Join the New Republic. We have a multi party system, Relatively Good Wages, Tax Deductions, and Lowered Health Care!... and Cookies!
Printable View
Join the New Republic. We have a multi party system, Relatively Good Wages, Tax Deductions, and Lowered Health Care!... and Cookies!
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
What was true?
Hey Gawain , a little bit of advice for ya , if you write things that are clearly not true and insist that they are factual it makes you look very silly .
In your version of events, Gawain, we are required to believe that the Republican-appointed prosecutor, Republican judge, three-judge Republican appeals court and the jury were all either conniving or idiots. And they all must have had some sort of anti-Bush axe to grind. Does this seem likely?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
As for your assertions about "case closed," I don't really agree, but I don't stand a chance of changing your mind once you've dug in your heels. You can go on about how Joe Wilson is the worst man in the world, but I don't see that it's salient to the case.
Aren't you one of the guys who believes that the CIA is full of lefty traitors, anyway?
-edit-
Another thought -- if you believe the entire case is a load of Gah!, then why aren't you angry that Bush only commuted the sentence, rather than issuing a pardon? Here's the logical train of thought:
There's an incoherence at the heart of the administration's case. It says that Libby's sentence was excessive. But technically, it's not. It's only excessive if you think it was a politicized prosecution and never should have happened in the first place. But if you believe that, then Libby deserves an outright pardon. The administration's middle ground can't hold. A pardon would have been better, and more defensible.
Well they must be , their facts contradict Gawains "FACTS" , maybe the CIA is Clintons fault , but then again Bush set up a commitee , and their facts contradict Gawains "FACTS" too . Hey maybe Bush is Clintons fault too .Quote:
Aren't you one of the guys who believes that the CIA is full of lefty traitors, anyway?
But you gotta admit this bit is just so damn funny.........then again I think he is actually being serious :dizzy2:Quote:
Your take is obviously so wrong. Armitage was the leaker case closed. No crime nothing to investigate. Wilson lied about everything.
Here's a nice, broad summation of how the NeoCons and the law fall out.
Lewis Libby -- though represented by the most expensive and highly-regarded criminal defense lawyers in the country -- was convicted by a conscientious jury of four felony counts. Conrad Black -- the Canadian neoconservative heir and right-wing financier and close associate of Richard Perle -- has been indicted (by Pat Fitzgerald) and currently stands trial on charges of defrauding his investors of $85 million, obstruction of justice and similar alleged crimes.
A World Bank committee just "concluded that [Paul Wolfowitz] was guilty of breaking rules barring conflicts of interest." And one DoD official -- former Doug Feith underling Larry Franklin -- has already pled guilty to passing classified information to AIPAC officials and the Israeli government, and the two AIPAC officials are to stand trial for multiple espionage-related felonies.
Yet in each of these cases -- where wrongdoing has been established (in the cases of Libby, Franklin and Wolfowitz) or where federal prosecutors with the Bush DOJ have concluded there is overwhelming evidence of guilt (in the case of the AIPAC officials and Black) -- neoconservatives jointly proclaim their fellow neocons to be entirely innocent and to be the real victims.
Apparently Libby is in funds, 'cause he wrote a check today for his quarter-million dollar fine. It's nice to have friends, isn't it?
He won't answer that question - at least he declined to do so yesterday when I asked him:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I don't look to embarrass Gawain; heck he and I go way back, and I consider him an honored friend, even when we disagree.Quote:
So Gawain, since,...
...what is your take on POTUS only taking away the jail-time by commutation, rather than the full exoneration that a pardon would give?
And I'm not out to hang Bush, either. I'm just trying to see the consistency here. Is there any? If Scooter partially gets off, shouldn't that General get the same consideration? If not, why not? Otherwise, it looks like: if you're part of Bush Inc., you're golden, the boss will take care of you, personally. If you're not, too bad, so sad, you're mad, I'm glad.
That's Cosa Nostra stuff, isn't it? Not the kind of thing we elect a CinC for.
Put simply: if Libby did nothing wrong, then pardon him. And re-look at all federal convictions for perjury and obstruction of justice given in the past 6 and a half years.
And if Wilson and Fitzgerald lied under oath or obstructed or perverted justice, order their prosecution.
And just so you know, here's what happens to ordinary people when they petition for commutation. Three standards are laid out. Libby didn't meet any of them. It's good to have friends.
In March 2003, for the first and only time in my life, I went to the West Wing of the White House. At that time, I was representing a man who was scheduled to be executed by the federal government in less than three weeks. I had filed a request for commutation, asking the President to commute the death sentence to a sentence of life without the possibility of release. Department of Justice rules require that such a request be filed with the Office of the Pardon Attorney in DOJ. Although I had filed the request in December, we had not yet received any response.
While the commutation request was pending, I asked then White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales if he would meet with me to discuss the case. (I knew that the White House Counsel was ultimately responsible for making a recommendation to the President on my request.) To my great surprise, he agreed and invited me to a meeting in his office. We met for over an hour. I was allowed to present my argument in some detail, and I answered many questions from Judge Gonzales. I was quite impressed that Judge Gonzales had obviously read my written submissions and had already given the case some thought.
Judge Gonzales told me three things about President Bush's policy in considering requests for commutation. First, that President Bush would not consider commutation if he believed that the case had already received full and fair consideration by the jury and the courts who heard the case. Second, that the President would not consider the request until he had a recommendation from the Department of Justice. Finally, he said that the President would not act on any request for commutation until all judicial avenues in the case had been exhausted.
Just thought you might be interested in what this White House claimed about the commutation process.
It's all quite obvious, isn't it?:inquisitive:
Pat Buchannon lays out three possible scenarios. Note that number 3 is almost exactly what I sketched in post 54. Also note that Gawain's everyone-is-evil-or-an-idiot schema is nowhere to be found. G-man, I know you won't listen to me, but I also know you respect Buchannon. We can't all be delusional idiots.
But why did Bush rush to spare him even one day behind bars?
Three explanations come to mind.
The first is that Bush capitulated to intense pressure from the neoconservative commentariat led by The Wall Street Journal and The Weekly Standard.
To these folks, Scooter is no felon. Scooter is a hero. In the neocon network, Scooter was the pivot man in the veep's office moving the cherry-picked intel on Saddam's WMD, Saddam's nukes, Saddam's ties to 9/11 and al Qaeda to a collaborationist press as determined as he was to smash Iraq and Iran, secure Israel and control the Middle East.
So what if Scooter lied to cover up the White House campaign to carve up Joe Wilson? If Scooter did it, good Straussian that he is, he did it for the highest of motives in the noblest of causes.
To the neocons, Scooter is, in Ahmed Chalabi's phrase, "a hero in error," one of the boys. And as they saved him from the slammer, they will not stop until they secure him a pardon -- to which Bush has now opened the door.
The second explanation is that Vice President Cheney went to Bush, closed the door, and asked, as a personal favor, that he spare Cheney's faithful friend and loyal aide the disgrace and pain of prison. And Bush did this distasteful and shameful act at the behest of a vice president to whom he feels an immense debt.
The third explanation is that Cheney, and perhaps the president, fears that if Scooter goes to prison, and is staring at disgrace and 30 months away from friends and family, he may think he has been abandoned by people whose secrets he kept at the cost of reputation and freedom. An idle mind being the devil's workshop, Scooter might sit down and write a book, or phone "Bulldog" Fitzgerald and tell him he just remembered something.
Whatever the motives of President Bush, this was a radical not a conservative act. Whoever pressured Bush to wipe out Scooter's sentence was more a friend of Scooter than a friend of Bush. For the president has damaged his reputation as a just ruler, so Scooter could elude what other men have to face.
Will the student deferments for these fellows never end?
The act reeks of cronyism. The perception is that Scooter Libby got preferential treatment, a get-out-of-jail-free card because he was chief of staff to Cheney and assistant to Bush.
That perception is correct.
Because of whom he knew, Scooter got preferential treatment, big-time. The Godfather took care of the consigliere.
Scooter was involved (as one of the attorneys for) in gaining a pardon for Marc Rich from Clinton? Geesh, that pretty much pops that arguements bubble about it being a purely liberal conspiracy (or payoff).
:dizzy2:
Good stuff, Lemur.
Very. I remember a juror saying they found him guilty because someone had to pay.Quote:
In your version of events, Gawain, we are required to believe that the Republican-appointed prosecutor, Republican judge, three-judge Republican appeals court and the jury were all either conniving or idiots. And they all must have had some sort of anti-Bush axe to grind. Does this seem likely?
Again no crime was commited as far the the original case was concerned. The whole thing was a set up by Wilson. He did nothing but lie from day one.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
Again no crime was commited as far the the original case was concerned.
Yeah Gawain , if you use your "FACTS" instead of facts:dizzy2:
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
He did nothing but lie from day one.
So tempting to repeat a question I have asked you many times on this forum
Tribesy, if you're going to respond to Gawain, why not bring your own facts to the table, rather than simply saying that he's wrong? Just asserting that someone is in error isn't a convincing argument.
Gawain, I bow to your bull-like defense of the indefensible. I can't think of anything I could post that would change your mind, up to and including an audio sample of Dick Cheney declaring that he did it. We will just have to agree to disagree.
For those who believe that this is a tempest in a teacup, the latest polls don't agree.
Well Lemur , Gawain labours under several false assumptions that have long been proven false and tries to build on that , the first has been shown as false for the past 4 yearsThe CIA said in 2003 that she was and was covered under the legislation , but of course thats just the CIA , so perhaps that is dodgy eh .Quote:
Valerie Plame-Wilson was NOT a covert CIA operative at the time she was "outed".
But that fact was confirmed this year by the government commitee set up to examine the issue .
That shows that this.......is also false . Revealing classified details to a person who doesn't have clearance is a crime . Libby did that didn't he:yes:Quote:
Again no crime was commited as far the the original case was concerned.
Now Gawain of course attempts to claim that because others also did it then it isn't a crime .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
I suppose he would try and claim that he shouldn't get a parking ticket for parking illegally because other people have illegally parked before , so he cannot have been illegally parked .:dizzy2:
Scooter broke the law , then he lied about it , he was only convicted about the lie , he should have been convicted of both , as should all the others who broke the law
If you're going to ride that train of thought, why shouldn't Bush have pardoned Libby? The sentence is perfectly in line with Federal guidelines and other cases, so you can only call the sentence excessive if you believe, as you do, that the whole prosecution is false.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
In which case, a pardon is the only reasonable response. The commutation makes no sense. Even politically it's absurd -- it's riled up the independents and the dems without satisfying the 29% nation of loyalists. I'm really at a loss to understand it, even if I accept your argument.
-edit-
Here's a little more info about commutations, what they should be, and their implications:
The whole article is good. Give it a read, if you're of a mind.
Referencing DOJ guidelines is kind of stupid isn't it? Who makes these guidelines? The AG who reports directly the the chief executive?
I'm still bemused by how people are trying to make so much hay with this. I guess the argument now is that since Bush didn't regularly pardon/commute political cronies, it's somehow worse. Sure, other presidents did- but they did it all the time, so it's not big deal. However, Bush never did- so now that he finally does like most of those before him, it's an outrage.
As to my earlier question- why commute instead of pardon? I think I just found the answer.He can still appeal, but now doesn't have to sit in jail while doing so.Quote:
As has been discussed previously, Bush has other options than a full pardon available to him. For example, Bush could commute Libby's sentence to a fine and probation; that would allow Libby to continue his legal appeals without going to jail (and keep open the possibility of an end-of-term full pardon).
Lemur, all Bush's incompetence or cronyistic reasons for this, do you think Libby should have spent 2 1/2 years in prison for saying the wrong thing in his 5th grand jury appearance?
I'm not saying I do, but watch The Thin Blue Line before dragging out the 'But a jury of his peers found him guilty!' argument.Quote:
Libby was convicted by a jury. Think you know better than them?
Crazed Rabbit
In other words, if the king says it's okay, then it must be so? How is it stupid to look at the guidelines and standards when King George himself has been claiming loud and clear that this is a "principled" decision?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
"Saying the wrong thing" is an exceptionally polite way of describing stonewalling a prosecutor who's looking at your boss. How much time should an accountant spend in jail if he obstructs an investigation into a drug dealer?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
I'm not saying that juries are infallible, but for Pete's sake, there were multiple levels of the justice system that touched on this case. If the jury was insane, the judge could have moderated their madness with a different sentence. If the judge and jury were bonkers, the three-judge appeals court could have let Libby stay free on appeal; they had that in their power. Two of the three appeals judges are Republicans, so please spare all Liberal Conspiracy rhetoric.
The bottom line is that Libby was guilty of thwarting an investigation, and he (theoretically) paid the price. See Martha Stewart and Li'l Kim for reference on how one goes to jail for attempting to head off an investigation.
The argument from the 29% nation seems to be that Libby could not have committed a crime because the original charges were never brought. Well, guys, how exactly did it happen that no charges were brought? Oh, right, because the relevant witnesses lied their butts off under oath.
The CIA says Valerie Plame was undercover. Spin that as you like. The relevant statute says that one must be aware of the covert status to be charged. Armitage claims he was not aware oh her status, but there are witnesses who say that Cheney was fully appraised. All trails led back to Cheney. Since the prosecutor was not a complete gibbering idiot, he went after the man who knowingly leaked her status, and he got body-blocked by a number of loyal liars. One of them lied so blatantly that he was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice.
I really don't see how any of this is disputable. Oh, right, Joe Wilson isn't a nice man, so the whole thing must be a fabrication of overheated liberal maniacs.
Xiahou, this borders on the nonsensical. The purpose of the commutation is to allow him to appeal without being in jail? But commutations are supposed to be for people who have admitted their guilt. Pardons are for people wrongly convicted. And why is allowing him to appeal at all important when the same person who popped the commutation could have just as easily bestowed a pardon? Help me out, I'm not following your logic here ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
It's really irrelevant whether Armitage knew her status or not. He was the source of the leak to the media. Once her identity hit the newspapers, anyone who repeated the story isn't revealing much anything. And once Fitzgerald found the initial leaker, going any further was tantamount a fishing expedition- one which hooked Libby.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
It should be obvious. He didn't pardon him because Libby and his defense team still think they're likely to win on an appeal. If he's found not guilty on an appeal, the whole issue becomes mute and a pardon is unnecessary. If he were pardoned, Libby would no longer be able to appeal. I'm not sure how I can make it any more clear than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Where's it say that? Oh right... the "guidelines".Quote:
But commutations are supposed to be for people who have admitted their guilt.
It's certainly relevant whether he knew her status. If you go by the law, that is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Last I checked, Armitage was one of several sources who spoke to the media. Novak most certainly did not publish just based on Armitage's talk. Declaring that Armitage was the first, so everything else is irrelevant is a little disingenuous. When you have multiple White House officials pimping the intel to multiple reporters (the vast majority of whom didn't take the bait, much to their credit), and when those same White House mouthpieces are fully aware of Plame's status, how are they not in violation of the law?
I liked your very roundabout way of arguing "Clinton did it" a couple of posts ago. Circumspect, good sir!
So King George wants to give Libby a chance to clear his good name? Is that your argument? Seriously? (Oh, and the issue would be "moot." Just sayin'.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Yeah. Stupid "guidelines." Stupid "laws." Stupid "equal treatment under the law."Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
-edit-
A correction: I've referred to the 29% nation a couple of times, but it seems I was off base. Latest polls show that it is now the 26% nation. Apologies for any confusion I may have caused.
All you guys ranting on about this are aware Libby still has to pay the $250,000 fine, right?
Armitage was the source of the leak; he wasn't Libby's boss. And if Fitz was able to prove Libby lied, then he should have been able to prove whatever it was that Libby was hiding, right? And yet he hasn't gone after anyone else.Quote:
"Saying the wrong thing" is an exceptionally polite way of describing stonewalling a prosecutor who's looking at your boss.
As in The Thin Blue Line case. Keno v New London went all the way to the Supremes who made the wrong choice.Quote:
I'm not saying that juries are infallible, but for Pete's sake, there were multiple levels of the justice system that touched on this case.
CR
Not anymore he doesn't. It's good to have friends.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Armitage was not the only source of the leak. Early on, Novak countered criticism by stating that he had multiple sources for the Plame info. Multiple sources. Cheney's office pimped the intel to every reporter with a cell phone. Nobody has seriously disputed that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
You're saying that if a prosecutor cannot prove the primary crime, then no related convictions should take place? By this logic, the accountant who successfully blocks a prosecution of a drug dealer should walk free, even if there's clear evidence that he stonewalled or lied. Interesting perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Noted bastion of left-wing extremism, The Economist, has a rather good summation of the mess:
Mr Bush's action serves to remind people of three of his weaknesses. One of them is his tendency towards cronyism, which led him to appoint a wholly unqualified friend to run the government's disaster-relief agency. The consequences were disastrously manifest during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Other examples include his failed attempt to appoint his own lawyer, Harriet Miers, to the Supreme Court. A second flaw is the hold that Mr Cheney appears to have over the man who is nominally his boss. The past few days have seen a series of articles in the Washington Post detailing the extent to which Mr Cheney has talked Mr Bush into bypassing all normal channels of debate to take questionable decisions.
A third effect of the decision, and perhaps the most serious, is that it reinforces the perception that Mr Bush sees himself and his cronies as above the law. Sometimes he has made this explicit, attaching “signing statements” to hundreds of bills sent to him by Congress asserting his right to interpret those bills as he deems fit. Sometimes he has done so covertly, wire-tapping Americans with no authorisation or permitting the use of torture with consequences felt at Abu Ghraib and in secret CIA prisons in black holes like Uzbekistan.
Perhaps, in the end, Mr Bush's decision came down to a simple calculation that he has little left to lose. He is not seeking re-election, his approval ratings can barely go any lower, and any hopes for legacy-polishing bipartisan co-operation with Congress seem to have evaporated. So why should Mr Bush not please his few remaining friends and placate his vice-president by springing the loyal Mr Libby? It makes a kind of sense, but a deeply troubling one. What else, one wonders, might so isolated a president do before he goes?
Novak testified that Armitage did know. But he, apparently, wasn't the fish the Fitzgerald wanted to fry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Again, Novak claims that Armitage was indeed is primary source. Primary- as in, without him, there would have been no story- without said story, there would've been no investigation. Armitage spilled the beans- that's well established.Quote:
Last I checked, Armitage was one of several sources who spoke to the media. Novak most certainly did not publish just based on Armitage's talk.
Read what Novak has to say about Armitage.
I really didn't think I was being roundabout.Quote:
I liked your very roundabout way of arguing "Clinton did it" a couple of posts ago. Circumspect, good sir!
That's exactly what I'm saying. I'd fully expect a pardon to be forthcoming if the appeals don't pan out.Quote:
So King George wants to give Libby a chance to clear his good name? Is that your argument? Seriously? (Oh, and the issue would be "moot." Just sayin'.)
This is really cute. Non-binding guidelines that are created for the executive by the executive are equated to law, and then you somehow drag equal treatment into the comparison. There is a massive lack of perspective for some on this commutation. All presidents in my lifetime- and beyond have pardoned friends, acquaintances, political donors ect. But look out when Bush does it- then it becomes unprecedented and people start predicting armed uprisings and riots in the streets. :dizzy2:Quote:
Yeah. Stupid "guidelines." Stupid "laws." Stupid "equal treatment under the law."
Of course, if you got this bent out of shape for Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, ect., then I applaud your consitency. :bow:
Here's one for the hypocrisy file:two stories, same author. In one, pardons are normal and we're stupid for suspecting otherwise. In the other, it's an outrage that a convicted criminal is rewarded. :laugh4:
What's the margin of error? :wink:Quote:
A correction: I've referred to the 29% nation a couple of times, but it seems I was off base. Latest polls show that it is now the 26% nation. Apologies for any confusion I may have caused.
Thats quite a funny read , just what you would expect from Novak .Quote:
Read what Novak has to say about Armitage.
So leaving aside that he is now putting the focus ontoone source rther than the two he originaly said he had , you gotta laugh at him depicting Armitage as being against intervention in Iraq .
It may have escaped your notice but there was a letter calling for US military intervention in Iraq , along with all the usual neo con muppets you would expect to find as signatories to the letter you find a certain fella named Armitage .
That Armitage person in favour of intervention wouldn't be the same fella as this Armitage who according to Novak was against intervention would it ?~:doh:
Why does the President have this particular power anyway? And can he cure diseases merely by touching you?
It's a throw-back to our colonial days, and royal prerogatives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slyspy
Only the diseases of due process and equal treatment, apparently.
Why, for my sins, have I been given the two most immovable rocks in the Backroom to joust with?
Xiahou, I'm sure you believe in the correctness of your position, but let's be honest -- you're way out in left field on this one. You're off on the fringes. You can make a cogent argument, but that neither makes you correct nor persuasive.
Your reasoning about allowing an appeal with a special backup of pardon magic is just freaky. I'm sure it makes sense inside your head, but from the outer perspective, it's just kind of nonsensical.
Frankly, I think I've said plenty about the issue, and I'm vanishingly uninterested in going toe-to-toe again over the same gah-ing points. What's more, I've experienced how contentious you can be when you feel like being quarrelsome and lawyerly. I don't see much point in reducing my enjoyment of the Backroom by being drawn into a multi-page re-hashing of every single angle of this complicated case with a Backroomer who can be as obtuse and unyielding as party loyalty demands.
There's a small fringe of right wingers who believe that the commutation is fine and dandy. Polling shows that it plays like a stinky fish with half of republicans, and a wide majority independents and democrats.
It doesn't pass the smell test, and no amount of tortured logic will change that. Now run along, and declare victory. "Mission Accomplished!"
Lemur, one must remember that those whom support this clemency decision still remain entreched with the idea that Nixon was railroaded. Facts about the wrongdoings of their icons mean less to them than their maintaining the purist vision they fabricate to continue their neocon support for them.
It just is the way it is. Someone once said something to the effect that argueing with a fool only makes themselves look foolish. A fool cares less about the reality of a thing, than whether there is a way to deny it if it challanges their preconceived notions. It just is the way it is.
All this hooplah about Fitzgerald not going after the real villians; while ignoring how he was stonewalled - or that he has moved along to a higher position. Then we have the arguement that Valery wasn't a covert operative - as though there is an imaginary light switch that turns off and on for a covert, rather than once a spy always a spy - because by outting them they also out all their previous contacts and continuing operations (fronts) they were involved with.
Still, what the hey. Some can admire this type of entrenchment to believe only what is fed to them along political party lines. As long as it agrees with what they want to believe - damned the facts. It is a "that's my story (belief) ... and I'm sticking to it" world for them. It doesn't matter that their icons break the laws they purport to believe in (when they apply to those of the opposition), or that their iconic lords no longer adhere to the very political principles (balanced budget, limited government, etc) that originally drew them to support their lords.
End Rant
http://patrickfitzgerald.blogspot.com
Somewhere in his blog, Mr. Fitzpatrick gives his opinion on this mess - enjoy.
No you do. What has been proven false? Be specific.Quote:
Well Lemur , Gawain labours under several false assumptions that have long been proven false and tries to build on that , the first has been shown as false for the past 4 years
Again no one was found guilty of the original charges as Fitzgerald knew by the second day who was the leaker. Now please again tell me why the investigation continued?
The sad truth is if Libby had told what you call the true story no one would be in jail.