With his jail time "waived". I read an interesting quote on a yahoo article

the president made the decision without seeking any advice from the Office of the Pardon Attorney at the Justice Department, the White House had previously acknowledged


Why is it every president...ever, uses his advisors and assistants but King George seems to bypass this.

the president made the decision without seeking any advice

That's because Czar Chenney told him to do it.

It's good to have connections and people who want you to stay quiet, a bummer (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3302407) if you don't.

With his jail time "waived". I read an interesting quote on a yahoo article




Why is it every president...ever, uses his advisors and assistants but King George seems to bypass this.

I think your comment is a leap Grey, I've heard of mullings of this for over 30 days. Heard he was in deep consultation with his advisers over this.

Could it be his advisors, and hell most of the party, are putting it all on "King George" to help their odds in upcoming elections?

From 2004 (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/wilson.cia/): "If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is...If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of."Evidently, that didn't mean what we all thought it meant.
Could it be his advisors, and hell most of the party, are putting it all on "King George" to help their odds in upcoming elections?Given Bush's approval ratings, maintaining a healthy distance from Bush is the best way for Republicans to boost their electoral chances. Rhetorically, that's been the tack of the current crop of candidates, while ultimately promising more of the same or taking the President's strategies one step further.

Who are you kidding Thor? Scooty is being very well taken care of.

Well yes, that was the point of citing the quote. ;)

"If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of." Richard Armitage, the "leaker", is not in public service. Apparently no law was violated in the actual "leak" because Fitzgerald hasn't brought any charges against Armitage on the underlying "leak". At least some reporters served jail time over the whole affair.

"and justice for all"

Just one more thing for those who understand whats going on to get pissed off about and those who are clueless to defend. Sadly this is the status quo.

I'm starting to think this is how it went down.

Czar (i like the name): Ok bush get really pissed off at this story we already leaked

Bush: ok sir

Czar: libby your going to take the fall we'll waive the jail time, the $250,000 fines we'll cover, and the probation, please he voted for us.

This whole conversation was done on the republican party email servers which are now empty.

Richard Armitage, the "leaker", is not in public service. Apparently no law was violated in the actual "leak" because Fitzgerald hasn't brought any charges against Armitage on the underlying "leak". At least some reporters served jail time over the whole affair.Armitage and Libby and Rove all leaked. Fitzgerald felt, rightly or wrongly, that he couldn't pin them for intentionally outing a covert agent due to the narrowly written terms of the prevailing law. But despite how innocent this all was suppose to be, Libby lied about it. Libby impeded investigation. Libby's lies obstructed further progress in the investigation of Plame's outing, an investigation that could have -- based on comments from Fitzgerald -- elevated the case higher into the White House and potentially demonstrated illegality.

But Bush has no more respect for the law than Furtivus or the rest of those so horrified by perjury during the previous President's administration, who so casually dismiss it now with the same vacuous arguments Furtivus drools. For perjury and obstruction of justice, multiple felonies, jail time is "excessive."

Of course, Bush (and Cheney) may not have had a choice. Facing a jail cell, Libby had good reason to reverse course and discuss the role of his superiors in this case, and Bush couldn't allow that to stand.

Bush did not pardon Libby (yet), so consulting with the Board of Pardons was not necessary to this action.

Bush will not rule out pardoning Libby at a later date. It is being hypothesized that he will pardon him if the appeals fail, relieving Republican candidates from having to answer that question from the conservative base of whether or not they would pardon.

Clinton could not keep his dick in his pants, and because the Gingrich-Hyde bunch could not pin any of their other charges on him, after spending millions investigating, they went after him for that when they received some illegally obtained evidence. He denied, under oath, something that should never have been brought to the public arena, and for that he has been vilified. Interestingly, his main accusers both were later to be found guilty of their own infidelities.

Compare the Clinton presidency with the Bush/Cheney 6 1/2 years, and tell me which will have the better legacy in the history books.

The arrogance is killing the Republican party (as it will the Democrats), and the public will no doubt be making itself heard over the consistent and persistent lack of leadership skills in this president, and this latest incident.


Edit: Ok, I was rushed on the above. I wanted to make the point that Clinton lied under oath about cheating on his wife, which was never really any of the country's business, except that some in the Republican Party wanted to get him by any means, at whatever cost. People have been talking about how bad he was for years now, because of that, and every chance some get they throw up "But Clinton".

Scooter Libby lied under oath regarding a criminal probe and interfered with an ongoing investigation, a matter having to do with an action that could have (and maybe did) cost the lives of some in our intelligence service. And, Bush and Cheney have consistently thumbed their noses at the laws of our country, claiming privilege, and Bush is now showing more hypocrisy in his treatment of Libby.

Clinton embarrassed the country once, by lying about cheating on Hillary. Bush and Cheney do it on a weekly basis, it seems. And, Libby is this week's.

And if *that* doesn't put enough butter on Libby's toast to keep him from turning, Bush today stated that he 'wouldn't rule out' a Libby pardon:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6266766.stm

The last line/quote from King George is priceless:

However, he said, Libby's remaining punishments - the probation period and fine - were "harsh" and would leave his reputation "forever damaged".

As if, you know, the above mentioned perjury and obstruction of justice *wouldn't* be seen as damaging his reputation... to anyone else but his infernal masters, that is ;).

Regards,
Nydia

(edit) was in post screen while Bylimet posted.

Armitage and Libby and Rove all leaked. I cup doesn't leak if it's not filled.

Those cups are overflowing -- you should know, having drunk the Kool-Ade.

ooo chirpy Thormir. I'm not the one keeling over frothing at the mouth.

You've long since forsaken any sense of principle. All you have left to show for your ceaseless adoration of this failed administration are witless one-liners bereft of any respect for this nation's foundations. Fortunately, the nation has seen through the equally mindless babble issuing forth from the administration and its abettors. Little surprise that you have nothing to say here anymore, after years of being shown wrong about, well, nearly everything.

And you'd think you'd never find worse odds than Vegas. Thank you W.

What are you guys talking about.. Republicans are FURIOUS over this lying...

On the eve of Independece Day, the Family Values Party wasted no time in condemning Bush's decision to save his long-time friend.

"How can parents instill values and morality in their children?" asked a befuddled Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE). "How can educators teach our children? How can the rule of law for every American be applied equally if we have two standards of justice in America – one for the powerful and the other for the rest of us?"

Former Senator Bill Frist joined Hagel in slamming Bush's actions, saying the commutation amounted to unfair treatment. "He is not above the law," said the clearly enraged Republican from Tennessee. "If an ordinary citizen committed these crimes, he would go to jail."

You would think, of all places, President Bush would find some love in his home state of Texas -- but no so. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison said the Libby communion jeopardizes the nation’s entire legal system.

"I very much worry that with the evidence that we have seen that grand juries across America are going to start asking questions about what is obstruction of justice, what is perjury," the senator said. "And I don't want there to be any lessening of the standard. Because our system of criminal justice depends on people telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That is the lynch pin of our criminal justice system and I don't want it to be faded in any way."

Fellow Republican Texan Tom Delay, himself indicted, nonetheless issued a scathing attack on the commutation.

"No man is above the law, and no man is below the law," Delay said, choking back tears. "That's the principle that we all hold very dear in this country.

"Lying under oath strikes at the heart of our system of justice and the rule of law. It does not matter in the least what the perjury is about," - Robert Bork and James Rosen, National Review.

"And we know that when a person testifies under oath that he doesn't remember something when in fact he does, he has committed perjury," - Bill Bennett, Wall Street Journal.



"

Of course, these people weren't talking about Libby at all. They are real quotes, all made during the Clinton impeachment.

This is surely the first time a reprieve (and soon to be pardon) has been made on political/personal grounds rather than as a public policy judgement.

You've long since forsaken any sense of principle. All you have left to show for your ceaseless adoration of this failed administration are witless one-liners bereft of any respect for this nation's foundations. Fortunately, the nation has seen through the equally mindless babble issuing forth from the administration and its abettors. Little surprise that you have nothing to say here anymore, after years of being shown wrong about, well, nearly everything.Your sense of arrogance, vindication, and victory? for not having me (and others) around here anymore is telling enough.

Enjoy your lefty playground that resembles more like a freerepublic forum during Clinton's last years in office than the board I originally came to love.

Its not our fault this "Lefty Playground" has this much leverage, ammunition, and bad press to work with.

I'm glad you are positioning yourself on a highground of sorts, way to be like the rest of the republican party.

bad press lmao

I'm glad you are positioning yourself on a highground I think you've missed the obvious, there's no more room at the top of that hill around here.

Care to elaborate on your comment on the press? Or will LMAO be the extent.

Your post is further evidence of what Thor is talking about. You make small contentless comments that do nothing more than either prove your lack of intellectual foundation for conversating or a desire to raise post counts.

Atleast some of the other more Republican leaning posters give a good conversation.

Come on Akipt. Join the rest of us conservative Independents and leave that dying and disgusting party behind. It started going bad (in a visible manner) with the Gingrich-Hyde escapade of going after Clinton for anything they could. Actually, we are now learning that there was even more insidious behavior going on in the Ford administration, with Rumsfeld and Cheney just learning the extent of the crap they could be involved with over time.

That is when Cheney started his quest for power and riches. Now, when his top lieutenant is convicted of a felony for doing Cheney's bidding, of course Cheney is going to be urging Bush to "do the right thing" for the conservative base. The party has become a hypocritcal mess, betraying all the once respected ideals of smaller government and lower taxes.

It no longer deserves the respect or support of any legitimate conservative.


And now, back to the grill and my ribs.:p

Enjoy your lefty playground that resembles more like a freerepublic forum during Clinton's last years in office than the board I originally came to love.

Somebody get this man a book on bunker mentality, stat.

Your sense of arrogance, vindication, and victory? for not having me (and others) around here anymore is telling enough. Actually, it's only disappointment. If you want vindication and victory, visit any of your posts on the latest "turned corner" or "major progress" in Iraq, or defense of the administration's arrogant, anti-Constitutionalist actions. "Victory" isn't an end in dialogue but a transformation of points of view and understanding that falls in accord with the best ideas, demonstrations of successful reasoning and similar rubrics. In that eventuality, there are no losers -- both sides win.

Anyway,
On the Libby commutation note, it turns out Bush is quite a trailblazer (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-libby4jul04,0,6295306,full.story?coll=la-home-nation). Sentencing experts said Bush's action appeared to be without recent precedent. They could not recall another case in which someone sentenced to prison had received a presidential commutation without having served any part of that sentence. Presidents have customarily commuted sentences only when someone has served substantial time.

"We can't find any cases, certainly in the last half century, where the president commuted a sentence before it had even started to be served," said Margaret Colgate Love, a former pardon attorney at the Justice Department. "This is really, really unusual."

Said Ellen S. Podgor, a professor at Stetson University law school: "This is a classic case of executive activism as opposed to judicial activism." Defense attorneys have taken note (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/04/washington/04commute.html?ex=1341201600&en=bb81dab951333bc6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss) of Bush's argument about Libby's jail time being "excessive," despite it being anything but.

In commuting I. Lewis Libby Jr. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/l/i_lewis_libby_jr/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’s 30-month prison sentence on Monday, President Bush drew on the same array of arguments about the federal sentencing system often made by defense lawyers — and routinely and strenuously opposed by his own Justice Department.
...
“I anticipate that we’re going to get a new motion called ‘the Libby motion,’ ” Professor Podgor said. “It will basically say, ‘My client should have got what Libby got, and here’s why.’ ”The decision has even left Judge Walton in a bit of a bind. Whether Libby would have to serve probation was in some doubt Tuesday. The sentencing judge in the case, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton, said in court papers that it was unclear whether a defendant who had not done jail time could still be subject to supervisory release. He asked the lawyers to advise him on the issue.
It will be interesting to see how Bush handles the inevitable commutation request from Victor Rita, whose case is similar to Libby's in an almost cosmically convenient way.

Actually, it's only disappointment. Who are you trying to fool? My first post in probably over a month and you went straight to making it a personal attack on me. You sir can go fuck yourself.

why dont you tell us how you really feel akipt?

Heh, happy 4th akipt.

I wonder how this makes Genarlow Wilson feel??

Olberman layeth the smack down (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmrcpDiv_ac&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efohguild%2Eorg%2Fforums%2F screenshots%2F29462%2Dscooter%2Dlibby%2Dwalks%2D4% 2Ehtml)


Dont agree with all of it, but gd he does make some powerful points.

that was an amazing commentary. I agree wholeheartedly with his commentary (well 90% of it)

An alleged Hamas (http://www.nysun.com/article/57843?page_no=1) operative will be among the first defendants looking to benefit from the "Libby precedent." Tony Snow has a brief, <insert your own adjective here> op-ed (http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20070705/oppose05.art.htm) in USA Today defending the commutation.

wow Thor thats some find. The adjective i choose to insert is laughable.

So if Bush later does actually pardon Libby, what will that say about ........... the president made clear that he would not second-guess the jury that found Libby guilty. He believes it is important to respect the jury's work. The concept of judgment by a jury of peers forms the backbone of our judicial system. So the president left intact the felony convictions and two of the major punishments — the fine and probation.

I agree with the laughable adjective.

Tony Snow is saying Bush has used the power to pardon the least, but he is leaving out that Bush also presided over the highest number of executions of any state during his term as governor. Of course someone who prefers the death penalty for criminals is not going to be giving out too many pardons.

"Fitzgerald felt, rightly or wrongly, that he couldn't pin them for intentionally outing a covert agent due to the narrowly written terms of the prevailing law."

In other words, Fitzgerald felt no law had been broken with respect to the "leak"...

No, only that he couldn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. That happens sometimes. Ask a lawyer.

Zing!

"Fitzgerald felt, rightly or wrongly, that he couldn't pin them for intentionally outing a covert agent due to the narrowly written terms of the prevailing law."

In other words, Fitzgerald felt no law had been broken with respect to the "leak"...

No, in your words, that is what Fitzgerald felt.....amazing the arrogance of folks when they have law school behind them, assuming they can determine what others are feeling by looking at some printed words.


Edit: dang spelling.:mad:

im beginning to suspect furtivus went to the law school version of liberty university.

I know I'm getting my law degree from Bob Jones University.

Why bother? You already know all there is to know...

Why bother? You already know all there is to know...

I would think it's because Bob Jones can teach you more about what not to know, so if Malse goes there he will know a bit less.

There's plenty I don't know. It just happens that what I do know has a larger congruence with real life than what you prefer to think.

And yes, I'm sure you know exactly why this wasn't perjury or leaking, and how we're really going to turn Iraq around next month. Or the month after the month after. And how stem cells killed baby Jesus with an undocumented Mexican as the gettaway driver.

Why bother? You already know all there is to know...

HOW PERFECT THEN!

See, because places like Liberty and Bob Jones dont exist to explore new ideas or teach any new, they exist as a venue to help people who already have their minds made up, without the silly need for academic or scientific examination, to mold and shape the law to thier ideology.

You're being a little over-critical of those places, they aren't horrible schools, and they do present a decent educational opportunity in several fields. However the ideological part can not be understressed, and given the over-representation of their students in certain unnamed political machines it does provide a great example of what happens when you put ideology in front of reality (or any standards of competence).

didnt liberty have a dinosaur bone with a plate saying it was 6000 years old? how is that not horrible?

didnt liberty have a dinosaur bone with a plate saying it was 6000 years old? how is that not horrible?

I thought that was the Flintstones.

didnt liberty have a dinosaur bone with a plate saying it was 6000 years old? how is that not horrible?

According to Cavuto on Fox, in the other day's comments at the end of the show, dinosaurs roamed the earth 100 million years ago. Jeeze, ya just don't know who to trust anymore.:rolleyes:

And another comment on Tony Snow: Jon Stewart the other night on the Daily Show did a great job of demonstrating how Mr Snow has tossed his integrity aside to be able to cozy up to the administration, when he showed side by side video of Snow saying within a two month span that the federal attorneys were fired for performance issues, and then saying performance played no role in their dismissals.

He fits right in with those two-faced folks on the hill.

"No, in your words, that is what Fitzgerald felt.....amazing the arrogance of folks when they have law school behind them, assuming they can determine what others are feeling by looking at some printed words."

No, I'm not the one that originally stated what Fitzgerald felt. I was just poking fun at the original poster stating what Fitzgerlald felt by posting an equally unsupported statement that Fitzgerald could have felt no law was broken at all. Fitzgerald also could have felt a law was broken, but he couldn't prove it. He could have felt a law was broken he could prove but it wasn't worth prosecuting. There's a lot of scenarios for Fitzgerald's feelings and for the original poster or anyone to presume to know what Fitzgerald felt is absolutely ridiculous.

There's a lot of scenarios for Fitzgerald's feelings and for the original poster or anyone to presume to know what Fitzgerald felt is absolutely ridiculous.Absolutely ridiculous to anyone who didn't follow the case or, say, even read the documentation involved. Such as, for example, the Government's Sentencing Memorandum (http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/Libby_Sentencing_memo052507.pdf) submitted by Special Counsel Fitzgerald following the guilty verdicts brought against Libby. Starting on p14:While not commenting on the reasons for the charging decisions as to any other persons, we can say that the reasons why Mr. Libby was not charged with an offense directly relating to his unauthorized disclosures of classified information regarding Ms. Wilson included, but were not limited to, the fact that Mr. Libby’s false testimony obscured a confident determination of what in fact occurred, particularly where the accounts of the reporters with whom Mr. Libby spoke (and their notes) did not include any explicit evidence specifically proving that Mr. Libby knew that Ms. Wilson was a covert agent.

On the other hand, there was clear proof of perjury and obstruction of justice which could be prosecuted in a relatively straightforward trial. As Judge Tatel noted in his concurring opinion in In re Grand Jury Subpoena, Judith Miller, 438 F.3d 1141, 1182 (D.C. Cir. 2006), “insofar as false testimony may have impaired the special counsel’s identification of culprits, perjury in this context is itself a crime with national security implications. What’s more, because the charges contemplated here relate to false denials of responsibility for Plame’s exposure, prosecuting perjury or false statements would be tantamount to punishing the leak.”Emphasis mine, and a paragraph added for readability.

Libby lied, so even knowing that a crime had been committed (see Section II of the Memorandum), Fitgerald felt that he could not prove that Libby had broken the applicable statue (http://foi.missouri.edu/bushinfopolicies/protection.html), which is narrowly written. Note the first paragraph (emphasis mine):Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified
information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any
information identifying such covert agent to any individual not
authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the
information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert
agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined
not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

"Mr. Libby’s false testimony obscured a confident determination of what in fact occurred"

Precisely my point. Thank you.

Nice cherry pick, Furt. There is truly no argument so untenable that you won't clutch it, gum and nail.

Your quote not mine... I could have quoted the "included, but not limited to" language as well but that was going overboard :) .

If he testifies before the Senate as has been discussed, you'll get to know his "feelings" then.

The only "going overboard" here is your typical willingness to ignore clear language and common sense. As you're so fond of saying, did you even read the entire paper?

But at this point, it's pretty clear that you only post to give us all a good laugh, and for that I thank you. It's got to be tough coming up with that much new material.