|
Post by gailkate on Mar 6, 2007 12:10:10 GMT -5
What will this mean?
|
|
|
Post by juliastar on Mar 6, 2007 12:13:40 GMT -5
Holy catfish, Batman! I thought I was first with the news. All I've heard was obstruction of justice. It means he's in the jailhouse now. Maybe that will wipe that grin off his face and with any luck he'll start singing like a canary unless Bush has already promised him a pardon which would be kind of tricky given the obstruction of justice conviction.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Mar 6, 2007 12:37:42 GMT -5
What is hard to understand is what justice he obstructed. The guy who disclosed Valerie Plame's employment was in the State Department, and Libby could not have put the investigators on his trail. So far as I know, now that they have found out who it was who made the disclosure, they are not prosecuting him. So far as I know, they are not prosecuting anybody whose being brought to justice Libby supposedly obstructed. So what "justice" is going to be pursued now that this "obstruction" has been overcome?
If they wanted persecute him for perjury, that would make sense — something to present to a jury. But "obstruction" of "justice?"
|
|
|
Post by juliastar on Mar 6, 2007 13:00:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by edsfam on Mar 6, 2007 13:00:53 GMT -5
I am kinda hoping he gets the same harsh punishment that Sandy Berger got for his crime.
... or Hillary for her crime.
... or Billy Bob for his crime.
... or Teddy K. for his crime.
... or ( the list of non-punished Washington Elites is quite extensive, so I will not continue.)
_E_
|
|
|
Post by SeattleDan on Mar 6, 2007 13:54:26 GMT -5
joew, he was convicted of lying to the FBI while they were conducting their investigation, and, hence, obstructed justice. I suspect no one need worry about Libby, as I think he'll get pardoned.
ed, where and when were there indictments against the folk you mention?
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Mar 6, 2007 14:23:42 GMT -5
According to the AOL news flash, Libby was convicted for two counts of perjury, one count of obstruction of justice, and one count of lying to the FBI. For the other count of lying to the FBI, he was not convicted.
|
|
|
Post by scotbrit on Mar 6, 2007 14:25:46 GMT -5
Funny! I'm watching a report right now on this. Maybe he should be more careful in future with whom he sleeps:
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Mar 6, 2007 14:53:17 GMT -5
I'm wondering why he can't be sentenced till June. Time for deals? Obviously he was paid to take the fall, and I want to see the rest of them pay. If only he ends up in jail, it's inexcusable.
|
|
|
Post by edsfam on Mar 6, 2007 15:46:43 GMT -5
joew, he was convicted of lying to the FBI while they were conducting their investigation, and, hence, obstructed justice. I suspect no one need worry about Libby, as I think he'll get pardoned. ed, where and when were there indictments against the folk you mention? You are confusing "guilty of the commission of a crime" with an indictment in the justice system. Hillary for insider trading, Billy Bob for land fraud, Teddy K. for fleeing the scene of an accident, and Sandy for perjury and obstruction of justice. Never mind though, these are the anointed ones in the eyes of the LMSM and therefore unassailable. I just want equal justice ... or at least equal soft soaping by the Lame Stream Media. _E_
|
|
|
Post by edsfam on Mar 6, 2007 15:50:19 GMT -5
From Scott Ott @ Scrappleface.com
(2007-03-06) — Former vice presidential aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, convicted today of four counts of lying to federal investigators about a law that he didn’t break, said he feels “very badly” that Vice President Dick Cheney now faces up to 30 years in federal prison, and President George Bush will be impeached.
“I know that this case wasn’t about me, or even about Valerie Plame,” said Mr. Libby, “so I don’t take it personally. But Dick Cheney and George Bush are fine men and I hate to see them suffer.”
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald celebrated the jury’s verdict as a “vindication of the American legal system.”
“It’s a good lesson to our children that we are a nation of laws,” said Mr. Fitzgerald, “and when serious charges are made about laws that haven’t been broken by high-ranking officials, justice demands that someone be convicted of something, and that someone goes to jail.”
Mr. Fitzgerald, asked what he would do now that the trial is over, said, “I’m going to Disney World to give Snow White an opportunity to perjure herself.”
|
|
|
Post by juliastar on Mar 6, 2007 16:07:41 GMT -5
As long as quotes are no longer forbidden, here's my favorite from the NY Times:
"Mr. Libby appeared composed as the verdict was read. He was then taken to be photographed and fingerprinted as a convicted felon."
I mean, it's not a conviction for having sex, but come on, Ed, you could show some concern for the conduct of people in high office even if they are Republican. These clowns are making you look bad and ruining our country. I would say Fitzgerald has been vindicated. The gig is up. About the only thing Bush can do now is start another war.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Mar 6, 2007 16:54:22 GMT -5
… About the only thing Bush can do now is start another war. Will it have been worth it if that is the result? ;D
|
|
|
Post by juliastar on Mar 6, 2007 17:00:06 GMT -5
… About the only thing Bush can do now is start another war. Will it have been worth it if that is the result? ;D You tell me. You voted for the monster, not once, but twice and continually apologize and justify. I am not of the school that you don't do your duty or play your hand out of fear that somebody else is such a lunatic that you have to let them get away with the little stuff because you are intimidated and don't want them to do the big stuff. If you think he is capable of starting a war to change the subject, you should be helping me wrestle him to the ground.
|
|
|
Post by booklady on Mar 6, 2007 17:31:34 GMT -5
Why do people have to get so nasty when they talk politics?
|
|
|
Post by scotbrit on Mar 6, 2007 17:36:42 GMT -5
Because, sadly, politics is a nasty business.
|
|
|
Post by juliastar on Mar 6, 2007 17:39:42 GMT -5
Why do people have to get so nasty when they talk politics? Because who has the power, how they got it, and what they do with it matters. And the party who started throwing the mud and asks the likes of Ann Coulter to come and fire them up at their gatherings has little cause to complain about the word "monster" when you consider the not nice pile of dead bodies. At least I didn't use the word faggot.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Mar 6, 2007 19:27:51 GMT -5
Sometimes we don't understand someone's wry humor and sometimes we bring in red herrings. Still, Libby lied and got deeper and deeper into a mess because - I think - he was asked to help in a cover-up. That cover-up involved some cynical manipulation of news in order to smear a man - Wilson - who told the truth as he saw it. Instead of refuting his truth, the orchestrators of the cover-up (Cheney and Rove) recruited some loyal henchmen to start leaking information they thought would discredit Wilson and his story. As usual, the real perps get off. Shades of Colson et.al., 1974. That's against the law. Fitzgerald has said he'll indict no one else unless new evidence comes up that he could make stick. See the video attached to this story: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/06/AR2007030600836.html Either deals are being made to get Libby off, including even a pardon, or Libby is going to decide he doesn't really want to fall on his sword. If that should happen, we'll be in another Watergate. Because I'm vengeful, I'd like to see a string of impeachments, but the country doesn't need that.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Mar 6, 2007 19:56:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Mar 6, 2007 20:28:16 GMT -5
This seems a perfect example of "Wag the Dog" or a sad example of obtuse insolence. Either way it is another indication that we are in deep doo doo as far as political leadership goes.
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Mar 6, 2007 23:23:34 GMT -5
Here is what I mean by wag the dog: It is implausible to believe that Scooter Libby was running a disinformation campaign on his own. This has been discussed in numerous analogies of this case. Now that there has been a conviction in the case does that leave open the question of whether there was conspiracy on the part of the Vice President?
Though the question of whether there is grounds to charge the Vice President I think the decision will rest more in whether there is a political will to bring impeachment charges against him. With the Elections ramping up and with many voters teetering on the edge of a Dem-Rep vote would it be advantagous to bring up charges and another 30 million dollar investigation.
Ladies and gentlmen I am yours to tar and feather.
//Why do people have to get so nasty when they talk politics?//
Booky? Competition! Politics is the ultimate in competitive sports. The stakes are far higher than the paltry 20 mil a pitcher might get. The spectator base is four times greater than that of any single sport and divided into only two viable camps of loyalty. Thus the rivalry is at least ten times as fierce. Not to mention that people live or die as a result of political decisions.
|
|
|
Post by ptcaffey on Mar 7, 2007 0:49:46 GMT -5
Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!
|
|
|
Post by joew on Mar 7, 2007 1:03:03 GMT -5
There was a column in today's Boston Herald sugggesting that Coulter and Bill Maher are both pretty unsavory. She used the word "faggot" while talking about Edwards. He said it would be good if Cheney were killed. (To me, the latter seems worse than the former.) She said that both have their free speech rights, but as Jefferson pointed out, the virtue of free speech is that it allows decent poeple to point out the evil of both.
|
|
|
Post by SeattleDan on Mar 7, 2007 1:25:29 GMT -5
No, I watched that Maher show, and he wasn't advocating that Cheney should have died in the supposed Taliban attack last week. He was defending the right for others to express this viewpoint on the internets blogs.
|
|
|
Post by juliastar on Mar 7, 2007 5:37:40 GMT -5
To me, what was newsworthy about Coulter was that she was an invited speaker to the gathering of the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C. (newsworthy in and of itself) and that there was approving laughter and applause after the comment. That's an endorsement and confirmation of my suspicions that the anti-gay marriage crusade has been a not-so-thinly disguised gay bashing to incite the base nature of the base. It would appear there is no shame in this.
And instead of getting upset about blog WORDS like "silly terrorists, everybody knows it would take a wooden stake" when it comes to the Vice President, how about getting upset about his DEEDS, like his part in a no-end-in-sight war that could have been avoided that is probably only Phase I in his play book (or the people that actually died in the supposed attempt on Cheney's life while he flitted around an Army base putting them at risk for a photo op and break in the news cycle).
|
|
|
Post by edsfam on Mar 7, 2007 7:55:39 GMT -5
Just so you know where I stand on this, I do not know enough to pronounce absolute guilt or measured innocence on any one in this administration. My big complaint, as always, is the overly fawning liberal media which tirelessly attacks all things Republican and defend all things Democrat.
In the wall-to-wall, gleeful coverage following the conviction of Scooter Libbey, ask the question "Do you remember Maria Hsia"?
_E_
|
|
|
Post by juliastar on Mar 7, 2007 9:03:10 GMT -5
Just so you know where I stand on this, I do not know enough to pronounce absolute guilt or measured innocence on any one in this administration. My big complaint, as always, is the overly fawning liberal media which tirelessly attacks all things Republican and defend all things Democrat. In the wall-to-wall, gleeful coverage following the conviction of Scooter Libbey, ask the question "Do you remember Maria Hsia"? _E_ Oh, pleez-uh. I'm not a natural sadist, but you must be a masochist. Tell me something about your "I don't know enough" that I don't already know. All any of us can do is be sufficiently skeptical when we are offered a drink. It might be ambrosia and it might be kool aid. That you gulped yours down and keep holding your cup out for more simply because there is an (R) after the name and that is your tribe and I don't and I was right all along isn't exactly something for you to brag about. Link me to some of these overly fawning liberal media sources, because I'm not connected to them and I don't consider signatories on the Project for the New American Century an unbiased or reliable news source. Any thinking person following this story knows that the underside of it was the complicity of the so-called "liberal media." Lapdogs. Callgirls. Stenographers. Willing participants in a campaign of disinformation at the expense of what should be journalism's good name. Dumbos. If we want this out we know who to call and if it turns out to be hooey, no consequence, it was attributed to unnamed senior White House official. And they do it. The vice president spins and it is attributed to unnamed senior White House official. And in the end, after they sell out, are they going to get any respect from people who prefer right wing talk show radio? Pigs will fly first.
|
|
|
Post by juliastar on Mar 7, 2007 9:16:35 GMT -5
Here's what we should be troubled by: The administration's selection of reporters to leak to was carefully choreographed. Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus, who covers national security, testified that then-press secretary Ari Fleischer "swerved off" during a conversation and told him about Plame. Libby testified that Cheney "instructed me to go and talk to Judith Miller and lay this out for her," using previously secret information that Cheney had President Bush declassify.www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/06/AR2007030602349.html (if anything, a Bush leaning columnist. His wife is a Republican lobbyist) Contrast that with: "If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference during a fund-raising stop in Chicago, Illinois. "If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of." He could have saved the taxpayer's any money they spent by holding a press conference and fessing up. Instead, this bought him more time to do more harm. Just like the torture story, he played it both ways. Deny what you do and keep doing it. Ethical people on both sides of this aisle should be demanding his resignation.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Mar 7, 2007 9:47:29 GMT -5
To me, what was newsworthy about Coulter was that she was an invited speaker to the gathering of the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C. (newsworthy in and of itself) and that there was approving laughter and applause after the comment. That's an endorsement and confirmation of my suspicions that the anti-gay marriage crusade has been a not-so-thinly disguised gay bashing to incite the base nature of the base. … That's quite a leap.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Mar 7, 2007 9:53:34 GMT -5
BTW, I do think perjury is a very serious offense. To me, a fine of at least $10,000 is appropriate.
As for the "obstruction" of "justice," he should serve no more time than Bob Novak and the guy in State who was actually the source for the report that was published. IOW, since the bigger fish will not even be charged, I'd give Scooter three months unsupervised probation for the obstruction.
|
|