Bush Ignoring Subpoena

[Steven E. Webster]

Simpleman,

Libby has the opportunity to appeal. The purpose of an appeal is to correct any errors the lower court or prosecutor made. There was a very recent case here in Wisconsin where a Republican federal prosecutor got a conviction on a Democrat state employee for some alleged corrupt activity on behalf of the Democratic govenor. The lady (her name is Georgia Thompson) went to jail. When the appeals court evaluated how little evidence the prosecutor actually had, they immediately released the woman (I believe she spent several months in jail by that time.) It has yet to be determined whether this might have been a politically motivated prosecution, but whether the prosecution was politically motivated or not, this woman's life will never be the same.

If Libby is actually innocent, he has the opportunity to be released if found not guilty on appeal. (Maybe if his attorneys get some consulting from Simpleman they'll win the appeal. Too bad they didn't consult Simpleman in the first place.) The way our justice system works, Libby is going to have to be exonerated in an appeals court, not in the blogosphere. If Bush goes ahead and pardons Libby, Libby will not be exonerated, he'll just be a pardoned criminal.

Finally, the reason the U.S. Attorney scandal is so important is that we need to be able to trust that our justice system is impartial, and that includes impartial with regard to political parties. Libby had a Republican-appointed prosecutor and a Republican-appointed judge. The case even began while Republicans controlled all three branches of government. I think it's hard to argue that Libby did not have an impartial trial. Hopefully, we'll also find that the Georgia Thompson case was prosecuted and tried impartially, even though it was thrown out on appeal.

Steven Webster

[revtj]

I agree that Congress has the power of subpeona and that a crime has been committed. Bush is definitely testing the limits of executive privilege and has been since the first fraudulent election...

But what this White House has proved over and over again is that they will do whatever they please and that they are indeed above the law. The Valerie Plame incident is so minor compared to all the rest...the unprecedented, outrageous executive orders, the presidential caveat on nearly every piece of legislation signed which states that the president has the authority to interpret the laws passed as he sees fit...

There are 2 major problems as I see it:

1. This administration is entirely corrupt, swimming in stolen money, and has been enamored of fascism from the beginning, AND

2. The Democrats (the only economically viable alternative) are purchased by the same corporate special interest groups as the Republicans, thus there is no discernible difference except for the angle of their rhetoric on the Disneylandesque news every night.

The cold hard facts on paper: We no longer live in a democracy. We don't even live in a free market economy (check your gas pump!) We live in a great big lie where abortion and homosexuality distract the masses such that they can't see the forest for the trees. Successful prosecution of the Plame incident is not going to change that. I wish it could.

[simpleman]

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

Simpleman,

Libby has the opportunity to appeal. The purpose of an appeal is to correct any errors the lower court or prosecutor made. There was a very recent case here in Wisconsin where a Republican federal prosecutor got a conviction on a Democrat state employee for some alleged corrupt activity on behalf of the Democratic govenor. The lady (her name is Georgia Thompson) went to jail. When the appeals court evaluated how little evidence the prosecutor actually had, they immediately released the woman (I believe she spent several months in jail by that time.) It has yet to be determined whether this might have been a politically motivated prosecution, but whether the prosecution was politically motivated or not, this woman's life will never be the same.

I do believe an appeal is underway for Libby. I'm not familiar with the Thompson case, suffice to say that this, too, sounds like a case of politicking in the courtroom.

If Libby is actually innocent, he has the opportunity to be released if found not guilty on appeal. (Maybe if his attorneys get some consulting from Simpleman they'll win the appeal. Too bad they didn't consult Simpleman in the first place.) The way our justice system works, Libby is going to have to be exonerated in an appeals court, not in the blogosphere. If Bush goes ahead and pardons Libby, Libby will not be exonerated, he'll just be a pardoned criminal.

Even if he is found not guilty on appeal, people will still think of him as a criminal. Appeal will probably not exonerate him, as he never should have been brought to trial in the first place. This is because he did tell a "lie" in testimony. Which is technically perjury, however, many people who do make mistakes such as he did do not get tried, convicted, and jailed for it. But, even if he was found not guilty on appeal, you would still harbor your belief that it was his fault we never found out who the leak was (even though I already told you it was Richard Armitage). You would probably still harbor your belief that Karl Rove and Dick Cheney are the "real criminals" and that Libby obstructed the courts from finding out about it (again, Armitage). I don't think he would care, as long as he's not rotting in prison on a useless trumped-up charge.

Finally, the reason the U.S. Attorney scandal is so important is that we need to be able to trust that our justice system is impartial, and that includes impartial with regard to political parties. Libby had a Republican-appointed prosecutor and a Republican-appointed judge. The case even began while Republicans controlled all three branches of government. I think it's hard to argue that Libby did not have an impartial trial. Hopefully, we'll also find that the Georgia Thompson case was prosecuted and tried impartially, even though it was thrown out on appeal.
Steven Webster

He didn't have an impartial trial. The fact that the charges were brought against him in the first place was absurd. The Duke Lacrosse case never got to trial, because someone finally realized that actually bringing those charges was ridiculous. If "having a black stripper at a party full of white kids" was a technicality charge like Libby's perjury, they would have gone to trial on it, guaranteed.

Now, as for the U.S. Attorney business, I understand your point, and agree with you, that we need to be able to trust our judges to be impartial and not in bed with various political arms. The question with a subpoena, like the one from Congress, has to do whether there was any illegality in the hiring/firing of these attorneys. As there is no criminal investigation, Bush does not have to honor the subpoena. I don't care how bitter everyone is that he is installing loyal people in these posts, it isn't illegal to do so, and in fact has been a traditional move of any President. Clinton did it, too. The President also has the role of appointing qualified people to various judgeships. Since the Democrats dug into Robert Bork, these hearings have not been about the qualifications of a nominee, but rather whether or not the nominee's ideology lines up close enough to the minority party (see: Alito, Roberts, Pickering, Southwick, and millions of others).

[Steven E. Webster]

Originally Posted by simpleman

Appeal will probably not exonerate him, as he never should have been brought to trial in the first place. This is because he did tell a "lie" in testimony. Which is technically perjury, however, many people who do make mistakes such as he did do not get tried, convicted, and jailed for it. But, even if he was found not guilty on appeal, you would still harbor your belief that it was his fault we never found out who the leak was (even though I already told you it was Richard Armitage). You would probably still harbor your belief that Karl Rove and Dick Cheney are the "real criminals" and that Libby obstructed the courts from finding out about it (again, Armitage). I don't think he would care, as long as he's not rotting in prison on a useless trumped-up charge.

Simpleman, are you a lawyer? Because "technically committing perjury" sounds a great deal like "technically being pregnant" to me. Either the man commited perjury or he didn't. My (non-lawyer) understanding of perjury is that you can't be convicted of it for simply making a mistake. A mistake is not perjury. One has to lie knowingly with the intent to deceive and it has to be about a material matter. Libby's lawyers no doubt gave him an excellent defense, but the prosecutor had evidence to present to the jury that established the elements of the crime of perjury to the satisfaction of the jury.

Originally Posted by simpleman

The question with a subpoena, like the one from Congress, has to do whether there was any illegality in the hiring/firing of these attorneys.

The following is a quote from http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/17532.html

A New Mexico lawyer who pressed to oust U.S. Attorney David Iglesias was an officer of a nonprofit group that aided Republican candidates in 2006 by pressing for tougher voter identification laws.

Iglesias, who was one of nine U.S. attorneys the administration fired last year, said that Albuquerque lawyer Patrick Rogers pressured him several times to bring voter fraud prosecutions where little evidence existed. Iglesias believes that he was fired in part because he failed to pursue such cases.

He described Rogers, who declined to discuss the exchanges, as "obsessed ... convinced there was massive voter fraud going on in this state, and I needed to do something to stop it."

Iglesias said he only recently learned of Rogers' involvement as secretary of the non-profit American Center for Voting Rights Legislative Fund - an activist group that defended tighter voter identification requirements in court against charges that they were designed to hamper voting by poor minorities.

I am no lawyer, but turning the justice department into an arm of Karl Rove's political machine in order to pressure U.S. attorney's into bringing baseless prosecutions for political purposes ought to be a crime if it isn't. One result of a congressional investigation might be the development of new laws to give us the assurance that we don't have to fear baseless prosecutions no matter what party we are a member of. If the congressional subpoena is not legitimate, that will have to be proven in a court of law and not to you or I, Simpleman. If it gets to the point where we can no longer trust our justice system to be impartial, we get dangerously close to having to fall back on our right to bear arms.

Extreme partisanship doesn't seem to me to be only a Democrat sin or only a Republican sin.

As for the Duke case. I gather the prosecutor is receiving punishment for his misbehavior. He should be punished because he did people harm. If Patrick Fitzgerald did the same, he should get the same, but he, too, is innocent until proven guilty. Libby had his day in court, and he is getting his appeal.

Steven Webster

[revtj]

This just in -- Libby's sentence commuted. Subject over for 90% of America now. Did everyone see Paris went to the beach today? I love her sunglasses! Are those Pradha?

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

Not all conservatives are happy with Libby's commutation. Here's what conservative Andrew Sullivan is saying:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...shies-spi.html

Originally Posted by Andrew Sullivan

They keep repeating the line that only the "left" will be angry. Dean Barnett hauls it out. Glenn Reynolds echoes. K-Lo is on the meme. Is it now the conservative position that only left-wingers actually object to people getting away with perjury? For what it's worth, I don't think the Republican base gives a damn about Scooter Libby. But many others now will. The defense of the commutation is complicated and unpersuasive. The case against it is simple: You don't get a cleaner example of different justice for the rich and powerful. It seems to me that real conservatives - not the lawless hoodlums now parading under that banner - should be as outraged as anyone. This man risked national security for political payback, and perjured himself to cover it up. This commutation will rightly become a symbol of a great deal of rot in Washington that needs to be swept clean. Get out that broom.

The commutation is not a pardon, but a lessening of Libby's sentence. He stays out of jail, but he still pays a quarter mil in fines and serves two years probation. In granting the commutation, Bush acknowledged the legitimacy of the jury's decision that Libby was guilty as charged. As I pointed out earlier, even a pardon would not be an exoneration, but only a forgiveness of Libby's crime.

Libby's crime was essentially covering up for higher ups in the Bush administration. This is just more evidence that Bush is a useless lame duck with nothing left to loose. His administration is a colossal failure, his popularity is rock bottom. He's dining on lobster with his former KGB buddy Putin, and having a good old time while the nation suffers for his incompetence.

Steven Webster

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

Here's more commentary from conservative Andrew Sullivan denouncing Bush's criminal activity:

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/

Originally Posted by Andrew Sullivan

David Brooks' column today can only be described as an embarrassment. More in the morning. It seems to me that Orin Kerr gets it right:
As I understand it, Bush political appointee James Comey named Bush political appointee and career prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate the Plame leak. Bush political appointee and career prosecutor Fitzgerald filed an indictment and went to trial before Bush political appointee Reggie Walton. A jury convicted Libby, and Bush political appointee Walton sentenced him. At sentencing, Bush political appointee Judge Walton described the evidence against Libby as "overwhelming" and concluded that a 30-month sentence was appropriate. And yet the claim, as I understand it, is that the Libby prosecution was the work of political enemies who were just trying to hurt the Bush Administration.
Er, yes. But we know why they are claiming this absurdity. He's their friend; and he's critical to maintaining the line that no one rigged the case for war or risked criminal conduct to push back against a critic who believed it was. But the bottom line is a simple one, regardless of its origins. Is Libby a perjurer or not? He is. And Bush has nullified the sentence. To please a political constituency. It is hard to think of an action more contemptuous of the rule of law - except for so many decisions made by this lawless president, acting as a monarch. De facto pardoning or commuting of a sentence was once a royal prerogative that even kings reserved for those they didn't know, convicted clearly unjustly, whose sentence had often largely been served. And yet Bush uses it in office for a friend, hours after the failure of his appeal, to protect his own political and legal liability for jeopardizing intelligence and compromising national security.
What more do we need to know? These people think they are above the law. This president thinks he is above the law. The vice-president believes he is above the law. And when democratic leaders act as if they are the law unto themselves, and are prepared to upend the justice system to serve their own political ends, it's time for a revolt. Sorry, David. But this won't be forgotten - ever. It's a final straw, a call to wake up before these criminals get away with it one more time.

Steven Webster

[pnggrad79]

Just heard today that Bush pardoned Libby. Hmmm, Bush seems power hungry.
What a surprise!!!!

[revtj]

From Progress.org:

SELECTIVE COMPASSION: "I respect the jury's verdict," Bush said in a statement yesterday. "But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive." This explanation "only underscored the way this president is tough on crime when it’s committed by common folk," the New York Times opines. As governor of Texas, Bush infamously joked about the impending execution of Karla Faye Tucker, a killer who became a born-again Christian on death row. ("Please don't kill me," Bush whimpered to a reporter while imitating Tucker, "his lips pursed in mock desperation.") As president, Bush has repeatedly put himself and his administration above the law, on matters from torture and warrantless domestic spying to congressional oversight and the use of signing statements. Bush's treatment of Libby's sentence is extraordinarily rare by his own standards. "Bush has granted fewer pardons -- 113 -- than any president in the past 100 years, while denying more than 1,000 requests." In addition, Bush has "denied more than 4,000 commutation requests, and hundreds of requests for pardons and commutations are still pending."

Andrew Sullivan is on the mark. This action by Bush proves every creepy thing we ultra-liberals have been saying about this administration since he stole the 1st election (remember his dad went "fishing" with a Supreme Court justice?) I am so sick of Bush I cannot believe what our nation is having to bear (decent, working, caring people-- conservatives, moderates, and the lonely left-- by the millions) because of his malignant narcissism. HOW LONG OH LORD?

[sjbouza]

Below is a couple of articles on the Libby situation that is becoming so infamous here and in this country. Bush has overstepped his bounds, he is, in my opinion as well as others, breaking the law. He sees himself and his administration as "above the law". Yes, Bush does have the power to do what he did with Libby, but calling a 30 month sentence "sever", is down right outragious.

Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon

Clinton slams Bush over Libby maneuver

Exerpt taken from "Bush Won't Rule Out Libby Pardon"

Some lawyers said Bush's statement about Libby's harsh sentence showed that the administration was out of touch with today's federal sentencing guidelines. People like Libby — first-time, nonviolent offenders — receive lengthy sentences every day, they said.

"This was a very common sentence, not a startling sentence," said former federal prosecutor Scott L. Fredericksen, who has served under ever president since Ronald Reagan.

Defense attorney and former prosecutor E. Lawrence Barcella noted that politicians keep making sentencing guidelines stricter. "Nothing turns a conservative into a liberal faster than a conviction. It's amazing how quickly they actually start thinking about people's civil liberties," he said.

Three of every four people convicted of obstruction of justice have been sent to prison over the past two years, a total of 283 people, according to federal judiciary data. The average term was more than five years. The largest group of defendants were sentenced to between 13 and 31 months in prison, exactly where Libby would have fallen on the charts.

It seems that politicians want to make sentences tougher for the average Joe, but when it comes to them they cry like little babies about a couple years in prison. With good behavior he would have been out in about 18 months. Plus, do you really think he would have been in a real prison. Of course not, he would have been at a Federal "country club" prison. Nope this administration is just going way over the top with their total disregard for the law. If it is in the name of "fighting the war on terror" then they just strip every civil liberty we have away without regard for the law. When it comes to them, then it is a totally different story, Bush hides behind "executive privilage" or his cronies. This man is the ANTI-CHRIST, and I have no problems saying that. He is an EVIL MAN with no regard for anyone else but himself and his buddies.

[revtj]

The significance of this issue, at its root, is treason on the part of the executive branch. Unless you do a hatchet job on the constitution, there's no other way to interpret it. Outing a CIA operative as payback for revealing the lies told about WMDs is lower than anything America should tolerate in the distinguished office of the President.

[simpleman]

Originally Posted by revtj

The significance of this issue, at its root, is treason on the part of the executive branch. Unless you do a hatchet job on the constitution, there's no other way to interpret it. Outing a CIA operative as payback for revealing the lies told about WMDs is lower than anything America should tolerate in the distinguished office of the President.

I suppose Clinton's handing our nuclear secrets over to the Chinese wasn't treason?

Let me try to explain this again, in easy point by point format:

-No one outed a CIA operative. Valerie Plame was not a covert agent. Her status with the CIA was not one protected by laws against "outing".

-Joe Wilson went to Niger on an unpaid trip to discuss Uranium with Nigerian dignitaries. His wife set it up for him. He asked only the dignitaries whether or not they had sold Uranium to Saddam Hussein (in other words, he had no independent means of verification). He did, however, report that someone told him that they planned to "expand commercial relations with Hussein" (Niger's only major export: Uranium. In other words, yes, they were going to sell Uranium to Saddam).

-Richard Armitage, not Scooter Libby(as in "IT WASN'T SCOOTER LIBBY"), told journalist Robert Novak that Joe Wilson's wife, CIA agent Valerie Plame, had set up his trip to Niger. That means that the "leak" (or "outing") of the CIA agent in question was perpetrated by RICHARD ARMITAGE (as in "IT WAS NOT SCOOTER LIBBY")

-Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald knew the above fact (the one about Richard Armitage being the "leak"). He rounded up a bunch of White House officials, and made them testify. Scooter Libby was the one who did not name Armitage. Fitzgerald pressed charges for perjury.

-The "perjury" that Libby committed was telling Fitzgerald in his testimony that it was someone other than Armitage. The "obstruction of justice" that Libby committed was also saying in his testimony that it wasn't Richard Armitage.

-Since it was of no legal consequence that Armitage "leaked" Plame's name in the first place, it was of no legal consequence that Libby lied about it.

I agree that Bush has done about a thousand boneheaded things. I would readily admit the stupid things that he has done (Amnesty bill). But, these allegations in this situation are overblown.

[Steven E. Webster]

Simpleman,

"Clinton committed treason, therefore it's perfectly fine for Bush to commit treason." Not a very good argument, if that's what you mean. In any case, Clinton's alleged misbehaviors are off topic in this discussion.

Bush seems to have acknowledged that the jury's judgment on Scooter Libby was just, and that the man diserves punishment--big fines and probation seem just to Bush, just not jail time for a loyal Bushie. That means that Scooter was guilty of more than just a lapse of memory, he was lying--he committed perjury. This all runs counter to arguments you were making earlier.

Armitage apparently told Fitzgerald the truth, and that seems to be what saved his hide. But you seem to be arguing that there was only one leaker and that Armitage acted alone for his own reasons. There is apparently probable cause to believe that the plan to destroy Valerie Plame's career orginates with the Vice President and might even involve the President. Scooter was much closer to the Vice President than was Armitage. Scooter's lying obstructed Fitzgerald's investigation into the Vice President's role. That's why Fitzgerald says that Libby's lying leaves a "cloud" over the Vice Presidency--because Libby's lying prevented Fitzgerald from getting to the truth of the Vice President's role in this affair.

By lessening the sentence of a man Bush acknowledges is a guilty perjurer, it appears that he may be obstructing justice himself by protecting the man who protected the Vice President and maybe even himself. The neoconservatives, which seem also to include yourself, are all for this because they are all for the disastrous war in Iraq and approve all the high-level deceptions that got us there.

So it seems you believe that the President's statement to the American people in the State of the Union address that Saddam Hussein was trying to get nuclear bomb material from Africa was true. I suppose you also believe that there really were weapons of mass distruction. Maybe you think Saddam moved those weapons to Iran (Saddam's mortal enemy) and we should be expanding this disastrous war to Iran too.

I'm reminded of the saying, "Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." "Spin" seems to me to be just another word for lying to me. You seem to aspire to be part of the Republican spin machine. I'm not saying you are lying, but you seem to me to want to believe the lies you've been told.

Then you drag in another off-topic comment about "amnesty." "Amnesty" in the immigration debate is just another "spin word." A word that doesn't mean much, that doesn't relate much to reality, but that polls well in what passes for a "debate." There is irony that "your side" is so dead set against "amnesty" for poor immigrants, but demand amnesty for privileged neoconservative law-breakers like Scooter Libby.

Finally, I'm providing a link again to Andrew Sullivan's blog where he, in turn, provides links to several of his recent posts on the Libby commutation. Andrew is a genuine conservative who is outraged at the out-of-control despotism of the Bush-Cheney administration. (He also argues we shouldn't turn over this Cheney-enhanced Presidency with all it's new despotic powers to the Clintons.):

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...y-palooza.html

I want to add, Simpleman, that I really don't think you are lying to us--I simply believe that you are seriously mistaken, and that you may have been deceived by the neoconservative spin machine.

Steven Webster

[Steven E. Webster]

Originally Posted by simpleman

-Since it was of no legal consequence that Armitage "leaked" Plame's name in the first place, it was of no legal consequence that Libby lied about it.

Sorry, Simpleman,

I didn't mean to leave this argument of yours unaddressed. The idea that it was no crime to leak Valarie Plame's identity to destroy her career in order to punish Joe Wilson for not "falling in to line" with the Cheney Administration's web of lies leading us into a disastrous war, is an idea that is far from an agreed upon fact. Keep repeating it if you like, but that doesn't make it true.

When Bush acknowledged that the jury justly convicted Scooter of perjury, he acknowledged, in effect, that Scooter intentionally lied about a material matter (in this case a crime he had knowledge of). That jury convicted Libby of deliberately lying to obstruct a criminal investigation.

The purpose of Scooter's perjury is to prevent us from knowing the truth. That's why Scooter belongs in jail--that's why Bush is keeping him out of jail.

It may be that Bush believes Nixon's legal theory that justified all Nixon's Watergate crimes: "If the President does it, it's not illegal." In fact, that does seem to be Cheney's view of government--I don't think that goes down well with most Americans.

Steven Webster

[simpleman]

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

Simpleman,

"Clinton committed treason, therefore it's perfectly fine for Bush to commit treason." Not a very good argument, if that's what you mean. In any case, Clinton's alleged misbehaviors are off topic in this discussion.

That wasn't my argument. I just wanted to point out that Clinton was no angel, either, because he was the last liberal Democrat in office. He was never subpoenaed, tried, or anything for it. I'm not saying that it would be right for Bush to commit treason just because Clinton did it, however, I don't believe that Bush committed treason.

Bush seems to have acknowledged that the jury's judgment on Scooter Libby was just, and that the man diserves punishment--big fines and probation seem just to Bush, just not jail time for a loyal Bushie. That means that Scooter was guilty of more than just a lapse of memory, he was lying--he committed perjury. This all runs counter to arguments you were making earlier.

In a sense it was just. He lied, yes. That's perjury, the ruling was "just". However, the perjury had no legal consequence. Even if Dick Cheney himself had ordered, in all malice and forethought, that Armitage find a journalist to out Valerie Plame to "get back" at Joe Wilson, there would be no crime. The "leak" was related to why Joe Wilson went to Niger in the first place. Wilson was running around saying that Cheney had sent him on a special mission, and that Cheney had then ignored his report and lied to the people. Armitage explained to Novak "No, he went to Niger because his wife, CIA agent Valerie Plame, vetted him for it, and we never saw any report from him." To this day, Joe Wilson hasn't produced his report, and all he produced were some "faked" documents, that he claimed to have seen and recognized as fake on his trip, when those documents didn't even exist when he was on his trip, and by the time our intelligence knew about them, they already knew they were faked anyway. In other words, Joe Wilson is a liar.

Armitage apparently told Fitzgerald the truth, and that seems to be what saved his hide. But you seem to be arguing that there was only one leaker and that Armitage acted alone for his own reasons. There is apparently probable cause to believe that the plan to destroy Valerie Plame's career orginates with the Vice President and might even involve the President. Scooter was much closer to the Vice President than was Armitage. Scooter's lying obstructed Fitzgerald's investigation into the Vice President's role. That's why Fitzgerald says that Libby's lying leaves a "cloud" over the Vice Presidency--because Libby's lying prevented Fitzgerald from getting to the truth of the Vice President's role in this affair.

Ok, but, Armitage was the one who "outed" Valerie Plame. If there was a crime, he did it! But, there was not a crime. No matter whether he acted alone or with Dick Cheney or with George Bush or with Chuckles the Clown (all of whom are probably equally qualified to run this country). There is no legal cloud over this situation. No one in the administration committed a crime. At this point you can believe a) The White House released Valerie Plame's name to the media so that they could get back at Joe Wilson for making them look bad. Or, you can believe b) Joe Wilson didn't make anybody look bad but himself, the White House released her name because she was the only reason that Joe Wilson was even able to go to Niger in the first place. Answer b) is the simple answer, and a) is the conspiracy theorist answer, but you can think want you want.

By lessening the sentence of a man Bush acknowledges is a guilty perjurer, it appears that he may be obstructing justice himself by protecting the man who protected the Vice President and maybe even himself. The neoconservatives, which seem also to include yourself, are all for this because they are all for the disastrous war in Iraq and approve all the high-level deceptions that got us there.

He is technically a perjurer, but there's nothing that he could have covered up. For the third time this post, there was no crime. If there was a crime, Armitage would be in prison with Libby. Bush cannot be obstructing justice, nor could Libby, nor could anyone else, because there is no justice that can be obstructed. You can't obstruct justice when there is no crime.

So it seems you believe that the President's statement to the American people in the State of the Union address that Saddam Hussein was trying to get nuclear bomb material from Africa was true. I suppose you also believe that there really were weapons of mass distruction. Maybe you think Saddam moved those weapons to Iran (Saddam's mortal enemy) and we should be expanding this disastrous war to Iran too.

The first two parts, I believe. The last part, I only believe half. I do believe Saddam moved whatever he had, at whatever stage it was, but probably not to Iran. I don't really believe that we should expand the war either. At the beginning of the war, my thoughts (at 15) were that we should remove Saddam, but that we had better have a really good exit strategy. It turns out that we had no exit strategy whatsoever.

I'm reminded of the saying, "Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." "Spin" seems to me to be just another word for lying to me. You seem to aspire to be part of the Republican spin machine. I'm not saying you are lying, but you seem to me to want to believe the lies you've been told.

Ah, yes, so only my facts are spun. Your facts and speculation about whether or not this was a conspiracy, are exact and laid out on the table. There is no liberal or Democratic spin. It's only the Republicans.

Then you drag in another off-topic comment about "amnesty." "Amnesty" in the immigration debate is just another "spin word." A word that doesn't mean much, that doesn't relate much to reality, but that polls well in what passes for a "debate." There is irony that "your side" is so dead set against "amnesty" for poor immigrants, but demand amnesty for privileged neoconservative law-breakers like Scooter Libby.

If by "my side" you mean the majority of the American people, who knocked the Senate's phone circuit down calling to voice their opinion against the Amnesty bill, then yes, my side is against amnesty for people who broke our laws, came here illegally, continue to take jobs, and don't pay taxes. If you notice, the RINOs were for this stupid bill (Bush being one of them), because of cheap labor.

Finally, I'm providing a link again to Andrew Sullivan's blog where he, in turn, provides links to several of his recent posts on the Libby commutation. Andrew is a genuine conservative who is outraged at the out-of-control despotism of the Bush-Cheney administration. (He also argues we shouldn't turn over this Cheney-enhanced Presidency with all it's new despotic powers to the Clintons.):

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...y-palooza.html

I want to add, Simpleman, that I really don't think you are lying to us--I simply believe that you are seriously mistaken, and that you may have been deceived by the neoconservative spin machine.

I'm not a neocon, and I'm not a RINO. I'm more or less a libertarian. I think Bush is a nincompoop. He came to office with arrogance, surrounding himself with a bunch of spineless yes-men. I won't, however, sit around and sour-grape about how he stole the election, or how he is using his presidential powers. If he does do something, that is actually illegal, not "illegal" if we stretch the meanings of various laws, then I'll be after him, too. And if he does something stupid, like appoint Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, or try to push through an amnesty bill, then I will call him a moron. Most of the time, he is. I offer the same thing to Clinton. I could care less whether or not he received oral sex from an intern. That's his business and her business, but it is my business how he weakened our national security, and handed our nuclear secrets over to the Chinese.

[Steven E. Webster]

Simpleman,

You keep asserting "there was no crime," but that doesn't make it so.

One cannot be convicted of perjury simply for being mistaken about the facts or simply for mis-remembering as you have alleged, Simpleman.

To prove the crime of perjury to a Jury a prosecutor has to present evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt:

1) That the defendent knew he was telling a lie under oath, and did so deliberately. (Just making a mistake or mis-remembering doesn't count).

2) The matter lied about has to be a material matter.

When you say "there was no crime" and "no obstruction of justice" you are essentially asserting that there was no material matter that was lied about.

Patrick Fitzgerald, after the verdict, said "The jury worked very long and hard and deliberated at length ... [and] was obviously convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had lied and obstructed justice in a serious manner."

You can keep saying there was no obstruction of justice, but your opinion is not the opinion that counts--the jury looked at the facts presented in evidence and decided Libby was guilty. The President, in his commutation statement, did not dispute the judgment of the jury--why should you?

One of the juror's said, "'We're not saying we didn't think Mr. Libby was guilty of the things we found him guilty of, but it seemed like ... he was the fall guy'.... Collins said the jury believed Libby was 'tasked by the vice president to go and talk to reporters.'" So, Simpleman, this juror says that the jury was somewhat simpathetic to Libby. Libby was the one sacrificial lamb on the Vice President's staff who was going to commit perjury in order to stop Fitzgerald's investigation from getting to the higher ups and investigating the allegations of a real crime.

Libby could always "come clean" and tell the truth. Then he'd be off the hook and then Vice President Cheney might be the next one on trial--then, according to you, all Cheney would need to do is relax and let his lawyers point out to a jury that "there was no crime." Apparently the Vice President's lawyers were not as confident as you that there "was no crime."

If there "was no crime" why did Libby allow himself to be the fall guy? Because he did not want Cheney to have his day in court where a jury could decide whether or not there was a crime. Now it appears that Libby might have known all along that he never faced any real consequences for being the fall guy.

We are asked by you to ignore the judgment of the jury that Libby knowingly lied about a serious matter and did obstruct justice--something that even the President would not deny. According to you the President should have said, "Hey, this is some nutty out-of-control prosecutor who isn't even pursuing some crime, and because Mr. Libby made an honest mistake and mis-remembered some facts, he got convicted. The only just thing to do is grant him a full pardon."--why didn't that happen?

Was there a crime or not? In a very real sense we can never know because Libby lied to inhibit Fitzgerald's investigation because he's a "loyal Bushie." That is the crime of obstruction of justice. Bush, in gutting Libby's sentence, has arguably committed the impeachable offense of abuse of power. Whether Congress has the will to go through with impeachment and whether the Senate would convict is a separate question. One consideration is that Bush's time is short and his power is waning.

Steven Webster

[simpleman]

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

Simpleman,

You keep asserting "there was no crime," but that doesn't make it so.

The fact that you keep asserting that the jury was right doesn't make it so, either.

One cannot be convicted of perjury simply for being mistaken about the facts or simply for mis-remembering as you have alleged, Simpleman.

To prove the crime of perjury to a Jury a prosecutor has to present evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt:

1) That the defendent knew he was telling a lie under oath, and did so deliberately. (Just making a mistake or mis-remembering doesn't count).

2) The matter lied about has to be a material matter.

When you say "there was no crime" and "no obstruction of justice" you are essentially asserting that there was no material matter that was lied about.

And there wasn't any. Go look it up for yourself. Releasing Valerie Plame's name was not a crime. Prove to me that it was a crime. I've tried over and over again to explain how it wasn't a crime, and you don't believe me, so show me the crime, and I'll quit saying it wasn't.

Patrick Fitzgerald, after the verdict, said "The jury worked very long and hard and deliberated at length ... [and] was obviously convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had lied and obstructed justice in a serious manner."

And he won fawning praise for taking down one of those despised "Bushies."

You can keep saying there was no obstruction of justice, but your opinion is not the opinion that counts--the jury looked at the facts presented in evidence and decided Libby was guilty. The President, in his commutation statement, did not dispute the judgment of the jury--why should you?

Because President Bush is spineless. That's why. You yourself would admit that the man is not a stand-up guy. I dispute the judgment of the jury, because it was wrong. Is every jury always right? Of course not!

One of the juror's said, "'We're not saying we didn't think Mr. Libby was guilty of the things we found him guilty of, but it seemed like ... he was the fall guy'.... Collins said the jury believed Libby was 'tasked by the vice president to go and talk to reporters.'" So, Simpleman, this juror says that the jury was somewhat simpathetic to Libby. Libby was the one sacrificial lamb on the Vice President's staff who was going to commit perjury in order to stop Fitzgerald's investigation from getting to the higher ups and investigating the allegations of a real crime.

Ok, let's say that this is true. They've found out that Libby has obstructed justice, but they know that Armitage was the "leak". Why not subpoena Armitage? Why not try Armitage for the leak? Oh yeah! Because releasing Valerie Plame's name, regardless of whether the Veep ordered it or not, is not a crime. As I said in the previous post, even if Dick Cheney himself had specifically ordered the 'leak' it would not be a crime. Now that we have that established, what did Libby actually do? He lied on the stand about who told him about Joe Wilson first.

Libby could always "come clean" and tell the truth. Then he'd be off the hook and then Vice President Cheney might be the next one on trial--then, according to you, all Cheney would need to do is relax and let his lawyers point out to a jury that "there was no crime." Apparently the Vice President's lawyers were not as confident as you that there "was no crime."

It's cut and dried, friend. If Libby told the truth, it would be "Armitage told them who Plame was, and why she was important." And Cheney would never be charged, because there wasn't a crime.

If there "was no crime" why did Libby allow himself to be the fall guy? Because he did not want Cheney to have his day in court where a jury could decide whether or not there was a crime. Now it appears that Libby might have known all along that he never faced any real consequences for being the fall guy.

Juries rarely decide whether or not something was a crime. They decide whether the person charged committed the crime. The Libby jury was faced with "did he, or did he not lie?" and they said, "yes". They weren't asked to find out whether or not his lies actually meant anything. They weren't asked to discern whether or not releasing Plame's name was a crime. They were presented with evidence that Scooter lied, and had to decide whether he lied or not. It was the grand jury's responsibility to determine whether or not what Libby did was a crime or not, just as it would be a grand jury's responsibility to determine whether or not it was a crime to release Plame's name (which it wasn't). If it was, Armitage would already be fried for it, and then Cheney next.

We are asked by you to ignore the judgment of the jury that Libby knowingly lied about a serious matter and did obstruct justice--something that even the President would not deny. According to you the President should have said, "Hey, this is some nutty out-of-control prosecutor who isn't even pursuing some crime, and because Mr. Libby made an honest mistake and mis-remembered some facts, he got convicted. The only just thing to do is grant him a full pardon."--why didn't that happen?

Because Bush is a spineless nincompoop. As for your question about what I am asking you to believe, think about this: if Fitzgerald already knew that Armitage was the one who leaked Plame's name, why did he go after Libby?. He knew, before Libby's first testimony, that Armitage leaked the name. "Leaking" the name is the crime that Libby perjured himself about, and obstructed justice about, right? And I've already told you that wasn't a crime, so why do you insist that Libby obstructed justice? There was no crime for which Libby even could have obstructed justice.

Was there a crime or not? In a very real sense we can never know because Libby lied to inhibit Fitzgerald's investigation because he's a "loyal Bushie." That is the crime of obstruction of justice. Bush, in gutting Libby's sentence, has arguably committed the impeachable offense of abuse of power. Whether Congress has the will to go through with impeachment and whether the Senate would convict is a separate question. One consideration is that Bush's time is short and his power is waning.

What do you mean we'll never know? I've already explained to you how it wasn't a crime! What part of my explanation doesn't make sense? What do I need to clarify? Fitzgerald never needed Libby. He still doesn't. He knows it was Armitage. I know it was Armitage. If you'd believe me, you'd know it's Armitage. Everybody knows it was Armitage, and nobody will go try him. Why not? Please, tell me, if there was a crime, and everybody knows who did it, why nobody has tried him?

[Steven E. Webster]

Simpleman,

Have you ever served on a jury? To prove a crime a prosecutor must convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt of all of the elements that constitute a crime. Perjury has at least two elements that must be proven: 1) that the defendent deliberately lied under oath, and 2) the lie was about something "material," something important, something that mattered.

In Scooter's case his lie prevented the prosecutor from pursuing his investigation into the Vice President's office where Scooter worked. As one of the jurors stated after the trial, the jury was convinced that Scooter was lying to save the skin of higher ups--likely the Vice President if not the president.

Armitage did not lie, and apparently wasn't withholding information. He was apparently very cooperative with the prosecutor--he just didn't have the information that Scooter was concealing. Scooter was the man who was close to the Vice President.

The crime that Scooter was trying to cover up, the crime that Fitzgerald was trying to investigate was the allegation that Valerie Plame was a covert CIA agent whose identity was exposed by someone with the knowledge to expose it--again presumably the Vice President.

There may have been some technicality that saved Armitage's hide. I believe one element of the crime of revealing a CIA agent's identity is proving that one did so deliberately. Cheney could be guilty, and Armitage could be "innocent" because Cheney knew (and planned) what was going on, and Armitage was a low-level tool (who was willingly cooperating with the prosecutor).

In short, that Armitage was not charged and covicted is no proof that Libby and Cheney were innocent of anything.

I'm assuming you are arguing that Valerie Plame wasn't really a covert agent covered by the law that was allegedly broken. That would have been a good defense had a jury ever got to chance to consider it. But rather than make that defense, Cheney had Scooter lie for him. Scooter's a lawyer, he should know better. It's likely that he did know that he could lie, be convicted of it, and still go free because of Bush's willingness to abuse his pardon power. So it was better to lie and be convicted of lying than it was to tell the truth and risk Cheney being convicted of "outing" Valerie Plame. We don't know if the defense that Plame wasn't really a covert agent would have stood up in a trial. Cheney apparently didn't want to risk it.

If there was no crime, why did Scooter lie about it, if he wasn't trying to conceal it. The "bad memory" defense was put forward--but it didn't convince anyone.

Libby's lies thwarted the justice system, it prevented a full investigation of the alleged crime. It was obstruction of justice. If Libby lied to cover up something that wasn't a crime in the first place, then I think Mr. Libby is a nincompoop along with the President and all of the lawyers they relied on.

In the U.S. neither I nor Simpleman get to decide who's guilty--juries do that--providing people tell them the truth. Even Simpleman agrees Libby lied, he's just "spinning it" as a not-very-important lie.

It may very well have been just one among a great web of lies that cost the lives of over 3500 U.S. troops in Iraq and counting.

Steven Webster

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

Here is a Media Matters report on the same matters about which Simpleman and I are disputing:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200707030008?f=h_top

It's apparently a hotter topic now than I realized.

Steven Webster

[revtj]

Deny the crime all they want, the rule of law says there was a crime.

They have spin in overdrive as usual but this time it's not going to save them. At 27% approval ratings a president could go down for the color of his tie at dinner. That's how the 'charade' works. To point out it is just a political game is like saying the sky is blue. It is the way Washington works, take it or leave it. It's NOT about the Clintons or any other distractor they can drum up.

The issue is 1) Doctoring intelligence to persuade Americans war on Iraq was the right thing to do;

2) Smearing a CIA operative to pay back someone who leaked the truth about the doctored intelligence.

At the end of the day, the majority of Americans believe that Bush & Cheney (along with Powell, Rumsfeld, Rove & Rice) deliberately distorted intelligence in order to proceed with a pre-emptive war on Iraq. When Plame's husband produced facts, now not in dispute, that the intelligence was doctored, he was 'paid back' by a paranoid smear machine that ruined his wife's standing in the CIA. This is exactly what the evidence shows occurred.

If we bring the Clintons into this when they have nothing to do with the specific issues under the court's consideration, then let's bring out the fact that Bust the elder also doctored intelligence when the US went to Kuwait to stop the Iraq invasion. To persuade America to intervene militarily, the Saudis & Kuwaitis hired a million dollar PR firm to leak stories that the Iraquis were disconnecting little infants from life support at hospitals and sticking electric probes up captured Kuwati mens' rectums. I remember it well, it was all false, but the war wasn't a failure, hence we sorta said, 'well that's how the game is played, at least we won the war.'

But it's not about the Clintons or Bush the Elder. It is about "W" Bush, the Warthug, and his administration only.