TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Bush spares Libby from prison
Pages (4): « 1 2 3 [4]

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Ummm what?

you heard me. we don't care.

quote:

The man lied in testimony regardless of whether he actually committed an physical crime similar to Libby.

ok? that doesn't say anything to the that fact that he [Rita] was the primary subject of the investigation, Libby wasn't.

quote:

provisions which essentially held him accountable for crimes beyond those which were the basis for his jury conviction.

as in...?

quote:

Similar to Libby's coverup of Cheney's role in the affair.

desperate reaching.

quote:

Lastly much like Rita's past history of service should be ignored,

not according to his own primary argument against stricter punishment.

quote:

so should Libby's.

an argument can be made that the extenuating circumstances of Libby's past service to his country differ in that Rita's being a former Marine, highly skilled and experienced in firearms, involved repeatedly in Federal firearms violations could be considered aggrivating circumstances. this is moot though.

quote:

Libby committed a FELONY offense and has served less time than Paris Hilton.

wrong. Paris was already in violation of her probation. the courts have little leeway in regards to DUI convictions and violations of probation of those convictions

quote:

And this in your mind is acceptable ... personal accountability surrenders.

that's hilarious

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo where is the corruption in libby's commutation, HUH? show me PLEASE where the corruption is. otherwise shut the hell up! you haven't the slightest clue what the f**k youre talking about.

I understand that you don't seem to fathom the corruption, even denying its innate nature in politics; most of us suit our own ends, and I assume you have a reason for thinking the way you do (perhaps you work in politics for the republican party, and have a paycheck to defend... who knows?)

Anyway, I suppose the response was aimed towards the individuals on the forum who have a different perspective or one that could be considered dynamic.

As I'm fairly convinced by this point that you would justify genocide of the American people as long as Bush authorized it.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby As I'm fairly convinced by this point that you would justify genocide of the American people as long as Bush authorized it.

No real need when your name is synonymous with hypocrisy when it comes to law and democracy in the international communities eyes. You can argue it's unfair and judged poorly from afar by people who don't live there, however there is something to be said for having a perspective away from the coal face and that is you don't have a personal attachment to it, which is handy for a lack of bias.

Essentially, maybe Bush is right to grant clemency, after all it's perfectly legal to do so.
However, looking at it from a bipartisan perspective, it just reeks of nepotism and an old boys club making sure they look after their own first at the cost of justice.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo ok? that doesn't say anything to the that fact that he [Rita] was the primary subject of the investigation, Libby wasn't.

I'm curious, you do realize who leaked the the classified information to Armitage in the first place, don't you?

You see, unlike Libby, Armitage fessed up and cooperated with the investigators, which was why at present there was not enough information to demonstrate he intended to deliberately disclose Plame's name.

Libby, OTOH, confessed to nothing, showed absolutely no remorse to his actions, and believed the whole matter was a gigantic brain fart on his part over and over with all those darn conversations he had with Cheney and others.

quote:

an argument can be made that the extenuating circumstances of Libby's past service to his country differ in that Rita's being a former Marine, highly skilled and experienced in firearms, involved repeatedly in Federal firearms violations could be considered aggrivating circumstances. this is moot though.

That argument cannot be made because as I explained earlier, Rita's prior felony history is >10 years ago, and therefore cannot be considered in the sentencing guidelines. So in terms of the guidelines themselves for sentencing, both were one-time offenders.


One other thing I'd just like to note. I've mentioned this before but Matthew Yglesias from the Atlantic perhaps restates it better than I could:

quote:

"Most of Libby's defenders -- George W. Bush, David Brooks, etc. -- don't seem to be denying that Libby committed a crime by lying under oath to investigators.

Very true. I haven't heard of anyone on the Right attempt to say otherwise.

quote:

They want us to say that, rather, he deserves to be treated very leniently because there was no big deal here. The alleged absence of an underlying crime is key to that theory.

I think that sums up Q's argument by and large so far, would you not agree, Q?

quote:

The converse theory is that there was an underlying crime and the crime can't be proven because Libby lied to investigators.

Which I fully agree is my argument.

quote:

If that theory is wrong -- if there really was no crime -- then it seems we ought to get some kind of explanation from Libby as to why he lied. People sometimes do have reasons to lie to investigators other than a desire to cover up criminal activity (hiding non-criminal activity that's embarrassing is the obvious one) but if Libby wants mercy he should offer up a plausible score on this account. But Libby hasn't offered any such story. Instead, he's offered a wildly implausible story -- that he's innocent. Under those circumstances, it's very odd to offer clemency. He's shown no remorse and appears to be continually engaged in a conspiracy to obstruct justice. Maybe there was no crime here; but if there wasn't, then what was Libby doing? He's not even trying to convince us that he had some other reason to lie. http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic....s_committed.php

Precisely my point. So if there wasn't an underlying crime committed, then why hasn't there been any explanation AT ALL from Libby and his lawyer, other than the asinine assertion that he's innocent with zero evidence to support the claim?

Why did he lie in the first place then?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo you heard me. we don't care.

Yea you see I asked you to elaborate as to the distinctions I didn't ask you whether you cared or not or whether I heard you correctly but thanks for playing.

quote:

ok? that doesn't say anything to the that fact that he [Rita] was the primary subject of the investigation, Libby wasn't.

Sigh. Ummm yes Libby was. Libby wasn't convicted of the underlying crime that he was accused of and neither was Rita. Rita was being investigated in the possible violation of a machine-gun registration law. Was he convicted of that?? Libby was investigated of a possible violation of a federal law making it a crime to disclose the identities of undercover intelligence agents in some circumstances. Regardless of whether he was the actual source for the actual article that instigated the entire affair, if he disclosed said information to ANYONE, regardless of whether said reporter did anything with the information he's guilty. The FACT of the matter is (and it's factual because Libby wasn't pardoned but commuted) is that Libby, much like Rita, is GUILTY of lying to federal investigators despite not being charged with the underlying crime. Or are you an advocate of perjury when it can get you off?

quote:

as in...? desperate reaching.

LOL you accuse me of reaching when you vindicate the crime of perjury? I'm experiencing a combination of hilarity and sadness I've never seen before.

quote:

not according to his own primary argument against stricter punishment. an argument can be made that the extenuating circumstances of Libby's past service to his country differ in that Rita's being a former Marine, highly skilled and experienced in firearms, involved repeatedly in Federal firearms violations could be considered aggrivating circumstances. this is moot though.

Wow. Really I never thought that you, of all people, would stoop so low as to use a serviceman's past record of serving in our armed forces as prejudicial evidence of guilt in a firearms charge ... ANY charge really in order to defend your political allegiances. That's something even the most craziest of lefties won't do. Well I tip my hat to you.

quote:

wrong. Paris was already in violation of her probation. the courts have little leeway in regards to DUI convictions and violations of probation of those convictions

Yes because Paris's infraction is sooooooo much more serious of an offense than libby's. Please explain that in detail?

quote:

that's hilarious

Yea you would think personal accountability to be a funny idea.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Yea you see I asked you to elaborate as to the distinctions I didn't ask you whether you cared or not or whether I heard you correctly but thanks for playing.

seriously, is this a joke? are we gonna argue semantics over the word "distinction"? is what i could tell you about the Clinton impeachment something that you couldn't find out on your f**king own?

quote:

Sigh. Ummm yes Libby was.

ummm, no see, this is the epitomy of the absolute ignorance of the Bush Derangement crowd. Libby's indictment was a result of his his testimony to the FBI and the original Grand Jury. Fitz requested a second grand Jury to further investigate the reporters and their sources resposible for the leak in which he concluded NOTHING.

quote:

Libby wasn't convicted of the underlying crime that he was accused of and neither was Rita. Rita was being investigated in the possible violation of a machine-gun registration law. Was he convicted of that?? Libby was investigated of a possible violation of a federal law making it a crime to disclose the identities of undercover intelligence agents in some circumstances.

you're missunderstanding the main argument. Rita was the only witness in his very own investigation of the Feds. being he was the one who purchased the gun kit and subsequently obstructed his own investigation and lied about his own involvement with nobody but himself and the gun manufacturer.

Libby was involved in an broad investigation involving everyone from the President to Judy Miller. only Libby was the one who was suspected of anything in that investigation.

quote:

Regardless of whether he was the actual source for the actual article that instigated the entire affair, if he disclosed said information to ANYONE, regardless of whether said reporter did anything with the information he's guilty.

wrong again. it's about timing and who knew what when, and how they came about it. and in the end, NOONE was found guilty of outing ANYONE.

quote:

The FACT of the matter is (and it's factual because Libby wasn't pardoned but commuted) is that Libby, much like Rita, is GUILTY of lying to federal investigators despite not being charged with the underlying crime. Or are you an advocate of perjury when it can get you off?

well, honestly, you or i don't know why the Feds didn't charge Rita with any other crime. as a matter of fact, there very well possibly couldn't be an underlying crime with Rita seeing as how the Feds just wanted to know about a particular gun kit he had purchased and it's potential illegality. maybe the the prosecutor felt he couldn't prove one way or another. there can be all sorts of possibilities but "the FACT of the matter is" the cases are dissimilar in sooooo many ways and really you just don't know, do you?

quote:

LOL you accuse me of reaching when you vindicate the crime of perjury?

i'm not vindicating anything.

quote:

Wow. Really I never thought that you, of all people, would stoop so low as to use a serviceman's past record of serving in our armed forces as prejudicial evidence of guilt in a firearms charge ... ANY charge really in order to defend your political allegiances. That's something even the most craziest of lefties won't do. Well I tip my hat to you.

oh please spare us this faux indignation

this is an accademic discussion about whether illegal firearms and Federal violation of such could be construed as aggravating or mitigating circumstances in the hands most capable of using them.

this isn't an attack on anybody in particular but what can be sufficient evidence in a court of law.

quote:

Please explain that in detail?

i did and this is sooo stupid you bringing this up BTW. typical of the left and their emotion/facts disconnect

let's put aside the fact that DUI charges are and should be taken very seriously.

Paris was not only in violation of her 36 month probation stemming from her DUI/reckless driving sentence when she was pulled over in January she was pulled over again a month later AND she failed to enroll in achohol ed class as stipulated by her probation.

i don't know if you are aware of the mandatory sentences of DUI probation violators in some states they can be very stiff and most of the time, like i said, judges have very little leeway in those mandatory sentences.

regardless, fact is in LA county most violators like hers, and in a lot of other cases, actually only serve about 10% of their original sentence with good behavior.

quote:

Yea you would think personal accountability to be a funny idea.

whatev. it's about context...and you ain't got none. thanx for playing

well, Conyer's one day useless exercise of looking into Libby's commutation proved nothing but there actually was NO CONSPIRACY OUTING PLAME.

hardly on the Committee's topic at hand, but it's Conyer's committee and he can ask whatever he wants. it's not the answer you guys were pining for though, huh?

just stupid. stupid, stupid, stupid.

there's a pill for toenail fungus, there needs to be pill for Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Not really read this but is anyone SERIOUSLY contesting how much of a dodgy deal this is?

I mean a court of your land overruled by the guys mate?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo seriously, is this a joke? are we gonna argue semantics over the word "distinction"? is what i could tell you about the Clinton impeachment something that you couldn't find out on your f**king own?

Ummm no it�s not a joke. And how are we arguing semantics over the word �distinction�? Please spell this out pedantically because I have no idea what you�re talking about. I essentially asked you to elaborate on your position. You responded to my request with a �we don�t care� statement. So retarded responses aside, please answer the question.

quote:

ummm, no see, this is the epitomy of the absolute ignorance of the Bush Derangement crowd. Libby's indictment was a result of his his testimony to the FBI and the original Grand Jury. Fitz requested a second grand Jury to further investigate the reporters and their sources resposible for the leak in which he concluded NOTHING.

God, the degree to which you�ll obfuscate the issue amazes me. Fitzgerald was investigating the crime of revealing top secret information related to the identity of an undercover CIA agent. This investigation stems from Novak�s story on Plame. While Libby was not the �initial� or �primary� source for Novak�s story that does not equate with him having no role in being one of the sources in the article, Libby is still guilty of disclosing that information to Judith Miller and lying to investigators about his role in the affair.

From Judth Miller:

quote:

in an interview with me on June 23 [2003], Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, discussed Mr. Wilson's activities and placed blame for intelligence failures on the C.I.A. In later conversations with me, on July 8 and July 12 [2003], Mr. Libby, ... [at the time] Mr. Cheney's top aide, played down the importance of Mr. Wilson's mission and questioned his performance. ... My notes indicate that well before Mr. Wilson published his critique, Mr. Libby told me that Mr. Wilson's wife may have worked on unconventional weapons at the C.I.A. ...

quote:

you're missunderstanding the main argument. Rita was the only witness in his very own investigation of the Feds. being he was the one who purchased the gun kit and subsequently obstructed his own investigation and lied about his own involvement with nobody but himself and the gun manufacturer. Libby was involved in an broad investigation involving everyone from the President to Judy Miller. only Libby was the one who was suspected of anything in that investigation.

Libby was one witness in an investigation he was a part of and he was being considered for the crime of leaking classified information to a reporter and subsequently obstructed the investigation by lying about his own involvement with the reporter he leaked classified information to. What�s your point?

quote:

wrong again. it's about timing and who knew what when, and how they came about it. and in the end, NOONE was found guilty of outing ANYONE.

Armitage was not charged because he willingly came forward, disclosed the truth of his involvement, and Fitzgerald determined that he did not maliciously disclose the identity of an undercover CIA reporter. Libby on the other hand lied about HOW he learned about Plame�s identity via multiple discussions with Cheney, and mislead investigators by claiming he learned about it from Russert. Libby knew with certainty that Plame was employed by the CIA via Cheney and failed to disclose to reporters that he was uncertain of that fact if he were privy to such information via Russert.

[qutoe]
well, honestly, you or i don't know why the Feds didn't charge Rita with any other crime. as a matter of fact, there very well possibly couldn't be an underlying crime with Rita seeing as how the Feds just wanted to know about a particular gun kit he had purchased and it's potential illegality. maybe the the prosecutor felt he couldn't prove one way or another. there can be all sorts of possibilities but "the FACT of the matter is" the cases are dissimilar in sooooo many ways and really you just don't know, do you?
[/quote]

Hehe fantastic. Well honestly you or I don�t know why the Feds didn�t charge libby with any other crime as a matter fact. There very well possibly couldn�t be an underlying crime with Libby seeing as how the feds just wanted to know about a particular occurrence of events and its potential illegality. Maybe the prosecutor felt he couldn�t prove one way or another. There can be all sorts of possibilities. But the �FACT of the matter is� you have no clue what you�re talking about don�t you?

quote:

i'm not vindicating anything.

Sure you are. The man is guilty of perjury and persistent lies to a grand jury and you�re saying he shouldn�t serve time in jail. Remember Libby is guilty and that verdict is validated by Bush�s commutation as opposed to pardon. Rita is convicted of the same crime and yet the Bush administration is weak on crime when it comes to cronyism.

quote:

oh please spare us this faux indignation this is an accademic discussion about whether illegal firearms and Federal violation of such could be construed as aggravating or mitigating circumstances in the hands most capable of using them. this isn't an attack on anybody in particular but what can be sufficient evidence in a court of law.

Yes it�s �faux� indignation because I couldn�t possibly care about stereotyping our military when it suits a political cause you dick

This is what you said:

quote:

an argument can be made that the extenuating circumstances of Libby's past service to his country differ in that Rita's being a former Marine, highly skilled and experienced in firearms, involved repeatedly in Federal firearms violations could be considered aggrivating circumstances.

Please explain to me how this is sufficient evidence in any court of law? Yea using the same logic and assumptions, as a lawyer, Libby is quite experienced with people lying and thus his career is an aggravating circumstance in his own potential to lie.

quote:

i did and this is sooo stupid you bringing this up BTW. typical of the left and their emotion/facts disconnect let's put aside the fact that DUI charges are and should be taken very seriously. Paris was not only in violation of her 36 month probation stemming from her DUI/reckless driving sentence when she was pulled over in January she was pulled over again a month later AND she failed to enroll in achohol ed class as stipulated by her probation. i don't know if you are aware of the mandatory sentences of DUI probation violators in some states they can be very stiff and most of the time, like i said, judges have very little leeway in those mandatory sentences. regardless, fact is in LA county most violators like hers, and in a lot of other cases, actually only serve about 10% of their original sentence with good behavior.

Yea first I�m not the �left�. But I guess you�re assuming that whoever is not part of the �26%� who still approve of Bush are the �left� so whatever..

Second, I don�t care what you say about paris. Blah blah blah dui � probation � didn�t� serve sentence � whatever.

Libby leaked [b]classified[/] information to reporters about a CIA agent�s undercover status and potentially played a role in damaging national security even if he did not damage national security via the novak article. Yup. Sounds about right.

quote:

whatev. it's about context...and you ain't got none. thanx for playing

Fine. Give me ANY context whereby you demanded personal accountability from our executive branch that was lacking? I have yet to see you criticize this administration for ANYTHING as memory serves me.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider So retarded responses aside, please answer the question.

you know how to spell. find out for yourself and quit wasting my f**king time with Clinton's impeachment.

quote:

God, the degree to which you�ll obfuscate the issue amazes me. Fitzgerald was investigating the crime of revealing top secret information related to the identity of an undercover CIA agent. This investigation stems from Novak�s story on Plame. While Libby was not the �initial� or �primary� source for Novak�s story that does not equate with him having no role in being one of the sources in the article, Libby is still guilty of disclosing that information to Judith Miller and lying to investigators about his role in the affair. From Judth Miller:

again, you fail to grasp the basic fundamentals of this case.

Libby avoids any and all culpability because he never mentions Valerie Plame by name or reveals that she was in any classified capacity at the CIA. this then becomes evidentiary to the fact that the Administration (as far as the Vice President's office is concerned) intended no malice in refering to Joe Wilson's wife.

it's Libby's recolection pertinant only to the investigation that becomes the question.

quote:

What�s your point?

it's dissimilar. it's dissimilarity in Rita strikes at the heart of why the Justice Dept. filed a friend of the court brief arguing for the upholding of the Appeallate court ruling.

quote:

Armitage was not charged because he willingly came forward, disclosed the truth of his involvement, and Fitzgerald determined that he did not maliciously disclose the identity of an undercover CIA reporter.

right.

quote:

Libby on the other hand lied about HOW he learned about Plame�s identity via multiple discussions with Cheney, and mislead investigators by claiming he learned about it from Russert. Libby knew with certainty that Plame was employed by the CIA via Cheney and failed to disclose to reporters that he was uncertain of that fact if he were privy to such information via Russert.

and...? no one outed anybody. lets keep going in circles here.

HELL ARMITAGE EVEN TOLD BOB WOODWARD!!!!. he was a gossip. why wouldn't Armitage tell everyone in the frikken Cabinet what he knew? apparently he did.

noone but Armitage named names and clearances.

quote:

Well honestly you or I don�t know why the Feds didn�t charge libby with any other crime as a matter fact.

yes we do. in Rita there was no allegation of any wrongdoing pursuant to the intial investigation. in the CIA leak investigation there was. none was found.

nice try.

quote:

Rita is convicted of the same crime

yet the cases and circumstances are very different. as has been demonstrated.

quote:

Yes it�s �faux� indignation because I couldn�t possibly care about stereotyping our military when it suits a political cause you dick This is what you said:

this is an accademic dicussion regarding what may or may not be construed as circumstantial in a court of law.

don't cry on me now nancy.

quote:

Yea first I�m not the �left�.

oh, yeah ya are. you're the mysterious pile of matter that looks and smells funny

quote:

Libby leaked [b]classified[/] information to reporters about a CIA agent�s undercover status and potentially played a role in damaging national security even if he did not damage national security via the novak article. Yup. Sounds about right.

wrong. Libby never named anyone. Libby never accused anyone of being classified or covert.

hows the humidity there in the feverswamp?

There should be a forum mandated limit to how many times a specific poster can respond to a thread... say 3 or 4.

It would get rid of a lot of the fluff, and make the existing posts more worthwhile and thoughtful.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo again, you fail to grasp the basic fundamentals of this case.

Actually it's more like you're being willfully ignorant of the fundamentals of this case.

quote:

Libby avoids any and all culpability because he never mentions Valerie Plame by name or reveals that she was in any classified capacity at the CIA. this then becomes evidentiary to the fact that the Administration (as far as the Vice President's office is concerned) intended no malice in refering to Joe Wilson's wife. it's Libby's recolection pertinant only to the investigation that becomes the question.

Actually it's Libby's deliberate OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND PERJURY that's in question. Isn't that what you mean?

Regardless, let's take a closer look at a few things here about our dear Libby. According to the indictment against Libby:

quote:

"On or about June 12, 2003, Libby was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Division. Libby understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5102801086.html

Which if we all recall, he was convicted on 4 out of those 5 counts given so there is veracity to the claims made on those indictments as well as prior testimony to back them up.

The part I'm concerned about is in bold: Counterproliferation Division. I'm sure you're aware, Q., that the Counterproliferation Division is an agency in the Directorate of Operations, which works undercover according to the CIA website:

quote:

The Directorate of Operations is responsible for the clandestine collection of foreign intelligence. The current director is under cover and cannot be named at the present time. http://www.cia.gov/cia/information/info.html

Now putting the past arguments of "covert" aside for now, I bring this up because according to the testimony by Judy Miller, Libby did NOT mention Counterproliferation Division to her in regards to Plame's status at the CIA. Instead, he mentioned this:

quote:

Q: Did there come a time following the publication of [Ambassador Joseph] Wilson's op-ed [July 6, 2003] that you met with Mr. Libby again? A: Yes. Q: When was that? A: July 8th. [...] Q: Was there discussion at any time about Mr. Wilson's wife [Plame] on this occasion? A: Yes. Q: Can you tell us what you recall about that? A: Yes. Mr. Libby was discussing what he called two streams of reporting on uranium and on efforts by Iraq to acquire sensitive materials and components. He said the first stream was reports like that of Joe Wilson. Then he said the second stream, and at that point he said, once again, as an aside, that Mr. Wilson's wife worked at WINPAC. Q: Can you tell us what WINPAC is? A: Yes, WINPAC is, stands for Weapons Intelligence Non-Proliferation and Arms Control. It's a part of the CIA which is specifically focused on weapons of mass destruction. http://www.sterlingpublishing.com/c...n=9781402752599

Funny thing about WINPAC is that it's part of the Directorate of Intelligence, which just so happens to be on the overt side of the CIA (i.e. NOT undercover):

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005...ain950915.shtml

You following me here? IOW, Libby was told by Cheney that Wilson's wife worked for the COVERT side of the CIA (i.e. CPD), but turned around and told Miller that she worked for the OVERT side instead (i.e. WINPAC). So to make things easier for obfuscators and apologists, it's looks incredibly obvious that Libby was intentionally misleading Miller as to the status of Plame, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS KNOWN THAT HE KNEW OF HER STATUS because tricky Dick gave it to him. Now we can play dumb and dumber to live long day on the fact that Libby didn't outright disclose the status of Plame by misleading Miller, which by testimony is most certainly true, but it's obvious that disclosure of such information would likely lead to a reporter doing their job and reporting that information in the press, only lo and behold to find out that such information wasn't entirely correct in regards to someone's covert status.

In that particular instance, that CIA officer's cover is completely blown. This is what Libby was banking on. It's the only logical conclusion one can make about why he misled a reporter (and confirmed it with another reporter - Matt Cooper). Or was it just another one of Libby's famous brain farts? Just like the brain fart that he even had the fucking conversation with Miller in the first place?:

quote:

�In two appearances before the federal grand jury investigating the leak of a covert CIA operative�s name, Lewis (Scooter) Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Cheney, did not disclose a crucial conversation that he had with New York Times reporter Judith Miller in June 2003 about the operative, Valerie Plame.� http://nationaljournal.com/about/nj...005/1011nj1.htm

Here's some more evidence that Libby knew all about Plame. Libby spoke to his principle deputy, Eric Edelman, about an article in the New Republic (http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=a%2...%2BYDplFD%3D%3D) and discussed whether or not they could share info. about the Wilson's wife supposedly sending Wilson to Niger. According to the indictments:

quote:

"13. Shortly after publication of the article in The New Republic, LIBBY spoke by telephone with his then Principal Deputy and discussed the article. That official asked LIBBY whether information about Wilson�s trip could be shared with the press to rebut the allegations that the Vice President had sent Wilson. LIBBY responded that there would be complications at the CIA in disclosing that information publicly, and that he could not discuss the matter on a non-secure telephone line.

Another part of the indictment is interesting as well:

quote:

16. On or about July 7, 2003, LIBBY had lunch with the then White House Press Secretary and advised the Press Secretary that Wilson�s wife worked at the CIA and noted that such information was not widely known.

Now I wonder why such info. was not widely known?

And the following on #17 is also interesting:

quote:

17. On or about the morning of July 8, 2003, LIBBY met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. When the conversation turned to the subject of Joseph Wilson, LIBBY asked that the information LIBBY provided on the topic of Wilson be attributed to a former Hill staffer rather than to a senior administration official, as had been the understanding with respect to other information that LIBBY provided to Miller during this meeting. LIBBY thereafter discussed with Miller Wilson�s trip and criticized the CIA reporting concerning Wilson�s trip. During this discussion, LIBBY advised Miller of his belief that Wilson�s wife worked for the CIA.

Now why would he want Miller to print a "former hill staffer" instead of a "senior administration official" out of anonymity with information in regards to Wilson's wife working at the CIA? Why would he do that if she only worked for WINPAC and not the covert side of the Counterproliferation Division?

Because he's sooo incredibly innocent and just had nothing to do with willful disclosure of a covert CIA operative who's job in the Directorate of Operations was to seek out WMD proliferation in other countries like Iraq and Iran.

Yep. Works for me too. You bet.

Now again, we cannot know with certainty that Libby disclosed information that may have violated IIPA (or that the VP and President gave him such information to do so) because:

quote:

(Libby's lies) "made impossible an accurate evaluation of the role that Mr. Libby and those with whom he worked played in the disclosure of information regarding Ms. Wilson's CIA employment and about the motivations for their actions."

Hence the word "obstruction."

quote:

it's dissimilar. it's dissimilarity in Rita strikes at the heart of why the Justice Dept. filed a friend of the court brief arguing for the upholding of the Appeallate court ruling.

Irrelevant to Occ's point. No one is arguing about the "friend of the court" briefing. As Occ continues to point out to you (in vain really), in both instances you have an obstruction of justice being performed by the convicted felons that OBSTRUCTED further investigation into the wrongdoings of either one, or in the case of Libby in the possible wrongdoings of those working with him in the VP's office. You have not explained in any manner what exactly is the fundamental dissimilarity between the two that dictates why Libby receive no jail time while Rita does. In fact I would argue based on those merits that a jail time is much more mandated for Libby BECAUSE of possible further involvement with him and others in the VP office in disclosing the cover of a clandestine covert agent in the CIA.

All this time throughout this entire comparison, one has to really wonder which crime is worse - failing to disclose information regarding gun purchases, or disclosing classified information involving a CIA covert operative who's job is to actually fucking protect our country from rogue nations obtaining WMDs.

So if you want to "strike at the heart" of anything, let's talk about the "heart" of the matter involving the ethical lapses between these two defendants.

quote:

and...? no one outed anybody. lets keep going in circles here.

The only person going in circles is you. Everyone else is sitting on the sidelines watching you burn your tires out up in smoke. You simply restating things doesn't make them any more true.

But you're welcome to keep spinning in circles to your heart's content.

quote:

HELL ARMITAGE EVEN TOLD BOB WOODWARD!!!!. he was a gossip. why wouldn't Armitage tell everyone in the frikken Cabinet what he knew? apparently he did. noone but Armitage named names and clearances.

Legally, you're correct. Otherwise of course there would be more charges filed against Libby. But since you like going in circles, let's again say what I've said over and over:

quote:

(Libby's lies) "made impossible an accurate evaluation of the role that Mr. Libby and those with whom he worked played in the disclosure of information regarding Ms. Wilson's CIA employment and about the motivations for their actions."

But once again, and I guess now that I think about it I am going in circles with you - Armitage named names but came clean and out in the open about his mistakes. Libby, however, did not.

So why did Libby fail to come clean with anything, Q? Why did he lie?

quote:

yes we do. in Rita there was no allegation of any wrongdoing pursuant to the intial investigation. in the CIA leak investigation there was. none was found. nice try.

Wait a sec. Prior you said this to Occ:

quote:

well, honestly, you or i don't know why the Feds didn't charge Rita with any other crime. as a matter of fact, there very well possibly couldn't be an underlying crime with Rita seeing as how the Feds just wanted to know about a particular gun kit he had purchased and it's potential illegality. maybe the the prosecutor felt he couldn't prove one way or another.

Ummm, how far shall we be parsing words here? "Potential illegality"? Well yes, we can say the exact identical statement regarding Libby's case, can we not? Was there not "potential illegality" involving the possible violation of IIPA or Espionage Act? But in this instance involving Libby, the charges filed against him were because his testimony made it impossible to see if any possible underlying crime (i.e. violation of IIPA or Espionage Act) was committed, as it was detailed in his indictment charges, and then further stated by Fitz in his May 25th memorandum:

quote:

While not commenting on the reasons for the charging decisions as to any other persons, we can say that the reasons why Mr. Libby was not charged with an offense directly relating to his unauthorized disclosures of classified information regarding Ms. Wilson included, but were not limited to, the fact that Mr. Libby's false testimony obscured a confident determination of what in fact occurred, particularly where the accounts of the reporters with whom Mr. Libby spoke (and their notes) did not include any explicit evidence specifically proving that Mr. Libby knew that Ms. Wilson was a covert agent. http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-...507.pdf#page=14

So in both instances, "potential illegality" was most certainly there, but could not be specifically charged because of the deliberate obstruction of both defendants.

Nice try yourself.

quote:

wrong. Libby never named anyone. Libby never accused anyone of being classified or covert.

Because:

quote:

[QUOTE](Libby's lies) "made impossible an accurate evaluation of the role that Mr. Libby and those with whom he worked played in the disclosure of information regarding Ms. Wilson's CIA employment and about the motivations for their actions."

He did name someone, however. Sorry.

quote:

hows the humidity there in the feverswamp?

How's the oxygen in the Wingnutosphere? You know what a lack of 02 does to your brain, right?

BTW, just to be clear about any arguments about no "underlying crime", let's keep in mind what Fitz was focusing on here. According to his memorandum in May:

quote:

"The investigation was never limited to disclosure of Ms. Wilson's CIA affiliation to Mr. Novak; rather, from the outset the investigation sought to determine who disclosed information about Ms. Wilson to various reporters, including -- but not limited to -- Mr. Novak." http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-...507.pdf#page=11

Which of course lies at the very heart of Libby's involvement and why he lied about who told him info. about Wilson's wife working at the CIA. So I ask again, perhaps in vain:

Why did Libby lie in the first place then?

Perhaps one day we'll get you to answering that very simple, basic, fundamental question.

Way I look at the current 'pardoning' fiasco as simply and succinctly as possible is sort of along the lines of Bush actually getting some decent advice for once.

He commutes the prison term for this Libby guy and leaves the convictions standing.
Meaning that Libby can appeal all he wants and as long as that case is running (probably well past the next election, no need to rush), then the muppets in power can just turn around and say
"Not going to comment on a case in progress"
Thank you very much.

If they actually just let him off the hook with no recriminations what so ever he can't be made to testify against the same said muppets involvement because that would be incriminating himself (as well as them!) and I don't think he can be put on trial for the same crimes a 2nd time?
(My knowledge of exact US legal process isn't the best in this particular area.)

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo you know how to spell. find out for yourself and quit wasting my f**king time with Clinton's impeachment.

This comes from the guy who constantly brings up Clinton yet continually defends Libby with statements such as

quote:

�THERE WAS NO UNDERLYING CRIME TO BEGIN WITH. THAT FACT WAS KNOWN FROM THE START OF THE INVESTIGATION IN 2003.� Jul-03-2007 21:33

quote:

Q5echo: I only bring up Clinton in the context of a comparison. i figured it would be familiar enought to the both of us, but forget it. by it's own definition of Obstruction of Justice, no actual investigation or substantiated suspicion of a specific incident need exist to support a charge of obstruction of justice. NO CRIME COULD HAVE BEEN OBSTRUCTED BECAUSE NO CRIME HAD TAKEN PLACE FROM THE BEGINNING

Yes � no crime EXCEPT PERJURY. What underlying crime was Clinton charged with beyond perjury smart guy? This was a crime of which Libby was convicted of by a jury of his peers. Unless you somehow think that Libby is above the law that applies to everyone else that�s not part of the Bush administration

quote:

again, you fail to grasp the basic fundamentals of this case. Libby avoids any and all culpability because he never mentions Valerie Plame by name or reveals that she was in any classified capacity at the CIA. this then becomes evidentiary to the fact that the Administration (as far as the Vice President's office is concerned) intended no malice in refering to Joe Wilson's wife. it's Libby's recolection pertinant only to the investigation that becomes the question.

Christ how obtuse can you get? Yea he NEVER mentioned Valerie Plame by name, but he referred to her as Joe Wilson�s wife and that she was a CIA agent. My yes, because he didn�t label her as an undercover agent that makes EVERYTHING a ok! Ergo, any government official can out a CIA employee, covert or not, as a CIA employee so long as they don�t specify that they�re covert. Yea that�s fantastic common sense you�re using there champ.

quote:

it's dissimilar. it's dissimilarity in Rita strikes at the heart of why the Justice Dept. filed a friend of the court brief arguing for the upholding of the Appeallate court ruling.

Explain? You like to obfuscate but often fail to explain.

quote:

and...? no one outed anybody. lets keep going in circles here. HELL ARMITAGE EVEN TOLD BOB WOODWARD!!!!. he was a gossip. why wouldn't Armitage tell everyone in the frikken Cabinet what he knew? apparently he did. noone but Armitage named names and clearances.

Heh, back to square one. Armitage never lied to federal investigators. Libby DID LIE. Which conveniently obstructed the investigation as to whether a crime was committed on Libby�s or the Vice Presidency�s part.

Wait, Libby is GUILTY of a crime right?? WTF would he lie if it was a non-issue???? If it were, why would the �principled� Bush commute his sentence rather than pardon him?

quote:

yes we do. in Rita there was no allegation of any wrongdoing pursuant to the intial investigation. in the CIA leak investigation there was. none was found. nice try.

Heh, cute. There�s something called conspiracy to commit a crime even if the intended crime did not occur such that the defendant is actually guilty of physically carrying out the crime.

quote:

yet the cases and circumstances are very different. as has been demonstrated.

Nope. And a mere sentence doesn�t justify your argument.

quote:

this is an accademic dicussion regarding what may or may not be construed as circumstantial in a court of law. don't cry on me now nancy.

Ok douchebag. You probably realize that that was one of the most retarded things you�ve said, but I�ll be sure to remind you of it every single time some whack job makes a fucktarded statement about our military based on the �circumstantial� justification that they were a soldier. Hey Libby�s a lawyer, ergo we should have a prejudicial attitude that he has a greater propensity to lie or the ability to manipulate the truth � sweet.

I�ll stop crying when you man up nancy..

quote:

oh, yeah ya are. you're the mysterious pile of matter that looks and smells funny

Mmmhmmm. Can you even identify any �leftist� ideologies that I subscribe to? Can you definitively label my political ideology on the multitude of issues? Or are you consistently as full of shit on this as everything else?

quote:

wrong. Libby never named anyone. Libby never accused anyone of being classified or covert.

Yea yea, and what is the definition of �is�? Thanks for playing..

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.