LOL who would have thought it.............

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by Masherbrum
The Two Party system has long failed.   But, most wish to have the same debate on which is "right" or "better".    Therein lies the problem.

And THAT, ladies and gentleman, is the most genuine thing on this board.   masher... hitting the nail upon it's head.

[bj229r]

Plame outed herself by thinking that wangling her unqualified, political hack husband to a 'spy mission', in truth, a thinly veiled attack on the administration, would go unresponded to because she had the cover of CIA headquaters behind her. (She was...wrong)

Found interesting tidbit yesterday: Lewis Libby acted as lawyer (pro-bono) for Mark Rich, for whom he secured a pardon---prosecutor was.......................... .........Patrick Fitzgerald

As it happens, Messrs. Fitzgerald and Libby had crossed legal paths before. Before he joined the Bush Administration, Mr. Libby had, for a number of years in the 1980s and 1990s, been a lawyer for Marc Rich. Mr. Rich is the oil trader and financier who fled to Switzerland in 1983, just ahead of his indictment for tax-evasion by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Bill Clinton pardoned Mr. Rich in 2001, and so the feds never did get their man. The pardon so infuriated Justice lawyers who had worked on the case that the Southern District promptly launched an investigation into whether the pardon had been "proper." One former prosecutor we spoke to described the Rich case as "the single most rancorous case in the history of the Southern District."

Two of the prosecutors who worked on the Rich case over the years were none other than Mr. Fitzgerald and James Comey, who while Deputy Attorney General appointed Mr. Fitzgerald to investigate the Plame leak. Mr. Fitzgerald worked in the Southern District for five years starting in 1988, at the same time that Mr. Libby was developing a legal theory of Mr. Rich's innocence in a bid to get the charges dropped. The prosecutors never did accept the argument, but Leonard Garment, who brought Mr. Libby onto the case in 1985, says that he believes Mr. Libby's legal work helped set the stage for Mr. Rich's eventual pardon.

link

[Shuckins]

Which raises these questions" "Was Libby the target of a vendetta by Fitzgerald?  Had Libby's work on behalf of Marc Rich stuck in Fitzgerald's craw, since Fitzgerald was the prosecutor in the Rich case?"

[bj229r]

Libby WAS convicted of perjury, for not having same recollection of conversations as did Tim Russert and Judith Miller. Can't get around that, but the circumstances are so odd--within a few WEEKS of starting the investigation, Fitz ascertained that (A) Armitage was the source, and (B) it wasn't a crime. 3 years later he was done:huh

[LePaul]

Originally posted by Shuckins
Which raises these questions" "Was Libby the target of a vendetta by Fitzgerald?  Had Libby's work on behalf of Marc Rich stuck in Fitzgerald's craw, since Fitzgerald was the prosecutor in the Rich case?"

It certainly makes one wonder.

And with the release of info showing others revealed Plame's line of work, it just reeks of a rush to convict SOMEBODY.  Since Cheney isn't quite popular these days, let's nail his #1 guy.

I think calling this case a class one cluster (colorful metaphor) would be saying it lightly

[Thrawn]

Post on AGW by Pakrat.

"On September 30, 2003, just after the investigation into the outing of CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson began, President George Bush said:

"If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is . . . If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of."

We now know exactly what he meant. (And someone needs to make sure the video of Bush saying that gets in the hands of every TV network news producer -- as well as every Democratic presidential campaign.)

Here's a few talking points (hopefully concise enough for use with friends and family) that may help convey why Libby was the only person prosecuted in the Plame investigation -- and why Dubya's act yesterday aided and abetted Libby's obstruction of justice:

Bogus Spin #1: Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald went after Libby even after learning that Richard Armitage had been Bob Novak's "primary source" for his column outing Valerie Plame Wilson as a CIA employee.

Wrong. Armitage made his admission in early October 2003, nearly three months before Fitzgerald was appointed. So it should be clear that Fitzgerald wasn't appointed just to find out who leaked to Novak. In fact, this means that -- even with Armitage's confession in hand -- there was so much evidence of wrongdoing that a longtime GOP loyalist like John Ashcroft felt he had no choice but to recuse himself and allow the appointment of a special counsel.

Bogus Spin #2: Even so, Libby wasn't the only one who leaked about Plame.

Maybe not, but it turns out that every other Bush administration who leaked did so with information they got as a result of Libby's actions. Ari Fleischer testified during Scooter's trial that Libby told him over lunch about Plame working for the CIA, and Karl Rove reportedly told a similar story to the grand jury that indicted Libby. Meanwhile, Armitage and Bu****e press flack Dan Bartlett both found out through a State Department memo that was produced in response to questions that Libby had asked a top department official about Wilson's trip to Niger. If Libby (and his boss, Dick Cheney) had been content to reply to Wilson's criticisms on their merits rather than by rattling cages in search of fodder for personal attacks, none of the other officials would ever have been able to leak about Plame.

Bogus Spin #3: The trial was just Libby's word against that of a bunch of reporters.

Although three reporters did testify, they were preceded on the stand by six different government officials who each testified to having conversations with Libby about Joe Wilson's wife before the date when Libby first claimed to have heard it from a reporter. It was these officials' testimony, more than that of the reporters, that convicted Libby.

Bogus Spin #4: Libby was convicted for having a faulty memory.

It's never mentioned in the mainstream media, but Scooter didn't just "forget" telling reporters about Joe Wilson's wife working for the CIA, and deny it when he really had told them.

No, Libby's "faulty memory" caused him not only to deny where he had learned about Plame -- a note produced in the trial showed Vice President Cheney had told him she worked in the Counterproliferation Department of the CIA (where the majority of employees are covert) -- but to invent stories saying he HAD leaked to reporters when he hadn't. He claimed to have been the first to tell Matt Cooper about Wilson's wife, thereby covering up the fact that Karl Rove had done so. And he shielded Fleischer by falsely claiming to have told the Post's Glenn Kessler as well, apparently trying to cover for the Post's October 12, 2003 report that a journalist for the Post (who turned out to be Walter Pincus) had been leaked to -- a news story that was found, with key passages underlined, in Libby's files.

Thus Libby was convicted not just of perjury but of intentionally lying in order to obstruct the investigation. And what George Bush did yesterday was intended to make sure he got away with it."

[john9001]

Thrawn is absolutely right, libby is guilty and should get the same punishment as other people that lie under oath, just like bill clinton.

impeach libby.

[Silat]

Originally posted by Thrawn
Post on AGW by Pakrat.

"On September 30, 2003, just after the investigation into the outing of CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson began, President George Bush said:

"If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is . . . If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of."

We now know exactly what he meant. (And someone needs to make sure the video of Bush saying that gets in the hands of every TV network news producer -- as well as every Democratic presidential campaign.)

Here's a few talking points (hopefully concise enough for use with friends and family) that may help convey why Libby was the only person prosecuted in the Plame investigation -- and why Dubya's act yesterday aided and abetted Libby's obstruction of justice:

Bogus Spin #1: Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald went after Libby even after learning that Richard Armitage had been Bob Novak's "primary source" for his column outing Valerie Plame Wilson as a CIA employee.

Wrong. Armitage made his admission in early October 2003, nearly three months before Fitzgerald was appointed. So it should be clear that Fitzgerald wasn't appointed just to find out who leaked to Novak. In fact, this means that -- even with Armitage's confession in hand -- there was so much evidence of wrongdoing that a longtime GOP loyalist like John Ashcroft felt he had no choice but to recuse himself and allow the appointment of a special counsel.

Bogus Spin #2: Even so, Libby wasn't the only one who leaked about Plame.

Maybe not, but it turns out that every other Bush administration who leaked did so with information they got as a result of Libby's actions. Ari Fleischer testified during Scooter's trial that Libby told him over lunch about Plame working for the CIA, and Karl Rove reportedly told a similar story to the grand jury that indicted Libby. Meanwhile, Armitage and Bu****e press flack Dan Bartlett both found out through a State Department memo that was produced in response to questions that Libby had asked a top department official about Wilson's trip to Niger. If Libby (and his boss, Dick Cheney) had been content to reply to Wilson's criticisms on their merits rather than by rattling cages in search of fodder for personal attacks, none of the other officials would ever have been able to leak about Plame.

Bogus Spin #3: The trial was just Libby's word against that of a bunch of reporters.

Although three reporters did testify, they were preceded on the stand by six different government officials who each testified to having conversations with Libby about Joe Wilson's wife before the date when Libby first claimed to have heard it from a reporter. It was these officials' testimony, more than that of the reporters, that convicted Libby.

Bogus Spin #4: Libby was convicted for having a faulty memory.

It's never mentioned in the mainstream media, but Scooter didn't just "forget" telling reporters about Joe Wilson's wife working for the CIA, and deny it when he really had told them.

No, Libby's "faulty memory" caused him not only to deny where he had learned about Plame -- a note produced in the trial showed Vice President Cheney had told him she worked in the Counterproliferation Department of the CIA (where the majority of employees are covert) -- but to invent stories saying he HAD leaked to reporters when he hadn't. He claimed to have been the first to tell Matt Cooper about Wilson's wife, thereby covering up the fact that Karl Rove had done so. And he shielded Fleischer by falsely claiming to have told the Post's Glenn Kessler as well, apparently trying to cover for the Post's October 12, 2003 report that a journalist for the Post (who turned out to be Walter Pincus) had been leaked to -- a news story that was found, with key passages underlined, in Libby's files.

Thus Libby was convicted not just of perjury but of intentionally lying in order to obstruct the investigation. And what George Bush did yesterday was intended to make sure he got away with it."

Thrawn its sad but facts never get in the way of good republiCON talking points.
You might as well talk to a brick wall.

Who said this:
As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.


                  Happy 4th.............

[bj229r]

"If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is . . . If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of."

We now know exactly what he meant. (And someone needs to make sure the video of Bush saying that gets in the hands of every TV network news producer -- as well as every Democratic presidential campaign.)

What law was violated? Aside from not going to prison, the man still has $4 million+ in legal fees, a half-million dollar fine, and his professional life is over.

Bogus Spin #1: Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald went after Libby even after learning that Richard Armitage had been Bob Novak's "primary source" for his column outing Valerie Plame Wilson as a CIA employee.

Wrong. Armitage made his admission in early October 2003, nearly three months before Fitzgerald was appointed. So it should be clear that Fitzgerald wasn't appointed just to find out who leaked to Novak. In fact, this means that -- even with Armitage's confession in hand -- there was so much evidence of wrongdoing that a longtime GOP loyalist like John Ashcroft felt he had no choice but to recuse himself and allow the appointment of a special counsel.

"• Richard Armitage. Mr. Armitage now claims he knew only on Oct. 1, 2003 that he was Mr. Novak's source. We should question that claim in light of Mr. Novak's account this week that Mr. Armitage "made clear he considered [the information about Ms. Plame] especially suited for my column."
Mr. Armitage also knew he had met with Bob Woodward on June 13, 2003, telling him about Mr. Wilson's wife's CIA employment and her role in her husband's trip to Niger. But when the FBI interviewed Mr. Armitage on Oct. 2, he admitted to the Novak conversation only, notably forgetting meeting with one of our country's premier investigative reporters. By attributing his longtime silence to Mr. Fitzgerald's request, Mr. Armitage must have forgotten Mr. Fitzgerald was not appointed until Dec. 30, 2003. If Mr. Armitage had come forward during those three months, there might never have been a special counsel.

link
Hmm, you're right--they could have indicted Armitage for lying to the FBI--(Note: Armitage was in the State Dept. "Bush-haters" club--a VERY big club over there)--Also--Ashcroft recused himself due to an apparent conflict of interest--had he NOT done that, we'd all be talking about THAT too

Bogus Spin #2: Even so, Libby wasn't the only one who leaked about Plame.

Maybe not, but it turns out that every other Bush administration who leaked did so with information they got as a result of Libby's actions. Ari Fleischer testified during Scooter's trial that Libby told him over lunch about Plame working for the CIA, and Karl Rove reportedly told a similar story to the grand jury that indicted Libby. Meanwhile, Armitage and Bu****e press flack Dan Bartlett both found out through a State Department memo that was produced in response to questions that Libby had asked a top department official about Wilson's trip to Niger. If Libby (and his boss, Dick Cheney) had been content to reply to Wilson's criticisms on their merits rather than by rattling cages in search of fodder for personal attacks, none of the other officials would ever have been able to leak about Plame.

We don't know WHEN Armitage found out, but it was before Libby--Libby first heard of it from an 'undersecretary of state'--that would be someone BELOW Armitage in state's pecking order link

Bogus Spin #3: The trial was just Libby's word against that of a bunch of reporters.

Although three reporters did testify, they were preceded on the stand by six different government officials who each testified to having conversations with Libby about Joe Wilson's wife before the date when Libby first claimed to have heard it from a reporter. It was these officials' testimony, more than that of the reporters, that convicted Libby.
.

 
"And because the jury believed Russert, they tended to discount problems they had with the testimony of other prosecution witnesses. For example, some jurors simply did not trust Ari Fleischer—“Some said, ‘I don’t believe him, he was Slick Willie,’” said Denis Collins—but because they believed Russert, it appears they tended to accept the other accounts that jibed with his story, including Fleischer’s. Fleischer had testified that Libby told him about Mrs. Wilson—“hush-hush, on the QT”—on Monday, July 7, 2003. The conversation with Russert, in which Libby said he was surprised to hear about Mrs. Wilson, was on Thursday, July 10. That led special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, in his opening argument, to utter what was, in retrospect, the line that convicted Libby: “You can’t learn something startling on Thursday that you’re giving out on Monday and Tuesday.” Jurors could only accept that argument if they believed Russert and Fleischer. They did, and it appears that Russert’s credibility helped shore up Fleischer’s less-than-believable performance.

Other witnesses did not receive similarly friendly receptions. In addition to Fleischer, jurors had serious doubts about Judith Miller, the former New York Times reporter. Collins told the press that one juror said of Miller, “I don’t know, her memory was terrible.” At that, according to Collins, another juror shot back, “Yeah, whose isn’t?”
link

Bogus Spin #4: Libby was convicted for having a faulty memory.

It's never mentioned in the mainstream media, but Scooter didn't just "forget" telling reporters about Joe Wilson's wife working for the CIA, and deny it when he really had told them.

No, Libby's "faulty memory" caused him not only to deny where he had learned about Plame -- a note produced in the trial showed Vice President Cheney had told him she worked in the Counterproliferation Department of the CIA (where the majority of employees are covert) -- but to invent stories saying he HAD leaked to reporters when he hadn't. He claimed to have been the first to tell Matt Cooper about Wilson's wife, thereby covering up the fact that Karl Rove had done so. And he shielded Fleischer by falsely claiming to have told the Post's Glenn Kessler as well, apparently trying to cover for the Post's October 12, 2003 report that a journalist for the Post (who turned out to be Walter Pincus) had been leaked to -- a news story that was found, with key passages underlined, in Libby's files.

Thus Libby was convicted not just of perjury but of intentionally lying in order to obstruct the investigation. And what George Bush did yesterday was intended to make sure he got away with it."

"Covering up that Rove had done so"? WHERE is there the remotest evidence of that? Rove even volunteered to go BACK to the Grand Jury when he found some of his own notes regarding the matter.  Despite the Left's howls, Rove never came close to getting in trouble, because he was, unfortunately, innocent. He (Libby) had NO motive to protect Fleischer, as Fleischer had provided unfavorable testimony--much of this is pure conjecture, and, as I stated before, the man's life is ruined due to an investigation of a crime which never happened. He didn't 'get away' with it

[x0847Marine]

Originally posted by LePaul
It certainly makes one wonder.

And with the release of info showing others revealed Plame's line of work, it just reeks of a rush to convict SOMEBODY.  Since Cheney isn't quite popular these days, let's nail his #1 guy.

I think calling this case a class one cluster (colorful metaphor) would be saying it lightly

Obstruction of justice charges carry vicarious liability.

If you lie during a murder investigation, even though no murder actually occurred, you're still going to jail / prison for obstructing a murder investigation... that's the legal standard you and I live under, why doesn't it apply to Scooter? hes just another citizen, perhaps the worst kind; a career political hack.

Bushes own Dept of Justice has a "zero leniency" policy regarding obstruction of justice charges AND sentencing...  except if you're the presidents friend.

Neither party is adult enough to rise above the petty bickering, they play by the same low down rules while claiming to be above it all.  All the more reason to vote Independent.

[SteveBailey]

Originally posted by Silat
Thrawn its sad but facts never get in the way of good republiCON talking points.
You might as well talk to a brick wall.

Who said this:
As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.


                  Happy 4th.............

President numero Uno.   Do yuo think the term liberal, as far as political meaning, is the same as it was over 200 years ago?  I hope you know spanish Lew.  If you libs have your way, you are going to need it.

[MORAY37]

A great point was made earlier today on one of the news outlets.  Many republicans are defending this action, citing Mr. Clinton's somewhat shady application of a pardon in his waning days in office... to which I do agree.. Clinton did make pardons that are extremely questionable, but that is hindsight.  What they fail to mention, is this is the first time a president has EVER commuted a sentence, (which he will eventually pardon, we all know)  given to someone WITHIN HIS OWN ADMINISTRATION.  Re read that statement..WITHIN HIS OWN ADMINISTRATION.  Check it out.. it is the very first time this has been done in 200 years.  All other pardons and commutations were handed down by successive administrations to previous ones..ie: Nixon pardoned by Ford.

Even the undeniably slanted, left or right, should appreciate the bad things that this portends....a commutation given to someone in your administration by a president who is NOT a lawyer... (He is a businessman), during an ongoing investigation on violation of various rights and possibly infringement upon your constitutional bill of rights.

I would be extremely vigilant if this was EITHER party doing this. There is a reason that no other president in 200 years has done so.