Re: Bush to commute Libby sentence
 

It's good to have powerful friends... who are stupid.

Re: Bush to commute Libby sentence
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
....Wasn't he involved in the cover-up of Richard Armitage leaking the identity of a covert CIA agent? ...

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[/ QUOTE ]

Humor me ... how would you describe his involvement in this sordid affair?

Re: Bush to commute Libby sentence
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
....Wasn't he involved in the cover-up of Richard Armitage leaking the identity of a covert CIA agent? ...

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[/ QUOTE ]

The usual explanation is somewhere between "Clinton did it too!" and "ooh, look, shiny!"

Humor me ... how would you describe his involvement in this sordid affair?

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Bush to commute Libby sentence
 

standard

Re: Bush to commute Libby sentence
 

I guess lying to a grand jury isn't a crime anymore. Is this the 'personal responsibility' with which conservatives beat the rest of us over the head?

Re: Bush to commute Libby sentence
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
....Wasn't he involved in the cover-up of Richard Armitage leaking the identity of a covert CIA agent? ...

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[/ QUOTE ]

Humor me ... how would you describe his involvement in this sordid affair?

[/ QUOTE ]

Plame was neither covert nor did he hide anything about Armitage's linking of the name. Fitzgerald knew Armitage had leaked the name to Novak before he asked Libby quesiton uno. I'm sure you'll dredge up some links stating that Plame was indeed covert. Funny that Armitage didn't get changed with any crime in fact Libby was the only person charged. It was a perjery trap pure and simple. Here's an article that states the issue better than I:

Fitzgerald never had any reason to believe that there was a crime to be solved in the "CIA leak case." Nothing in the U.S. code purports to make talking about Valerie Plame a crime. Fitzgerald never had any legitimate grounds for pursuing a criminal investigation because he never had even the theoretical possibility of a crime to investigate.


His own conduct strongly suggests that he knew this from the beginning. If Fitzgerald really believed that there was something criminal about revealing Valerie Plame's identity he would have filed charges against at least two defendants on the day he took over the case. Richard Armitage and Robert Novak were both guilty of discussing Plame and Fitzgerald knew it on day one. But he filed no charges. Why not? Probably because he knew that neither Armitage nor Novak nor anyone else had violated any law by talking about Valerie Plame.


Since Fitzgerald had no crime to investigate, the sole purpose of his investigation, even before it became his, was to keep asking questions until discrepancies in the testimony made it possible to convince a bent jury that somebody important lied under oath. This despicable game is a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment and it cannot result in a lawful conviction for perjury.

Re: Bush to commute Libby sentence
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
....Wasn't he involved in the cover-up of Richard Armitage leaking the identity of a covert CIA agent? ...

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[/ QUOTE ]

Humor me ... how would you describe his involvement in this sordid affair?

[/ QUOTE ]

Plame was neither covert nor did he hide anything about Armitage's linking of the name. Fitzgerald knew Armitage had leaked the name to Novak before he asked Libby quesiton uno. I'm sure you'll dredge up some links stating that Plame was indeed covert. Funny that Armitage didn't get changed with any crime in fact Libby was the only person charged. It was a perjery trap pure and simple. Here's an article that states the issue better than I:

Fitzgerald never had any reason to believe that there was a crime to be solved in the "CIA leak case." Nothing in the U.S. code purports to make talking about Valerie Plame a crime. Fitzgerald never had any legitimate grounds for pursuing a criminal investigation because he never had even the theoretical possibility of a crime to investigate.


His own conduct strongly suggests that he knew this from the beginning. If Fitzgerald really believed that there was something criminal about revealing Valerie Plame's identity he would have filed charges against at least two defendants on the day he took over the case. Richard Armitage and Robert Novak were both guilty of discussing Plame and Fitzgerald knew it on day one. But he filed no charges. Why not? Probably because he knew that neither Armitage nor Novak nor anyone else had violated any law by talking about Valerie Plame.


Since Fitzgerald had no crime to investigate, the sole purpose of his investigation, even before it became his, was to keep asking questions until discrepancies in the testimony made it possible to convince a bent jury that somebody important lied under oath. This despicable game is a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment and it cannot result in a lawful conviction for perjury.

[/ QUOTE ]

This may be hard to believe, but sometimes when you're conducting an investigation you have to question more than one person about what happened.

Re: Bush to commute Libby sentence
 

[ QUOTE ]
Plame was neither covert

[/ QUOTE ]

O RLY?

Plame was ‘covert’ agent at time of name leak: Newly released unclassified document details CIA employment

Score another one for the right-wing noise machine: Al Qaeda and Saddam were linked, Ray Nagin left 2000 school buses parked in a schoolyard during Katrina, Plame wasn't covert, hamburgers eat people, up is down, etc.

Re: Bush to commute Libby sentence
 

LOL, not on your life!

Lou Dobbs, get real.....Me, I am a Fox fan (sexy morning gals!).

obg



[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, I do not have a problem with Libby's jail time being commuted.

I DO however have a problem with Bush letting our border guards sit in jail for shooting a drug smuggler in the rear end and then putting the border guards in jail.

This outrages me!

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

Lou Dobbs gimmick account?

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Bush to commute Libby sentence
 

I thought I read that Armitage wasn't charged because Libby's actions rendered it basically impossible to charge him with a crime. If this is correct, then your idea that this was nothing more than "a perjury trap" makes no sense (and I've never heard of a "perjury trap" to begin with).

In addition, care to cite the source of that article? I trust it is from an unbiased source.

And the idea that this is all the work of some rogue US Attorney who had some vendetta against the government -- in an era when merely glancing wrong at the government got US Attorneys fired -- is preposterous.