Just when you thought Bush couldn't surprise you...

This is a discussion on Just when you thought Bush couldn't surprise you... within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; A skeptical observer could say that; Libby’s motivation to lie was to protect someone higher up (or the administration). Libby ...

  1. #46
    train spotter
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    near a computer
    Posts
    3,859
    A skeptical observer could say that;
    Libby’s motivation to lie was to protect someone higher up (or the administration).

    Libby threatened to expose that person (or the administration) if he went to prison.

    That ‘higher up’ arranged for Libby’s sentence to be commuted to protect themselves (or the administration).

    Either way, it appears (to the outside observer) that US ‘justice’ is based not on the decision of the courts, but by whom you know.

    Hilton can get out because the bars don’t go with her outfit.
    Libby can lie to a grand jury and get away with a slap on the wrist (the fine is nothing compared to the amount he earns).

    This seemed a balanced view of the result;

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...030600559.html

    Washington Post: Will Libby get a pardon?
    Jeralyn Merritt: That is anyone's guess. Mine would be that if Libby maintains his silence and stoically goes off to do any sentence the judge imposes, he will get one before Bush leaves office. But, that's a political opinion, not a legal one.
    "Man alone suffers so excruciatingly in the world that he was compelled to invent laughter."
    Friedrich Nietzsche

    "I spent a lot of my money on booze, birds and fast cars......the rest I squandered."
    George Best

    "If you are going through hell....keep going."
    Winston Churchill

  2. #47
    Just Lurking Dave_Sinkula's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    5,006
    Another skeptical observer could say that a man was convicted of no crime for trying to prevent a de facto coup d'etat by this CIA on the US government. But who's to say?
    7. It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.
    40. There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.*

  3. #48
    Deathray Engineer MacGyver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    3,211
    Quote Originally Posted by novacain View Post
    A skeptical observer could say that;
    Libby’s motivation to lie was to protect someone higher up (or the administration).
    If it's so obvious Libby is covering up a crime by someone else, Fitzgerald wouldn't have pulled a Nifong. He would have chosen who to indict by means of who performed the crime, not someone with a bad memory. In addition, the judge in this case was completely biased against Libby by throwing out the option for the defense to bring in evidence that was supposed to show Russert's memory was just as crappy as or even worse than Libby's. Libby should never have been charged, let alone convicted.

    It was already well know the other reporters and people in the case couldn't remember a freaking thing, and they all testified different things. No one was charged but Libby, and it was because of political bias.

    The absurdity of this becomes a little more clear when we realize that we know for a fact Libby was not covering up Novak's primary source because we know who Novak's primary source was: Richard Armitage.

    So where was the crime in the Bush administration? Who was the higher up that invented this plan? The left-wing ate this entire story up from the beginning as an opportunity to get at Bush, and it turned out they screwed up in jumping to conclusions and ranting all day and night that Karl Rove was going to get burned. Apparently some couldn't let it go, and they had to make it look good, and Libby took the fall because they couldn't get at anyone bigger, so they picked on a decent guy that just couldn't remember what happened when.

  4. #49
    In the Land of Diddly-Doo g4j31a5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    476
    So does this mean the government is above the law? I guess the statement power tends to corrupt is true after all.
    ERROR: Brain not found. Please insert a new brain!

    “Do nothing which is of no use.” - Miyamoto Musashi.

  5. #50
    C++ Witch laserlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    22,265
    So does this mean the government is above the law?
    No, since the law empowered the executive branch of that government to do what it did.
    C + C++ Compiler: MinGW port of GCC
    Version Control System: Bazaar

    Look up a C++ Reference and learn How To Ask Questions The Smart Way

  6. #51
    train spotter
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    near a computer
    Posts
    3,859
    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver View Post
    <snip> He would have chosen who to indict by means of who performed the crime, not someone with a bad memory.

    <snip> Libby should never have been charged, let alone convicted.

    <snip> No one was charged but Libby, and it was because of political bias.

    <snip> Apparently some couldn't let it go, and they had to make it look good, and Libby took the fall because they couldn't get at anyone bigger, so they picked on a decent guy that just couldn't remember what happened when.
    Are you saying the US judicial system is so corrupt that the opposition political party can get a very high member of the administration convicted of a crime solely based on 'political bias'?

    If so, it would it not follow that the ruling party could use it's greater political power to stop it?

    Why can you accept that one party can, and does, expoit political power in this fashion but not accept that the other party (with greater power) does not?


    from the link I posted
    Washington: Do you believe the jury found appropriately given the way the trial unfolded?

    Jeralyn Merritt: Yes. I believe the jury's verdict was consistent with the evidence. I listened to the juror's press remarks after the verdict where he described how the jury arrived at its verdict and what they considered.

    Once they found Libby falsely attributed his knowledge of Plame Wilson's employment status to Tim Russert, it was pretty much downhill after that.

    There were so many officials that testified they had conversations with Libby about Joe Wilson and his wife, and when considered with the handwritten notes by VP Cheney on the Wilson article asking about his wife's role, I think the evidence was pretty powerful.

    Libby's lawyers did a good job of pointing out inconsistencies in the testimony, and in everyone's memories, but they failed in their attempt to establish any motive for the Government witnesses to have lied.
    "Man alone suffers so excruciatingly in the world that he was compelled to invent laughter."
    Friedrich Nietzsche

    "I spent a lot of my money on booze, birds and fast cars......the rest I squandered."
    George Best

    "If you are going through hell....keep going."
    Winston Churchill

  7. #52
    Deathray Engineer MacGyver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    3,211
    Quote Originally Posted by novacain View Post
    Are you saying the US judicial system is so corrupt that the opposition political party can get a very high member of the administration convicted of a crime solely based on 'political bias'?
    I suppose the short answer is yes, but the question was asked so that the answer would be misconstrued. Therefore, I'll answer and leave you to come back with your next point that you are trying to setup, if any.

    Quote Originally Posted by novacain View Post
    If so, it would it not follow that the ruling party could use it's greater political power to stop it?
    Like what?

    Those biased against Libby:

    • The investigator.
    • The judge.
    • some jurors


    What else do you need in order to be wrongfully convicted of lying about a crime that never happened?

    Quote Originally Posted by novacain View Post
    Why can you accept that one party can, and does, expoit political power in this fashion but not accept that the other party (with greater power) does not?
    This question is ill-formed and silly, and implies I believe Republicans have no defects while Democrats are trying to take over the world or something, although the latter opinion is closer to my views than the former.

  8. #53
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,578
    1) Being the American Justice system so weak to defend itself against political lobbies as it was the case here when the big bad left wing wolves rallied against the Bush administration little red hood, poor Mr. Libby, on an American Court of Law,

    2) And being that the other branches didn't seem to do their job and prevent such thing from happening,

    Is the American judicial system capable of putting to trial terrorism suspects under this or the next administration?

    Or is it that the American Judicial System did in fact work as it was expected from it and charged a man with perjury.

    Because one or two TV and newspaper aligned commentators bring out this wonderful thought that this was all a big plot and the country almost suffered from a Coup and Mr. Libby was the savior of the nation, I still think that in the end a man lied under oath to protect his administration. And that, gentlemen, is a crime. Whether you like it or not.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  9. #54
    Deathray Engineer MacGyver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    3,211
    What part of Richard Armitage being the leak that Fitzgerald was investigating does not strike you as relevant?

  10. #55
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,578
    No part MacGyver.
    You still don't see the point, do you?

    What was Libby accused of? Leaking information? Nope. Libby was charged of perjury. A crime he committed during said investigation. That was what he stood trial for. Only that. Just that.

    It is completely irrelevant what started that investigation and what came of it. Libby lied to an investigation. That is a crime punishable by law.

    Let me put it this way:

    - My wife is charged of theft.
    - I know she didn't do it.
    - I lie in court saying she stayed home with me that night
    - It is found I lied when it is proven she stayed at work doing overtime
    - She is later proven innocent
    - I can still be charged with perjury!
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  11. #56
    Deathray Engineer MacGyver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    3,211
    Your analogy is completely flawed.

    In your case you have a motive to lie: to protect the accused, who is your wife.

    In Libby's case, he had a motive to protect..... Richard Armitage?

    Try again.

  12. #57
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,578
    Again you come up with Armitage. Am I getting through here?

    He was charged of lying, proven to have lied and convicted of lying. Period.

    Do not put to disrespected your whole judicial system just because it worked against someone you happen to endorse. It's sad and not befitting of your previous comments on the matter of debates.

    If you are prepared to agree it was all a plot, you are saying that your judicial system is liable to political interests. If that is the case, then your worries should be much bigger than simply debating Libby. I suggest then you move on to a more interesting subject.

    I, on the other hand, prefer to think that justice did what was expected of it. If you try to convince me there were political interests behind, congratulations! You don't have to. I pretty much guess so.

    But at the end of the day, a crime was committed and punished. I think that goes a longer way than what you are trying to insinuate.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  13. #58
    Deathray Engineer MacGyver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    3,211
    In other words, you have no motive for Libby to lie. Thank you for proving my point.

  14. #59
    Mayor of Awesometown Govtcheez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    8,825
    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver View Post
    Too bad Robert Byrd isn't a candidate.
    Yeah, too bad.

    Of course there are racist democrats, I never said there weren't. I said that none of them were running for President.

    Do you ever debate what people are actually debating or do you just twist everything to your own view?

  15. #60
    Deathray Engineer MacGyver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    3,211
    You were actually debating? I don't believe I've ever seen you do that for real.

    I remember that last political discussion we had with regard to the Iraq War. You lasted 29 minutes if I remember correctly, so I doubt that was real debating.

Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Just thought of something
    By golfinguy4 in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-23-2002, 03:12 PM
  2. Thought I'd registered last couple of months...
    By Grayson_Peddie in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 08-31-2002, 10:34 PM
  3. i thought this was funny
    By blight2c in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-19-2002, 09:08 PM
  4. random encryption thought
    By ggs in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-12-2002, 09:32 PM
  5. Interesting Thought....
    By DavidP in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-02-2001, 06:44 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21