home

Bush Commutes Libby's Sentence, Part One

In the most blatant disregard for the law in quite a while, President Bush commuted Scooter Libby's sentence.

The man is the worst President in the history of the nation and this is merely confirmation of the contempt he holds for the law, the Constitution, and the American People.

Will our Democratic representatives wake up and understand NOW that he will never end the war in Iraq -- that only a Congress that says no to funding the Debacle past a date certain can end the war? I doubt it.

< Appeals Court Denies Bond for Scooter Libby | Congress Should Call Libby To Testify >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Good plug for your Iraq plan (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 05:46:13 PM EST
    Tucker was just trying to spin this as "the middle ground." That cannot be allowed to become the narrative, though I fear it might.

    David Shuster set him straight.

    Paris Hilton spent more time in jail (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by pioneer111 on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 05:51:52 PM EST
    That was a comment I saw somewhere and points out that this president sees himself and his cronies above the law in all ways.  Because he doesn't care what the peons think outrage by the public doesn't matter.

    I don't understand any Democrat that thinks they can reason with Bush or the Republicans over anything let alone something like Iraq.  

    What a joke. (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by beaver on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 05:53:17 PM EST
    Wow, nothing about this administration surprises me anymore. Perhaps that is the scariest thing of all.

    I Guess That (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 05:54:31 PM EST
    It is minor disregard for law compared to fixing the evidence to go to war and then going to war.

    On to Iran.

    The guy is on a roll.

    Behold the puppeteer. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 05:57:35 PM EST


    Yep. (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 06:10:11 PM EST
    Libby knows too much. He's holding the strings.

    Parent
    Where will the 250 grand come from (none / 0) (#10)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 06:17:35 PM EST
    to pay Libby's fine?

    ...the Libby fund is under no obligation to report the names of donors or the amounts they give. And the public has no way of knowing how much money might be funneled to the Libby defense by the vice president's friends at Halliburton, ExxonMobil and the myriad other corporations and lobbying firms that have fattened themselves on Iraq, Hurricane Katrina and the other disasters of the Bush era.
    Link

    Parent
    Republican justice (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by byteb on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 05:57:46 PM EST
    If you're a Republican, perjury and obstruction of justice is just fine.

    IAdd An A (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 09:31:31 PM EST
    If you're a Republican, perjury and obstruction of justice is just fine.
    Or at worst

    If you're a Republican, perjury and obstruction of justice is just a fine.

    Paid for by the Libby Defense Fund


    Parent

    Or from the (none / 0) (#35)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 09:39:54 PM EST
    Now At Five Million $$ And Counting (none / 0) (#69)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 05:32:55 PM EST
    TPM

    And as commenters there mentioned the Murdoch book deal and the secret fund should make the $250k fine the equivalent of spittle.

    PS thanks for fixing the Libby Defense Fund link...

    Parent

    It sends a terrible message (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by MacLane on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 06:49:08 PM EST
    to his cronies if Bush fails to reward abject loyalty.

    It sends a terrible message (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by MacLane on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 07:19:31 PM EST
    if Bush fails to reward abject loyalty. No one else would be willing to take a fall for Bush if he didn't commute Libby's sentence.

    Hmmm. (1.00 / 4) (#15)
    by jarober on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 06:38:54 PM EST
    For the non-crime being the second (at best) person to talk about Plame.  I presume you're four-square in favor of Armitage being indicted then?  If not, why not?

    What could Armitage be indicted for? (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by ding7777 on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 06:50:43 PM EST
    Supposedly, Armitage didn't know Plame was covert only that "Joe's wife" worked at the CIA.

    And Libby talked to Judy Miller, Ari Fleisher, Matt Cooper and Tim Russert. And Libby knew she was covert.

    Parent

    ding777 (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 08:37:57 PM EST
    Here is the transcript of the Armitage interview with Woodward.

    Note the Armirage comment about Wilson.

    Woodward: Why doesn't that come out? Why does that have to be a big secret?

    Armitage: (over) Everybody knows it.
    Woodward: Everyone knows?

    Armitage: Yeah. And they know 'cause Joe Wilson's been calling everybody. He's pissed off 'cause he was designated as a low level guy went out to look at it. So he's all pissed off.

    Now, if we are to believe Armitage, it was Wilson who outed Mrs. Wilson.

    Where is a SP when you need one?

    On a more serious note, did the SP follow up on Armitage's comments? Did they question Armitage? Did they question Wilson?? Was Armitage being untruthful? If not, why didn't the SP indict Wilson??

    Parent

    The dates don't make sense (none / 0) (#39)
    by ding7777 on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 03:35:00 AM EST
    Joe's Op-Ed ran on July 6, 2003 and that is when Cheney started the pushback (i,e "low level" guy)

    So how did Joe know they were calling him a low-level guy on June 13th during the Woodward/Armitage call?  

    And why is Woodward/Armitage talking about "yellow cake" on June 13 when "yellow cake" was not an issue until after Joe's Op-Ed on
    July 6?

    Maybe Woodward/Armitage tape is really not from June 13. Could Woodward have back-dated his tape to rescue Libby from having been the "first leaker"?

    Parent

    ding777 (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 04:47:23 PM EST
    So it is your belief that Bob Woodward conspired with Armitage to help Libby??? And they have both lied to the Feds and committed perjury and obstruction of justice??

    To do that they entered into verbal agreements and electronic modfication of the tapes, plus destruction of all paper diaries, etc.

    Do you think that gets past the giggle test??

    "Yellow cake" was an issue all through the previous 15 months. Wilson had testified, been debried, etc. Plus, he had went to the his friends at the DOS and claimed Bush wrong.NY T Link

    So his anger was two fold. First that his wife had  made him go on a trip that he thought to be below his station, and then no one was paying him any attention.

    This is all pretty straight forward. Someone is lying about this, and it isn't Scooter Libby. And neither Woodward or Armitage have any reason to.

    Parent

    ding merely pointed out ... (none / 0) (#68)
    by Sailor on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 05:27:30 PM EST
    ... that they have all lied from the start. But there are none so blind ...

    Parent
    Sailor (none / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 06:39:03 PM EST
    No. That isn't what Ding said. He said:

    Maybe Woodward/Armitage tape is really not from June 13. Could Woodward have back-dated his tape to rescue Libby from having been the "first leaker"?

    Good grief. Why do you make things up when the real quote is inches from everyone's nose.

    Parent

    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 06:58:23 PM EST
    Indict Armitage.

    Parent
    Do try to pay attention (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 07:25:32 PM EST
    For the non-crime being the second (at best) person to talk about Plame.

    He was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice, and found guilty, because, of course, he had done these things.

    How is it that anyone who reads blogs could be as ignorant of that as you seem to be?

    Parent

    How? (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 08:35:50 PM EST
    He works at it.

    Parent
    Clinton Pardons (1.00 / 0) (#23)
    by Slado on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 07:39:34 PM EST
    Just for perspective and not to say two wrongs make a right..

    Clinton Pardons

    Last time I checked there is nothing illegal in what Clinton did or in what Bush or any other president has done in executing a presidential privledge.

    We all knew that this was the inevitable conclusion to a 3 year waste of time.

    Not saying it is right in any moral sense but it is perfectly legal and we all deep down knew it was coming.

    No one will go to jail for this political kerfufel after all the motions, the millions in legal and governmental fees except of course Judith Miller.

    "Get over it" (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by scarshapedstar on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 08:32:48 PM EST
    That's all I hear. Same bullsh*t I heard when Bush stole the White House.

    We do often forget, amidst these highminded defenses of executive privilege, that Bush was not legitimately elected, and so he has about as much authority as I do to run roughshod against the will of an entire nation.

    Parent

    And the tens of thousands of dead (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 08:40:34 PM EST
    and maimed Americans and the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis who paid and continue to pay the price for the lies of Libby and the rest of the cockroaches in this administration are, of course, of no consequence and not nearly as important a cost as the millions in legal and governmental fees.

    Right, slado?

    Parent

    Clinton didn't profit.. (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by TomStewart on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 08:46:11 PM EST
    ...from his pardon of Marc Rich (arranged by Scooter Libby himself), but Bush has pardoned someone most likely acting under the orders of the Pres and VP, and obstructing the very investigation that might have brought them both down.

    It looks bad, and I bet that while Bush's polls go down again (and the anger rises among the American people) Bush and Cheney will skate. Again.

    Parent

    TomStewart (1.00 / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 08:56:12 PM EST
    Didn't Mrs. Rich contribite $1,000,000 Clinton's Presidental Library?

    Parent
    Jim (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by TomStewart on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 01:07:33 AM EST
    I've heard figures ranging from 40,000 to 400,000, but not a million.

    My point (and thanks for missing it, but it might have been expresses poorly), was Clinton wasn't pardoning someone with the power to put him in jail (hence the 'profit'). Scooter has that ability, and Bush letting him off is a conflict of interest, and a further obstruction of justice.

    Now, if Fitz wanted to give him immunity and put him back on the stand...

    Of course, with that "poor" memory of his, it probably wouldn't matter much.

    Parent

    TomStewart (none / 0) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 10:24:23 PM EST
    I find it amazing what short memories Demos have.

    Link

    Mark Rich was pardoned after his wife donated $1,000,000 to the Clinton library. At the time of the pardon he was a fugitive from US authorities..

    Carlos Vignali was pardoned after serving 6 years of a 15 year sentance for cocane traficing.

    Almon Braswell was pardoned for mail fraud and perjury convictions even while a federal investigation for money laundering and tax evasion was on-going.

    Both Vignali and Braswell were represented by the brother of Hillary Clinton, Hugh Rodman. They each paid him approximately $200,000 to represent them in this matter.

    The previous were about money. Perhaps the most odious was:

    On August 11, 1999, Clinton commuted the sentences of 16 members of FALN, a violent Puerto Rican nationalist group that set off 120 bombs in the United States mostly in New York City and Chicago, convicted for conspiracies to commit robbery, bomb-making, and sedition, as well as for firearms and explosives violations.[3

    It was claimed that Clinton did so at the request of a NYC politican who said it would help Hillary obtain the PR vote. This has never been proven, but:

    The U.S. House Committee on Government Reform held an investigation on the matter, but the Justice Department prevented FBI officials from testifying.[8] President Clinton cited executive privilege for his refusal to turn over some documents to Congress related to his decision to offer clemency to members of the FALN terrorist group.

    Perhaps Hillary would be wise to be quiet regarding Libbty, eh?

    Parent

    No laws have been broken (1.00 / 0) (#43)
    by Slado on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 08:02:09 AM EST
    This is a political decision.   One that obvously the good folks of TL don't like but there is nothing illegal about it and the president has this power so live with it.

    We don't have to like it.  We can call him names but the over the top rhetoric is getting a little silly.

    Just deal with the fact that no one is going to jail for this whole mess just like the rethugs (did I just use that?) had to deal with Clinton and his cabal getting off scott free time and again.

    This is how Washington works.  


    Damn right..... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 09:37:53 AM EST
    this definitely is how Washington works....and it explains why Washington makes most Americans want to puke.

    Parent
    So?? (1.00 / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 11:46:13 AM EST
    A man, who is not qualified to pick up trash, who has no history of public service, who bankrupted all of his business's

    Leaving aside your opinion of the qualifications of a trash collector and the fact that Bush was elected twice as a Governor, you should rememeber that Harry Truman was well known as a member of the corrupt KC Demo organization and went bankrupt at least twice.

    Didn't stop him from being one of our greatest Presidents in a time of great danger and upheaval..


    Truman (none / 0) (#52)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 12:06:24 PM EST
    also was a man who came from humble beginnings, back in a time when more than a gargantuan war chest and a highly recognizable brand name was required in order to be taken seriously as a potential responsible public servant. Only someone suffering from terminal Faux-induced myopia would attempt to conflate Truman and Bush.

    Bush's entire career has been a journey on well greased rails laid down for him.

    Parent

    Jondee (1.00 / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 04:50:31 PM EST
    Truman is one of my favorites, but you need to read some history.

    Parent
    jondee (1.00 / 0) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 10:02:14 PM EST
    Then I take it you would never vote for FDR??

    BTW - Perhaps you should consider this about Truman.

    He gained fame and respect when his preparedness committee (popularly known as the "Truman Committee") investigated the scandal of military wastefulness by exposing fraud and mismanagement. The Roosevelt administration had initially feared the Committee would hurt war morale, and Under Secretary of War Robert Patterson wrote to the President declaring it was "in the public interest" to suspend the committee. Truman wrote a letter to FDR saying that the committee was "100 percent behind the administration" and that it had no intention of criticizing the military conduct of the war.

    To bad the Left can't emulate Truman.

    Parent

    Bush has neither the character (none / 0) (#58)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 01:54:19 PM EST
    or the moral credibility to be worthy of consideration as "one of our greatest presidents". Seventy percent of the country has come to recognize this. The rest click their heels and think anyone to the left of Mitt Romney is some kind of Godless commie. All because the (18) 60's happened.

    Parent
    Jondee (1.00 / 0) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 09:52:41 PM EST
    Neither did Truman when he left office.

    Mired in an unpopular war, under attack by the Left..

    Hmmmmmm

    Parent

    Terms of Probation ? Violate his ass (none / 0) (#7)
    by Cptsalesman on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 06:01:11 PM EST
     What are the terms of Scooter Probation and just how can we have him violated ? Two key questions I hope someone can answer. If he is violated will Bush go for the full pardon or not ??

    $250,000 (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 06:10:51 PM EST
    But as to the possibility of a pardon, Ms. Perino said only, 'The president has not intervened so far in this or any other criminal matter, so he's going to decline to do so now as well.'

    . . . .

    In addition to the prison sentence, Judge Walton fined Mr. Libby $250,000. There is no parole in the federal system, but an inmate may be eligible for a reduction of up to 54 days a year for good behavior.

     [Emphasis added.]

    Courtesy of NY Times.

    Parent

    She lied (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 06:20:46 PM EST
    Nothing new for the Bush Administration.

    Parent
    an interesting (but unlikely) alternative... (none / 0) (#12)
    by lawstudent on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 06:22:29 PM EST
    perhaps someone better informed can correct me if i'm wrong, but based on my rudimentary understanding of the law, here's what i've got:

    president can only pardon for federal crimes, not state crimes.  AND, in terms of double jeopardy, one can be tried on the same crime twice if in separate sovereigns (i.e., federal and state or two different states).  soooo, how about the state indicts libby for the same crime (if there's some corresponding state offense for which he can be charged), and then bush can't pardon him if he's convicted.  no double jeopardy and no pardon.  sure, it's cruel.  sure, it's political suicide for whoever spearheads this one, but it would be a way to keep bush's dirty little hands out of it.

    another alternative: if joe wilson or valerie plame can somehow tie the conviction into their civil suit, libby will be collaterally estopped from relitigating the issue of whether he lied under oath and obstructed justice, b/c burden of proof at the criminal trial is higher.  that would be a small consolation prize, i guess.

    I do not believe the civil trial will happen. (1.00 / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 07:28:51 PM EST
    I hope it does because allow both Wilson's to be placed under oath and under go hostile questioning. Something neither have had to undergo to date.

    The results should be most interesting.

    Parent

    Seconded, as long as EVERYONE is under oath (none / 0) (#25)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 08:03:48 PM EST
    I hope it does because allow both Wilson's to be placed under oath and under go hostile questioning. Something neither have had to undergo to date.

    I'll give you Wilson under oath if you'll give me Cheney under oath.  

    Wilson has nothing to worry about.  If he had been lying, there is no doubt that the GOP would have been able to show that, and since they haven't, even after years of trying, it's safe to say that Joseph Wilson is the credit to America that the lifetime of service on both his and Valerie's part suggests

    Parent

    Repack (1.00 / 2) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 10:40:51 PM EST
    It has long been my understandin that if you give testimony, you will be under oath.

    As to who will be called, that is not up to me.

    And since we are playing Fantasy Testimony, perhaps we call Armitage who said the following in his interview with Woodward. Remember this predates Wlson's article and the subsquent conversations by Libby, et al..

    Woodward: Why doesn't that come out? Why does that have to be a big secret?

    Armitage: (over) Everybody knows it.

    Woodward: Everyone knows?

    Armitage: Yeah. And they know 'cause Joe Wilson's been calling everybody. He's pissed off 'cause he was designated as a low level guy went out to look at it. So he's all pissed off.

    Now if Armitage is factual, Wilson himself was leaking. And if his wife was covert, then it appears to me that he has broken the law.

    Statue of limitatuons anyone??

    Of course if she wasn't covert, then their was no basis for further investigation.

    But yet there was.

    I am reminded of a poem.

    I met a man upon the stair

    A little man who was not there.

    I met him again today

    Oh how I wish he would go away.



    Parent
    How many times have members of Bush's (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 12:09:37 AM EST
    cabinet, administration, and some of his appointees given testimony without being under oath because they couldn't do it that way?  You need to keep up Jimbo.

    Parent
    Tracy loves strawman (1.00 / 1) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 11:36:42 AM EST
    Why do you oppose finding out the truth??

    Armitage either did, or did not speak the truth re Wilson.

    If you are really concerned about the "outing" of a claimed covert CIA agent I would think that you would be screaming for this to be fully investigated and reported.

    But you are not concerned about that. You are concerned about attacking the Bush administration because you are anti-war.

    No problem, that's your right. But that doesn't excuse your unwillingness to seek the truth.

    Parent

    So you now want to (none / 0) (#48)
    by Edger on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 11:45:09 AM EST
    grant immunity to Libby now and put him under oath and let him explain whether it was just Cheney, or Cheney and Bush, who ordered blowing the cover of a covert CIA agent, putting her life in danger as well as the lives of an entire network of agents in Iran?

    Parent
    edger (1.00 / 1) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 12:37:01 PM EST
    Can you possibly avoid the truth more than you already have??

    What I want to find out, as this link shows, was Armitage telling the truth to Woodward when he said in mid June of '03:

    Woodward: Everyone knows?

    Armitage: Yeah. And they know 'cause Joe Wilson's been calling everybody. He's pissed off 'cause he was designated as a low level guy went out to look at it. So he's all pissed off.

    Doesn't that raise some questions??

    No? Then you aren't looking for the truth, just being a partisan echo chamber...

    Parent

    Good idea. (none / 0) (#54)
    by Edger on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 12:46:45 PM EST
    edger (1.00 / 1) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 04:27:03 PM EST
    putting her life in danger as well as the lives of an entire network of agents in Iran

    That's tops in the fantasy statements of 2007/

    lol

    BTW - Explain this.

    Woodward: Why doesn't that come out? Why does that have to be a big secret?
    Armitage: (over) Everybody knows it.
    Woodward: Everyone knows?
    Armitage: Yeah. And they know 'cause Joe Wilson's been calling everybody. He's pissed off 'cause he was designated as a low level guy went out to look at it. So he's all pissed off.

    From the mid-June 2003 interview with Armitage by Woodward

    Now. Is Armitage lying?? Why doesn't someone on the Left make that a public charge?? Why hasn't he been called to testify and answer the obvious question.

    Get a grip edger, the game is just starting.

    Parent

    Anybody home in there, jim? (none / 0) (#60)
    by Edger on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 04:31:59 PM EST
    Try at least to make your replies relate, even in the most tenuous way, to what I said.

    Otherwise you just end up looking like ppj.

    Parent

    edger (1.00 / 1) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 04:58:00 PM EST
    Edger.... I just called your comment: "Fantasy."

    Hope that wasn't too subtle.

    Parent

    You obviously haven't been paying attention. (none / 0) (#70)
    by Edger on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 06:12:59 PM EST
    But then fantasy land is where you have always lived. Coming from someone who wants to bomb Iran your attitude is sheer idiocy and ignorance.

    Valerie Plame Leak Sabotaged America's Iran-Watching Intelligence Effort

    The unmasking of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson by White House officials in 2003 caused significant damage to U.S. national security and its ability to counter nuclear proliferation abroad, RAW STORY has learned.

    According to current and former intelligence officials, Plame Wilson, who worked on the clandestine side of the CIA in the Directorate of Operations as a non-official cover (NOC) officer, was part of an operation tracking distribution and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction technology to and from Iran.

    Speaking under strict confidentiality, intelligence officials revealed heretofore unreported elements of Plame's work. Their accounts suggest that Plame's outing was more serious than has previously been reported and carries grave implications for U.S. national security and its ability to monitor Iran's burgeoning nuclear program.

    While many have speculated that Plame was involved in monitoring the nuclear proliferation black market, specifically the proliferation activities of Pakistan's nuclear "father," A.Q. Khan, intelligence sources say that her team provided only minimal support in that area, focusing almost entirely on Iran.

    On March 16 in her testimony under oath before the House Government and Oversight Committee, Valerie Plame Wilson stated:
    "I know I am here under oath, and I am here to say that I was covert," she said, disputing claims to the contrary.
    ...
    "In the run-up to the war with Iraq, I worked in the Counterproliferation Division of the CIA, still as a covert officer whose affiliation with the CIA was classified," Plame sad in her opening testimony.
    She added,
    "While I helped to manage and run secret worldwide operations against this WMD target from CIA headquarters in Washington, I also traveled to foreign countries on secret missions to find vital intelligence."
    The video is here.

    Parent
    edgerf (1.00 / 1) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 06:36:13 PM EST
    You're like a man who keeps doing the same thing amd expects a different outcome.

    Put Armitage and Joe Wilson under oath and let's see who wants to committ perjury.

    As for he claim.. Not even the CIA knows if she was covert.

    Parent

    Again (none / 0) (#73)
    by Edger on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 07:10:35 PM EST
    your comment has not even the most tenuous connection to what I said.

    You aren't capable of carrying on a sensible conversation.

    And to think I gave you the benefit of the doubt and tried my damnedest to convince people that you're just pretending to be as intellectually compromised as you to appear to be and as many think you are.

    I was wrong, obviously...


    Parent

    He Is Like (none / 0) (#74)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 08:58:48 PM EST
    A windup doll. There is no reasoning going on. But at least we don't have to go to  his primary sources, he is an adequate filter for their propaganda/entertainment/comedy indusrty.

     

    Parent

    Whew. (none / 0) (#75)
    by Edger on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 09:00:34 PM EST
    So it's not just me? ;-)

    Parent
    And anyone is (none / 0) (#61)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 04:42:49 PM EST
    supposed to consider Iran Contra snake Armitage, who's practically built a career on dissembling, credible for what reason?

    He abetted the shredding of the constitution and the Democratic process in the interests of the most unhinged faction of the Right in the eighties and now we're supposed totake his word for it. lol. Wow.

    Parent

    jondee (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 05:01:19 PM EST
    I don't know, and neither do you.

    The issue is, did Armitage tell the truth when he said Wilson was calling everyone.

    Let's put Wilson under oath, with the full and certain knowledge that regardless of his answers they will be thoroughly investigaed and that a perjury charge could result, and see what he says.

    Seems pretty simple to me.

    Parent

    DA (none / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 11:01:44 PM EST
    When you don't have a point you tend to blather.

    Try reading closely.

    Armitage said what he said. It is on tape.

    Let's put both of'em under oath and find out who wants a perjury charge.

    Seems simple to me.

    Why all the huffing and puffing. What are you scared off??

    Parent

    and this (none / 0) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 11:03:24 PM EST
    BTW - And his statement is on tape with Bob Woodward, who is not a well known Repud.

    ;-)

    Parent

    DA - nice strawman but..... (none / 0) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 11:50:31 AM EST
    The issue isn't if Armitage outed Plame.

    The issue is....was Armitage telling the truth when he said that Wilson was pissed and calling people...

    Parent

    repack? (none / 0) (#67)
    by Sailor on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 05:25:34 PM EST
    did you notice that ppj's basic premise is incorrect? The Wilsons have been pursuing this vigorously while bushco is using every excuse to stop it.

    of course ppj has been wrong about every prediction he's made. The elections, the war, AQ=9/11 ... everything.

    Parent

    Sailor - Try considering some facts. (1.00 / 1) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 11:36:13 PM EST
    Has Joe Wilson ever been put under oath besides, I guess, his testimony to the Senate Intelligence committee?

    COLMES: I keep hearing about, as you said -- and I'm sure he's got a lovely family and may be a very personable person -- but you talk about besmirching of somebody and their family, isn't that what this administration did to Joe Wilson?

    GINGRICH: No. Joe Wilson is a liar.

    COLMES: Based on what?

    GINGRICH: Joe Wilson is a man who lied about his report. Joe Wilson is a man who was reported by the Senate Intelligence Committee to have lied. Joe Wilson lied about who sent him to Niger.

    That's pretty blunt.

    Mr. Wilson did not stop there, though. He had learned that eight months after his trip, some documents about the alleged yellowcake transactions had shown up -- but that they had proved to be forgeries. He told three different reporters that he personally had checked out the documents and found them to be forgeries. He said these forged documents were part of the basis of his conclusion, upon returning from his mission, that the yellowcake story was false. He said the administration deliberately ignored his report.

    Mr. Wilson lied. The documents did not even appear until eight months after his mission ended. (He later admitted as much.) They formed no basis for his own report. And the documents had nothing to do with the claim made by the British government and repeated by President Bush.

    This link is to pis* off sailor.

    The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article ("CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data; Bush Used Report of Uranium Bid," June 12, 2003) which said, "among the Envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because `the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong" when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. The former ambassador said that he may have "misspoken" to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were "forged." He also said he may have become confused about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct and may have thought he had seen the names himself. The former ambassador reiterated that he had been able to collect the names of the government officials which should have been on the documents

    Senate Intelliegence Committee Report

    And this:

    Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely told WorldNetDaily that Wilson mentioned Plame's status as a CIA employee over the course of at least three, possibly five, conversations in 2002 in the Fox News Channel's "green room" in Washington, D.C., as they waited to appear on air as analysts.

    Vallely and Wilson both were contracted by Fox News to discuss the war on terror as the U.S. faced off with Iraq in the run-up to the spring 2003 invasion.

    Vallely says, according to his recollection, Wilson mentioned his wife's job in the spring of 2002 - more than a year before Robert Novak's July 14, 2003, column identified her, citing senior administration officials, as "an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction."

    Vallely and Wilson both were contracted by Fox News to discuss the war on terror as the U.S. faced off with Iraq in the run-up to the spring 2003 invasion.

    Vallely says, according to his recollection, Wilson mentioned his wife's job in the spring of 2002 - more than a year before Robert Novak's July 14, 2003, column identified her, citing senior administration officials, as "an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction."

    "He was rather open about his wife working at the CIA," said Vallely, who retired in 1991 as the Army's deputy commanding general in the Pacific.

    Vallely made his claim in an interview Thursday night on the ABC radio network's John Batchelor show.



    Parent
    OK, I'll put my extenuating circumstances (none / 0) (#13)
    by ytterby on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 06:25:58 PM EST
    against Scooter's, I'll also compare the severity of the crime, the consequences of the act, the impact on my family.

    He skates, I do 15 months.

    And mine was just perjury, not obstruction of justice

    So this means I should change my party affiliation and I'll get a pardon?

    Perhaps ... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Sailor on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 06:26:38 PM EST
    ... Pelosi will change her views on impeachment now.

    Perhaps she will change her views (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 08:41:56 PM EST
    on sending this putz anything he would consider signing too!  He is lower than snail sh*t and anything he is willing to sign off on can only be as low and sink us all to his scummy level :(

    Parent
    Violating Seperation of Powers, Comity, and More (none / 0) (#16)
    by cognos on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 06:43:45 PM EST
    Bush states in his press release that it is his view that the sentence imposed by the district court was too harsh. I will merely note that  Chief Justice John Marshall held that "[the] power of punishment is vested in the legislative . . . department. It is the legislature . . . which is to define a crime, and ordain its punishment." United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76, 95 (1820).

    As Justice Thurgood Marshall opined in his dissent from the majority opinion in Schick v. Reed, 419 U.S. 256 (1974), when the President exercises the pardon power in such a manner that calls into question the powers of the legislature to define appropriate punishments, as found in the Sentencing Guidelines, this action offends against the separation of powers. This is why the power to commute a sentence, "As a matter of comity between the branches of government . . . should be exercised sparingly." 67A C.J.S. Pardon & Parole § 34.

    The pardon power is a holdover of the British monarchy in American jurisprudence. That does not excuse the President's exercise of that power as if he were a sovereign. That offends against not only principles of comity and the separation of powers, but the principle that the American government is a government of laws and not men.

    Perspective all right (none / 0) (#24)
    by MacLane on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 07:55:49 PM EST
    Clinton waited until hours before he left office. With over 500 days remaining in the White House, Bush hasn't exactly slept on it.

    Oh he's slept on it.... (none / 0) (#42)
    by Slado on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 07:56:17 AM EST
    This thing has been dragging on for 4 years.   Before even the last election.

    I would imagine Bush has had plenty of time to think about this and the many scenarios that played out.

    He probably decided early on that Libby wouldn't see the inside of a jail cell and this is how it played out.

    Parent

    So then Bush wasted more time and money (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Dadler on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 11:35:46 AM EST
    If he knew this, Slado, years ago, that he'd never let Libby see the inside of a cell, then Bush is admitting to completely flushing more valuable resources (tens of millions that could've gone, say, to help my little bro in the war) right down the toilet for no reason other than personal ass-covering.  Brilliant.  What a man.  He better be commuting a lot more unfair sentences in the days and weeks and months to come, or he is once again simply King Bullsh*t taking a dump on all of us.

     

    Parent

    dadler - What a stretch (1.00 / 1) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 11:40:43 AM EST
    None of the resources for your little brother would have gotten there if it hadn't been for Bush's veto.

    Give it up, Dadler. The money wasted by the Demos' demands for a worthless investigation have nothing to do with the defense bufget.

    Parent

    Thank you so much (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Dadler on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 01:15:38 PM EST
    I never would've known that.  Sheesh, Jim, you really don't have the ability to recognize irony in a written sentence, do you?  Regardless, money wasted and squandered is money wasted and squandered, and I was aiming my remark at Slado's original post about Bush having decided long ago that Libby would never see the inside of a jail cell.  Get it?  That is the context of my remark about money squandered that could have been better used.  Knowing you are wasting the people's time and money.  Hell, paying Peter to pay Paul, the saying exists for a reason -- it's done all the time, in government and out.

    Parent
    um, TAKING from Peter... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Dadler on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 01:16:48 PM EST
    ...to pay Paul.

    That would be what I meant.  Dunce.

    Parent

    Dadler (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 05:06:30 PM EST
    Oh, I got it.

    I just disagree with you dragging your brother into every comment as if his status is of any importance about the war, budgets, etc.

    (I apologize in advance, but we both know that is true, and rightly so.)

    Parent

    They also have (none / 0) (#50)
    by Edger on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 12:01:30 PM EST
    nothing to do with Bush vetoing an emergency supplemental bill, so cut the "defunding the occupation" hurts the troops bullsh*t. You'll end up making a fool out of yourself. Again.

    Defunding Iraq: Misperceptions, Disinformation And Lies

    Parent

    This diary (none / 0) (#29)
    by Warren Terrer on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 08:39:49 PM EST
    got a mention on CNN's blogging segment today. Congratulations, for what it's worth.

    Democracy is dead (none / 0) (#40)
    by matthood on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 07:01:21 AM EST
    Democracy is dead with the election of Bush. It had its throat cut by the foot soldiers of the Bush clan while on its way to Washington. A man, who is not qualified to pick up trash, who has no history of public service, who bankrupted all of his business's in pure contempt for our history is sitting in the White House. What we have in Washington is a criminal conspiracy to fabricate the illusion of a perpetual and a deliberate stalemate to circumvent the will of the American people through the evil intentions of the wealthy by their army of special interest's to keep the American people in economic slavery, as a slush fund for their pet projects that keep the wealthy rich by social welfare for the rich and cold blooded capitalism for the poor. Washington has become the Whore of Babylon, who treasonous acts devourer the flesh of its citizens. Sodom and Gomorrah was not destroyed because it was a gated city of homosexuals. It was destroyed because the leadership destroyed the 10 commandment with out remorse, who by creating their own god whom they could create to legalized their criminal destruction of the souls of all men, who entered their wicked cites, who used mankind has means to generate wealth by treating God's creation has a source of wealth to avoid the burdens of life by stealing's the breath of life into turning Gods creation into beast of of burdens for the wealthy that cost them their souls. The citizens of these cities were turned into beast with godless souls with no regard for GOD by the leadership of Sodom and Gomorrah who's government was a wolf in sheep's clothing who legalized the vice's of life to bring economic slavery of all men.

    Democracy is dead (none / 0) (#41)
    by matthood on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 07:15:59 AM EST
    Democracy is dead with the election of Bush. It had its throat cut by the foot soldiers of the Bush clan while on its way to Washington. A man, who is not qualified to pick up trash, who has no history of public service, who bankrupted all of his business's in pure contempt for our history is sitting in the White House. What we have in Washington is a criminal conspiracy to fabricate the illusion of a perpetual and a deliberate stalemate to circumvent the will of the American people, through the evil intentions of the wealthy by their army of special interest's to keep the American people in economic slavery, as a slush fund for their pet projects, that keep the wealthy rich through social welfare for the rich and cold blooded capitalism for the poor. Washington has become the Whore of Babylon, who treasonous acts devourer the flesh of its citizens. Sodom and Gomorrah was not destroyed because it was a gated city of homosexuals. It was destroyed because the leadership destroyed the 10 commandments with out remorse, who by creating their own god, whom they could create and control to legalized their criminal destruction of the souls of all men, who entered their wicked cities destroyed the image of God in man, who used mankind has a means to generate wealth by treating God's creation has a source of wealth to avoid the burdens of life, by stealing's the breath of life of man made in the image of GOD, into turning Gods creation into beast of burdens for the wealthy, that cost them their souls. The citizens of these cities were turned into beast with godless souls with no regard for GOD by the leadership of Sodom and Gomorrah, who's government was a wolf in sheep's clothing, who legalized the vice's of life to bring economic slavery to all men and women who entered its evil doors. Lot, a good man, lost all of his wealth given to him by God, because of the corruption of the government of the leadership of this evil city, who hated God and the rule of law. They turned true religion, where all prosper who love the Lord, into a city where only the few can live by being above the law.

    Democracy died.... (none / 0) (#57)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 01:33:34 PM EST
    when greed trumped freedom, liberty, and equality.  My estimate for when this happened is long before Bush was even born...maybe a 100 years?  That's when we decided to pursue world economic domination instead of being a quiet, self-sufficient, free republic.

    Parent