The Libby case
This letter has not been edited.
I'm afraid Larry doesn't understanding the radical right wing extremists who were gleeful that a dishonest man avoided having to be accountable for his dishonesty. The radical right wing extremists are at war with the courts except when the courts side with them so any action by a dictatorial president to weaken the courts and assert the divine right of kings is A-OK with them. The Rule of Law is something that the radical right wing extremists thumb their noses at. They don't want things clarified Larry because then they would see what miserable patriots they really are claiming to love this country while supporting criminals who are tearing it apart. These traitors want to stick their heads in the sand and pretend that they aren't any better than Clinton.
Posted by Wes on July 5, 2007 07:50 PMWes,
Next time, purchase your wine in a 750ml bottle, that's the smaller one on the shelf in the store, next to the 1.5 which you drank just before posting.
skeptical:
Do you agree with Bush's decision to commute Libby's sentence?
Posted by Charles B on July 5, 2007 09:19 PMYes. The blood pressure of every dyed-in-the-wool socialist went up 30 points. Isn't that reward enough?
Posted by skeptical on July 5, 2007 09:47 PMLarry:
How about including the fact that there was no underlying crime and Fitzgerald knew this even as the investigation was beginning? Richard Armitage of the State Department was the leaker and he is hardly a partisan friend of the Bush/Cheney cabal.
Even with this knowledge, which he withheld, Fitzgerald pressed on to see what he could uncover.
Just like the special prosecutor in the Clinton Whitewater case, this is a perfect reason why we should do away with the idea of special prosecutors. Seems the only thing they accomplish is padding their own pockets.
Special prosecutors rarely turn up much but they spend years and millions on political witchhunts demanded by partisans.
Posted by RU Serious on July 5, 2007 10:18 PMAsked if he agreed with the commutation of Libby, skeptical said:
"Yes. The blood pressure of every dyed-in-the-wool socialist went up 30 points. Isn't that reward enough?"
Though your claim (that your silly postings could affect anyone's blood pressure) and terminology (dyed in the wool socialist) are both laughable, I have a related question: Which part of that Bible you constantly thump tells you to purposefully agitate and hope for negative reactions?
Just another confirmation that the biggest Thumpers are the least likely to walk the walk...
Posted by Charles B on July 6, 2007 07:24 AMRU Serious parrotted the continually debunked talking point from Libby apologists:
"How about including the fact that there was no underlying crime and Fitzgerald knew this even as the investigation was beginning? Richard Armitage
of the State Department was the leaker and he is hardly a partisan friend of the Bush/Cheney cabal."
The underlying crime was never laid bare because of Libby's obstruction.
It is wrong to state that Armitage was "the" leaker. He was one of many, and the only one who seemingly didn't know about Plame's covert status. He also came clean immediately (rather than lie like Libby).
Posted by Charles B on July 6, 2007 07:40 AMThis case should of never had gone to court,because it wasn't a case.
Posted by bart on July 6, 2007 09:30 AMbart said:
"This case should of never had gone to court,because it wasn't a case."
Could you back up your contention with some legal reasoning?
Posted by Charles B on July 6, 2007 10:25 AMYup - the prosecutor did his job - and Libby was freed by the Bush/Cheney crime syndicate. But who's surprised?
Posted by drew on July 6, 2007 10:36 AMWes, Charles B, Drew - Did you rail this much when Clinton made his pardons or is your anger selective and partisan?
And before you accuse me of defending Bush because "Clinton did it too" I'll share some info with you.
The power to pardon is presidential. No controls, no certain conditions must exist for him to exercise this authority.
I thought many of Clintons pardons were wrong, done for monetary reward (library donations, etc...) or just poor judgement. The difference between you and me is I didn't go on and on about how Clinton was abusing his authority and try to make a mountain out of a molehill. He has the power and ability to make those decisions whether I agree with them or not. That's how life is in the good ol' USA.
I can handle letting the pres have powers that are out of my control. Be he dem , rep or ind.
Try it sometime.
Posted by KW on July 6, 2007 01:49 PMCharles B wrote
Which part of that Bible you constantly thump tells you to purposefully agitate and hope for negative reactions?
I am dead serious about my humor.
and wrote.......
Just another confirmation that the biggest Thumpers are the least likely to walk the walk...
First of all, I find that the biggest Christian critics are the least likely to understand anything about the walk..............
My only comfort here is that you are not part of the review board to determine who is eligible for Salvation.
Faith in the shed blood of Christ is the key to eternal life, the sanctification process is lifelong and I am a poor representative of the perfect Lord that I profess. For that failing, I apologize. You deserve better from me.
When you, yourself, stand before the judgement seat of Christ, what I have done or said to you will not be a part of the discussion. The best choice at this point in time, which will excuse you from even appearing before the judgment seat, is to repent of your sin, accept God's free gift, and begin to discover what it is that these thumpers have been saying.
charles b.,I know this is asking alot,will you read a creditable newspaper or broadcast?
The prosecuted was appointed to find out who outed plame.Since the guilty came forward there was not any reason for the prosecuter to go on with a case that was solve.So now I will right slow enough for charles b. and the other mentally challange liberials can understand.Say you are falsely accused of a robberry and the authorities end up catching the robber.But when you were getting question you said you were at aplace that your were not at at tht time,being a honest mistake.Does the prosecuter go after a case like that unless he is a sick individual?Libby deserves a full pardon,fitzgerald needs to be disbarred!
Poor old Bart. He doesn't seem to realize that the "outing" law doesn't just apply to whoever outed first. It applies to anybody who outs in violation of the statute. It should be obvious to those with a working brain that the more an agent is outed by different people, the more likely it is that the information with get into the wrong hands.
Let's take a case in which someone "outed" an agent to another person but the other person never passed the information on to anyone else.
According to Bart's "thinking", that first "outing" would emasculate the "outing" law, so a second person could "out" the agent to al Queda and not be prosecuted for it. Good "thinking" Bart. al Queda would love you.
Fitzgerald would have indicted both Armitage and Libby for outing Plame if he could have proven that they knew that Plame was a protected agent. As it turns out, he concluded he couldn't prove that as to either of them. It is just possible that one reason he couldn't prove it as to Libby is that Libby obstructed Fitzgerald's investigation by lying to the grand jury.
Poor old Bart. He just can't get it through his head that when a person lies to a grand jury he is perjuring himself, regardless of whether the grand jury finds evidence of a crime or returns a no bill.
Poor old Bart. He just isn't up to realizing that the job of a grand jury is not to indict for a crime but rather to investigate to see how much evidence of a crime there is, and to indict if the evidence is sufficient, and to no bill if the evidence is insufficent. Poor old Bart isn't up to the task of realizing that a grand jury cannot be expected to do a good job if people like Libby are free to appear before the grand jury and lie.
Poor old Bart. It may take him a while, but I'm betting that some day he'll understand.
Posted by Truth on July 6, 2007 07:16 PMKW said lying prostrate:
"I can handle letting the pres have powers that are out of my control."
Even if it gets you thrown in a hole without charges or access to a lawyer?
Posted by Charles B on July 6, 2007 10:18 PMskeptical:
Should I come up center aisle now and eat blood and flesh?
Posted by Charles B on July 6, 2007 10:22 PMTruth,
In theory, a Grand Jury is there to "investigate". In actual practice, however, it remains a truism that, "Any zealous Prosecuter can indict a ham sandwich", as the cliche has it. The practice - or reality - is what keeps our Courts clogged up - along with the continuing opposition to plea bargaining that occupies so much of the "Law'n Order crowd, even today.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 7, 2007 10:11 AMCharles B.
That "transubstantiation" thing is a Catholic teaching, not found in the Bible.
Jesus said that eating the bread together, and drinking the wine, was to be done in "remembrance" of Him.
Lets forget about the commuting of the sentence for a minuite. This has all to do with the leaking of a CIA operative. Someone in that big White House did it and everyone knows it. All because the womens husband put a twist in Mr Bushes lie. I agree that all presidents have their own scandals but this one put thousands of lives on the line. All you right wingers are all yelling support our troops but your so busy defending this lier you are ignoring the fact that they are dieing with no end in sight. Open your eyes to what the real law was broken. BY SOMEONE. It isn't hard to fiqure that out.
Posted by larrymc on July 7, 2007 12:12 PMtruth,you shouldn't be on a computer,you should be in summer school so you can pass the 6 grade.
Posted by bart on July 7, 2007 05:30 PMskeptical informed me:
"Jesus said that eating the bread together, and drinking the wine, was to be done in "remembrance" of Him."
Sounds like the guy had a messiah complex...
Posted by Charles B on July 8, 2007 01:27 PM