exley
And yet Scooter is still going to prison... how odd...
June 5th, 2007 at 10:41 pmThough it's hard to tell these days, Guliani was once a star federal prosecutor. He made his name prosecuting the mob and leveraged that fame in his initial run for NYC mayor. Anyone know whether he ever prosecuted an obstruction of justice violation? Even better, obstruction of justice based on refusal to testify honestly before the grand jury? Aren't those the types of crimes that mobsters get prosecuted for (in addition to criminal RICO and tax evasion)?
June 5th, 2007 at 10:41 pmYou do recognize the very real possibility that Fitzgerald decided that he would be unable to convict anyone for the crime and thus declined to bring charges, right?
Comment by tanner — June 5, 2007 @ 10:41 pm
Right. Because of the sabotage done by the perjury and obstruction of justice.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:43 pmYou do recognize the very real possibility that Fitzgerald decided that he would be unable to convict anyone for the crime and thus declined to bring charges, right?
Comment by tanner
That's exactly the case, tanner. But Exley wears his blinders regarding that fact - -always has.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:43 pmSKdeA,
I am simply trying to point out that the fact is that Libby was not charged with, nor convicted of, "outing" Valerie Plame.
Indeed, no one was charged with violating the IIPA in this matter....A lot of posters here seem not to understand that.
As I said earlier, I have no issue with Libby's conviction for perjury and obstruction. I did not see or hear all the testimony. The jury did and convicted Libby. I respect that decision. The trial was apparently fair and Libby was represented by excellent counsel.
But Libby was not found guilty of violating the IIPA.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:49 pmCan I ask a question? What's with all the pretending that there was NO CRIME? Bush lied about how seriously he took the naming of Plame. And I don't see why we should believe the spin as to what really happened when we were given story after story of what was the "real truth" while Fitzgerald was investigating. That's what's so serious about obstruction of justice. And perjury? It's often a mild crime, but that's when the perjuror confesses. Not Libby. He lied and kept on lying. He made it impossible to disentangle the lies from the truth.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:51 pmzooey, great minds think alike.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:52 pmWell, a lot of people on the right have been bringing up that straw man argument that nobody was charged with violating the IIPA so, therefore, no crime occurred.
This kind of reasoning is flawed for several reasons. First of all, the CIA asked the Justice Dept to investigate how a covert agent's name made it into the press. That is how it is done. They ask for something to be investigated, and the Justice Dept determines from the investigation which, if any, laws were violated. They are not asked to investigate a specific law. At least, that is my understanding.
Second, just because no one has to date been charged with leaking her name is not proof in and of itself that no crime occurred. Valerie Plame was a covert agent for the CIA. It is a crime to reveal her name publicly. You now know her name. You should never have learned it. A crime has occurred. What is so hard to fathom about that?
Lastly, why, oh, why do the Libby supporters keep acting as though lying to federal investigators, which Scooter Libby most definitely did, is not a big deal? As I said before, if it were one of your relatives whose career was ruined because some war-mongering buttholes wanted to deceive the American people, you would not be satisfied with the investigation so far.
Time to watch the Daily Show. Maybe I'll catch you later.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:56 pmand don't forget peoples, we are talking about a major lie leading to an illegal invasion and occupation costing maybe one million human lives, $2.3 TRILLION, and making us LESS safe.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:56 pmThe subject of Libby is valid. The answers were fascinating - how telling that none of them invoke anything about Chimpy, but stick their neck out for a lying weasel in Cheney's gang ? Wow. Anyone real there ? Overall, CNN's line of questioning missed a massive opportunity. No questions such as the explosive issue on the missile shield in Europe, the troop death toll in Iraq, the insanity of our whore Congress, the cancer of deficit spending that only a few hundred people in the country really understand, and a real cancer coming in the form of polluted air and polluted food from China. 10 other massive issues. Oh, no though. Dingbat Blizter was concerned about the topics Republicans love to use as fog - abortion, creationism and apparently Wolf's favorite, gays in the military. Blitzer, you have always been, and continue to be a dingbat. Thank you for being consistent at least. Take a flying guess on who would be giving Rudy most of his money.... you got it, the Offense Companies. They love that guy - he exudes war. He is ready to go on day one. Great. Who else, McCain is toast. Talked about that before. Romney is in touch with none of the issues described above. A couple of other unknowns who were at least smarter than the top runners. Romney would also be a foreign policy disaster. Biden is my pick. If we do not fix foreign policy, we are extinct in 10-15 years. Period. Blitzer, you are in the Dingbat 100. Sorry buddy.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:58 pmzooey, great minds think alike.
Comment by keith g
We are just too good! :)
June 5th, 2007 at 11:00 pm#134
Tanner,
You are posing theories and "possibilities." I am citing a fact and that fact is that no one was ever charged with, nor convicted of, violating the IIPA.
If Fitzgerald was convinced a violation of IIPA had taken place but declined to bring charges due to insufficient evidence, he would have said so. He never did so.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:01 pm#86 Fed the Fcuk Up!
What a wonderful fantasy. Truth be told is that Senator Reid from Searchlight, Nevada is as corrupt as the other politicians and amazingly cheap.
That really has nothing to do with what I was saying. Reid doesn't have to deal with McConnell or Lott. And if he's considering it, he'd better get something in return for it. Fantasy? What the f*ck are you talking about?
June 5th, 2007 at 11:03 pmYou do recognize the very real possibility that Fitzgerald decided that he would be unable to convict anyone for the crime and thus declined to bring charges, right?
No charges, no conviction, no crime.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:04 pmIs Wolf still on AIPAC's payroll?
Kucinich fits my policies closer than the others---but that's unrealistic. How about a Gore/Obama ticket?
June 5th, 2007 at 11:05 pmNo charges, no conviction, no crime.
Comment by m12
Funny how all these crimes just passively keep happening without anyone ever committing them. Like those sixteen words that inserted themselves into the SOTU. (Plus the aluminum tubes).
June 5th, 2007 at 11:10 pmIf m12 could be charged with lying.... then the police are at the door now...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/20/AR2005072002517.html
Or maybe we should call the firefighters to put your pants out...
June 5th, 2007 at 11:13 pm#90 m12
I wonder how the left felt about the post office embezzlement, when Rostenkowski got his pardon for Slick Bill and the other guy served 6 months.
Okay, has anyone here ever defended Clinton for pardoning Rostenkowski? Anyone here ever say Rostenkowski got a raw deal?
See, that's the difference. Repukes will defend their criminals and keep insisting that they did nothing wrong, regardless of the evidence and conviction. Non-repukes don't do that.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:15 pm#152
That hardly means a crime was committed.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:19 pmDo any of you apologists know the definition of "obstruction of justice"? Libby precluded the investigation into the treasonous outing of a covert CIA agent working on weapons proliferation during war time. That is why he got 30 months. The perjury sentences run concurrently with that.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:19 pmFunny how all these crimes just passively keep happening without anyone ever committing them. Like those sixteen words that inserted themselves into the SOTU. (Plus the aluminum tubes).
What crimes? Fitzgerald hasn't mentioned them.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:20 pmHow about a Gore/Obama ticket?
Comment by keith g
I'd vote for the that. Or Feingold/Obama.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:21 pm#149
No charges, no conviction, no crime.
That must be your personal standard, because it's not the government's. Or that of any mentally healthy, halfway intelligent person.
Hitler: No charge, no conviction. No crime?
June 5th, 2007 at 11:23 pm#148,
The "fantasy" part is still thinking that Reid will do anything honorable or that is solely for the interests of the people of this country.
Merely trying to help you out, but you seem determined to buy into the sainthood of the Senator from Nevada and rely on his "integrity" as if it is a given. It is not.
Good luck to you though.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:25 pm#152
That hardly means a crime was committed.
Comment by m12 — June 5, 2007 @ 11:19 pm
Yawn - your persistent stupidity makes me wonder if your life has any joy in it at all. Mr Libby has been convicted of obstruction of justice or thereabouts.... guess what, that means a crime was committed and he's going to prison unless he gets a pardon and his own show on Fox.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:29 pmYawn - your persistent stupidity makes me wonder if your life has any joy in it at all. Mr Libby has been convicted of obstruction of justice or thereabouts…. guess what, that means a crime was committed and he’s going to prison unless he gets a pardon and his own show on Fox.
No it doesn't.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:32 pmOr Feingold/Obama.
Comment by Zooey
Yeah, I like that ticket---but I am afraid we have to win by a big margin to make up for the Republican voting machine companies. Gore/Obama would be a big margin.
Like Stalin said: "it's not who votes that counts, it who counts the votes".
June 5th, 2007 at 11:32 pm'Former mayor Rudy Giuliani said the case “argues more in favor of a pardon,†calling today’s sentencing “way out of line†and “grossly excessive.†Giuliani said the case against Libby was “incomprehensible†because “ultimately, there was no underlying crime involved.â€'
Um, didn't Martha Stewart spend many months in jail (and then served the rest of her sentence under house arrest with an 'ankle bracelet') even though “ultimately, there was no underlying crime involved�?
Why yes, I believe she did ...
June 5th, 2007 at 11:33 pmm12 - prove your assertion that 'no crime was committed' or you are an idiot.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:34 pmLee Harvey Oswald----No charges, no conviction, no crime.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:34 pmUm, didn’t Martha Stewart spend many months in jail (and then served the rest of her sentence under house arrest with an ‘ankle bracelet’) even though “ultimately, there was no underlying crime involved�?
I know the charges of securities fraud were dismissed.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:41 pmI think Libby should be pardoned if he agrees to sing “Libby, Libby, Libby on the Table, Table, Table†a few times, in front of everyone.
Comment by ForTruth — June 5, 2007 @ 9:49 pm
I would like it like it like it!
Any chance of the VP laying down a funky inspired version of "I feel like chicken tonight"?
June 5th, 2007 at 11:42 pmm12 - prove your assertion that ‘no crime was committed’ or you are an idiot.
The burden of proof is on the accuser.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:43 pm#163,
Sandy,
You are correct. Martha Stewart was sentenced to jail for obstruction and lying to investigators, without being convicted of any underlying securities law violation. That sentence, however, was for five (5) months in jail and five (5) months home detention.
When compared with Libby's sentence of two and a half years, Rudy's description of today's sentence as being "out of line" and "excessive" seems appropriate.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:45 pm#165
That's infact true. The executive order on political assassinations only came down in 1976.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:47 pmWhen compared with Libby’s sentence of two and a half years, Rudy’s description of today’s sentence as being “out of line†and “excessive†seems appropriate.
Comment by Exley
Note that Judge Reggie Walton echoed Fitzgerald during the sentencing today: “Your lies blocked an extremely serious investigation, and as result you will indeed go to prison,†Walton told Libby.
Uh, exactly how did Martha's great crime threaten national security in a "war like no other"? It had something to do w/ top-secret egg salad recipes?
June 5th, 2007 at 11:48 pmThe burden of proof is on the accuser.
Comment by m12 — June 5, 2007 @ 11:43 pm
Well Mr Fitzgerald appears to have convinced 12 American citizens that that is the indded the case and you an are idiot.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:50 pmWell Mr Fitzgerald appears to have convinced 12 American citizens that that is the indded the case and you an are idiot.
Comment by TerrytheTurtle
And from the sounds of it, the judge, too.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:53 pmWell Mr Fitzgerald appears to have convinced 12 American citizens that that is the indded the case and you an are idiot.
No he hasn't. He hasn't charged anyone with the leak, let alone convicted anyone of it, and he has no plans of filing any more charges.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:53 pmNote that Judge Reggie Walton echoed Fitzgerald during the sentencing today: “Your lies blocked an extremely serious investigation, and as result you will indeed go to prison,†Walton told Libby.
The presence of an investigation does not automatically imply the presence of a crime.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:54 pmTanner,
You are posing theories and “possibilities.†I am citing a fact and that fact is that no one was ever charged with, nor convicted of, violating the IIPA.
If Fitzgerald was convinced a violation of IIPA had taken place but declined to bring charges due to insufficient evidence, he would have said so. He never did so.
Comment by Exley — June 5, 2007 @ 11:01 pm
You are wrong. You said that "Fitzgerald determined there had been no underlying violation of the IIPA" as if it were fact. It is not. It's a leap of assumption that is not supported by the facts.
I posed the "possibility" to demonstrate that your asusmption was not justified. In fact, Fitzgerald said several times that Libby's crimes prevented the full truth from coming out.
This hints very strongly that the underlying crime did in fact occur and was obscured by Libby's lies.
It is actually fairly close to the opposite of Fitzgerald determining that no violation had taken place.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:57 pmNote that Judge Reggie Walton echoed Fitzgerald during the sentencing today: “Your lies blocked an extremely serious investigation, and as result you will indeed go to prison,†Walton told Libby.
The presence of an investigation does not automatically imply the presence of a crime.
Comment by m12
And Scooter is STILL going to prison. How... how... sad... for poor, poor Scooter. And what of the day when Scooter goes to take a shower, behind bars, and finds himself, alone, in the showers, w/ Tom DeLay...
June 5th, 2007 at 11:58 pmNo charges, no conviction, no crime.
Comment by m12 — June 5, 2007 @ 11:04 pm
So, if your car gets stolen, and is found stripped and abandoned, and the police never find out who did it... no crime. Right?
You really shoiuld think through the crap you post, You're12.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:00 amNo he hasn’t. He hasn’t charged anyone with the leak, let alone convicted anyone of it, and he has no plans of filing any more charges.
Comment by m12 — June 5, 2007 @ 11:53 pm
Completely dense and now moving the goalposts - Libby is going to prison for the CRIME of OBSTRUCTION. Read the words carefully one at a time. Ergo a CRIME has been committed, ergo you are an idiot.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:01 amI posed the “possibility†to demonstrate that your asusmption was not justified. In fact, Fitzgerald said several times that Libby’s crimes prevented the full truth from coming out.
This hints very strongly that the underlying crime did in fact occur and was obscured by Libby’s lies.
Since when is a "possibility" or a "very strong hint" the standard for criminal behavior?
June 6th, 2007 at 12:02 amThat’s infact true. The executive order on political assassinations only came down in 1976.
Comment by m12 — June 5, 2007 @ 11:47 pm
So before that, murder was not a crime? Or was the assassination of a president not a crime because he was a politician?
Wowee. That must be some strong cold medicine you're on there, You're12.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:03 amTanner,
Fitzgerald's mandate when appointed special counsel in this matter was to determine what, if any statutes, were violated and to prosecute any crime he determined to have taken place.
He did not charge or try anyone with violation of the IIPA. Since his mandate included determining what crimes may have occurred, his failure to charge anyone with IIPA violations is tantamount to a finding that a violation of IIPA had not occurred.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:03 amCompletely dense and now moving the goalposts - Libby is going to prison for the CRIME of OBSTRUCTION. Read the words carefully one at a time. Ergo a CRIME has been committed, ergo you are an idiot.
I never said otherwise. Contrary to your assertion, though, obstruction of justice does not involve any name leaking, or criminal activity regarding name leaking.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:04 am#181
Not under federal law at the time, no.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:07 amI never said otherwise. Contrary to your assertion, though, obstruction of justice does not involve any name leaking, or criminal activity regarding name leaking.
Comment by m12
I have to say, m12, you are quite the suppository of legal wisdom.
And yet poor Scooter is STILL going to jail...
June 6th, 2007 at 12:07 amHe did not charge or try anyone with violation of the IIPA. Since his mandate included determining what crimes may have occurred, his failure to charge anyone with IIPA violations is tantamount to a finding that a violation of IIPA had not occurred.
Comment by Exley
And yet poor Scooter is STILL going to jail...
June 6th, 2007 at 12:08 amSince when is a “possibility†or a “very strong hint†the standard for criminal behavior?
Comment by m12 — June 6, 2007 @ 12:02 am
Jesus H. Christ on a motorcycle! Learn to read and comprehend before you post stuff that makes you look dumber than dirt.
(sigh) I'll try to explain, You're12: the "possibility" I was talking about was in the context of a discussion i was having with Exley. The "possibility" was that the reason Fitzgerald didn't file charges of leaking was because he didn't feel he could secure a conviction.
The "hints strongly" is also in that same context. Exley said that the lack of charges proved that Fitzgerald decided no crime occurred. I pointe dto his statement as a strong "hint" that he believed no such thing.
Understand, now?
Yeah, I didn't think so.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:08 amNot under federal law at the time, no.
Comment by m12
Was it a crime under state law? Or were politicians not considered human at the time? Actually, a reasonable position, if you ask me.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:10 amThe “possibility†was that the reason Fitzgerald didn’t file charges of leaking was because he didn’t feel he could secure a conviction.
When did Fitzgerald actually say this?
June 6th, 2007 at 12:13 amWas it a crime under state law? Or were politicians not considered human at the time? Actually, a reasonable position, if you ask me.
I have no idea what was in Texas state law at the time. But one of the findings of the Warren Commission was that assassination of the President should be made a federal offense.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:17 amFitzgerald’s mandate when appointed special counsel in this matter was to determine what, if any statutes, were violated and to prosecute any crime he determined to have taken place.
He did not charge or try anyone with violation of the IIPA. Since his mandate included determining what crimes may have occurred, his failure to charge anyone with IIPA violations is tantamount to a finding that a violation of IIPA had not occurred.
Comment by Exley — June 6, 2007 @ 12:03 am
That is complete and utter bullshit and I expect you know it. You're smarter than that.
Fitzgerald's failure to charge anyone with IIPA violations is tantamount to nothing but that he failed to file charges.
There is a "possibility" that Fitzgerald did not file charges because he decided no crime occurred. But he has never said anything even close to that and, based on the evidence in the public record, that is no more likely (and I think far less likely) than the "possibility" that he believed a violation had occurred but Libby's obstruction of justice kept him from assembling a solid case against anyone, a case that would convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Which is, after all, a prosecutor's responsibility.
My point is that you are taking a fact (no charges filed) and extrapolating a conclusion that is not warranted by those facts.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:17 amHe did not charge or try anyone with violation of the IIPA. Since his mandate included determining what crimes may have occurred, his failure to charge anyone with IIPA violations is tantamount to a finding that a violation of IIPA had not occurred.
Comment by Exley — June 6, 2007 @ 12:03 am
Exlax fires off a 'non sequitur' - sloppy Exlax (which I believe is a tautology). No one's been charged with the anthrax killings, but guess what, the postal staff are still dead.... guess by Exlax's argument, no murder has taken place.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:19 amAgain with the Sophist argument, Exley?
It would be just as truthful to say his failure to charge anyone with IIPA violations is tantamount to a finding that the Bush Administration was successful at obstructing his investigation.
Do you really enjoy supporting Bush, or are you just pathological?
June 6th, 2007 at 12:20 am# 184 -- the original poster to which you replied, keith g, said nothing about "federal law". He just said "Lee Harvey Oswald -- no charges, no conviction, no crime".
You seem to be maintaining that there was no crime committed when Lee Harvey Oswald gunned down John F Kennedy in 1963. Do you really want to stick with that position?
June 6th, 2007 at 12:21 amTerry, good analogy.
It's like saying the failure to investigate the crimes of 9/11 are proof positive that bin Laden did it.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:22 amI have no idea what was in Texas state law at the time. But one of the findings of the Warren Commission was that assassination of the President should be made a federal offense.
Comment by m12
There was a time when robbing banks was not a Federal crime. Bank robbers, like Bonnie and Clyde, would rob a bank at the Kansas border and hightail into the adjoining state, wherein the pursing authorities would give up the chase. The situation got so bad that bank robbing was made a Federal crimt to stop this sort of behavior.
Perhaps assasinating the President was made a federal crime for the same reason, so the Feds coud go in and deal w/ it, instead of leaving it up to the state the crime took place in.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:23 amI have no idea what was in Texas state law at the time. But one of the findings of the Warren Commission was that assassination of the President should be made a federal offense.
Comment by m12 — June 6, 2007 @ 12:17 am
I have a sneaking suspicion that killing another human being was a violation of state law in 1963, even in Texas.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:23 amOr the failure to charge Clinton with perjury is proof positive he didn't lie under oath....
June 6th, 2007 at 12:24 amThe “possibility†was that the reason Fitzgerald didn’t file charges of leaking was because he didn’t feel he could secure a conviction.
When did Fitzgerald actually say this?
Comment by m12 — June 6, 2007 @ 12:13 am
You poor kid. I see I've given you more than you can deal with. It's okay. Why don't you go watch some TV before bed, hm?
June 6th, 2007 at 12:26 am#194 - well tanner, LHO isn't an exact analogy as he was charged with the Kennedy killing.... still, that doesn't let Exlax off or his sloppy thinking.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:26 am#194
Google the Warren Commission and find out for yourself. That was their position under federal law.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:27 amOr the failure to charge Clinton with perjury is proof positive he didn’t lie under oath….
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — June 6, 2007 @ 12:24 am
That's right. Man, my conscience on a whole list of things, including doing 35 past a school this afternoon, has just cleared away.... thanks Exlax.... /sarcasm off
June 6th, 2007 at 12:28 amNo surprise. We already knew INTEGRITY and the RULE OF LAW means nothing to Republicans.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:31 amI have a sneaking suspicion that killing another human being was a violation of state law in 1963, even in Texas.
Comment by tanner
And even a Democrat, but probably not a black man, or a gay, and if you were a gay black man, forget. Just throw the rope over a branch, make a noose, and get it over w/.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:32 amexcuse me, but aren't obstruction of justice and perjury crimes?
what the F--k is wrong with these craven mental midgets.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:33 am.
Google the Warren Commission and find out for yourself. That was their position under federal law.
Comment by m12 — June 6, 2007 @ 12:27 am
Forget about the Warren Commission. I asked you.
Is it your contention that no crime was committed when Lee Harvey Oswald shot John Kennedy in 1963?
June 6th, 2007 at 12:36 amFitzgerald never made the determination that anybody had violated the IIPA under the terms of the statute. In other words, unlike your anthrax poisoning example, there was no prima facie evidence that a crime had taken place.
Comment by Exley
And yet poor Scooter is STILL going to jail. This just makes it all the more unfair.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:37 amm12 is twisting and turning so much I think he's disappeared up his own assh*le..
June 6th, 2007 at 12:37 amMan, my leg is going to be so sore in the morning from kickin' these guys in the slats all night. Talk to you all later.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:40 amYou do recognize the very real possibility that Fitzgerald decided that he would be unable to convict anyone for the crime and thus declined to bring charges, right?
Comment by tanner — June 5, 2007 @ 10:41 pm
Right. Because of the sabotage done by the perjury and obstruction of justice.
Comment by keith g — June 5, 2007 @ 10:43 pm
You two have the anwer to the trolls argument in a nutshell. Too bad they won't recognize these facts.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:42 am#197 BnF, #200 Terry,
You are incorrect.
There was no "failure" to charge Clinton with perjury. Clinton entered into a plea agreement with prosecutors by which the prosecutors agreed not to charge him with perjury in exchange for his admission that he gave false and misleading testimony and his agreement to pay a $25,000 fine and have his law license suspended.
Clinton admits misleading testimony, avoids charges in Lewinsky probe
President's law license suspended for 5 years
January 19, 2001
Web posted at: 5:06 p.m. EST (2206 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton will leave office free of the prospect of criminal charges after he admitted Friday that he knowingly gave misleading testimony about his affair with Monica Lewinsky in a 1998 lawsuit.
Under an agreement with Independent Counsel Robert Ray, Clinton's law license will be suspended for five years and he will pay a $25,000 fine to Arkansas bar officials. He also gave up any claim to repayment of his legal fees in the matter. In return, Ray will end the 7-year-old Whitewater probe that has shadowed most of Clinton's two terms.
"I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish this goal and am certain my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false," Clinton said in a written statement released Friday by the White House.
The admission, which came on the president's last full day in office, stems from the same allegations that led to Clinton's 1998 impeachment by the House of Representatives, and the later acquittal by the Senate.
In a statement minutes later, Ray said "the nation's interest has been served" by Clinton's admission.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:42 am#204
Why would I disagree with the findings of the Warren Commission?
June 6th, 2007 at 12:43 amPoint taken on the anthrax example (but not on the speeding past the school today), but your 'non sequitur' stands Ex....
June 6th, 2007 at 12:46 amNo he hasn’t. He hasn’t charged anyone with the leak, let alone convicted anyone of it, and he has no plans of filing any more charges.
Comment by m12
Because he couldn't get the required testimony, hence the obstruction of justice testimony. And it's time all the "I don't remember" Repukes start getting charged with obstruction of justice.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:46 amBut the fact remains, Clinton wasn't charged, even with all that seedy deal making - that's the point, in fact your detail makes the point even stronger. Because there is no charge doesn't mean no crime has been committed... that's your 'no sequitur' - you haven't beaten off anything but a few sloppy examples here and there. Can't get the energy anymore on this.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:52 am#211
"Point taken on the anthrax example "
Okay...I'll take that, Terry, to end the night. Almost 1:00 am here on the East Coast. Time for sleep.
Good night all.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:54 amThe title is deceiving. Ron Paul is the only conservative and he said NO. He said it because as he said in the last debate Scooter assisted in the deception that led to war.
The rest are fear mongering and warmongering cowards who have been told they need to be the security party.
Ron Paul is the only one who knows what security means.
He is also leading in every poll including CNN's:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/debates/scorecard/gop.debate/
And MSNBCs that have over 15,000 voters:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18963731/
June 6th, 2007 at 1:31 amDoes your headline writer ever read the articles he describes? Half the candidates said, "No," and the rest blathered on about the case and didn't answer the question.
June 6th, 2007 at 1:34 am"The fact that Libby didn’t commit the “underlying crime†— i.e., the leaking of Valerie Plame’s CIA status — means nothing." == Niko
On the CONTRARY, it means that Libby can still be tried on treason, on his complicity in the cirme, as opposed to the 3-year sentence for obstruction.
Which is BEAUTIFUL!
He hasn't even stood trial yet for his actual crimes.
His sentence today is just a taste of what he has coming.
How soon can the independent prosecutor statute be resurrected?
June 6th, 2007 at 3:44 amMore Republican lies have never been told in less time than during this exchange.
June 6th, 2007 at 6:35 amNone of these persons has any respect for the law. When one commits a crime there should be consequences. Obviously they all believe they are above the laws of our society.
June 6th, 2007 at 8:55 amIt's the "have it my way attitude" that republicans never seemed to give up from childhood. Cry, baby cry!
Jockeying for AIPAC support are they? Why yes, it would appear so.
June 6th, 2007 at 9:40 amLibby Pardon and Depraved Indifference
(- cognitorex -)
Not only did this administration cook up propaganda to lead America into war, it deliberately suppressed factual assessments of the dangers that our troops would encounter. The Military, the State Department and the CIA had each clearly warned of the "harm's way" our troops would encounter.
For political purposes these intelligence warnings were not only buried, they were actively shunned and ignored. This is criminal behavior which, with one hundred per cent certainty, led to troop' deaths and maimings.
A Libby pardon would condone this establishment of a propaganda apparatus in the Executive branch. It would condone a conspiracy to provide false information to Congress. It would set free the sole conspirator who, of necessity had to lie, protect his boss and other executive branch participants.
A Libby pardon would condone the criminal opposite of 'supporting the troops' that in fact Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Feith and others actively participated in making false pronouncements which resulted in American deaths.
Labels: criminal negligence, depraved indifference, Libby, pardon, propaganda apparatus, cognitorex, propaganda conspiracy, William Kristol
June 6th, 2007 at 10:18 amI used to honestly think a Rudy Giuliani Presidency wouldn't be that bad. I had this impression of Rudy as a New York version of Schwarzenegger (runs as Republican, but policies are very liberal).
After hearing them in the debates, boy was I wrong. Rudy sounds like a bigger fascist than Bush. Rudy seems to be under the impression that Bush's idiotic policies would work if you just push them even further. Rudy also seems to be even more bogged down by cronyism and partisanship than Dubya.
I don't care if Hillary has her flaws. I'm going to work to make sure the Democratic candidate wins. We cannot risk more of the same incompetent cronyism and neo-fascism from the modern day Republic Party.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:18 amIf you want to know more about what a mob dictator looks like before he takes over a country, get this movie. The complete versions have already been pulled from YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1C3K6aJ5S1M
June 6th, 2007 at 11:36 amIf you can't find Guiliani Time in your local Blockbuster, just get this movie it is basically the same story with cover names:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xse9lHCQl9E&mode=related&search=
June 6th, 2007 at 11:48 amThe rule of law is still forgotten by the GOP. Libby broke the law and needs to be punished like everybody else. The case was not about the leak. It was about lying. We need to hold all government officials accountable.
June 6th, 2007 at 11:51 amIt's a shame that one person goes to prison for lying and obstruction when the whole administration is guilty of those crimes, at the very least.
June 6th, 2007 at 3:34 pmAl Franken had this little feature a long time ago on his show asking listeners to send in there best versions of screaming "LIAR." Thats what I want to play everytime I hear rightwingers talk about ScootiePootie. LIIIIIAAAARRRRRRRRR.LIAR.LIAR LIAR LIAR. They're all a bunch of LIARRRS. Lying sacks of stinking liquid shit.
June 6th, 2007 at 8:37 pmRomney is now trashing a highly regarded public servant and law enforcer. The man is human garbage. Who would buy a used car or let their daughter go out with this creep. He is making Mormons look bad. He is coming across more and more as a psychopathic liar. He would fuck a dog on national TV if he thought it would help him get the nomination. Gross, disturbing man.
June 6th, 2007 at 9:06 pmThis add to my opinion that Ron Paul is the only law abiding Republican running for President.
June 15th, 2007 at 2:00 am