Plamegate

[Damien]

The article to which Cam refers ("The Darksider") can be seen at

http://www.newyorker.com/talk

[99-1100896887]

criddic, I remember you live in New York, which as we now know is not a border state, so you have access to this week's New Yorker( dated July 9 t0 16).

The first article( "Comment") is a must-read for you. Also the most vitriolic article I have ever read about the Real Dick Cheney. I know he's evil, but the depths this malignant man has gone to, the deceptions, his attempts to circumnavigate Executive power, are even shocking to me. I wish I had the typing ability to reproduce it for you.

criddic. If you do not read it, of course, and tell us so, we then will know that we are completely correct about you.

[Sonic Youth]

And while you're thinking of an answer to my original question...

They also make abundantly clear just how corrupt the investigation itself was. Fitzgerald said one thing at trial (that there was no underlying crime, that Libby didn't leak the info he was investigating) and then proceded to say that he'd gravely undermined the law.

Criddic's been reading his Bob Novak, I see.

I don't know where you and Bob got the bird-brained idea that there has to be proof of a crime in order for an investigation to proceed. It's a very convenient excuse to de-ligitimize everything Fitzgerald did. However, what happened was potentially criminal (unless you believe it's all fine and legal to uncover the ID of a CIA operative.)

Remember Fitzy's famous press conference? He explained all your concerns very succinctly. Read carefully:

"Investigators do not set out to investigate the statute, they set out to gather the facts.

"It's critical that when an investigation is conducted by prosecutors, agents and a grand jury they learn who, what, when, where and why. And then they decide, based upon accurate facts, whether a crime has been committed, who has committed the crime, whether you can prove the crime and whether the crime should be charged.

"Agent Eckenrode doesn't send people out when $1 million is missing from a bank and tell them, 'Just come back if you find wire fraud.' If the agent finds embezzlement, they follow through on that.

"That's the way this investigation was conducted. It was known that a CIA officer's identity was blown, it was known that there was a leak. We needed to figure out how that happened, who did it, why, whether a crime was committed, whether we could prove it, whether we should prove it.

And given that national security was at stake, it was especially important that we find out accurate facts.


Oh, and you probably forgot, but your buddy Bush repeatedly said this was a matter than needed to be investigated.

"If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference during a fund-raising stop in Chicago, Illinois. "If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of.

"I welcome the investigation. I am absolutely confident the Justice Department will do a good job.

See? Bush AGREES with Fitzgerald!

So how in bloody hell was it corrupt, Criddic? Bush himself said IF there was a leak... He doesn't know if a crime was committed or not. But gosh, there he is all in favor of an investigation!

So, your accusation that the investigation was - ho hum! - another lie of yours. (Or do I mean, another lie of Bob Novak's?)

And P.S.: Fitzgerald never said there was no underlying crime. That's another Bob Novak lie.

Richard Armitage wasn't indicted for anything, and neither has anyone else. Libby was indicted for being vague, basically. And because the prosecution was so dogged in their pursuit of him, a jury found it difficult to resist convicting him.

Good lord...

Let's see if I can parse this convoluted logic:

a) Other than Libby, no one was indicted;
b) Libby was not indicted for the "underlying crime"
Therefore,
c) Leaking the name was not illegal, and no crime (outside of Libby's convictions) was commited. Socrates just rolled over.

So, going by your logic:

a) Bill Clinton was never indicted for perjury in a criminal proceeding (which exempts impeachment);
Therefore,
b) Bill Clinton never purjured.

Do you agree? You must. It's your logic, dude.

And you continually avoid the point that the reason no one was convicted for the "underlying crime" is because LIBBY OBSTRUCTED THE INVESTIGATION, PREVENTING ANYONE FROM DISCOVERING WHO MAY HAVE COMMITTED THE UNDERLYING CRIME!

Obviously, you think it is legal for White House officials to reveal the name of a CIA operative. Obviously, you think it's ethical and appropriate to risk endangering the lives of the agent's sources, to risk national security. That is, as long as its used as a means of revenge and punishment towards Joe Wilson for revealing that the president used false information in his SOTU speech.

Or do you? Surprise me, Criddic. Please.

Let's be frank. What if it was Clinton who lied in his speech? What if Gore and his staff blew the cover of a CIA agent in retribution? Would you then be defending the Democratic operative indicted for perjury and obstruction? Knowing you and your partisan ways, you'd be calling for his head.

[Sonic Youth]

I'm actually tempted to argue this point by point, just to humiliate Criddic again. But lord, the time it would take to destroy all those arguments...

I'll just ask one question. Criddic, what would be a reasonable, unexcessive prison term for what Libby did? How long?

[Damien]

I stopped reading at " . . . is clearly justifiable."

[criddic3]

How did I become the subject of so much venom? Well, nevermind, I'll never really understand it.

What President Bush did with the Libby case is clearly justifiable. I've read numerous articles, which I'd be glad to submit, which make a good case for pardon or commutation of the sentence. They also make abundantly clear just how corrupt the investigation itself was. Fitzgerald said one thing at trial (that there was no underlying crime, that Libby didn't leak the info he was investigating) and then proceded to say that he'd gravely undermined the law. Now the whole affair was murky from the beginning, with a back-and-forth about whether or not Plame was actually covert at the time of the "leak." OKay, I can see that meriting an investigation, but somewhere along the line, the argument became a partisan debate about the Iraq War and Libby got caught up in the middle of it.

Richard Armitage wasn't indicted for anything, and neither has anyone else. Libby was indicted for being vague, basically. And because the prosecution was so dogged in their pursuit of him, a jury found it difficult to resist convicting him. Fine. So they were convinced he lied in an attempt to divert a Federal investigation. Reason enough to convict him, I suppose. But the sentence was completely unwarranted. This is a man who has served his country without a single controversy until this whole mess happened, and he not only has to pay $250, 000 fine and get probation. He is sentenced to 30 months in jail. That does seem excessive.

All President Bush has done is to commute his jail time. He left the conviction standing, and it looks unlikely that he'll also give a pardon in the future. Bush has a Conistutional right to pardon Libby, but his statements about the commutation would indicate he is not leaning towards it at the moment.

So I don't see any miscarraige of justice on Bush's part. People who hate Bush will, of course, make this out to be the most heinous and dispicable act of law-bending or some such thing. It is already happening. The truth is, though, that it is not only fair, but just.

I want to point out something to cam. The reason that I continue to say what I say, is that I believe what I say. I'm not repeating like a parrot. Because my beliefs may be similar to some of the people you dislike, like President Bush, it may sound like I'm marching to the Pied Piper's music. When something makes sense to me, I go with it. Just because something is unpopular at the moment, doesn't mean it is wrong. And Vice-Versa. There are always exceptions to the rule, but generally speaking you have to listen to all sides and decide where you stand. I have done that. I made up my mind years ago that President Bush is a good man trying to do what is right for the country. I made my mind up that what the troops are trying to accomplish in Iraq is a noble cause, and worth the effort despite the mistakes. And I made up my mind that much of your argument against all these things depends on polls and bitterness rather than facts and open-mindedness. No doubt you feel that I am stubborn and ignorant, but so what? I have just as many facts to back up my position as others do for the opposite. It's a neverending circle of partisan reasoning I guess, but I'm open to changing my mind if there's ever a reason to.

[99-1100896887]

I suppose, in future time, we will be saying about this past week: "I was talking to some friends about the worst time in Constitutionial History at the time."

Most of the world mistrusts the U.S. We apparently don't like the US, at least in the cities not either( in a huge survey among Canadians in various cities of the country at least 50% had negative feelings about the US. The average was 59%.)

In a similar survey, where in the world is "trust in the US", above 50%? I remember seeing Nigeria and Kenya there, as I leafed through. There were so few that their colour stood out.
What's a President to do? Accept the resignation of Cheney--on health reasons, to start with. Then, more impartantly, virtually eliminate the whole bunch who drew up " The New American Century" manifesto--
http://www.newamericancentury.org/ Bush was not present in these meetings, but brother Jeb was. All attendees have proven how high they rise and how low they fall( see Mr, Wolfowitz); some have wisely resigned their posts to go into the private sector; some have been fired. Some have not been supported by the others. Dr. Rice and Mr. Powell were not there( of course not --this was a Republican party!) I would suspect that many of the abandoned-principles folks have flown the coop, and there were many there whose names I did not know nor do remember. I saw it first in 2001, and the site has changed somewhat, but its still pretty scary.
Yet another group who paid no attention to the past, and ignoring the phrase about history repeating itself. I think that, in the back of the minds of the signatories, was: "Rome!" or "Athens! "

I wonder if GW Bush thinks about how he will appear in History? He can save a bit of face, if he gets rid of the whole mob by summer 2008.

[Sonic Youth]

But this is a second: any Republican who supports this action loves his team more than he/she loves the truth or the Constitution.

Sorry, Mister Tee, but however sleazy, however wrong, however much Bush may possibly be covering up something, what he did is not unconstitutional.

[OscarGuy]

This was a commutation, Oscar Guy. Not a pardon.

That'll come later, though.

you made the other point I forgot to make. There is a huge difference between commutation and pardon, another fact which the pubes over at the RNC/Faux News would like the people to misunderstand.

[Mister Tee]

There is, in fact, a full template of GOP talking points regarding this issue, and the cultists (like criddic, and those few GOPers in that article) will trot any and all out whenever the subject is raised. They either have no idea, or are indifferent to, the fact that each of the rebuttals/rationalizations is false or, at best, twisted to distortion. To wit:

"Plame wasn't even undercover" - This has been contradicted by Plame herself, Fitzgerald, and the director of the CIA. Yet wingnuts roam the airwaves asserting it as fact -- and our "liberal media" let the lie pass over and over.

"There was no underlying crime" - Fitzgerald didn't charge the underlying crime because he didn't have enough evidence to prove it. He didn't because LIBBY LIED TO HIM AND OBSTRUCTED THE INVESTIGATION.

"Armitage was the one who leaked" - Armitage (perhaps without knowing the security level involved) was one of Bob Novak's sources; Rove and Libby all leaked the name to numerous reporters, none of whom printed it. Seeing how the leaking was the offense, I don't see how Armitage can be the only one guilty. At the end of Sopranos' Season Two, Tony, Paulie and Silvio all shot Big Pussy; by wingnut standards, only the guy whose bullet struck first could be prosecuted.

"Clinton did it, too" -- The right's favorite chant, whenever they get in trouble (see: US attorney scandal). Clinton received a great deal of criticism for his pardon of Marc Rich, including from people I respect (as opposed to the usual suspects). I see their perspective, and also his: Rich was a fugitive from justice -- though not a violent criminal -- and prosecutors are loathe to go light on such folk. On the other hand, part of the deal for getting Rich back in the country was his making financial restitution for the money he'd made off with -- something prosecutors WERE anxious to arrange. On top of that, Rich was receiving heavy backing from many in DC (including, hilarious irony, his lawyer Scooter Libby), as well as Israeli Prime Minister Barak, who had just recently gone out on a limb for Clinton in trying to arrange a peace deal with the Palestinians. All things considered, I still think it was a bad decision, but it's hardly a matter without shading.

And, without question, it didn't involve Clinton pardoning someone who, without such leniency, might have been under pressure to testify against members of his own administration, or even himself -- the situation which applies today. But the righties assert it over and over, and our "fair and balanced" press let it stand because god forbid the public get the idea the GOP is doing something worse than Democrats do.

Damien quotes the Washington Times, and there've been a few other Honest Republicans coming out against the coimmutation. But, by and large, The Party has dictated policy in defiance of all reality. Previously I though there was one acid-test of how far in the tank GOPers were willing to go: the insistence that Bush was actually CORRECT to stay in the classroom reading to the kids while the World Trade Center burned. But this is a second: any Republican who supports this action loves his team more than he/she loves the truth or the Constitution.

And, for the record, as much as he irks me, I don't want criddic to disappear. I'd just like him to educate himself in some manner beyond the right-wing sound machine, so he can argue his points with logic and facts, rather than talking points.

[Sonic Youth]

This was a commutation, Oscar Guy. Not a pardon.

That'll come later, though.

[OscarGuy]

Those two who brought up Democrat pardons are Criddic-type folk. They're the ones who watch Faux News religiously and parrot Republican talking points. They don't know their asses from a hole in the ground.

First of all, most presidents save pardons until their lame duck period (post-election, pre-departure from office). Second of all, no self-respecting Democrat would have ever pardoned Libby.

And I find it interesting that these articles have brought up. We already know from experience with the whole leak case in the first place and even the warrantless wiretapping excursion that this administration believes it's above the law and that the judicial system shouldn't determine anything.

[Penelope]

Americans angry, cynical about Bush's Libby clemency
By Andrea Hopkins
Reuters
Updated: 12:10 p.m. CT July 3, 2007
CINCINNATI - Cynicism greeted President George W. Bush's decision to spare a former White House aide from going to prison, with some Americans saying people with presidential connections have long been above the law.

Several people interviewed on Tuesday said Bush, already unpopular in the polls, had lost all credibility with Monday's announcement he had commuted the sentence of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's ex-chief of staff.

"For an administration so adamant about national security and being on the up-and-up, defying the rule of law is pretty reprehensible," said 32-year-old teacher Jonathan Breen of Cincinnati, Ohio.

Libby was convicted in March of obstructing a federal investigation into the leak of a CIA operative's identity.

"It makes it look like they were all involved," added Breen, an independent voter. "I wouldn't put it past them to have planned this five steps in advance -- 'You'll take the fall and when you're convicted, we'll commute the sentence.'"

Bush swept aside Libby's 30-month prison sentence, calling it excessive. He did not issue an outright pardon but on Tuesday would not rule one out. Libby remains subject to a $250,000 fine and two years' probation.

Customers at a Starbucks in downtown Phoenix, Arizona, were furious.

"I think it's outrageous. It's another example of cronyism ... that if you have the right friends you can get away with anything," said building inspector Nick Vanleeuwen.

"I expected it," said Philip Zerbe, a paralegal sipping coffee close by. "It enhances the fact that it is an elitist administration that is corrupt to its core."

'OUTRAGEOUS'

News of Bush's decision was splashed across the front page of most U.S. newspapers, and editorials from coast to coast largely condemned the action.

"The decision is a lot of things: outrageous, infuriating, exasperating. But it is not really surprising. Almost from the jump, this administration has insisted that the rule of law -- the constant that has made our justice system the envy of the free world -- is whatever the president says it is," the Detroit Free Press wrote.

The timing of the clemency -- just days after Hollywood heiress and socialite Paris Hilton was released from jail after serving her sentence -- was not lost on politicians.

"Even Paris Hilton had to go to jail. No one in this Administration should be above the law," said Assistant Senate Democratic Leader Dick Durbin of Illinois.

Still, some voters noted Bush was not the first outgoing president to help out a convicted friend.

"(Former President Bill) Clinton did a lot of last-minute pardoning before he left office. It's all part of the game," said Eugenie Durant, a Detroit legal secretary.

Chicago security guard Frank Altmore, 26, agreed.

"It stinks that they give Bush a hard time over this, but if it were a Democrat commuting Libby's sentence I wonder if we'd hear much about it," said Altmore, a Republican.

Still, even once-stalwart Republicans said Bush's clemency raised more questions about White House involvement in the outing of CIA analyst Valerie Plame, whose husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, had criticized the Iraq war.

"There are several others in this cover-up who should rightly be brought up on charges and also asked about how and why we got into this stupid war in Iraq," said Dahlgren McElwain, 65, who works at a Kansas City investment company and describes herself as a "life-long Republican."

Arizona high school teacher Bill Greenberg -- visiting the White House with his students -- said: "I'm busy teaching my students all about the Constitution (and) wondering if we'll ever get anybody here who actually reads it."

[99-1100896887]

My wife suggest that we have a huge celebration online when criddic leaves. "Hats, balloons, cakes, everything." I said no: we would just be happy to see him fade into the dust.

Isn't this a little unfair? Maybe a celebration when he finally comes around and turns on Bush. But isn't it a little mean-spirited to talk about rejoicing in his absence?

No it isn't. Not a bit.

[Damien]

Wow, here's a stunner. In an editorial today, the Rev. Moon's right-wing D.C. mouthpiece, the Washington Times came out against the Libby commutation.


THE LIBBY AFFAIR

President Bush's commutation of the 30-month prison sentence for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, is neither wise nor just. It is clearly within the president's executive powers, but that is beside the point.

We also agree that the 30-month sentence ordered by U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton — a Reagan and Bush appointee — is harsh. It exceeds the 15-21 month guidelines for first-time offenders. A first-time offender who is no danger to the community with an admirable record of public service deserves the lower range, and for that reason the unusually long sentence was unjust.

But none of this exonerates the commutation. Perjury is a serious crime. This newspaper argued on behalf of its seriousness in the 1990s, during the Clinton perjury controversy, and today is no different. We'd have hoped that more conservatives would agree. The integrity of the judicial process depends on fact-finding and truth-telling. A jury found Libby guilty of not only perjury but also obstruction justice and lying to a grand jury. It handed down a very supportable verdict. This is true regardless of the trumped-up investigation and political witch hunt. It is true regardless of the unjustifiably harsh sentence.

Had Mr. Bush reduced Libby's sentence to 15 months, we might have been able to support the decision. Alas, he did not.