from the Democrats, and hilariously disingenuous. It isn't even a pardon, for chrissakes.
Its almost worth it just to hear the faux-indignant shrieking and witness the sudden memory loss.
Heh.
1
LOL. That's a long list! What say you, John Ryan? Bo? Leftards?
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at July 03, 2007 12:24 AM (yJKSD)
2
YYYYEEAAARRRGGHH!!! BOOOOSH!!!!!
man... I can actually hear the echos of libtards going crazy across the fruited plain.....
Posted by: mrclark at July 03, 2007 12:26 AM (7GGAw)
3
And these don't even include the Clinton pardons....does anyone have them?
OH...eh...I just happen to have them right here....heh..
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pardonchartlst.htm
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530
January 20, 2001
Pardon Grants January 2001
Name
Home Town
Offenses
ALLEN, Verla Jean
Everton, Arkansas
False statements to agency of United States
ALTIERE, Nicholas M.
Las Vegas, Nevada
Importation of cocaine
ALTSCHUL, Bernice Ruth
Sherman Village, California
Conspiracy to commit money laundering
ANDERSON, Joe, Jr.
Grove Hill, Alabama
Income tax evasion
ANDERSON, William Sterling
Spartanburg, South Carolina
Conspiracy to defraud a federally insured financial
institution, false statements to a federally insured financial
institution, wire fraud
AZIZKHANI, Mansour T.
Huntsville, Alabama
Conspiracy and making false statements in bank loan
applications
BABIN, Cleveland Victor, Jr.
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Conspiracy to commit offense against the United States by
utilizing the U.S. mail in furtherance of a scheme to defraud
BAGLEY, Chris Harmon
Harrah, Oklahoma
Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine
BANE, Scott Lynn
Mahomet, Illinois
Unlawful distribution of marijuana
BARBER, Thomas Cleveland
Hampton, Florida
Issuing worthless checks
BARGON, Peggy Ann
Monticello, Illinois
Violation of the Lacey Act, violation of the Bald Eagle
Protection Act
BHATKA, Tansukhlal
Income tax evasion
BLAMPIED, David Roscoe
Ketchum, Idaho
Conspiracy to distribute cocaine
BORDERS, William Arthur, Jr.
Washington, D.C.
Conspiracy to corruptly solicit and accept money in return
for influencing the official acts of a federal district court
judge (Alcee L. Hastings), and to defraud the United States
in connection with the performance of lawful government
functions; corruptly influencing, obstructing, impeding and
endeavoring to influence, obstruct and impede the due
administration of justice, and aiding and abetting therein;
traveling interstate with intent to commit bribery
BOREL, Arthur David
Little Rock, Arkansas
Odometer rollback
BOREL, Douglas Charles
Conway, Arkansas
Odometer rollback
BRABHAM, George Thomas
Austin, Texas
Making a false statement or report to a federally insured bank
BRASWELL, Almon Glenn
Doravilla, Georgia
Conspiracy to defraud government with respect to claims;
perjury
BROWDER, Leonard
Aiken, South Carolina
Illegal dispensing of controlled substance and Medicaid fraud
BROWN, David Steven
New York, New York
Securities fraud and mail fraud
BURLESON, Delores
Caroylene, aka Delores Cox
Burleson
Hanna, Oklahoma
Possession of marijuana
BUSTAMANTE, John H.
Cleveland, Ohio
Wire fraud
CAMPBELL, Mary Louise
Ruleville, Mississippi
Aiding and abetting the unauthorized use and transfer of
food stamps
CANDELARIA, Eloida
False information in registering to vote
CAPILI, Dennis Sobrevinas
Glendale, California
Filing false statements in alien registration
CHAMBERS, Donna Denise
Memphis, Tennessee
Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to
distribute cocaine, possession with intent to distribute
cocaine, use of a telephone to facilitate cocaine conspiracy
CHAPMAN, Douglas Eugene
Scott, Arkansas
Bank fraud
CHAPMAN, Ronald Keith
Scott, Arkansas
Bank fraud
CHAVEZ, Francisco Larios
Santa Ana, California
Aiding and abetting illegal entry of aliens
CISNEROS, Henry G.
CLINTON, Roger
COHN, Stuart Harris
New Haven, Connecticut
1. Illegal sale of gold options
2. Illegal sale of silver options
COOPER, David Marc
Wapakoneta, Ohio
Conspiracy to defraud the government
COX, Ernest Harley, Jr.
Pine Bluff, Arkansas
Conspiracy to defraud a federally insured savings and loan,
misapplication of bank funds, false statements
CROSS, John F., Jr.
Little Rock, Arkansas
Embezzlement by a bank employee
CUNNINGHAM, Rickey Lee
Amarillo, Texas
Possession with intent to distribute marijuana
DE LABIO, Richard Anthony
Baltimore, Maryland
Mail fraud, aiding and abetting
DEUTCH, John
Described in January 19, 2001 information
DOUGLAS, Richard
False statements
DOWNE, Edward Reynolds
Conspiracy to commit wire fraud and tax evasion; securities
fraud
DUDLEY, Marvin Dean
Omaha, Nebraska
False statements
DUNCAN, Larry Lee
Branson, Missouri
Altering an automobile odometer
FAIN, Robert Clinton
Aiding and assisting in the preparation of a false corporate
tax return
FERNANDEZ, Marcos
Arcenio
Miami, Florida
Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana
FERROUILLET, Alvarez
Interstate transport of stolen property, money laundering,
false statements
FUGAZY, William Denis
Harrison, New York
Perjury in a bankruptcy proceeding
GEORGE, Lloyd Reid
Mail fraud
GOLDSTEIN, Louis
Las Vegas, Nevada
Possession of goods stolen from interstate shipment
GORDON, Rubye Lee
Tampa, Florida
Forgery of U.S. Treasury checks
GREEN, Pincus
Switzerland
HAMNER, Robert Ivey
Searcy, Arkansas
Conspiracy to distribute marijuana, possession of marijuana
with intent to distribute
HANDLEY, Samuel Price
Hodgenville, Kentucky
Conspiracy to steal government property
HANDLEY, Woodie Randolph
Hodgenville, Kentucky
Conspiracy to steal government property
HARMON, Jay Houston
Jonesboro, Arkansas
1. Conspiracy to import marijuana, conspiracy to
possess marijuana with intent to distribute, importation of marijuana,
possession of marijuana with intent to distribute
2. Conspiracy to import cocaine
HEMMINGSON, John
Interstate transport of stolen property, money laundering
HERDLINGER, David S.
St. Simons Island, Georgia
Mail fraud
HUCKLEBERRY, Debi Rae
Ogden, Utah
Distribution of methamphetamine
JAMES, Donald Ray
Fairfield Bay, Arkansas
Mail fraud, wire fraud, and false statement to a bank to
influence credit approval
JOBE, Stanley Pruet
El Paso, Texas
Conspiracy to commit bank fraud, and bank fraud
JOHNSON, Ruben H.
Austin, Texas
Theft and misapplication of bank funds by a bank officer or
director
JONES, Linda
Conspiracy to commit bank fraud and other offenses against
the United States
LAKE, James Howard
Illegal corporate campaign contributions, wire fraud
LEWIS, June Louise
Lowellville, Ohio
Embezzlement by a bank employee
LEWIS, Salim Bonnor
Short Hills, New Jersey
Securities fraud, record keeping violations, margin violations
LODWICK, John Leighton
Excelsior Springs, Missouri
Income tax evasion
LOPEZ, Hildebrando
San Isidro, Texas
Distribution of cocaine
LUACES, Jose Julio
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
Possession of an unregistered firearm
MANESS, James Timothy
Conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance
MANNING, James Lowell
Little Rock, Arkansas
Aiding and assisting in the preparation of a false corporate
tax return
MARTIN, John Robert
Gulf Breeze, Florida
Income tax evasion
MARTINEZ, Frank Ayala
Elgin, Texas
Conspiracy to supply false documents to the Immigration and
Naturalization Service
MARTINEZ, Silvia Leticia
Beltran
Elgin, Texas
Conspiracy to supply false documents to the Immigration and
Naturalization Service
McCORMICK, John Francis
Dedham, Massachusetts
Racketeering conspiracy, racketeering, and violation of the
Hobbs act
McDOUGAL, Susan H.
MECHANIC, Howard
Lawrence
1. Violating the Civil Disobedience Act of 1968
2. Failure to appear
3. Making false statement in acquiring a
passport
MITCHELL, Brook K., Sr.
Conspiracy to illegally obtain USDA subsidy payments,
false statements to USDA, and false entries on USDA forms
MORGAN, Charles Wilfred, III
Little Rock, Arkansas
Conspiracy to distribute cocaine
MORISON, Samuel Loring
Crofton, Maryland
Willful transmission of defense information, unauthorized
possession and retention of defense information, theft of
government property
NAZZARO, Richard Anthony
Winchester, Massachusetts
Perjury and conspiracy to commit mail fraud
NOSENKO, Charlene Ann
Phoenix, Arizona
Conspiracy to defraud the United States, and influencing or
injuring an officer or juror generally
OBERMEIER, Vernon
Raymond
Belleville, Illinois
Conspiracy to distribute cocaine, distribution of cocaine, and
using a communications facility to facilitate distribution of
cocaine
OGALDE, Miguelina
Glendale, California
Conspiracy to import cocaine
OWEN, David C.
Olathe, Kansas
Filing a false tax return
PALMER, Robert W.
Little Rock, Arkansas
Conspiracy to make false statements
PERHOSKY, Kelli Anne
Bridgeville, Pennsylvania
Conspiracy to commit mail fraud
PEZZOPANE, Richard H.
Palo Heights, Illinois
Conspiracy to commit racketeering, and mail fraud
PHILLIPS, Orville Rex
Waco, Texas
Unlawful structure of a financial transaction
POLING, Vinson Stewart, Jr.
Baldwin, Maryland
Making a false bank entry, and aiding and abetting
PROUSE, Norman Lyle
Conyers, Georgia
Operating or directing the operation of a common carrier
while under the influence of alcohol
PRUITT, Willie H. H., Jr.
Port Richey, Florida
Absent without official leave
PURSLEY, Danny Martin, Sr.
Goodlettsville, Tennessee
Aiding and abetting the conduct of an illegal gambling
business, and obstruction of state laws to facilitate illegal
gambling
RAVENEL, Charles D.
Charleston, South Carolina
Conspiracy to defraud the United States
RAY, William Clyde
Altus, Oklahoma
Fraud using a telephone
REGALADO, Alfredo Luna
Pharr, Texas
Failure to report the transportation of currency in excess of
$10,000 into the United States
RICAFORT, Ildefonso Reynes
Houston, Texas
Submission of false claims to Veterans Administration
RICH, Marc
Switzerland
RIDDLE, Howard Winfield
Mt. Crested Butte, Colorado
Violation of the Lacey Act (receipt of illegally imported
animal skins)
RILEY, Richard Wilson, Jr.
Possession of cocaine with intent to distribute
ROBBINS, Samuel Lee
Cedar Park, Texas
Misprision of a felony
RODRIGUEZ, Joel Gonzales
Houston, Texas
Theft of mail by a postal employee
ROGERS, Michael James
McAllen, Texas
Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana
ROSS, Anna Louise
Lubbock, Texas
Distribution of cocaine
RUST, Gerald Glen
Avery, Texas
False declarations before grand jury
RUST, Jerri Ann
Avery, Texas
False declarations before grand jury
RUTHERFORD, Bettye June
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Possession of marijuana with intent to distribute
SANDS, Gregory Lee
Sioux Falls, South Dakota
Conspiracy to distribute cocaine
SCHWIMMER, Adolph
Conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States,
conspiracy to export arms and ammunition to a foreign
country and related charges
SERETTI, Albert A., Jr.
McKees Rocks, Pennyslvania
Conspiracy and wire fraud
SHAW, Patricia Campbell
Hearst
Wilton, Connecticut
Armed bank robbery and using a firearm during a felony
SMITH, Dennis Joseph
Redby, Minnesota
1. Unauthorized absence
2. Failure to obey off-limits instructions
3. Unauthorized absence
SMITH, Gerald Owen
Florence, Mississippi
Armed bank robbery
SMITH, Stephen A.
SPEAKE, Jimmie Lee
Breckenridge, Texas
Conspiracy to possess and utter counterfeit $20 Federal
Reserve notes
STEWART, Charles Bernard
Sparta, Georgia
Illegally destroying U.S. Mail
STEWART-ROLLINS,
Marlena Francisca
Euclid, Ohio
Conspiracy to distribute cocaine
SYMINGTON, John Fife, III
TANNEHILL, Richard Lee
Reno, Nevada
Conspiracy and restraint of trade
TENAGLIA, Nicholas C.
Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania
Receipt of illegal payments under the Medicare program
THOMAS, Gary Allen
Lancaster, Texas
Theft of mail by postal employee
TODD, Larry Weldon
Gardendale, Texas
Conspiracy to commit an offense against the U.S. in
violation of the Lacey Act and the Airborne Hunting Act
TREVINO, Olga C.
Converse, Texas
Misapplication by a bank employee
VAMVOUKLIS, Ignatious
Exeter, New Hampshire
Possession of cocaine
VAN DE WEERD, Patricia A.
Tomahawk, Wisconsin
Theft by a U.S. Postal employee
WADE, Christopher V.
WARMATH, Bill Wayne
Walls, Mississippi
Obstruction of correspondence
WATSON, Jack Kenneth
Oakridge, Oregon
Making false statements of material facts to the U.S. Forest
Service
WEBB, Donna Lynn
Panama City, Florida
False entry in savings and loan record by employee
WELLS, Donald William
Phenix City, Alabama
Possession of an unregistered firearm
WENDT, Robert H.
Kirkwood, Missouri
Conspiracy to effectuate the escape of a federal prisoner
WILLIAMS, Jack L.
Making false statements to federal agents
WILLIAMS, Kevin Arthur
Omaha, Nebraska
Conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute
crack cocaine
WILLIAMS, Robert Michael
Davison, Michigan
Conspiracy to transport in foreign commerce securities
obtained by fraud
WILSON, Jimmie Lee
Helena, Arkansas
Converting property mortgaged or pledged to a farm credit
agency, and converting public money to personal use
WINGATE, Thelma Louise
Sale City, Georgia
Mail fraud
WOOD, Mitchell Couey
Sherwood, Arkansas
Conspiracy to possess and to distribute cocaine
WOOD, Warren Stannard
Las Vegas, Nevada
Conspiracy to defraud the United States by filing a false
document with the Securities and Exchange Commission
WORTHEY, Dewey
Conway, Arkansas
Medicaid fraud
YALE, Rick Allen
Belleville, Illinois
Bank fraud
YASAK, Joseph A.
Chicago, Illinois
Knowingly making under oath a false declaration regarding a
material fact before a grand jury
YINGLING, William Stanley
Interstate transportation of stolen vehicle
YOUNG, Phillip David
Little Rock, Arkansas
Interstate transportation and sale of fish and wildlife
Posted by: mrclark at July 03, 2007 12:55 AM (4kxP2)
4
The Republicans used to be the law and order part - and accuse the other side of doing this kind of stuff. One more core value that has been corrupted - with cheering from the rank and file. Oh how the mighty have fallen!!!
All the more disgusting that Scooter was protecting Cheney - who is the one who should be serving time for this. Outing a CIA operative, who just happened to be handling the Iran nuke file of all things. Disgusting.
I admire Joe Wilson for standing up and fighting this corrupt administration. The man is a true patriot.
Posted by: Bo at July 03, 2007 07:31 AM (euN4c)
5
It seems only the true conservatives are rightfully pissed off about this one:
"I respect the jury’s verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive."
That's the president micromanaging the wheels of justice. Remember that Mr Bush is notoriously pardon-averse. He has only issued 113 pardons in nearly seven years. In Texas, he sent many, many people to the execution room, even those, like Karla Faye Tucker, who had genuinely expressed remorse and been born again. In fact, he famously mocked her petition for clemency. So she was killed. But Bush finds a way to spare his own apparatchik from mere months in jail for a clear case of perjury.
If this shores up his conservative base, then his conservative base has no principles. They impeached Clinton for the same crime. But they let their own go free. If you needed a reason to rid Washington of the president's corrupt party, you just got one. Get angrier.
They keep repeating the line that only the "left" will be angry. Dean Barnett
hauls it out. Glenn Reynolds
echoes. K-Lo is
on the meme. Is it now the conservative position that only left-wingers actually object to people getting away with perjury? For what it's worth, I don't think the Republican base gives a damn about Scooter Libby. But many others now will. The defense of the commutation is complicated and unpersuasive. The case against it is simple: You don't get a cleaner example of different justice for the rich and powerful. It seems to me that real conservatives - not the lawless hoodlums now parading under that banner - should be as outraged as anyone. This man risked national security for political payback, and perjured himself to cover it up. This commutation will rightly become a symbol of a great deal of rot in Washington that needs to be swept clean. Get out that broom.
Andrew Sullivan
Posted by: Bo at July 03, 2007 07:41 AM (euN4c)
6
They keep repeating the line that only the "left" will be angry.
Yawn. Who cares? When are they not angry?
You, not surprisingly, missed the mounds of Democrat malfeasance and hypocrisy I listed for you above.
He has only issued 113 pardons in nearly seven years.
So he is more on the side of law and order than certain other recent Presidents. Hmmm.
The defense of the commutation is complicated and unpersuasive.
Its done. There isn't a damn thing you or anyone else can do about it.
They impeached Clinton for the same crime.Clinton was impeached because he was held in contempt of court for perjuring himself to a federal judge. It was most certainly
not the same thing. You really have no idea what you're talking about.
In fact, he famously mocked her petition for clemency.
Scooter Libby didn't murder anyone, dunce. That's why there's a different sentence for what he did.
This man risked national security for political payback, and perjured himself to cover it up.And what "National Security" prerogative was violated, exactly? The "remember insignificant conversations with reporters from years ago" statute of 'National Security?' Truly horrifying. Kind of like leaking classified war information to the NYT, or blowing top secret finance monitoring programs that were perfectly legal. Same level of flagrant security violations, for sure. Maybe he should talk to Patrick Leahy about that one, since he has experience violating national security for political gain. Or Sandy Berger.
Take your pick. And get lost - you are totally out of your league with this one, and quite obviously have no clue what you're talking about.
Posted by: Good Lt at July 03, 2007 08:13 AM (yMbfY)
7
Oh I see - outing un undercover agent during a time of war is not, in your opinion, endangering national security.
It is you who does not know what he is tallking about. All you can throw out is the lame old "bbbbbbbut Clinton!!!" line.
Posted by: Bo at July 03, 2007 08:45 AM (euN4c)
8
outing un undercover agent during a time of war is not, in your opinion, endangering national securityLibby didn't 'out' anybody, you idiot. Val Plame wasn't "covert," because Dick Armitage would be in the dock if she were covert. He isn't, no indictment, no crime. Libby had nothing to do with it.
I'll repeat because you're obviously illiterate: Dick Armitage outed her to Bob Novak. Even the dumbest of the leftwingnut circle-jerkers knows that basic fact.
Get. Your. Facts. Straight. Before. Typing.
Posted by: Good Lt at July 03, 2007 08:54 AM (yMbfY)
9
Come on, BO. Make something else up.
Posted by: Good Lt at July 03, 2007 08:57 AM (yMbfY)
10
Fuck off right winger. Libby deserved to go to prison and that prick Bush let him go scot free. Bastard. Good Lieutenant, you are a fucking moron. Go fuck yourself.
Posted by: none of your business at July 03, 2007 09:32 AM (TmLg9)
11
Anybody that's surprised by this thing was fooling themselves from the start.
In commuting Libby's sentence, President Bush said the finding of guilt for perjury was fair and that Fitzgerald had done a good job. Despite acknowledging these two facts, he said he felt Libby's sentence was too harsh. OK, didn't realize Bush was such an experienced jurist, but the power to commute and/or pardon (that's coming too) is the President's to own.
You gotta admit, it was the smart move. At this point in his 29% career, with Republicans berating his performance almost as loudly as Democrats, Bush had to throw some red meat to his base ... who were actually calling for a full pardon. So Bush splits the difference and risks nothing.
Secondly, his immigration bill just got trounced. Kinda like to move that off the front pages and this Libby pardon would do that, again at no risk. Republicans will applaud, Democrats will wince.
Thirdly, just won't do to have pictures of a key administration official wearing an orange jump suit.
At the end of the day, everyone thinks exactly of this administration what they did before. And Fred Fielding knew that'd be the case.
Posted by: B at July 03, 2007 09:37 AM (Zlbra)
12
Good Lieutenant, you are a fucking moron.Liberals are so "thoughtful". LOL. And you wonder why you aren't taken seriously.
Apparently the name Richard Armitage doesn't ring bell?
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at July 03, 2007 09:42 AM (yJKSD)
13
Libby didn't 'out' anybody, you idiot.No, he didn't. It's obvious these two morons don't even know the BASIC facts of the case.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at July 03, 2007 09:45 AM (yJKSD)
Posted by: Good Lt at July 03, 2007 09:55 AM (yMbfY)
Posted by: B at July 03, 2007 10:06 AM (Zlbra)
16
oops ... that didn't work so well. Let's try again in a minute.
Posted by: B at July 03, 2007 10:08 AM (Zlbra)
17
Because public opinion polls taken years before a Presidential election matter
so much.Nearly all public opinion polls (and exit push polling) favored Kerry in 2004, and we know what happened then, don't we little butterfly?
Posted by: Good Lt at July 03, 2007 10:11 AM (yMbfY)
18
Well, I'd say they work better than polls that continually look backwards 8 to 15 years, wouldn't you say, even smaller butterfly?
Posted by: B at July 03, 2007 10:14 AM (Zlbra)
Posted by: B at July 03, 2007 10:15 AM (Zlbra)
Posted by: Good Lt at July 03, 2007 10:21 AM (yMbfY)
21
24% ... why, it hasn't been that low since the Republican-controlled Congress of July 2006 when it was hovering around 27% ... but we're not looking backwards and polling is such voodoo after all.
EDITOR'S RESPONSE:
YUP. IT NEVER GOT AS LOW AS IT IS NOW WITH THE DEMOCRATS FUDGING UP CONGRESS, AND IT
CURRENTLY IS THAT LOW. HERE'S TO LOOKING AT THE PAST, ERR, PRESENT.
Posted by: B at July 03, 2007 10:30 AM (Zlbra)
22
Yes, 27% is VASTLY different than 24%, especially when you consider the +/- 3% statistical caveat typical to polling. Heh.
Anyways, und under the heading of "Just Saying ..." Ford pardoned Nixon ... went on to lose in '76. Bush sr commuted sentences for six of the Iran Contra players ... went on to lose in '92. Heh.
The questions is, does letting the big fish off the hook play so poorly with the general public they take it out on the incumbent or ruling party in the next election? Heh. Nuance.
Posted by: B at July 03, 2007 11:00 AM (Zlbra)
23
Good Lt,
You are so full of shit a dozen enemas would not help.
PLAME WAS COVERT!!!!! None of your spin and obfuscation can change this FACT:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/
I really wish blowhards who pretend to know what they are talking about would leave the Republican party. You really drive away the smart thinking people with your nonsense.
Posted by: Bo at July 03, 2007 11:23 AM (euN4c)
24
If Plame was covert, then Armitage would've paid.
Sorry, game over.
Posted by: Good Lt at July 03, 2007 11:40 AM (yMbfY)
25
Bo,
How is it that liberals like you can look yourselves in the mirror without trying to kill the person looking back at you?
1) Aldrige Ames is the person who relieved Valerie Plame of her covert status back in the late 80 when he sold the KGB a list of CIA covert agents. During the early 90's whenever Valerie Plame met with a CIA asset in some other country, that asset was murdered shortly after the meeting by KGB agents. In 1994 when the FBI caught Ames and discovered the extent of his treason they removed Plame from covert duty because she was known to be a compromised agent.
2) Joe Wilson knowingly and willfully committed perjury before congress regarding the facts revealed in his Niger yellowcake investigation.
3) Valerie Plame knowingly and willfully committed perjury before congress regarding her involvement in arranging Joe Wilsons fact finding mission to Niger.
4) Patrick Fitzgerald knew before questioning Libby that Richard Armitage was responsible for leaking Plames name to Robert Novak, he also knew that Plame was not a covert agent and that leaking her name to the press was not a crime, yet he investigate Libby anyway for something that Libby had not done and wasnt a crime even if Libby had done it.
Given these facts it is obvious that you and B and your fellow liberal cronies know nothing of what it means to be for law and order.
Where was your outrage and moral indignation when Sandy Burger was caught stealing classified document from the national archives? Where was your outrage and moral indignation when President Clinton pardoned Sandy Burger for committing treason?
Yea, thats what I thought, nothing but partisan bullshit...
http://www.mp3.com.au/artist.asp?id=16834
Posted by: doriangrey at July 03, 2007 11:42 AM (XvkRd)
26
Precisely. Since no indictment was issued for leaking Plame's name and identity to Robert Novak, there obviously was no crime committed in leaking Plame's name.
If there was, Richard Armitage (a critic of Bush) would have been indicted under the Intel Identities Protection Act for leaking Plame's "covert" status and name to Robert Novak. He wasn't indicted, so there was no crime. That was the original premise and media-driven hype that drove the investigation.
The investigation succeeded - Armitage was identified as the leaker. Why aren't the libs calling for his head on a platter? Because a) there is no political gain to be had from crucifying a critic of the Bush administration, and b) there was no crime in revealing super-sekrit 007 desk jockey Plame's ultra-double-covert status.
If you have any other comments, please refer yourselves to the facts of this sordid little witchhunt - Armitage leaked the name. No crime was committed, because nobody indicted him for leaking the name. The end.
Libs lose.
Posted by: Good Lt at July 03, 2007 11:50 AM (yMbfY)
27
If Plame was covert, then Armitage would've paid.Uh, no, game not over. Heh.
Fitzgerald said himself , "he found no evidence that Armitage knew of Plame's covert CIA status when he talked to Novak and Woodward."
No evidence, no trial ... no trial, no pay.
Posted by: B at July 03, 2007 11:53 AM (Zlbra)
28
So Plame COULDN'T have been covert because no one was charged in the leak? Interesting rationale.
Posted by: B at July 03, 2007 11:56 AM (Zlbra)
29
B,
Learn to read shit for brains,
1) Aldrige Ames is the person who relieved Valerie Plame of her covert
status back in the late 80 when he sold the KGB a list of CIA covert
agents. During the early 90's whenever Valerie Plame met with a CIA
asset in some other country, that asset was murdered shortly after the
meeting by KGB agents. In 1994 when the FBI caught Ames and discovered
the extent of his treason they removed Plame from covert duty because
she was known to be a compromised agent.
Nobody was charged because Valerie Plame was not covert (not that other way around), you can thank Aldrige Ames for that, he's just your kind of patriotic American.
http://www.mp3.com.au/artist.asp?id=16834
Posted by: doriangrey at July 03, 2007 12:22 PM (XvkRd)
30
The why did Fitzgerald note that, "he found no evidence that Armitage knew of
Plame's
covert CIA status when he talked to Novak and Woodward."
Again, go back to writing shitty music and masturbating, douchebag.
Posted by: B at July 03, 2007 12:27 PM (Zlbra)
31
B,
Because you cannot find evidence of something that does not exist. Since Plame was not covert, it would then fall to reason (something you obviously are incapable of) that no evidence could be found showing that Armitage knew of
Plame's
covert CIA status.
http://www.mp3.com.au/artist.asp?id=16834
Posted by: doriangrey at July 03, 2007 12:55 PM (XvkRd)
32
Plame was covert.
The CIA provided a sworn deposition at Libby's trial that stated so. This is fact.
The Aldridge Ames fairy tail is just that: a fairy tail - designed by political strategists like Karl Rove for consumption by gullible idiots like Lt. Dan, Jesusland and doriangrey.
Lenin/Stalin had their useful idiots, and Bush/Cheney have theirs it seems.
Posted by: Bo at July 03, 2007 01:29 PM (euN4c)
33
Plame was covert.
Then why wasn't Armitage indicted for leaking her covert status?
YOU NEED TO ANSWER THIS IN ORDER FOR WHAT YOU'RE ASSERTING TO BE TRUE. You lose. Give it up - the facts don't support your desperate attempts to ignore them.
Posted by: Good Lt at July 03, 2007 01:43 PM (yMbfY)
34
"Then why wasn't Armitage indicted for leaking her covert status?"
Because, bright boy, this information came to light not during the course of the investigation (which Scooter obstructed) but afterwards.
The more legitimate question might be: why has Armitage still not been indicted?
To which I would answer: Gonzalez.
Posted by: Bo at July 03, 2007 02:04 PM (euN4c)
35
I like how the C.I.A can just certify something whenever they feel like, and some people buy it without looking at the history. Plame was 'coverted' retroactively if it was done at the trial.
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at July 03, 2007 02:11 PM (2OHpj)
36
Jeez, Good Lt., is it that difficult?
Fitzgerald's point was that, to prosecute the Plame "outer," it had to be proven this person KNEW she was a covert agent when they outed her. Once again, it had to be proven this person KNEW she was covert.
Fitzgerald said he saw no such evidence of Armitage KNOWING she was covert when he (Armitage) talked to Robert Novak.
What are you missing here?
Posted by: B at July 03, 2007 02:12 PM (Zlbra)
37
The crux of Fitzgerald's argument was that someone could, without malice, accidently expose a covert CIA agent. This person would not, then, be prosecuted. Armitage falls into this category.
Libby likely falls into the other category, but unless Fitzgerald felt confident he and his staff could prove it, I'm sure they saw no benefit in trying. Use a strategy that goes back to Al Capone -- prosecute for something else, which they did. and won ... kind of.
Posted by: B at July 03, 2007 02:16 PM (Zlbra)
38
B,
When you find the logic key that works with this group of lemmings I'll gladly buy you a beer. They seem to proudly enjoy defending dishonourable and dishonest Americans, and rail against those that seek to advance the principles upon which this Republic was founded.
Posted by: Bo at July 03, 2007 02:20 PM (euN4c)
39
Well, Bo, a big part of being an apologist is picking your truths and inferences carefully. That and having a tendency to think politics started in 1992.
Posted by: B at July 03, 2007 02:26 PM (Zlbra)
40
"but unless Fitzgerald felt confident he and his staff could prove it, I'm sure they saw no benefit in trying. Use a strategy that goes back to Al Capone -- prosecute for something else, which they did. and won ... kind of. " Exactly ... when no crime was commited, you have to come up with nonsense that can be pushed on circumstatial eveidence. you need to frame circumstances, and force them to appear as a crime. nobody could have known about plame's suppossed covert status, BECAUSE SHE DIDN'T HAVE SUCH STATUS. That is why Armitage is fre, and Scooter should be. No crime was committed, but the appearance of crime was forced by a zealous pack of rabid leftist, and thier convenient allies in the anti-Bush community. USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at July 03, 2007 02:34 PM (2OHpj)
41
"Obstruction of justice" ain't exactly circumstantial evidence, my boy, and yes, it is a crime. It was also, incidently, in the impeachment charge against Bill Clinton.
Posted by: B at July 03, 2007 02:38 PM (Zlbra)
42
Or would you, in this instance, let it go due to the (R) following Libby's name. I'm certain of it. He was found guilty after all.
Posted by: B at July 03, 2007 02:39 PM (Zlbra)
43
nobody could have known about plame's suppossed covert status, BECAUSE SHE DIDN'T HAVE SUCH STATUS. See what I mean Bo. You can point to documentary evidence, including the CIA's own admission that she was covert in 2003, and still you get, "No she wasn't!"
What do you do with these types? Smile, agree and slowly back away, keeping their hands in sight at all times.
Posted by: B at July 03, 2007 02:44 PM (Zlbra)
44
No, it's easy to prove no matter who the victim is, and that goes for "D" or "R" victims. And BTW I did vote for Clinton once, so why not give me credit for my independence. I try to judge the man, not his uniform. I may be pissed at the left, but I learned to be. I didn't start that way. Obstruction can be proven on the basis of appearances. there doesn't ned to be any fingerprints on anything. Do you understand what I am saying? it is possible to get a false positive for certain federal crimes. frankly, I believe they are written that way so some foilks CAN be shot down. I don't like it, and I think it is a broader form of injustice at the whole federal level.
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at July 03, 2007 02:46 PM (2OHpj)
45
Also BTW, I do support Bush sometimes, and sometimes not, just like Clinto when he was President. I do not support anyone where I see them lie outright, and it's to the point where I'm not sure Bush isn't simply a well meaning, but unspectacular man, in over his head, or if he is a cunning double dealer. I do know I didn't want him either, but I was dead set against Gore, so I made the choice, and I stand by it given the options. I'm not a Bush fnatic, but I despise witch-hunts, and faklse accusations. I hate people destroting a man for simple politics, and I hate people who whore themselves out to become famous. USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at July 03, 2007 02:50 PM (2OHpj)
46
Sorry, Michael, I think lying or working to obfuscate the facts to federal authorities will and should remain a crime.
And me? I turned 18 in 1979 and haven't missed a Presidential election since. If you're interested:
Reagan '80 and '84, Bush Sr. '88 and Dem thereafter.
Now if I see a Republican in 2008 that seems reasonable -- not ANYTHING like the current crowd in
the White House now, why not?
Posted by: B at July 03, 2007 02:53 PM (Zlbra)
47
I'm not sure Bush isn't simply a well meaning, but unspectacular man, in over his head, or if he is a cunning double dealer.
Ha, indeed I think this will be debated for years to come. I honestly don't think he's too terribly gifted when it comes to leadership, but I think he's a little sharper at using politics and a crafted personna then people give him credit for.
One thing I will say ... the Cheney people know how to play him like a fiddle.
Posted by: B at July 03, 2007 02:57 PM (Zlbra)
48
"I think lying or working to obfuscate the facts to federal authorities will and should remain a crime" We do not disagree about whether it is morally wrong to do so, but I have always felt that the bar was way to low, and easy to abuse for dogmatic, or political reasons. It's to easy to create appearance of a crime. You believe a crime was commited by Libby, and I believe an immoral, unjust persecution was committed against him, by twisting the laws from it's best usage. I stand by my position on Libby, and I despise Plame-Wilson as opportunistic vultures. Libby WAS abandoned, and I think that was a political decision as well.
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at July 03, 2007 03:00 PM (2OHpj)
49
As it happens, I like Cheney. I only vote for him if he was running against someone worse. If that sounds hypocritical, I'm sorry. It's politics in the USA. We don't get the best, we only get to choose from the best who want the job, and can swing the support to get a nomination. Cheney is ok as a manager, and I think he does mean well, but we need something more special in the next president, than to be well meaning, or a good manager. Leadership, moral clarity, and vision would be a good start. USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at July 03, 2007 03:04 PM (2OHpj)
50
Undoubtedly Libby was the fall-guy, which I doubt he appreciates--even though he knew he would do no real time if it came right down to it. No, bigger should've fell, and I'm sure Liby will write his book in the next few years speaking to this.
Posted by: B at July 03, 2007 03:14 PM (Zlbra)
51
The worst thing about politics is that it takes honest men, and teaches them to compromise and forces them to justify it afterwards. It destroys the man we thought we were electing, and replaces him with a doppleganger. The shell is still there, and it still talks the talk, but something is always missing. I will never enter politics myself. Well meaning I may be, but I would rather keep my soul as my unique possession. I'll just keep letting others go sacrifice themselves and whine about thier failures, compromises, and such from the security of my perch. I'll hate them for breaking down, as men do when overwhelmed. I'll despise them for selling out, which is of course, the means to all compromise. If you think about it, we always feeding off the sacrifice of men who put themselves into the lake of fire to try and do something good in government. We won't do it ourselves, but we will let others go a fry under the lense on our behalf. What DOES that make us ... ? I wonder. I think Libby is innocent, and he is damned for no good reason. Anyone want his job? There seems to be an opening.
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at July 03, 2007 03:15 PM (2OHpj)
52
To Bo and B-
You lose. Deal with it.
Posted by: Good Lt at July 03, 2007 03:35 PM (yMbfY)
53
The worst thing about politics is that it takes honest men, and teaches
them to compromise and forces them to justify it afterwards.
A 24% congressional approval rating and 30% presidential approval rating tells me you're in good company with your opinions.
I'll despise them for selling out, which is of course, the means to all compromise. As for compromise, it shouldn't have to mean losing one's principles. Keep them wise and it can be a great tool for actually getting principled things done.
Posted by: B at July 03, 2007 03:39 PM (Zlbra)
54
And then you've got Good Lt., where the only purpose of politics is to have your team "win." Whatever.
Posted by: B at July 03, 2007 03:44 PM (Zlbra)
55
Lt. Dan,
Who died and made you the judge?
It will be a cold day in hell before I go looking for your sign of approval regarding my beliefs and opinions. Like I said previously: I find you a disgrace to every core Republican value that I hold.
In fact if it ever does happen that you and I are in agreement on something then I will probably immediately check myself into an asylum for I will surely have gone off the deep end.
Posted by: Bo at July 03, 2007 03:45 PM (euN4c)
56
I have to stick up for Good Lt because we agree about to many issues. I think he is sharp. I also think that we are forced to pick sides, and unles we do, we end up on our own side, alone, accomplishing nothing at all, or getting mulched by the others. If you pick a side, you better be trying to help them win. This holds true even if your side is only 'not quite as evil'. The 'socialists' do it with Stalin, and Mao, and Fidel, when trying to fight capitalism, and us capitalists surely have our demons as well. So yeah, I picked my side. I had help from the side I didn't pick, in making my decision. Just like everyone else here. We choose based on our perceptions, combined with morality and self interest, which ARE NOT mutually exclusive. We do our best. Good Lt is aimed in the right direction as far as I'm concerned. So there you go.
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at July 03, 2007 04:06 PM (2OHpj)
57
Bo,
Plame was covert.
The CIA provided a sworn deposition at Libby's trial that stated so.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-14-cia-wilson_x.htm
The column's date is important because the law
against unmasking the identities of U.S. spies says a "covert agent"
must have been on an overseas assignment "within the last five years."
The assignment also must be long-term, not a short trip or temporary
post, two experts on the law say. Wilson's book makes numerous
references to the couple's life in Washington over the six years up to
July 2003.
"Unless she was really stationed abroad sometime
after their marriage," she wasn't a covert agent protected by the law,
says Bruce Sanford, an attorney who helped write the 1982 act that
protects covert agents' identities.
The Aldridge Ames fairy tail is just that: a fairy tail -http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45266
Drafter of intel statute:
Rove accusers ignorant
Lawyer who wrote law to protect agents
says Plame charge doesn't meet standard
Posted: July 14, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Art Moore
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
Democrat
leaders and editorialists accusing Karl Rove of treason for referring
to CIA agent Valerie Plame in an off-the-record interview are ignorant
of the law, according to the Washington attorney who spearheaded the
legislation at the center of the controversy.
Plame's
circumstances don't meet several of the criteria spelled out in a 1982
statute designed not only to protect the identity of intelligence
agents but to maintain the media's ability to hold government
accountable, Victoria Toensing told WorldNetDaily.
Toensing
– who drafted the legislation in her role as chief counsel for the
chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence – says the
Beltway frenzy surrounding Plame's alleged "outing" as a covert agent
is a story arising out of the capital's "silly season."
"The
hurricane season started early and so did the August silly stories,"
Toensing said. "What is it that qualifies as a story here?"
Democrat
leaders are accusing Rove of exposing Plame's identity as an act of
retribution against her husband Joe Wilson, who returned from a CIA
assignment to Niger with a report disputing the administration's
suspicion that Iraq wanted to acquire uranium from the African nation.
Toensing,
now a private attorney in Washington, says Plame most likely was not a
covert agent when Rove referred to her in a 2003 interview with Time
magazine's Matt Cooper.
The
federal code says the agent must have operated outside the United
States within the previous five years. But Plame gave up her role as a
covert agent nine years before the Rove interview, according to New
York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof.
Kristof
said the CIA brought Plame back to Washington in 1994 because the
agency suspected her undercover security had been compromised by
turncoat spy Aldrich Ames.
Moreover,
asserts Toensing, for the law to be violated, Rove would have had to
intentionally reveal Plame's identity with the knowledge that he was
disclosing a covert agent.
Toensing
believes Rove's waiver allowing reporters testifying before the grand
jury to reveal him as a source – signed more than 18 months ago – shows
the Bush strategist did not believe he was violating the law.
Rove,
according to Cooper's notes, apparently was trying to warn the reporter
not to give credence to Wilson's investigation, because he had no
expertise in nuclear weapons and was sent to Africa on the
recommendation of his wife. Wilson had claimed he was sent by Vice
President Cheney.
Another
element necessary for applying the law is that the government had to be
taking affirmative measures to conceal the agent's identity.
Toensing
says that on the contrary, the CIA gave Plame a desk job in which she
publicly went to and from work, allowed her spouse to do a mission in
Africa without signing a confidentiality agreement and didn't object to
his writing an op-ed piece in the New York Times about his trip.
Columnist
Robert Novak, who first published Plame's name, also apparently didn't
think it was a big deal, Toensing said, or he would have put it in the
first paragraph.
Novak's aim was to expose the incompetence of the CIA, she argued.
"These
are the kinds of stories we wanted to still be put out there when we
passed the law," she said. "We only wanted to stop the methodical
exposing of CIA personnel for the purpose of assassination."
Gee, well what do you know, you loose again......
http://www.mp3.com.au/artist.asp?id=16834
Posted by: doriangrey at July 03, 2007 04:19 PM (XvkRd)
58
All of this great evidence, carefully laid out and still Toensing says:
... Plame most likely was not a
covert agent ...
Sounds iron-clad to me. And wasn't this in 2005, two years before the CIA testified she WAS a covert agent? Time to catch up Dorain. If you're going to Google your intellect, add "2007" to everything, just to make sure you get the latest.
Posted by: B at July 03, 2007 04:30 PM (Zlbra)
59
9 murders in Chocolate city this weekend. Damn black government in New Orleans couldn't run a nursery school.
Posted by: greyrooster at July 03, 2007 05:21 PM (vdyzM)
60
B,
Yea right, the people who wrote the law itself say she isnt covered, guess what, she aint covered. Fitzgerald never claimed she was covered during the trial because he would have had to prove right then and there, something he knew he couldnt do, so what does he do, he claims it afterwards when he will no longer be forced to prove it and like the fool you are you fall for it.
He pulls her personal file, then wont allow anyone but the judge to see it, then claims the file proves she was covert, but conveniently nobody is allowed to see that file to verify if his interpretation of what is in that file is legally correct. CIA assertion of covert and IIPC definition of covert are two completely different things.
You lose and you know it, your just to fucking much of a partisan hack to admit it.
http://www.mp3.com.au/artist.asp?id=16834
Posted by: doriangrey at July 03, 2007 05:40 PM (XvkRd)
61
Fitzgerald never claimed she was covered during the trial ...
Gee, I wonder if that's because the fucking trial was about Libby's lying to a federal grand jury in his Plame testimony, not whether Plame was a covert agent or not?
What kind of moron are you, really?
Posted by: B at July 03, 2007 06:12 PM (Zlbra)
62
And where do you get all this crap about a file, who can see it, show can't ... where is all this? Do you jsut make shit up to win arguments?
Posted by: B at July 03, 2007 06:14 PM (Zlbra)
63
Armitage skates = Bo and B have no argument.
Posted by: Good Lt at July 03, 2007 07:06 PM (yMbfY)
64
Good Loo = Failure in reading comprehension.
Posted by: B at July 03, 2007 07:11 PM (YTpW6)
65
I'll repeat it again in English, since you morons are unable to escape this inconvenient truth:
DICK ARMITAGE WAS THE LEAKER. DICK ARMITAGE COMMITTED THE SO-CALLED 'CRIME' OF WHICH YOU FANTASIZE. DICK ARMITAGE WAS NOT INDICTED, IMPLICATED OR CHARGED WITH DOING ANYTHING WRONG, LEAST OF WHICH VIOLATING THE IIPA. NOVAK WAS NOT CHARGED WITH PUBLISHING A COVER AGENT'S NAME. AN HONEST PERSON WILL CONCLUDE, THEREFORE, THAT FITZGERALD'S INVESTIGATION, WHICH WAS IN INVESTIGATION OF A LEAK, WAS SUCCESSFUL IN IDENTIFYING THE SOURCE OF THE LEAK. THEY FOUND THE LEAKER - DICK ARMITAGE.It can't be said any more clearly.
What that means, in English, is that you're an idiot, a liar, a Democrat cheerleader, and you have no facts to stand on.
You. Lose. Clinton. Fanboys.
Posted by: Good Lt at July 03, 2007 07:23 PM (yMbfY)
66
Rephrased, the investigation was called (by the MSM) "
the CIA Leak case." Why? Because Fitzgerald was investigating a leak of a CIA agent's name to a member of the press. Libby was not charged with leaking anything, because he had nothing to do with leaking Plame's name. That's it. It really is no more complicated than this. I just saved you hours of "research."
It was not called the "Scooter Libby conversation with reporters investigation" or the "Was Plame a Covert Agent? case" or "the IIPA violation case" investigation.
He was appointed to find out who leaked the name. He found out who quite early on - Dick Armitage, who later admitted it publicly.
The truth hurts liberals.
Posted by: Good Lt at July 03, 2007 07:37 PM (yMbfY)
67
Martha stuart was not given this and she was only accused of lyine while not under oath. My personal opinion is that the case sucks. Libby got screwed but at least he finally got a kiss. Now as far as prison goes I don't see a lot of reaon to keep him in prison for long. He's not a dangerous type. If the president would have let him server 30 days or so before releasing him it would have at least smelled a bit better. Besides fines, probation and a felony record is
not exactly a getting ff scott free.
As I understand there is a period after a covert agents ceases to be covert where their identity is protected. She was either very close to or past that period. What I don't get is why she and her husband ever went. Everyone knew she was a spy, no wonder they found nothing. Must have worked strictly on bribes. And when I say everyone knew I do mean everyone.
The biggest liar in the whole affair is Tim Russert in my opinion. I've been wathing him on MTP for years and years. He's good there but the real Tim Russert is liberal as hell.
What I want to know is how the hell did everyone in DC know Valerie Plame was a spy and the "best most connected reporter in Washington DC" did not?
Give me a f*cking break. Russert should do 30 days right next to scooter and pay a fine, do probation and be a fellon too.
Posted by: Howie at July 03, 2007 09:30 PM (YHZAl)
68
He was appointed to find out who leaked the name. He found out who
quite early on - Dick Armitage, who later admitted it publicly.
That's right, Dick Armitage was one of the unintended leakers. Libby too admitted to speaking with Novak about Plame; his problem was with the dates of when he knew and when he told Novak of Plame's CIA connection.
But don't you get it, Lt., you fat head? Armitage or Plame, the point is MOOT: LIBBY WAS PROSECUTED FOR
PERJURING HIMSELF TO A GRAND JURY AND FOUND GUILTY. GUILTY. GUILTY. GUILTY. Not for outing a covert CIA agent, but FOR
PERJURY. PERJURY. PERJURY. PERJURY.Are you fucking deaf or stupid? HE WAS FOUND GUILTY BY A JURY APPROVED BY HIS DEFENSE COUNSEL, NOT BY LIBERALS.
Recall Bill Clinton? He was impeached not for getting head from an intern, not for cheating on his wife, BUT FOR PERJURY. PERJURY. PERJURY.
Sensing a pattern here? You lie to a federal prosecutor, grand jury, judge et al and you get tried for PERJURY?
Done. Out. Over. Get a clue, you idealogical hack.
Posted by: B at July 03, 2007 10:16 PM (YTpW6)
69
Libby too admitted to speaking with Novak about Plame
You are truly stuck on stoopid.
He didn't leak the name, retard. 'Speaking to' and 'leaking' are two different things - that's why your powers of deduction will notice that they're different words. Reading comprehension and vocabulary aren't your strong points, are they?
And of course, if Libby "leaked," why wasn't he prosecuted for leaking the name? BECAUSE IT WASN'T A CRIME. THE END. SHOW ME THE INDICTMENT FOR LEAKING. YOU CAN'T. THERE ISN'T ONE.Armitage wasn't indicted or prosecuted for outing Plame. Therefore, outing Plame wasn't a crime. Got it, Tonto? Go home - you're wrapped inescapably in your own vapid partisan stupidity, and its blinding you to the actual, factual reality of the real world.
Ignoring the facts doesn't change the facts. No matter how "progressive" you think you are.
Posted by: Good Lt at July 03, 2007 10:53 PM (yMbfY)
70
He didn't leak the name, retard. 'Speaking to' and 'leaking' are two different thingsUh, yeah, that's why I said "speaking with" not "leaking to," cockwad. Now I gotta start explaining your own talking points to you?
And of course, if Libby "leaked," why wasn't he prosecuted for leaking the name?
Where the hell have you been for the past 18 months ... in a coma? OK, I'll type slowly for your benefit.
Before Fitzgerald could issue a federal indictment to the leaker, it had to be proven that said leaker "knowingly" outed a covert agent. Pay special attention to the word "knowingly" here. Kinda means going beyond mere action to intent. Get that, Simple?
Armitage says I think I did it but I didn't KNOW she was covert. After Fitzgerald's office investigates, he's satisfied Armitage is being truthful, so NO INDICTMENT ISSUED.
Now Fitzgerald investigates Libby. After his interview, Fitzgerald says, "I think Libby may have leaked KNOWINGLY, but because the burden is not just on action but intent, I'm not sure I can prove it.
I do know, however, he lied to a federal grand jury about where he got the information on Plame's CIA status and broke a federal confidentiality law in the process. From the indictment:
In truth and fact, as LIBBY well knew when he gave his testimony, it was false in that LIBBY did not advise Matthew Cooper or other reporters that LIBBY had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise Cooper or other reporters that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true; In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.
Do you need ANYTHING else because I'm tired of explaining this to you again and again. Go read the indictment or get someone else to help you figure things out.
Posted by: B at July 03, 2007 11:14 PM (YTpW6)
71
Yes - seethe, little one. I can feeel your anger.
So moron - where in that special, superawsome indictment does it say that Scooter Libby leaked the name of a CIA agent, and where is the indictment and conviction on that crime?
It doesn't say anything about it? Now why is that?
I'm not sure I can prove itAnd if Fitz couldn't prove it, then B obviously can!
So, what we have: Dick Armitage was the leaker. He wasn't indicted for leaking. Game over.
Jackass.
Posted by: Good Lt at July 03, 2007 11:27 PM (yMbfY)
72
Excellent comments. Wonder what the Jawas are doing besides rolling on the floor laughing.
Posted by: greyrooster at July 03, 2007 11:29 PM (visiI)
73
Ha, it boggles the fucking mind. It truly does. Do you have short-term memory loss? Have you suffered a recent head injury? Was not Scooter Libby convicted of SOMETHING recently? What was that again?
Posted by: B at July 03, 2007 11:31 PM (YTpW6)
74
Libby was NOT convicted of leaking a CIA agent's name.Thanks for proving my point. Way to pwn yourself, moron.
ROTFLMFAO
Posted by: Good Lt at July 04, 2007 12:23 AM (yMbfY)
75
That's right, Libby wasn't convicted of outing a CIA agent because he was never tried for outing a CIA agent. Wasn't convicted of stealing apples or robbing an old lady either. Same reasons.
But then again, I didn't ask you what Libby HADN'T been convicted of. I asked you what he HAD been convicted of. After all, you've been saying all along no crimes had been committed, didn't you?
Let's see ... post # 26: "He wasn't indicted, so there was no crime."
Not true, though, is it? I mean, Libby wasn't convicted for not-crimes. He was convicted of a crime ... actually four felony counts of perjury wasn't it? Heh. Liike to retract your "no crimes" meme?
You know, if you're going to try and use your under-developed brain to debate a point, you should really get your facts straight first. Heh. Nuance.
Posted by: B at July 04, 2007 01:09 AM (YTpW6)
76
ROTFLMFAO even harder
Posted by: B at July 04, 2007 01:12 AM (YTpW6)
77
You're still here? You must be a glutton for punishment.
ROTFLMFAO even harderThat's the nitrous oxide. Lay off of it, dood. Bad for the brain.
Not true, though, is it? I mean, Libby wasn't convicted for
not-crimes. He was convicted of a crime ... actually four felony counts
of perjury wasn't it? Heh. Liike to retract your "no crimes" meme?
If you can cite for me where I said Libby wasn't convicted of a crime, I owe you a Coke. As it were, I never wrote that, so you're straw man will require some gasoline before you torch it.
You know what? Forget it. Here's what I wrote in #26:
Precisely. Since no indictment was issued for leaking Plame's name and
identity to Robert Novak, there obviously was no crime committed in
leaking Plame's name.If there was, Richard Armitage (a critic
of Bush) would have been indicted under the Intel Identities Protection
Act for leaking Plame's "covert" status and name to Robert Novak. He
wasn't indicted, so there was no crime. That was the original premise
and media-driven hype that drove the investigation. The
investigation succeeded - Armitage was identified as the leaker. Why
aren't the libs calling for his head on a platter? Because a) there is
no political gain to be had from crucifying a critic of the Bush
administration, and b) there was no crime in revealing super-sekrit 007
desk jockey Plame's ultra-double-covert status.If you have any
other comments, please refer yourselves to the facts of this sordid
little witchhunt - Armitage leaked the name. No crime was committed,
because nobody indicted him for leaking the name. The end. Libs lose.Hmmm. Nothing about Libby whatsoever. I did write "Lib," but that wasn't in reference to Libby. I'm sorry if you thought that it was. As I've indicated before, your reading comprehension skills leave lots to be desired.
As for Armitage and the lack of a prosecuted leak, you ignore your obvious factual deficiencies to try to say that Libby was convicted for "lying" to reporters about several different conversations he had with them. Curiously, he was never allowed to call on some of them to make his defense. Doesn't much matter now, but you're an advocate of equal justice, so I'll leave it to you to judge for yourself if his defense was as rigorously defended as the law would allow.
And Armitage is still not implicated by you or your butt-buddy Bo for anything, even though he was the leaker Fitz sought from the beginning.
So try again. Kossak Kommando. You're still losing.
Posted by: Good Lt at July 04, 2007 02:15 AM (yMbfY)
78
Heh, heh--paint, corner, meet Goon Lt. Now he's calls into question the very trial! Your pathetic bobbing and weaving tells me pretty much everything I need to know about your lack of intellectual honesty.
If you can cite for me where I said Libby wasn't convicted of a crime, I owe you a Coke. Good thing you didn't do that; you'd have looked kinda dumb.
There was this though:
Since no indictment was issued for leaking Plame's name and
identity to Robert Novak, there obviously was no crime committed in
leaking Plame's name.
Uh, technically true, when no indictments are issued, there will be no trial, and without a trial, there is no crime. You know, like when John Gotti would not have to go to trial for putting a hole bigger than your male lover's asshole in some guy's forehead because the DA figured he couldn't absolutely prove Gotti did it? No crime committed. Of course it didn't make the other guy any less dead, but as you say, technically, no crime committed.
And this:
No crime was committed,
because nobody indicted him for leaking the name
Please do keep repeating the obvious to make your, I guess "point": that no one, including LIBBY was ever convicted of exposing Plame--which makes sense as no one was ever TRIED for that but for something else. Heh.
But you may want to stop asserting "no crimes were committed."
Despite your denials that any crimes took place (mentioned on multiple occasions throughout this post), there was a trial and someone was convicted of four felonies — he gets a walk of course, and that seems OK with you because of who gave him the walking papers. (Oh, put any prominent Democrat in the same situation and let the apoplectics begin. Put Bill Clinton in ... stroke time!)
But above all, keep recalling that because of the Plame affair, someone in this administration was finally called to task.
Yawn; you're too easy, movin' on here. Gubba, gubba ... NEXT!
Posted by: B at July 04, 2007 10:32 AM (YTpW6)
79
And Dorian, learn the value of a good edit.
Libby was tried and convicted in a court of law. The conviction was appealed and that conviction was upheld by a judiciary panel. And after all that, fair trial, fair conviction, and fair review, he gets a walk from W. End of story.
And no one yet, except ding-dong bloggers at ding-dong blog sites, has yet questioned Fitzgerald's impartiality.
So, you want to re-try the case here and start bringing up who was allowed to testify, who wasn't, what was allowed as evidence, what wasn't, feel free, idiot
Heh. Nuance.
Posted by: B at July 04, 2007 10:41 AM (YTpW6)
80
Good thing you didn't do that; you'd have looked kinda dumb. Nice try. That's obviously Latin for "Sorry for pretending you said something in a comment that you didn't say - I'm a moron and I can't read."
Apology accepted, moonbat.
Uh, technically true,
Thank you. The End. You lose, moonbat.
Despite your denials that any crimes took place
Repeating that old red herring, huh? I never said a crime didn't take place at all here - I'm focusing on what the press, Democrats, morons like you, and the witchhunters wanted the crime to be - leaking a CIA agent's name. Libby 'lied' about conversations he had with reporters. I said that Armitage committed the "crime" that you wish Libby did, and nothing happened to him. Its called careful reading. Try it.
But you may want to stop asserting "no crimes were committed." IN THE LEAKING OF THE CIA AGENT'S NAME, DUNCE. G-D, YOUR DENSE. NO WONDER YOU'VE GOT SUCH A BUG UP YER BEHIND. YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND ENGLISH.
he gets a walk from WWrong again, tough guy. He gets a quarter million dollar fine, 2 years probation and a felony on his permanent life's record. But that's a walk, huh?
Please do keep repeating the obvious to make your, I guess "point":
that no one, including LIBBY was ever convicted of exposing
Plame--which makes sense as no one was ever TRIED for that but for
something else.
Are you kidding? That's the
entire point that you don't seem to
understand. THAT WAS THE STATED POINT OF THE ENTIRE CIA LEAK INVESTIGATION,
IDIOT. THAT'S WHAT FITZGERALD WAS APPOINTED TO FIND OUT. You must love making yourself look like a moron in front of people.
PS - see the lists of pardons in which the word "COCAINE," among others, appears 50 times on Clinton's disgraceful pardon list that I linked above. CONTEXT, B. Of course, Bush didn't actually pardon Libby, so you're off there, too.
And Dorian, learn the value of a good edit. Poor widdle B. Too many words to read, not enough pictures.
Begone, child. You've been pwn3d here.
Posted by: Good Lt at July 04, 2007 11:55 AM (yMbfY)
81
Thank you. The End. You lose, moonbat.
Uh, OK, I was being sarcastic, but I didn't think I had to point that out. Poor guy, so desperate for one of his "wins," he purposely makes himself even more obtuse! Heh. You really are too easy, too easy.
Wrong again, tough guy. He gets a quarter million dollar fine, 2
years probation and a felony on his permanent life's record. But that's
a walk, huh?You think that's going to stand when Bush said yesterday he's not ruling out a complete pardon by January, 2009? You really have taken one too many bong hits, Skippy.
I never said a crime didn't take place at all here -
Actually, you said no crime took place multiple times ... but lie about it if you feel the need.
... I'm focusing on
what the press, Democrats, morons like you, and the witchhunters wanted
the crime to be - leaking a CIA agent's name.
Well, that didn't go down, did it Punzie? If only you were half as indignant about the sentence that was commuted (and the felony conviction that will eventually be erased) as you were about what NEVER HAPPENED, you might not be making such an ass of yourself.
Heh.
THAT WAS THE STATED POINT OF THE ENTIRE CIA LEAK INVESTIGATION,
IDIOT. THAT'S WHAT FITZGERALD WAS APPOINTED TO FIND OUT. And as you point out, that was discovered, Armitage and Rove. Now what? Your hero Libby was rightly convicted of something else entirely, only tangentily related to the original CIA investigation. He perjured himself in the course of an investigation covering for his masters. That's a different crime altogether, ya dope!
But Plame wasn't covert, Plame wasn't covert! Maybe, maybe not. I haven't been specifically arguing this. I've been trying to drill into that rock-like head of yours that Libby was convicted of perjury. So if Valerie Plame was a modern-day Mata Hari or if she was a CIA cleaning lady, doesn't matter. Libby was convicted of perjury, which he should've been. And you cannot stand the fact.
PS - see the lists of pardons
in which the word "COCAINE," among others, appears 50 times on
Clinton's disgraceful pardon list that I linked above.
What a great argument; so now there are degrees of disgrace. Bush is a disgrace, but not as much of a disgrace as Clinton, shich makes it almost not a disgrace at all! How convenient! Well, take a look at Nixon's disgraceful pardon list. And Bush Sr's. And Ford's. And Carter's. And COCAINE? Bush is a well-known, admitted former USER of cocaine (at least we THINK former) What? Yep. Pwned!
Look, this debate stuff is obviously not your forte. Do you do anything else? Heh. NEXT!
Posted by: B at July 04, 2007 12:50 PM (YTpW6)
82
And just out of curiosity, what IS your point in repeatedly pointing out that no crime was committed in the alleged outing of Plame, and how does it relate to Libby's conviction for perjury?
Posted by: B at July 04, 2007 12:59 PM (YTpW6)
83
what IS your point in repeatedly pointing out that no crime was committed in the alleged outing of Plame
That the investigation of who outed a CIA agent wasn't actually in investigation into who outed a CIA agent.
Ask yourself what the purpose of such an investigation really was.
I've been trying to drill into that rock-like head of yours that Libby was convicted of perjury...And you cannot stand the fact.Um, dumbass - I NEVER DENIED THIS. EVER. NOT ONCE. CITE AN INSTANCE IN WHICH I DENIED LIBBY WAS GUILTY OF PERJURY. NICE TRY AT MAKING AN ARGUMENT THAT NOBODY WAS MAKING.
That's called a straw man argument, and you obviously have a lot of experience with this pathetic debating tactic.
You had nothing on Armitage being the leaker, the investigation being a search for a leaker, and the result of that investigation yielding the actual leaker. Hence, you missed the point of the post, the investigation and the results entirely to pretend that I was denying something that I never denied.
Why do you insist on pwning yourself with each keystroke?
Are you a 16%er?
Posted by: Good Lt at July 04, 2007 02:24 PM (yMbfY)
84
How quckly the liberals forget that BILL CLINTON granted clemency to some porta rican terrorists
Posted by: sandpiper at July 04, 2007 03:30 PM (K3hNB)
85
That the investigation of who outed a CIA agent wasn't actually in investigation into who outed a CIA agent.
Then why didn't you say that this was the REAL issue at the beginning of the thread you posted? This is symbolic of the disingenuous nature of so many "conservative" (and I use that word loosely in your case) arguments.
Never mind that by your own account the investigation succeeded; it was discovered who did the outing. And no one from the Bush administrtion was charged in that. I would think you would be rejoicing rather than building yet another phony argument. Of course I can't say I'm surprised.
I NEVER DENIED THIS. EVER. I think your simple-minded argument was clear: that because Libby was not indicted as the "outer" and Armitage, a Bush critic and one of the two leakers who was identified but was never indicted, no charges whatsoever for anything even remotely related to the Plame case should have been leveled against Libby.
Sorry, that's not the way it works. If its proven in a court of law you lied to a federal grand jury in a case you are ultimately proven innocent of, you go down for the perjury. Seem right to you? If so, how can you defend the commutation of his sentence? By pointing out "Clinton did it too."? Please.
Posted by: B at July 04, 2007 03:31 PM (YTpW6)
86
Look, this so called perjury is pretty bogus on it's face. Crimes are suppossed to have a motive. Do a little reading. No motive means that there is no reason to commit a crime, so there is no desire in the accused to do so, so it is the height of irrationallity to presume guilt without genuine hard evidence. Simply playing word games with tesimony to create an incident, is what happened here. As to motive, I suggest you read more about Fitzgerald. I have just cleaned this up to post, and I'm typed out. Plus barbecue is on!
As was said further up the list of comments - (Fitzgerald said himself , "he found no evidence that Armitage knew of Plame's covert CIA status when he talked to Novak and Woodward.") It should be obvious that nobody can know about a status that DOES NOT EXIST!
If we were talking about a suppossed bank robbery, we can dismantle this stupidity. In our imaginary bank robbery investigation, 'first' bank keeps trying to prove it is better than 'second bank. They start making loud accuasations that 'second' bank has been having money dissapear. Customers of 'second' bank start to hear about this, and so that gets the investigation going. With only the most circumstatial evidence, bank officers are accused of all sorts of wrongdoing, but there isn't any evidence to actually press charges. There has been no actual loss of money.
Nobody tried to steal anything, and nothing was missing. Despite claims by inflamed customers, and friends of 'first' bank making wildly inaccurate statements, all the money is established to be in the vault where it belongs. Enough hysteria has been generated to force 'second' bank to respond to official inquiries, which still have no basis in an actual robbery, and which 'second' bank is participating in, voluntarily, to help get the truth sorted out. A special investigator, with a few grudges of his own, is assigned by the community.
A guard from 'second' bank is getting attention for having said something like, 'I wonder if the money is really all there? A second guard, later on was heard to say something similar ... ' I wonder how they keep from losing money with all those bills going through every day?' As it happens, the first guard has been complaining at the local diner about how his bank job isn't what he hoped for, and he is upset with what he has called sloppy management. the other guard likes his job, and since he shows up when scheduled, and speaks well of his bosses, he is a bit of an obstacle to the goals of 'first' bank.
As the investigation gets going, it is generally not well known that the happy guard is on unfriendly terms with the 'investigator' (go find out more). Because the unhappy guard supports 'first' banks narrative, the 'first' bank and the prosecutor used the same logic regarding cash ... 'I find no evidence that this unhappy bank guard stole any money' ! Since it was because nobody stole any money, or even tried to steal any money, you couldn't rationally presume ANYONE knew money was stolen!
Still, 'first bank has caused enough hysteria to still wound 'second' bank, and the investigator has his grudge. The happy bank guard had no reason to have stolen the not-missing cash. He knows he didn't take any, and presumes that the evidence clearly shows that no money is missing. When he volunteers to testify, and help calm down the community, the investigator works extra hard to bring him down! As the investigator badgers his target on the witness stand, he achieves his goal, and he finally thinks he has caught his prey in a contradiction under oath. It is most likey a m emory glitch, but fatigue, and misunderstanding may have helped. The investigator then makes the accusation of perjury.
The jury has been selected from a pool that tends to be customers of 'first' bank, and of course, all of 'first' banks tellers gossip about how bad 'second' bank is ... ALL THE TIME! To them it is entirely credible that this guard, who had no motive to lie, about a crime that never occured, would go and commit perjury to defend the perpetrators of said crime. No crime should mean there is no 'justice' to obstruct. The jury is deranged or something. It seems to happen a lot lately ...
The guard ends up convicted for lying to protect a thief when there was no thief, no money was stolen, or missing, and no crime was commited! That is called a miscarriage of justice in the country I grew up in. It reeks of stupidity ... like convicting a border guard for protecting the border! It would be almost like convicting a lifeguard for not letting someone drown! More true, it would be like convicting someone for murdering the flying spagheti monster! Try that one in court!
So the left can eat from thier trough. Double standards do exist, in virtually all human interactions. People
have opinions, and make judgements about other people, and they have thier favorites, and so on. The double standard applied here is a stain upon the left, because a decent man has been assigned punishment when no crime was commited. Because the BDS hysterical left pushed so hard, with thier dupes in the media to FIND AN EXCUSE TO DESTROY SOMEONE ASSOCIATED WITH BUSH!
Facts do not matter, only the smoke from the burning witch will satisfy the mob. If the duck weighs less, just fatten that duck up, and reweigh the suspect, until they match, then carryout the execution! Superstitious people need not worry about reason, or logic, just go get some wood for the fire, and won't it be great to see the witch pay for -whatever- !?
Don't feel bad if you can't burn Libby like you want. I'm sure you can go find some goblins to torture. Goblins ... not real? No problem. Just tell your ignorant villagers that they are the guys who aren't trying to hump the leg of Hillary, Obama, or Soros. You can always purge those who hesitate, and try to think it through, before the next election. Maybe ...
To all who love this country, I wish you the best, non-partisan Fourth of July ever! That is genuine!
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at July 04, 2007 07:07 PM (2OHpj)
87
... when no crime was committed
Well, I hate to bring it up again, but ...
If the duck weighs less ...Holy Grail?
Posted by: B at July 04, 2007 07:34 PM (YTpW6)
Posted by: B at July 04, 2007 07:42 PM (YTpW6)
Posted by: B at July 04, 2007 07:45 PM (YTpW6)
90
Yup. See the above linked pieces in the post for the irony and hypocracy of pardons and commutations.
You must have missed those. Not surprising.
Posted by: Good Lt. at July 04, 2007 08:04 PM (YTE0a)
91
No, I didn't miss them. I posted them because I'm intellectually honest enough to do so. Try it sometime. Might do your ideological inflexibility some good. Might even wake you up a little.
Posted by: B at July 04, 2007 09:13 PM (YTpW6)
92
Ummm...I posted the links in the post, unless you invaded my Jawa account and did it somehow. Which you didn't.
I'm sure what you
meant was that you read the list of Clinton pardons, Democrat calls for commutations, clemency, leniency, inconsistency on pardons, etc. in the post, but are still stuck on Libby's commutation as if it is the worst injustice in world history.
IMHO, the injustice is that Armitage isn't wasn't charged for leaking, and that Joe Wilson and Plame weren't indicted for lying to Congress. But that's just speculation, so there it is.
Posted by: Good Lt at July 05, 2007 10:26 AM (yMbfY)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
