The jury found that he lied and obstructed justice. The judge threw the book at him. Bush commuted the sentence, did not pardon him and did not invalidate the jury verdict which he has the power to do and everyone knew long ago that he would likely exercise that power. A big non-story. Libby still won't be able to practice law, vote, or own a gun, he will have to pee in a bottle every week for at least a year and will not be allowed to frequent places where known felons hang out. In other words, his freedom will be limited for the next two years. Bush cut the baby in half. He did not pardon like many of his supporters asked, and he did not let the man go to jail like most of his haters wanted.

RebelKev Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:He is the highest ranking White House official to be indicted since then.

I guess you only believe the stuff you find on NewsMax, FoxNews, or Rush Limbaugh's show.

I suggest you do a little more research.

I suggest you do any research instead of making stuff up.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:I suggest you do any research instead of making stuff up.

It's funny just sitting here seeing you make a fool out of yourself by believing the MSM's contention that Libby was the highest official indicted and convicted since Iran-Contra. I'll let this brew for a little longer.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:He is the highest ranking White House official to be indicted since then.

I guess you only believe the stuff you find on NewsMax, FoxNews, or Rush Limbaugh's show.

I suggest you do a little more research.

I suggest you do any research instead of making stuff up.

Sherlock, how is the Washington post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...05_pf.html

Quote:THIS GRAND JURY CHARGES JOSEPH C. WILSON IV with misleading the public about how he was sent to Niger, about the thrust of his March 2003 oral report of that trip, and about his wife's CIA status, perhaps for the purpose of getting book and movie contracts.

· On July 6, 2003, Wilson appeared on "Meet the Press" hours after the New York Times published his op-ed "What I Didn't Find in Africa," which accused the administration of twisting intelligence to exaggerate the Iraq threat. The piece suggested that Wilson had been sent to Niger at the vice president's request to look into foreign intelligence reports of Iraqi efforts to obtain yellowcake uranium. Wilson told Andrea Mitchell, "The office of the vice president, I am absolutely convinced, received a very specific response to the question it asked and that response was based upon my trip there." But Cheney said he had no knowledge of Wilson's trip and was never briefed on his oral report to the CIA.

· Wilson has claimed repeatedly -- including on MSNBC's "Countdown" on July 22, 2005 and at the National Press Club on Oct. 31, 2005 -- that he was sent to Niger because of his "specific skill set" and not because of his wife. But Senate intelligence committee documents indicate that Plame suggested his name for the trip, as did a State Department report and a CIA official who briefed the vice president's office.

· Although Wilson has repeatedly claimed that neither his trip nor his oral report was classified, the CIA sent documents about the trip marked "classified" to the vice president's office and to date has not released the essence of the oral report. A source later identified as Wilson claimed in a Washington Post article on June 12, 2003, that documents related to an alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal were forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." When Senate intelligence committee staff questioned that, as Wilson had never seen the documents, he responded that he may have "misspoken."

· Wilson has continually played coy about his wife's status. On July 16, 2003, David Corn wrote in the Nation: "Did senior Bush officials blow the cover of a U.S. intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security -- and break the law -- in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others?" Corn acknowledged talking to Wilson but said that Wilson refused to talk about his wife. Yet Corn also published Wilson's rather unsubtle suggestion: "Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career."

Plame was not covert. She worked at CIA headquarters and had not been stationed abroad within five years of the date of Novak's column

I suggest the 'charge the media' section as reading as well.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:You're way out of your league.

You are correct. I've not been in your league since I was about 7 years old.

My gosh how pathetic you are.

[Mod]
Everyone needs to calm down. the mods can't possibly keep up with this rate of posting. This thread has quickly devolved into a name-calling pissing match. Address arguments, stop moving the goal posts around, ad hominems are off limits according to the AUP, and if you are trying to debate these tactics try to stay on the high ground.

If you are new here you would do yourself some good if you read the AUP posted at the top of the forum. We are very loose with it, but if we see consistent behavior we will act.
[/Mod]

RebelKev Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:I suggest you do any research instead of making stuff up.

It's funny just sitting here seeing you make a fool out of yourself by believing the MSM's contention that Libby was the highest official indicted and convicted since Iran-Contra. I'll let this brew for a little longer.

Libby was found guilty of four felony counts. Are you going to bring up some irrelevant misdemeanors as your proof?

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:You're way out of your league.

You are correct. I've not been in your league since I was about 7 years old.

That must've been when you were held back.

GGniner Wrote:

OUGwave Wrote:Scooter Libby was convicted of a felony by a jury of his peers in a criminal court.

All arguments about the trial end there.

and you say this in your first post knowing this is a lie

Quote:What is corrupt about it is that the perjury he was convicted of pertained to certain Bush administration secrets that went straight to the heart of how the intelligence was spun that took this country to war.

The president, by law, has the ability to pardon or commute. But the president is trusted to use this authority ethically, and he has failed. Essentially what this says is that the President's staff can commit crimes on his behalf, with no consequences.

please

What exactly is your argument here?

Everything I said is true. Libby comitted a felony. That is a matter of law, not up for debate, its objectively true in the eyes of the justice system.

That felony was lying under oath in a case pertaining to White House abuses of power.

He now has been granted a get out of jail free card by the President.

You really are pro-amnesty.

Do you think that Bush should have commuted Martha Stewart's sentence instead of having her wait in jail during her appeals process?

Because its essentially the same crime. One system of justice for some people, another system entirely for others.

Webb Hubbel spent 18 months in jail while waiting for an appeal of his 21 month sentence, before it being overturned by the Supreme Court 8-1. If Bill Clinton had commuted his jail sentence, I think I know what you would have said.

EastStang Wrote:The jury found that he lied and obstructed justice. The judge threw the book at him. Bush commuted the sentence, did not pardon him and did not invalidate the jury verdict which he has the power to do and everyone knew long ago that he would likely exercise that power. A big non-story. Libby still won't be able to practice law, vote, or own a gun, he will have to pee in a bottle every week for at least a year and will not be allowed to frequent places where known felons hang out. In other words, his freedom will be limited for the next two years. Bush cut the baby in half. He did not pardon like many of his supporters asked, and he did not let the man go to jail like most of his haters wanted.

If you think Scooter Libby gives a dick about not practicing law, voting, or owning a gun, you are beyond naive.

He didn't want to spend 30 months in a 10 foot cell with some guy named Rico. Thats the only thing that matters.

He'll raise the $250,000 fine in a week. And then he'll start his lobbying career.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:I suggest you do any research instead of making stuff up.

It's funny just sitting here seeing you make a fool out of yourself by believing the MSM's contention that Libby was the highest official indicted and convicted since Iran-Contra. I'll let this brew for a little longer.

Libby was found guilty of four felony counts. Are you going to bring up some irrelevant misdemeanors as your proof?

Henry Cisneros Secretary of Housing and Urban Development


So, what do you think we should do about Sandy Berger?

OUGwave Wrote:Everything I said is true. Libby comitted a felony. That is a matter of law, not up for debate, its objectively true in the eyes of the justice system.

I would agree.

Quote:That felony was lying under oath in a case pertaining to White House abuses of power.

Wrong. The case had nothing to do with White House abuse of power. It was to answer the question, was there a crime committed in leaking of Plame's name. As the lack of indictment of Richard Armitage shows, there was none.

The abuse of power line is for the politicos. In the eyes of the justice system, which you seem to be high on, the investigation had nothing to do with White House "abuse of power."

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

OUGwave Wrote:Everything I said is true. Libby comitted a felony. That is a matter of law, not up for debate, its objectively true in the eyes of the justice system.

I would agree.

Quote:That felony was lying under oath in a case pertaining to White House abuses of power.

Wrong. The case had nothing to do with White House abuse of power. It was to answer the question, was there a crime committed in leaking of Plame's name. As the lack of indictment of Richard Armitage shows, there was none.

The abuse of power line is for the politicos. In the eyes of the justice system, which you seem to be high on, the investigation had nothing to do with White House "abuse of power."

The investigation had everything to do with abuse of power.

Where it ultimately went has nothing to do with the fact that interfering with such an investigation is a crime.

How did Armitage find out about Plame? Oh yeah, as part of an information request from Scooter Libby. Just because Armitage outed Plame on his own, rather incidentally, doesn't mean there wasn't ALSO an attempt by the white house to do the same. And that in itself, yes, is a crime. And so is lying about it under oath.

Scooter Libby lied under oath for a reason. He didn't do it for fun.

RebelKev Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:I suggest you do any research instead of making stuff up.

It's funny just sitting here seeing you make a fool out of yourself by believing the MSM's contention that Libby was the highest official indicted and convicted since Iran-Contra. I'll let this brew for a little longer.

Libby was found guilty of four felony counts. Are you going to bring up some irrelevant misdemeanors as your proof?

Henry Cisneros Secretary of Housing and Urban Development


So, what do you think we should do about Sandy Berger?

I was right. You did bring up some irrelevant misdemeanors.

Quote:In September, 1999, Cisneros negotiated a plea agreement, under which he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of lying to the FBI, and was fined $10,000. He did not receive jail-time or probation.

Quote:Berger eventually pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material on April 1, 2005. Under a plea agreement, U.S. attorneys recommended a fine of $10,000 and a loss of security clearance for three years. However, on September 8, U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson increased the fine to $50,000 at Berger's sentencing.

Quote:Berger was also ordered to serve two years of probation and to perform 100 hours of community service.

Four felony convictions for Libby vs. two total misdemeanor charges for Cisneros and Berger. You really are grasping at straws. And Berger was never pardoned.

OUGwave Wrote:The investigation had everything to do with abuse of power.

Only to you and the rest of the left wing of this country.

Quote:Where it ultimately went has nothing to do with the fact that interfering with such an investigation is a crime.

Where exactly did you see me state otherwise?

Quote:How did Armitage find out about Plame? Oh yeah, as part of an information request from Scooter Libby.

Doesn't matter. He's the one who leaked it. And the investigation centered around the leak and if a crime was committed by it being leaked. If it had been a crime, Armitage would have been charged. It's that simple.

Quote:Just because Armitage outed Plame on his own, rather incidentally, doesn't mean there wasn't ALSO an attempt by the white house to do the same.

Agree.

Quote:And that in itself, yes, is a crime.

All evidence to the contrary. If it were a crime the person who confessed to doing it would have been charged. He was not.

There are very specific criteria that have to be met in order for it to have been a crime. Plame didn't meet that standard, therefore it wasn't a crime.

Quote:Scooter Libby lied under oath for a reason. He didn't do it for fun.

We can speculate all day long as to why he did it. But the fact that Richard Armitage confessed to what you swear was a crime, yet has never been indicted, should speak volumes to you.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:Four felony convictions for Libby vs. two total misdemeanor charges for Cisneros and Berger. You really are grasping at straws. And Berger was never pardoned.

You're gonna sit there, with a straight face, and tell me what Berger did wasn't that bad? What Cisneros did was nothing? What they did was a HELLUVA lot worse than what Libby did. The investigation SHOULD have shown Joe Wilson as being the leaker. Again, you are proving yourself to be a political partisan. You're doing a damn good job of it.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:If it had been a crime, Armitage would have been charged. It's that simple.

OK, would you be willing to go on record as agreeing with the following statement?

"All people who commit crimes are charged."

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:If it had been a crime, Armitage would have been charged. It's that simple.

OK, would you be willing to go on record as agreeing with the following statement?

"All people who commit crimes are charged."

Nice straw man. You're really good at those.

Armitage admitted committing what you call a crime. That's the little detail you seem incapable or unwilling to grasp.

RebelKev Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:Four felony convictions for Libby vs. two total misdemeanor charges for Cisneros and Berger. You really are grasping at straws. And Berger was never pardoned.

You're gonna sit there, with a straight face, and tell me what Berger did wasn't that bad? What Cisneros did was nothing? What they did was a HELLUVA lot worse than what Libby did. The investigation SHOULD have shown Joe Wilson as being the leaker. Again, you are proving yourself to be a political partisan. You're doing a damn good job of it.

Pot, kettle. Two misdemeanors are not nearly as bad as four felonies.

If you think that Cisneros paying off his mistress is anywhere near as bad as Libby covering up the illegal outing of a covert CIA operative in retaliation to her husband debunking Bush's justification for war, then you are the biggest political partisan on this board.

Al Gores Lawyer in Bush v. Gore, David Boise on March 7th, 2007

Quote:That's exactly the problem. People can't remember everything. Now, people have got to tell the truth in front of a grand jury. That's very important. And if you are conducting an investigation where you really need to get people's testimony, and they lie, they need to be prosecuted, even if you ultimately conclude there was no underlying crime. That's not really the situation here, as I see it. Because from the outside it looks like the prosecutor knew, before some of this testimony was taken, that there was not an underlying crime. And then to go forward and try to get people maybe to slip up, make a mistake, so you can bring a perjury or obstruction charge, I think that's what's troubling here. The problem is I don't see any evidence that that's right. That is I don't see any evidence that they needed Libby's testimony to determine whether there was a crime or not. They knew who leaked it. Ok? They knew who leaked it."

one of the few honest libs on this.[/quote]