| 0 |
Subject: holy. crap. a partial pardon?
Posted by: soxzeitgrist
- [19612217] Mon, Jul 02, 2007, 18:38
target="_blank">Bush "respects" the jury, but gives it the finger
anyways with what amounts to a signing statement on Scooters
sentence.
They're brash, I'll say that much for the administration. |
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well.
[Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.] |
| 103 | Perm Dude
ID: 763249
Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 01:24
|
They were charged by the President with tracking down the leak (don't you remember all those press conferences, in which Bush stated he will track down the source of "any leak coming from his Administration" and bring that person to justice?)
So, they found Scooter Libby lying about his role in the leak they were investigating. And that obstruction was well within the scope of their charged duties.
Give it up on the revisionist history. Their ultimate goal was derailed by Libby lies. So Scooter gets to take one for the team.
|
| 104 | Nick
ID: 2861451
Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 02:14
|
Truly fascinating to see how the conservatives regard rule of law. How many of them wanted a strict constructionist on the Supreme Court? And how many of them are now happy to destroy the law in the name of saving Rove, Bush, Cheney.. and the wretched Libby? And before the conservatives start yelling - just tell me exactly what any of those four men have achieved to benefit the US in the last 6 some years. Even if you can't stand the idea that law is the guarantor of civil society and civil rights, could you at least come up with something better than the hooting and hollering which passes for political debate?
|
| 105 | walk
ID: 365257
Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 08:52
|
July 5, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
The Lying Game
By MICHAEL KINSLEY
Seattle
WHEN the Republicans in Congress impeached President Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair, they insisted that it wasn’t about sex, it was about lying. Of course that wasn’t true. Even at the height of their power-mad self-delusions (when Newt Gingrich was conducting his own affair with an aide while prosecuting the president), Republicans realized that to make lying an impeachable offense was opening a door no politician should eagerly walk through.
Of course it was really about sex. Nevertheless, those of us who thought impeachment was an outrageous abuse of power by the Republicans had to accept that Mr. Clinton had, clearly, lied. And our argument was this: Mr. Clinton made a mistake. He should not have lied. But he lied in answer to questions he should not have been asked. He should not have been put in a position where he had to choose: he could lie under oath, and be impeached or worse, or he could tell the truth, and embarrass himself and his family, and probably still be impeached or worse.
In short, he was caught in a “perjury trap.” Bill Clinton chose wrong — it all came out anyway — and he defeated impeachment, though you wouldn’t say he got away scot-free.
On Tuesday, President Bush commuted the sentence of I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, who was convicted of lying to investigators about the C.I.A. leak case. Mr. Libby will escape prison, but he won’t get away scot-free either. He faces a fine of $250,000 and two years of probation, and if he was thinking of cashing in big on K Street like so many of his administration colleagues, he had better think again.
Mr. Libby’s critics are not the people who criticized Mr. Clinton. And his defenders are not Mr. Clinton’s defenders. But the scripts are similar. The Libbyites believe that their man is being railroaded and shouldn’t have been prosecuted, let alone convicted, for his involvement in a campaign of leaks intended to discredit a critic of the administration, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Mr. Libby’s critics respond that this isn’t about leaking, it’s about lying.
But of course this really is about leaking. It’s the nefarious, though inept, campaign to sully Mr. Wilson that outrages critics of the administration. True, Mr. Libby was not the source for Robert Novak, whose column identifying Mr. Wilson’s wife as a C.I.A. operative started the whole business. And Mr. Libby’s most prominent leakee, Judith Miller, the former New York Times reporter who went to jail rather than reveal a source, didn’t actually write about the case. But Mr. Libby was part of the cabal that was conspiring to discredit Mr. Wilson and, more generally, to convince people that Iraq was strewn with nuclear weapons.
So when Mr. Libby was questioned by federal investigators pursuing the leaks, he too was caught in a perjury trap. He could either tell the truth, thereby implicating colleagues and very possibly himself, in leaking classified security information (the identity of Mr. Wilson’s wife), or he could lie. In either case he would be breaking the law or admitting to having done so, and in either case he could have gone to prison. Mr. Libby, like Mr. Clinton, made the wrong choice.
There is nothing wrong with a perjury trap, as long as both sides of the pincer are legitimate. The abuse comes when prosecutors induce a crime (lying under oath) by exploiting an action that is not a crime. The law about “outing” C.I.A. operatives is apparently vague enough that it isn’t clear whether Mr. Libby violated it. But let’s leave that aside. Exposing one of your country’s intelligence officers is a bad thing to do. If it isn’t against the law, it ought to be, right? Well, this is where the press comes in. At first many in the press supported appointing a special prosecutor to investigate.
The crime, if there was one, was leaking government secrets to journalists. If you were investigating that crime, where would you start? Yes, of course, by questioning journalists. The government leakers, if you found them, would be protected by the Fifth Amendment. You would need more and different evidence, and only journalists had it.
The special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, followed this commonsense logic straight into a First Amendment buzz saw. News organizations that insisted on the need to get to the bottom of the leak also insisted that no journalist should have to supply information to this investigation.
The leaks that The Times and other papers defended so ardently were not laboratory examples of press freedom at work. Quite the opposite: they were part of the nefarious campaign by the vice president’s office to discredit Mr. Wilson — itself part of the larger plot to convince the world that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which was of course part of the plot to get us into the war in the first place. And it worked.
It takes two to leak. How can it be fair that one party to the leak doesn’t even have to testify about it, because leaks are so vital to the First Amendment, while the other party might go to prison for it? And if that is unfair, how is a perjury trap fair when it forces a leaker to choose between going to prison for the leak and going to prison for lying?
So as much as I dislike the war in Iraq, as much as I dislike President Bush, as much as I expect that I would dislike Mr. Libby if I ever met him, I feel that he should not have had to face a perjury trap: the choice between prison for lying, or prison for his role in a set of transactions that the press regards as not merely O.K. but sacrosanct. In fact, if journalists had a more reasonable view about this, the reporters whom Mr. Libby tried to peddle this story to would have said, “Look, outing C.I.A. agents is bad and we are not going to help you do it anonymously.” I bet that today, commuted sentence and all, Mr. Libby wishes they had done just that.
Michael Kinsley is a columnist for Time magazine.
|
| 106 | walk
ID: 365257
Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 08:55
|
Nick! Nice one.
Interesting view from Kinsley. I don't know if I agree, but I am trying to find other viewpoints. However, I side with what Nick said and me and PD and Sarge33rd have repeatedly said. I typically side with myself.
- walk
|
| 107 | Jag
ID: 3064839
Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 08:57
|
Did any of you bother to read Walk's link? Fitxgerald and Armitage, both knew before the hearing even started, who the leaker was. The entire hearing was a charade.
|
| 108 | walk
ID: 365257
Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 09:02
|
Aaaaaah, but that does not make the hearing a charade, Jag. While Fitz could have and should have gone after Armitrage, he needed to interview all witnesses. He did so with Libby who lied under oath and obstructed justice..perhaps interfering with Fitz's efforts to make a case against Armitrage. I dunno. However, I think you are reducing this to a very simple scenario that ignores the fact that there are many players complicit in this cover-up.
- walk
|
| 109 | Jag
ID: 3064839
Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 09:20
|
It is not complicated, Fitz wanted to be a gloryhound.
Fitxgerald must have gone to same legal school as Nifong.
|
| 110 | Tree
ID: 3533298
Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 09:22
|
Jag - just wondering...
i've noticed that the majority of threads you've started in your time here happen during a 10-day or so window in the spring, and then, again, once July hits. of the 26 threads you've started, 20 were started in March or July.
all off these co-incide pretty well with high school vacations and breaks...
|
| 111 | walk
ID: 365257
Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 09:28
|
It is very easy and convenient to blame on the prosecutor, Jag. In that case, every time there is a defendant you side with, one could make the same argument. Fitz was appointed by the repub's...after that, blaming him is simply a childish stance that largely avoids responsibility, like the way a kids says: "he/she started it." You could be right, it could be cos Fitz was overly aggressive, but I think that's a cop-out argument, and just really lame. These guys are the good guys, these prosecutors...they would rake in millions being corp attorneys but they do this job instead. There aint no glory for Fitzgerald. What a no-win situation, and critics pile it on. Do you really think, given everything you know about how incompetent, crony-ish and corrupt the war and the Bush admin has been, that this Libby thing is more about Fitzgerald than about the Bush admin? Seems ludicrous.
- walk
|
| 112 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 09:38
|
Fitzgerald and Armitage could have came clean at the beginning of the hearing
Come clean? What does that mean?
|
| 113 | Jag
ID: 3064839
Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 09:50
|
Why is this so hard for the Liberals to understand? Fitzgerald knew before the hearing started who leaked the info. It is like having a murder trial, when you know the defendant is innocent. But that is not the point is it? Liberals will compromise any value, scratch that, Liberals have no values, when it comes to stringing up Republicans, they will fight to the death for a terrorist or triple axe murderer, but those nasty Republicans have to be dealt with by any means possible.
|
| 114 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 09:55
|
it could be cos Fitz was overly aggressive
Walk I know you're just being polite in offering that but I really don't see any legitimate argument for it at all, aside possibly from the sentence, which is at worst a debatable point.
But Jag's problem is that Fitzgerald persued the case at all, not just with the sentence he recommended.
Its easy for the simultaneously ignorant and intellectually dishonest to chalk it up to a vane persuit of glory or publicity.
Whatever gets you through the day.
|
| 115 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 10:20
|
It is like having a murder trial, when you know the defendant is innocent.
Does anyone have any idea what Jag is talking about? Is it that he believes it was Libby who was investigated as the leaker of Plame's name?
|
| 116 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 10:29
|
---still awaiting Jag response to the scenario I presented in post 92.
|
| 117 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 10:37
|
The persuit of this case stands as ligitimate on its own with no analagous scenerio necessary.
Jag apparently just isn't concerned with facts. At least not any that might taint his fantasies.
No different from the norm.
|
| 118 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 10:40
|
agreed MITH. I was just curious...if its OK for a Rep to commit perjury in Jags opinion...what if the poerson committing the perjury is a Liberal Dem? Is it still "OK"?
|
| 119 | walk
ID: 365257
Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 10:54
|
Yes, MITH, #114....trying to be polite, and I agree with what you are saying.
- walk
|
| 120 | Jag
ID: 3064839
Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 11:44
|
This shows the hypocrisy of the posters here, I have seen more talk about rights and freedom than any other forum, yet because you don't like a person politics you believe he should be tried by a prosecutor that knows he is innocent for the sole purpose of either embarrassing him and his employer, have them misspeak or not remember the exact details correctly in order to file perjury charges or to do a Nifong and garner attention.
|
| 121 | walk
ID: 75112114
Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 11:49
|
I don't get the "tried by a prosecutor who knows he is innocent" part. Where did you get this?
- walk
|
| 122 | Perm Dude
ID: 3164859
Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 11:58
|
Libby was tried after lying. How would Fitzgerald "know he was innocent?"
Jag is confused (probably intentionally). He seems to believe if someone else confessed to leaking Plame's operative status that Libby can lie about what he knew.
I know you probably aren't Christian or Jewish, Jag, but many of us believe, from the Ten Commandments, that lying is wrong. Regardless of anything else, lying is wrong.
|
| 123 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 12:00
|
you believe he should be tried by a prosecutor that knows he is innocent
Libby was guilty of the charges he was tried for. He did lie. He did obstruct. He repeatedly claimed that he learned Plame's name from Tim Russert, which the timeline shows is impossible, and which Russert himself denied under oath. You might feel that there is every reason to believe Libby honestly remembers it that way. Personally, I find it hard to believe that Libby would recall a specific conversation he had with Russert, the date on which it occurred and the very reason he called Russert - and also somehow confuse it with a discussion he had with Cheney weeks earlier in which he learned of Plame's identity.
|
| 124 | Perm Dude
ID: 3164859
Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 12:26
|
A little background on Bush's record on clemency.
His disdain for the review of clemency petitions matches Romney's. Yet there seemed to be no problem, in the end, spending time to review and wipe out most of the punishment for a white collar criminal like Libby, who obstructed the investigation into Bush's own administration.
|
| 125 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 12:31
|
and that PD, is called "taking care of your own". Nothing new for this administration.
|
| 126 | Nick
ID: 3965651
Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 14:36
|
Whatever side of the divide we are on, we ought to stop the name-calling, the throwing of accusations, and the emotional appeals to partisan prejudice. At the end of the day, Libby had his day in court, and was tried and convicted - by his fellow Americans. It is not the case that Fitzgerald made that decision, nor did the judge. The jury gave its verdict. Before we rush to accuse Fitzgerald or Walton, let's remember that they do not actually decide guilty or not guilty. The evidence was convincing enough for a jury chosen to avoid bias. What right do we have to accuse them, implicitly, of being dishonest? Fitzgerald was the prosecutor, and did his job. Prosecutors prosecute the case on its merits, rather than making cases for the defense. Walton's sentence was within the guidelines for sentencing, and not excessive. Let's try and remember those facts among the hype and the yells from either side.
|
| 127 | Perm Dude
ID: 3164859
Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 20:20
|
Good points, Nick.
Rich Lowry, with whom I rarely share agreement, has an interesting point which actually caused him to change his mind on Libby. From The Corner (and cut-n-pasted in full):
At first I thought that commuting Libby's sentence was a reasonable compromise—keeping him from serving prison time, but letting the jury verdict stand. But now I don't think it makes any sense. 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.
One other point: Bush commuted Libby's sentence even while Libby was pursuing all his legal options. At best, Bush jumped the gun by commuting the sentence while appeals were pending which had the possibility of cutting back or eliminating the sentence or ordering a new trial.
Finally, there has been a lot of hay made on the Right about Clinton's pardons, which I'm not going to defend here, except to say that Rich and the other pardons really aren't the best comparison to Libby. A far better comparison is Susan McDougal, who went to prison for perjury during the Whitewater investigations (which ended without any underlying crime being found). Anyone who believes Libby should be pardoned should also say whether Clinton should have pardoned McDougal (he didn't). Reader letter to Andrew Sullivan
|
| 128 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 20:31
|
Clinton didn't pardon McDougal? I thought he did. What do I remember then, I commuted sentence?
|
| 129 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 20:34
|
.....should also say whether Clinton should have pardoned McDougal (he didn't
Clinton pardoned McDougal
|
| 130 | Perm Dude
ID: 3164859
Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 20:36
|
Damn--just checked and he did, in the end. I actually mixed up her and Marc Rich (another Clinton crony).
Let's see here, McDougal spent 18 months in jail (including, I believe, a couple of months in solitary civil contempt of court for refusing to talk).
I guess I'll have to back up and say that they are still very similar, but McDougal did time--a year and a half, after all her legal options were exhausted and Libby apparently won't serve a single day.
Still, much more similar of a comparison, IMO.
|
| 131 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 20:40
|
Well the only problem I have with the McDougal thing is that Clinton wasn't man enough to commute her sentence, made her serve the 18 months, essentially for protecting him, then gave a weasel pardon on his last day in office.
At least Bush took the inevitable political heat.
I hate all pardons of guilty persons equally.
|
| 132 | Perm Dude
ID: 3164859
Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 20:43
|
Good point. She did, after all, serve some time. He could have just said "enough's enough."
Ever had any of your cases pardoned/commuted?
|
| 133 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 21:06
|
By the governor? No. I've had judges really pizz me (and the jury) though.
|
| 134 | Perm Dude
ID: 13652810
Sun, Jul 08, 2007, 12:12
|
Some interesting facts:
Libby's lawyers never requested the commutation
Reaction among Republicans and Independents were harsher than expected. Probably as a result of how Bush framed his commutation, I'm guessing. He's pissing off a lot of people with this half-assed decision. Does Bush have a base anymore?
|
| 135 | Perm Dude
ID: 366271218
Thu, Jul 12, 2007, 19:47
|
Nothing to see here. Old news. Moving on!
|
| 136 | Tree
ID: 566231220
Thu, Jul 12, 2007, 21:26
|
so, when Bush finally goes to jail, will anyone pardon him?
|
| 137 | Perm Dude
ID: 366271218
Thu, Jul 12, 2007, 22:03
|
Impeachment is not pardonable, I believe. (I believe treason is also not pardonable).
|
| 138 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Thu, Jul 12, 2007, 22:13
|
If Bush was just impeached, he wouldn't go to jail; he'd have to be convicted of something first, you know.
|
| 139 | Perm Dude
ID: 366271218
Thu, Jul 12, 2007, 22:21
|
You're right, MBJ. I guess I was thinking he'd be impeached because of (or while being convicted of) a crime. But it doesn't have to be the case.
|
| 140 | biliruben
ID: 579411512
Mon, Nov 05, 2007, 15:00
|
Maniacal Fervor in First Degree.
Sentencing: 20 years of reading history books and writing book reports about the most egregious leadership errors throughout history, and how he might have avoided repeating them with a bit of original thought and intellectual curiosity.
|
| 150 | Vdcgsvgi
ID: 532403116
Tue, Mar 31, 2009, 18:40
|
comment4,
|
| 151 | Ddusgkfw
ID: 52233117
Tue, Mar 31, 2009, 19:03
|
comment3,
|
| 152 | Ibmazfyx
ID: 422243117
Tue, Mar 31, 2009, 19:24
|
comment5,
|
| 153 | Baldwin
ID: 122332717
Wed, Apr 01, 2009, 06:19
|
What the bot lacks in creativity, it makes up for in chattiness. Someone check that IP and see if it matches Tree's.
|
| 154 | Tree
ID: 61411921
Wed, Apr 01, 2009, 14:15
|
oh, hey, shocking, an unprovoked attack from you.
i'm sure as your wife continues to write that book about you, she'll include all the verbal vomit you spew. ::eye roll::
|
| 155 | Pavjrpwf
ID: 10340210
Thu, Apr 02, 2009, 12:40
|
comment6,
|
| 156 | Pavjrpwf
ID: 29340210
Thu, Apr 02, 2009, 12:40
|
comment6,
|
| 157 | Pavjrpwf
ID: 41343210
Thu, Apr 02, 2009, 12:43
|
comment6,
|
| 158 | Nyatpajn
ID: 16325613
Mon, Apr 06, 2009, 14:25
|
comment5,
|
| 159 | Mith
ID: 2894309
Mon, Apr 06, 2009, 14:31
|
perhaps if a mod altered the title of this thread it might not be a bot target?
|
| 160 | Rgieaxse
ID: 3326614
Mon, Apr 06, 2009, 15:26
|
comment3,
|
| 161 | Perm Dude
ID: 23343612
Mon, Apr 06, 2009, 15:27
|
Is it the crap or the pardon?
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com | |
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|