http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6263616.stm
Someone should ask Bush how many other criminal cases he's reviewed recently and whether any of those were incorrect in his expert "legal" opinion.
Printable View
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6263616.stm
Someone should ask Bush how many other criminal cases he's reviewed recently and whether any of those were incorrect in his expert "legal" opinion.
Pfft, that's not a surprise at all.
Dollars to doughnuts he's completely pardoned when Bush leaves office and never even has to pay that fine
All I know is the Daily Show and Colbert Report will be kickass tomorrow.
It is the President's right to pardon anyone he chooses. This has been done numerous times in the past -- and on both sides of the political arena. For example, Alabama was to execute a guy from my town under the drug king pen laws, however, Slick Willie pardoned him to life in prison -- the stupid jerk.
It has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether Bush has an "expert "legal" opinion" or if he is just protecting his friends.
I am never surprised by politicians any more! ;)
Basically every time he's done something that everyone (outside of the 20% of the country too dumb to stop supporting) agrees is a bad thing. Hell, I even heard it used as justification for the war.
"but but but clinton fired some cruise missiles there!"
Libby lies to a grand jury about blowing a covert operative's cover and you hear "but clinton lied about getting head!" like it's the same thing. It's an equivalency fallacy, and not even a very good one.
All politicians are the same -- PERIOD. It is EXTREMELY funny to see the bleeding heart liberals, like yourself, getting all bent out of shape when the "other side" does something "bad".
Funny, I don't see how thinking Bush is a terribly corrupt President makes me a "bleeding heart liberal".
But hey, if you don't have a real argument and can't address points you may as well start calling people names. By your logic about 70-80% of the country are "bleeding heart liberals"
Personally, I feel like I'm inside a anti-smoke commercial everytime someone calls me liberal.
They do it with a purpose, you know. "Liberal!"... no they actually do it more like "LIBERAL!!". As if being liberal was a disease. You liberal rotten you. Get away from me!
It really confuses me to no end. I like liberal. In fact I'm liberal on the side when I'm feeling political and conservatives happen to be too loud. And I like smoking too. Oh, and I usually like conservatives if they happen to be on mini-skirts.
So Bush is the same too?Quote:
All politicians are the same -- PERIOD.
When you have a president that passes judgment on court decisions, and makes that judgment public, you already have a problem.Quote:
President Bush described as "excessive" the 30-month sentence Libby was facing for obstructing an inquiry into the leaking of a CIA agent's name.
When the president then goes and acts according to that judgment, it's immoral.
> So Bush is the same too?
Yes -- He is way too far left for me.
>When the president then goes and acts according to that judgment, it's immoral.
Therein lies the problem of the US -- moral decline.
> Yes -- He is way too far left for me.
Who would be a good candidate? If not a specific person, a list of qualities would be good.
>a list of qualities would be good.
Willing to do the job w/out pay -- NOT H. Ross, though -- so that the $$ isn't the issue.
Willing to put out an agenda that would revamp G'mnt -- get rid of pork, remove the pay from the congress (let the states pay the congress reps, in place of it coming out of the general Federal Fund), then we get to set the pay rates of the reps.
FOLLOW the agenda.
One that isn't a lawyer already -- ~90% lawyer == crook.
Has a good record of being very moral.
Raises children well -- kids are well behaved, and are old enough so that you and I see them well behaved throughout their life.
Sound financial practices within family/business</current political office>
Cannot easily be enticed based on the almighty dollar.
the list goes on and on.
feminist lesbians are harder to fight than attractive females...and the fat ones are harder to kidnap.
Boosh can do anything he wants that is one of the perks of being president, stop complaining...unpatriotic scum.
BobMcGee123 I don't think you're aware of the fact that America has three branches of government which specifically limit the President's and others' power. So, no, he can't legally do /anything/ he wants.
He just did
> so that the $$ isn't the issue.
You really think people spend millions of dollars running for president so they can collect a $400K/year salary? I'd imagine that's a pay cut to the vast majority of people running.
> get rid of pork
Dependent on Congress almost completely
> remove the pay from the congress
I'm pretty sure that's beyond the power of the President. Besides, he'd have to get them to approve it.
> let the states pay the congress reps, in place of it coming out of the general Federal Fund
I'm not totally against this, it's a neat idea
> we get to set the pay rates of the reps.
Last time I checked no one asked me what I wanted our state reps to be paid.
> One that isn't a lawyer already -- ~90% lawyer == crook.
:rolleyes:
> Has a good record of being very moral.
Who decides what's moral?
> Raises children well -- kids are well behaved, and are old enough so that you and I see them well behaved throughout their life.
How the heck does this affect a person's ability to govern the most powerful country in the world?
> Sound financial practices within family/business</current political office>
Definitely
> Cannot easily be enticed based on the almighty dollar.
Definitely, but good luck with that one
You really understand nothing of american society. If I were your president you and the whole liberals you represent would be shot on sight you scum.Quote:
> Raises children well -- kids are well behaved, and are old enough so that you and I see them well behaved throughout their life.
How the heck does this affect a person's ability to govern the most powerful country in the world?
I don't know the details of this particular pardon, but this sounds like an example of appropriate use of presidential pardon. The executive is granted the exceptional power to override judges or laws on a per-criminal basis. Feeling that drug crimes did not merit a death sentence, Clinton exercised these powers.
It gives the executive a check on the judicial and legislative. If you have a problem with it, you have a problem with the American system of government. I'm a fan of it personally.
If you want something to compare it to something, compare it to Susan McDougal's pardon by Clinton, as she had possibly covered up for Clinton.
In any case, I just hope that Bush gets raked over the coals for this. At the very least, he's going to be confronted with the question "Why" an awful lot.
I, for one, am disappointed that Libby only received a commuted sentence. He should have received a full pardon imo. The entire case was prejudiced against Mr. Libby because he was Cheney's aide.
The whole case was a travesty of justice. The crime in question never occurred. If there was a crime, it was perpetrated by Richard Armitage, a liberal, who leaked the name in question to Novak. So why isn't Armitage charged with anything? Because there was no crime, and no intent to harm anyone.
Throughout the investigation the administration put up with all kinds of accusations, specifically directed at Karl Rove, Bush's aide. Since the driving force behind this investigation could not go after Bush's aide, they went after Cheney's aide. Mr. Libby had no reason to lie. He wasn't even charged with a crime, and there is still no accusation of him actually doing anything wrong, other than lying for a crime that he never committed and actually never happened.
Since the left-wing partisan investigation team couldn't pin anything on the Mario, they went for the Luigi. If this was just a game, it could be played, but the liberals in this case are playing with a man's life. Mr. Libby has an acceptional record throughout his entire life that is now tarnished by the rabid desire of the left to injure the Bush administration.
Bush should have pardoned him because this should never have taken place.
Of course! It's a cabala against the good folks in power.
It's nice you can joke about this when a man's reputation is being trashed because of political crap. I'm guessing you prefer to make fun of it because you lack the means and ability to debate.
Don't get personal mate. It's all right.
However, I can't really debate with you. Not when your input to the debate has some pearls like "The whole case was a travesty of justice", "the driving force behind this investigation", "the left-wing partisan investigation team", and "rabid desire of the left to injure the Bush administration"
You obviously have your mind made up and no manner of debate will remove you from your righteous and holly place. So, I move on to other matters and keep making fun of the whole affair.
As for the reputation of the person in question, his verticality, honor, outstanding service sheet and medals and other nice things he probably has hanging at his office, I'm sorry if I don't give a rat's arse. ok?
>> Bush should have pardoned him because this should never have taken place.
If I'm not mistaken, he was convicted by a jury and he was allowed to defend himself before that jury. They apparently thought he committed a crime.
>> It's nice you can joke about this when a man's reputation is being trashed because of political crap. I'm guessing you prefer to make fun of it because you lack the means and ability to debate.
If joking on a programming forum about a subject tangential to a discussion about a man who was convicted of a crime yet still has his health and family and will certainly not become destitute because of his situation is not appropriate, then at what point is it ever ok to joke? And since when is it required of someone who wishes to make a comment in a discussion to debate the topic in detail?
I don't usually debate with people to change their mind. More often than not, I debate to change the mind of the people who are ignorant of the issues but watching said debate. :)
Would you prefer to debate a weak-minded opponent who is unsure of his present position? If you take a position on an issue, you should definitely think your position is right. Are you surprised I'm sure of myself?
You can better tell if your position can withstand scrutiny, when dealing with a knowledgable and able adversary, though I do not claim to be one.
This is a major problem imo, because too many people are willing to let Mr. Libby fry and rot because they just don't give a care.
But such is life. :(
He was also limitted in his defense to said jury. Members of that jury also made statements which displayed a complete bias against Mr. Libby by stating that they believed Karl Rove was behind it all. That's stupid. Rove had nothing to do with it, and to say such as a juror for the case you've heard shows you to be a biased idiot.
In addition, one jury memeber even said that they believed Libby should be pardoned. So there goes that.
It always amazes me that people start serious discussions here, and then when the subject matter reflects the seriousness of the subject, people revert to saying it's a programming forum, with a given reasoning being that we shouldn't discuss something from so serious an angle. Let's not start the discussion if we can't handle the seriousness of something. Many of us can be called programmers, and some pretend to be, but regardless, being a programmer has a prerequisite of thinking logically (to some extent). Such should enable us to hold political discussions with some level of seriousness.
With that said, I just found it irritating that Mario is willing to make fun of a man that has dedicated so much of his life to public service, and yet was caught up in a witch hunt, where there wasn't any witch, at least not on the Republican side.
Tell jokes. Make fun of the man's circumstance... Just do not expect any sympathy from the world if such an event befalls you.
@Kennedy: Ron Paul? Fred Thompson?
[edit]Other takes on the commutation:
>> It always amazes me that people start serious discussions here, and then when the subject matter reflects the seriousness of the subject, people revert to saying it's a programming forum, with a given reasoning being that we shouldn't discuss something from so serious an angle.
In this case you are talking about two different people. Just because one, two or ten people want a serious discussion, does not make it inappropriate, especially in this forum, for others to chime in with less than completely serious responses. Nobody said that you cannot discuss something from a serious angle. I only challenged you for calling out someone who chooses not to join the serious side of the discussion.
Sometimes people are extra sensitive to certain situations for whatever reason. If that's the case here, simply asking people not to joke would be acceptable. Otherwise, I think this is the wrong place to expect everybody to be completely serious.
Ok... I'll make an effort...
> too many people are willing to let Mr. Libby fry and rot because they just don't give a care
Naturally you don't match in kind your worry for the Plame's couple. Understandable considering your obvious position on this matter.
> Would you prefer to debate a weak-minded opponent who is unsure of his present position?
Of course! You said so yourself... where is it?... ah! here... "More often than not, I debate to change the mind of the people who are ignorant of the issues but watching said debate."
> You can better tell if your position can withstand scrutiny, when dealing with a knowledgable and able adversary, though I do not claim to be one.
If you don't claim to be one, why the adjectives on your initial post? I'm confused.
> But such is life.
Life is thankfully a lot more, at least to me than debating passionately about some person I don't know in a country not my own. But I'll do you the effort and tell you what I think (dispassionately)
First a disclaimer: I'm not American. I was once called one. Or rather said to look like an American. I did take great offense at the time since I was spending my vacations in a trailer park. I'm an European, Portuguese to be more exact.
And that is my bias. You see... at least over here the system is a lot different. A president or a prime-minister commenting on a judge decision would see him out the door next elections. The separation between the judicial and executive power is very dear to the society in general.
Naturally there are presidential pardons just like over there. But these are a lot more complicated than simply the president deciding this person or that person should be pardoned. It happens once an year, by christmas time if memory serves me right.
It is however impossible for a president to pardon someone from the executive. It's like a contest; everyone can buy the raffles, except for the employees.
So... anyways... Mr Libby faced trial. He had an opportunity to defend himself which he did as you and I (yes, there was coverage over here) know. He was convicted of perjury. And not you, or I or Bush can change that. It's all fine you say there was no crime. But then go the extra mile if you please and condemn not only the left wing but also the entire American judicial system. Oh and Bush too. Since nowhere he says Libby didn't commit perjury. Unless you are saying perjury is not a crime.
And what happens next? The president pushes the judicial system aside and declares he knows better and the sentence was too harsh. Naturally, things can't be that different over there than they are here. And thinks like appeals, higher instance courts and even the Supreme court happen to exist in America, don't they? Don't answer.
So... in the end, a President overpowered the judicial system and took matters on his own hands. On some obscure African country we would call this ... But in America you say he did the right thing.
I hate politics.All polliticians are liers and ..............s.That all from me on this thread.
Much obliged. :)
Why should I feel sorry for Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson?
It was Plame that moved to get her husband into Africa, and Wilson that threw his hat into the political arena by writing an article blasting the administration for the trip he took. Everyone wanted to know who the @#$# Joe Wilson was, writing an article for a newspaper blasting the administration for some secret journey he took. Did he seriously not think that eventually people would connect him to his wife?
I think you mistake my meaning. I prefer to have a real debate with people on issues where the folks who are watching the debate, not participating, may learn from it.
So, no, I did not say that.
I don't know what you're referring to, but my comment was based upon the idea of how good can come from debating someone who is convinced he's right. ;)
The US government was designed so each branch could keep an eye on another in some manner. The Legislative keeps a check on the Executive, which keeps a check on the Judicial, which keeps a check on the Legislative. That was the intent and design.
If your only problem with the case is the system of government that the United States has, that's not a major problem, but I hope Mr. Libby does not suffer your good opinion on that dislike alone. :)
As I said before, his ability to defend himself was hampered greatly by the judge in the case. He was not allowed to display a real defense. He couldn't even be allowed to mention who Novak's real leak was, if I remember correcting. He wasn't allowed to show that he had no real reason to lie.
This has been going on for over 200 years. I hope you stated your objections during the other US pardons that have occurred in your lifetime. :)
In addition, you stated yourself that your own country has a process to receive a pardon, albeit more complicated.
Other countries have the same thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon
I don't understand why in America the pardon process appears illegal in your eyes, but in other countries, such as your own, it's fine. If I'm misunderstanding you, please help me out.
The Constitution of the United States grants this power, hence there is no "overpowering" that was not intended by the writers. The Constitution lays out the rules and allows this explicitly. The Executive Branch of government is supposed to keep an eye on the Judicial Branch. This is why it's the President of the United States that selects and appoints judges, and not Congress. Congress is meant to make sure the President doesn't go out of line, and the Supreme Court is meant to make sure Congress doesn't make any bad, inherently illegal laws.
Please continue. I'd love to hear it. :)
Edit:
BTW, this is an excellent article on the subject (that actually Dave_Sinkula posted on page 2):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...030801499.html
This particular case is as disgusting to me as the Duke case, and the overeagerness of the prosecutor to find a crime is not too unstrikingly similar.
I shudder to ask what the choice of the left might be.
:rolleyes:
I haven't heard of any major democratic candidates that are endorsed by cults-masquerading-as-religions or major white supremacist leaders
*cough*nor*cough*Quote:
And not you, or I or Bush can change that
Actually, each branch is suppose to balance out both of the other branches. Congress has certain powers over the President and the Courts, the courts have certain powers over the President and Congress, and the President has certain powers over Congress and the Courts.Quote:
The Executive Branch of government is supposed to keep an eye on the Judicial Branch. This is why it's the President of the United States that selects and appoints judges, and not Congress. Congress is meant to make sure the President doesn't go out of line, and the Supreme Court is meant to make sure Congress doesn't make any bad, inherently illegal laws.
As for this subject of this topic: I don't think anyone was surprised. Like it or not this is within the powers given to the President. Modern Presidents have pardon/commuted hundreds of people each during their term. Most go without notice.
Have you been talking to the German government again?
I haven't read all the posts but are you talking about that guy who got into trouble for exposing the super secret military space-plane, and then got pardoned by the president at the last minute? I saw a documentary about it.
Too bad Robert Byrd isn't a candidate. He was even anti-war on the grounds he would refuse to fight beside someone black. Tried to scuttle the Civil Rights Act of 1964.... Used the N word in 2001 in poor taste, and only in 1982 decided that parents love their children no matter their race. So apparently before that he didn't think blacks had feelings either, I guess, since apparently we know he didn't have any.
Yup.
Good candidate.
David Duke would be proud.
:rolleyes:
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
Quote:
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.
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?
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.
So does this mean the government is above the law? I guess the statement power tends to corrupt is true after all. :rolleyes:
No, since the law empowered the executive branch of that government to do what it did.Quote:
So does this mean the government is above the law?
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
Quote:
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.
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.
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?
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. :p
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.
What part of Richard Armitage being the leak that Fitzgerald was investigating does not strike you as relevant?
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!
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.
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.
In other words, you have no motive for Libby to lie. Thank you for proving my point.
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. ;)
"I'm going to continue posting but I'm going to address something else instead of what we're talking about"
You're useless.
Would you care to debate the subject at hand?
Would you?
I wasn't talking to you; I was responding to Dave's statement about Ron Paul
Anything more than that becomes religion. Thankfully, many in here know how to silently remove themselves from such "debates" leaving the religious talking to themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGyver
If you can't spend more than 29 minutes in a forum conversation with the objection that you don't like someone's views on a TV show, then you suck at debating and admit you lost. Yes, this actually happened. ;)
But overall, I like discussing three subjects:
- Religion
- Politics
- Programming
Areas where those combine can be interesting to discuss as well. ;)
[sarcasm]Oh thank you, wise forum user. I would never have known who you were talking to otherwise without you telling me this.[/sarcasm]
:rolleyes:
Let's put this thread back on subject, and not try getting it closed.
Let's talk about the jurors in the Libby case for a second. We have two particular jurors I'd like to mentioned:
- Ann Redington
- Denis Collins
From Ms. Redington's perspective:
- "I don’t want him to go to jail."
- "He seemed like a ton of fun. ... I didn’t want to see him and his wife and say he was guilty of a crime."
- "I think he got caught in a difficult situation where he got caught in the initial lie, and it just snowballed."
- “I would like him to get” a pardon from Bush, Redington said. “It kind of bothers me that there was this whole big crime being investigated and he got caught up in the investigation as opposed to in the actual crime that was supposedly committed.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17506701/
From Mr. Collins perspective:
- “I will say there was a tremendous amount of sympathy for Mr. Libby on the jury,”
- “It was said a number of times: ‘What are we doing with this guy here? Where’s Rove? Where are these other guys?’ ” Collins said, referring to Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove, who was identified during the investigation as one of the senior officials who revealed the identity of the operative, Valerie Plame, to journalists.
- “I’m not saying we didn’t think Mr. Libby was guilty of the things we found him guilty of,” Collins said. “It seemed like he was, as Mr. Wells [Ted Wells, Libby’s attorney] put it, he was the fall guy.”
- In fact, Collins said, the focus on Libby frustrated the jurors, who had hoped to get a crack at the larger issues.
“What we’re in court deciding seems to be a level or two down from what, before we went into the jury, we supposed the trial was about, or had been initially about, which was who leaked” Plame’s identity.
“Some jurors commented at some point: ‘I wish we weren’t judging Libby. You know, this sucks. We don’t like being here.’ But that wasn’t our choice.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17485067/
Interesting quotes, though, for both jurors.
Ms. Redington wanted a pardon for Libby. While she was convinced he lied, her statement appears to me that it is possible she believes Libby to be covering up for someone. Her motive for a pardon would be because she thinks the real punishment should go to the person who was behind Libby.
Mr. Collins is biased imo. He appears to have already prejudged Mr. Rove, and concluded that Libby was a "fall guy". Again, the opinion, expressed on this board in this topic that basically states there must be some Queatrix-like conspiracy within the Bush administration, is raised here.
So Libby was judged with regard to what? Supposed regarding lying. What did he lie about? I believe it likely these jurors believe he was covering up for someone. If he was covering someone up, that would be enough of a reason to punish him for being an accessory, however, I keep pointing out, and people keep ignoring, that the leak was Richard Armitage. Armitage's role was known to Fitzgerald at or near the beginning of the investigation, yet, he allowed all of the speculation and rumors continue by dragging out an investigation he already knew the final answer to with regard to who leaked the name to Novak. At this point, he's still not charged anyone with the actual crime, and Libby is being prosecuted, or, perhaps rather, persecuted, for his connections with Rove, Cheney, and Bush.
I would call this bias against Libby on part of the jurors except perhaps for the fact that Libby's legal team was not allowed to present a full defense. Information that they had was prohibited from being used, and that information could have played a huge part with the jurors.
Sorry... I can't stop laughing. This is too funny.
This one is the best:
“Some jurors commented at some point: ‘I wish we weren’t judging Libby. You know, this sucks. We don’t like being here.’ But that wasn’t our choice.”
Ahahah!
To call Armitage a liberal seems a bit disingenuous, and I would love to hear your source on that, because you have been lied to. Armitage was Deputy Secretary of State for the first half of the Bush administration, with purely Republican ties.
Reading your posts, it seems that your definition of bias is "believes Libby knowingly attempted to mislead a Grand Jury". The judge and investigator are both Republican appointees. I have yet to find anything or anyone even suggesting impropriety on either of their parts.
As for the Jurors... to be honest, I can't really comment on that, since I can find at best very limited and sketchy information. Given your other labellings of those involved in the case, I get the feeling your opinion was formed from said limited and sketchy information.
As for Libby's sentence... look, the jury unanimously found that he knowingly lied. That's not going to mean much to you since they were out to get him, but entertain the idea that they took their job and the charge seriously. Libby's having a motive to lie was necessarily taken into account during the judgement.
If you want to sit there and still maintain that Libby did not perjure himself, then understand that you are in a singular minority. Even the White house isn't making that kind of assertion as they commute his sentence.
Would you prefer I say "moderate" instead of liberal? If he was a strong conservative, he would have been nailed down as a friend of Bush, and we know that didn't happen. No one is willing to connect him to the administration.
It's uncited, so draw your own conclusion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard...service_careerQuote:
The United States Senate confirmed him as Deputy Secretary of State on March 23, 2001; he was sworn three days later. A close associate of Secretary of State Colin Powell, Armitage was regarded, along with Powell, as a moderate within the presidential administration of George W. Bush. Armitage tendered his resignation on November 16, 2004, the day after Powell announced his resignation as Secretary of State. He left the post on February 22, 2005, when Robert Zoellick succeeded the office.
I don't really count moderates as conservative, and while I don't claim to have used the term liberal just for that reason, I was under the impression he was a critic of the administration on the basis of how the adminstration has acted with regard to the political nature of their actions. I also believe he was against the Iraq War, although he could have just been a silent supporter. I don't remember what I read on this. I could search for articles later once I've gotten some sleep.
In searching for sources, I found a site labelling him as a neo-con.... Amusing. At least they cite their source: Counterpunch. lol.....
Novak referred to Armitage as "no partisan gunslinger", so perhaps "moderate" is a better term.
I spent some time looking for articles but I'm just too tired to do this. I'll try to get back to this after some sleep.
Must I state this all over again? From articles I read, Fitzgerald moved to block evidence from being presented. The judge agreed, and Libby was hampered in his defense.
I find it amazing how I rarely feel that information is sketchy in this day and age with the Internet and moderate google skills when I come out with a position. ;)
Occasionally, I'm shown to be mistaken in how I read an article or something, but I like to think I have a good view on things and keep relatively up to date with subjects I discuss.
Did you read the articles I posted on this page with regard to the jurors? If so, what did you think of them?
In that case, what was his motive? Five pages and I'm still waiting for it.... Yes, yes, to "protect someone higher up."
Who was this higher up, and why do you think there is a higher up when Richard Armitage was the original leak? Why was the investigation continued once Armitage was determined to be the leaker? Why was the Defense not allowed to use all of their information in displaying Tim Russert's crappy memory? How come everyone else that changed their testimony or had contradictory testimony during Libby's trial were not indicted on charges of perjury?
Oh noez, I'm in teh minority! Big freaking deal. Since when does that matter?
But even so, there are others that support Libby and agree with my position, so apparently you just pulled the numbers of what constitutes a majority/minority from the air.
MacGyver, I'd like you to answer one question, with a simple yes or no answer.
Libby was accused of perjury and found guilty. Do you believe he did not perjure himself and was thus innocent?
Similarly, ChaosEngine, outside of the Libby case, do you believe there was a crime?
I know I was not asked, sorry for stepping in. But I did manage to put in my opinions so far. So, knowing Chaos will answer is piece, I'll nonetheless add mine here.
I think there was no crime. I think there were political motivations behind all this. And the prosecutor on the Libby case was also politically motivated. I also know, because he was charged, that libby lied under oath.
I'm not sure what you mean by "outside of the Libby case".
If you mean, do I believe Libby prejured himself and committed a crime? Then the answer is yes, all the evidence would seem to suggest that he lied to the federal grand jury.
If you're asking me whether the leak itself was a crime, I'm less sure of that and I'd need to read up more on the background of the case (i.e. the leak, not the perjury)
I'm still interested to hear MacGyver's thoughts on the matter. I have noticed that he has tended to ignore this issue by stating that the original leak was not a crime.
As in, outside of that, yes.
So obstructing justice in the case of a non-crime?
Don't bother reading. It goes in circles.
I don't believe it was.
[edit]But I am interested in other opinions as well.
I'm not sure it was either. But the point remains that, regardless of what went before, Libby did perjure himself.
Mario F. made the point in this point and I just haven't seen a response to that yet.
I do.
A CIA covert operative's identity was revealed, a violation of the IIPA. Plame was a covert CIA operative, according to the testimony of the CIA Director to the US House Committee on Gov. Reform 2007.
Also the investigation in which Libby perjured himself was instigated at the CIA’s request.
The leak damaged her career, could have risked her associate’s lives and possibly national security (she worked in a dept. trying to stop WMD being used against the US, ironic huh?).
The only motivation I can see was it was done in retaliation to her husband publishing information/opinion that contradicted the Bush administrations case for war in Iraq.
Or done by accident, but I do not accept incompetence as an excuse, as Libby claims, at this level.
Because there is not enough evidence to prosecute?
Prahaps Libby's lies to the grand jury clouded the issue enough to ensure that there would never be enough hard evidence to prosecute.
I think Libby was give a harsh sentance (30 months compared to Martha Stewarts 5 months) because of this.
Under the current administration we have had CIA renditions (kidnappings), outsourced torture and indefinite imprisonment without charge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_Sinkula
You have sham trials at Gitmo. Where after nearly 6 years wait 2/3 of your lawyers are kicked out before the trial begins, (because they are not US based) the rules change mid way thru ect, ect.
So why not?