Bush to commute Libby sentence

[Taraz]

Didn't the prosecutor go after Libby because he had reason to believe Cheney was involved and Libby was covering for him? I thought that was the whole deal on this point. Cheney had been working behind the scenes and Libby refused to talk about it.

Maybe this was a rumor or something, but I thought this was why the case was such a big deal.

[pokerbobo]

This just in!

Jesse Jerkoff Jr. now wants Bush and Cheney impeached over the libby sentence.

I guess now high crimes and misdemeanors means using a power given you in the constitution.

JJJr, what an assbag, just like his father.

[QuadsOverQuads]

De-fund him, then impeach him.
The time for diplomatic warnings and appeals is over.


q/q

[blutarski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who wants to biatch about this should just remember two words..Sandy Burglar.

[/ QUOTE ]

The hypocrisy of those who support the Republican party is astonishing. On the one hand, Clinton was justifiably impeached for perjury. On the other hand, what Libby did was not even a crime and should not even have resulted in a slap on the wrist. On the one hand, Clinton should never have pardoned Sandy B. On the other hand, Bush did not go far enough by only commuting G. Gordon Libby's sentence.

It's like "Who's On First" for politics.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's even better is that Clinton didn't pardon Sandy Berger. He was investigated by the Bush Justice Dept. and a plea deal was cut.

So, it's Clinton's fault that the Bush Administration went easy on Berger. Hilarious.

[blutarski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why are there so many people claiming that Libby simply failed to remember something? Obviously, the jury did not agree and thought the lack of memory claim was a crock.

[/ QUOTE ]

Brilliant arguement....juries are always correct.

OJ, Blake, hell libs think 70 percent of convicted murderers didnt do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Bush appointed judge was sure he did it. The GOP dominated appeals court was sure he did it. Even Bush didn't fully pardon him. Pokerbobo, you are truly a tool.

[blutarski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm actually finding it hilarious how all the left wingers are such zealots for law and order. It would be interesting to note how they felt about illegals doing jail time in the United States.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm actually finding it hilarious how right-wingers beat everyone else over the head with 'personal responsibility,' but will turn themselves inside out explaining how perjury isn't really a crime when one of their own does it.

[adios]

Here's an interview with Al Gore's attorney that argued his case before the Supreme Court:

DAVID BOIES, FORMER GORE COUNSEL: Whether or not she was covert, I think that's an open question. But I think the prosecutor did understand early on that there was not an underlying crime here. From the outside, that's the way it looks.

HANNITY: Right.

BOIES: And under those circumstances, I think it's very troubling to use the criminal justice system to proceed in what is essentially a political case. I thought that way in the Clinton case.

HANNITY: Well, you were wrong then, but you're right here.

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: I don't mean to make a joke.

BOIES: This is the same thing. This is the same thing. This is criminalizing the political process. And it's wrong, whether it's done on one side or on the other.

HANNITY: I want you to expand on this, though. When you say criminalize the political process here, I mean, literally no crime was committed until after the investigation began. I mean, is it the type of thing where -- anybody, if you don't have a correct memory on 100 different levels, that you're really...

BOIES: Well, see, that's the problem. That's exactly the problem. People can't remember everything. Now, people have got to tell the truth in front of a grand jury. That's very important.

HANNITY: Sure.

BOIES: And if you're conducting an investigation where you really need to get people's testimony, and they lie, they need to be prosecuted, even if you ultimately conclude there was no underlying crime.

But that's not really the situation here, as I see it, because, from the outside, it looks like the prosecutor knew before some of this testimony was taken that there was not an underlying crime. And then to go forward and try to get people maybe to slip up, make a mistake, so you can bring a perjury or obstruction charge, I think that is what's troubling here.

Another right wing nut I guess that doesn't support the left wing belief that a prosecuter should be able to haul anyone they want to in front of grand jury for any reason the prosecuter chooses to try and get someone to lie under oath about anything.

David Boies Reaction to Libby Verdict

[andyfox]

I guess, in a way, we're suffering, paradoxically, for the good work of the two Watergate special prosecutors. Now we get the likes of Starr and Fitzgerald.

There's a difference between an anonymous illegal alien coming here to work and Scooter Libby. It's hideous when something like this happens, whether it's Bush saying a mandated sentence is "excessive," or Bill Clinton pardoning the likes of Marc Rich.

It should be hard for the Democrats to lose the presidency next year. But if anyone can do it . . .

[VayaConDios]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's an interview with Al Gore's attorney that argued his case before the Supreme Court:

DAVID BOIES, FORMER GORE COUNSEL: Whether or not she was covert, I think that's an open question. But I think the prosecutor did understand early on that there was not an underlying crime here. From the outside, that's the way it looks.

HANNITY: Right.

BOIES: And under those circumstances, I think it's very troubling to use the criminal justice system to proceed in what is essentially a political case. I thought that way in the Clinton case.

HANNITY: Well, you were wrong then, but you're right here.

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: I don't mean to make a joke.

BOIES: This is the same thing. This is the same thing. This is criminalizing the political process. And it's wrong, whether it's done on one side or on the other.

HANNITY: I want you to expand on this, though. When you say criminalize the political process here, I mean, literally no crime was committed until after the investigation began. I mean, is it the type of thing where -- anybody, if you don't have a correct memory on 100 different levels, that you're really...

BOIES: Well, see, that's the problem. That's exactly the problem. People can't remember everything. Now, people have got to tell the truth in front of a grand jury. That's very important.

HANNITY: Sure.

BOIES: And if you're conducting an investigation where you really need to get people's testimony, and they lie, they need to be prosecuted, even if you ultimately conclude there was no underlying crime.

But that's not really the situation here, as I see it, because, from the outside, it looks like the prosecutor knew before some of this testimony was taken that there was not an underlying crime. And then to go forward and try to get people maybe to slip up, make a mistake, so you can bring a perjury or obstruction charge, I think that is what's troubling here.

Another right wing nut I guess that doesn't support the left wing belief that a prosecuter should be able to haul anyone they want to in front of grand jury for any reason the prosecuter chooses to try and get someone to lie under oath about anything.

David Boies Reaction to Libby Verdict

[/ QUOTE ]

OMG if FORMER GORE COUNSEL believes it then surely it's true. This may come as a shock, but sometimes lawyers represent clients for money and not for political/ideological reasons. I wonder why they didn't label him as FORMER IBM COUNSEL or FORMER ENRON COUNSEL? Oh yeah, so people like adios would see FORMER GORE COUNSEL and come regurgitate this nonsense, and act as if some dyed-in the wool lib is saying that Libby was wrongfully convicted. Seriously, learn to think for yourself.

[blutarski]

[ QUOTE ]

Another right wing nut I guess that doesn't support the left wing belief that a prosecuter should be able to haul anyone they want to in front of grand jury for any reason the prosecuter chooses to try and get someone to lie under oath about anything.



[/ QUOTE ]

First, you're assuming Gore's lawyer is a liberal.

I don't remember Fitzgerald saying he was trying to get people to lie under oath. I believe he was asking people what they knew about the Plaime matter to see who leaked and who should be prosecuted for it.

It was Libby's choice to lie under oath.