Scooter Libby

[itsbob]

This is tongue in cheek, bud. The most common refrain for supporters of Clinton is that he was impeached over something that wasn't a crime (sex). Of course, if you're not a dyed in the wool Clinton supporter, you know that he was impeached over perjury, suborning perjury and obstruction of justice.

I thought Adultery AND Sodomy were crimes??

 

[This_person]

No, a pardon would have been the worst thing Bush could have done. If he had given him a pardon, Libby could be forced to testify before congress and not assert his 5th amendment rights.

Testify about what? Who leaked Plame's name? We know who, Dick Armitage. We know who reported it. We know the whole concept of trying to hurt her husband was BS, because his report said exactly what he says it DIDn't say. What would Libby testify to?

 

[2ndAmendment]

I thought Adultery AND Sodomy were crimes??

In most states but not at the federal level.

 

[This_person]

Yes, surely lying about BlowJays can be compared to blowing the cover of a CIA NOC agent trying to prevent Iran from getting WMD's.

You keep saying this over and over. You've been asked over and over WTH you're talking about, and you don't answer. Who do you think blew Plame (not a NOC) as a CIA employee?

 

[awpitt]

...you know that he was impeached over perjury, suborning perjury and obstruction of justice.

…and was acquitted.

 

[This_person]

Regardless of what you think of the case, the fact is that Libby lied to investigators. Not once but several times.

Even the President acknowledges his wrongdoing.

This is no different than when Clinton was impeached, the reaction was "Now everyone can justify lying to a grand jury and obstructing justice."

All Bush has done is re-inforce it. Clinton wasnt impeached for the BJ, it was for Perjury, if you supported Clintons impeachment, you have to be honest and support Libby's prosecution.

And the DemocRATs are already intentionally misleading the public (as Forestool has already shown). Conyers released a statement saying that it’s wrong for Libby’s sentence to be commuted pardoned, since he leaked national security information…which would make sense, except for the fact that Libby didn’t leak anything and wasn’t charged for leaking anything.

Idiots like Forstool will eat it up and regurgitate the nonsense, while ignoring that it was Armitage that "outed" Plame,

If Treason was the real reason behind the investigation, Armitage would have been prosecuted, but since Plame wasnt an active Covert agent there wasnt a crime. (thats the point Forestool ignores).

Sandy Burglar was a bigger treasonous event, but you dont see any outrage from the LefTARDs about that crime.

Unfortunately for Libby, he was a victim of politics, by committing perjury during the investigation of a friggin non-crime. In the atmosphere in Washington, the Bush's showed political naivete by thinking Libby would be spared.

These guys, Bill Clinton, Libby, and the rest, are all lawyers. They know exactly what they’re doing. They have nothing to fear if they tell the truth. Is that too much to ask of our highest government officials?

Well said, and hard for my partisan self to accept, but true anyway.

 

[SamSpade]

…and was acquitted.

We're not still talking about OJ, are we?

He wasn't removed from office, which is comparable to acquittal, even though by no means does it make him not guilty. Not one Democrat voted for removal - almost all Republicans voted for it. Doesn't exactly suggest an impartial jury, does it? For some reason, it's horrible to have a Supreme Court filled with Republican appointed justices, but it's perfectly just to have a President acquitted by the votes of his fellow party members.

Impeachment is a political process, and it's perfectly ok to yank a President out of office over something that has never been a crime. So acquittal is kind of weird terminology, because it doesn't mean quite the same thing.

 

[ylexot]

Really? This is news to me.

When/how did we prove Iraq tried to buy the yellowcake from Niger? It must have been very recently, because even the White house admitted they were wrong and should never have included it in the State of the Union. And you know how Bush feels about admitting being wrong.

You're not referring to the 1999 trip the Iraqi delegation took down there...are you?

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/wariniraq/a/niger_2.htm

A report based on Wilson's trip was widely disseminated via routine channels on 8 March 2002. (44)

This report indicated the the former Prime Minister of Niger was unaware of any Iraqi contracts for yellowcake, but acknowledged that in 1999 Iraq may have been interested in discussing yellowcake sales but the PM "steered the conversation away." Niger's former Minster for Energy said that there had been no yellowcake sales outside of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) channels since the 1980s.

This report also described "how the structure of Niger's uranium mines would make it difficult, if not impossible, for Niger to ell uranium to any rogue states."

:shrug:

 

[This_person]

Which in itself ought to be good reason to just about crap your pants - it means that despite not finding WMD's, or being forbidden to embark on a nuclear program, they WERE there to get uranium to make a bomb.

Always remember, just because they weren't found days and weeks later doesn't mean they weren't there to begin with. No one in the world believed they WEREN'T there.

 

[This_person]

<st1:City w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">Clinton</st1lace></st1:City> went to trial and was acquitted.

So did OJ. Consider the jury

 

[This_person]

You're not one of the 40% of Americans that still think Saddam was connected to 9/11....are you?

Do you mean directly that one specific and only that one specific attack specifically -
or terrorists, their training, funding, and supplying in general?

 

[ylexot]

Really? This is news to me.

When/how did we prove Iraq tried to buy the yellowcake from Niger? It must have been very recently, because even the White house admitted they were wrong and should never have included it in the State of the Union. And you know how Bush feels about admitting being wrong.

You're not referring to the 1999 trip the Iraqi delegation took down there...are you?

Or maybe you prefer Factcheck.org...
http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

Wilson reported that he had met with Niger's former Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki, who said that in June 1999 he was asked to meet with a delegation from Iraq to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between the two countries.
Based on what Wilson told them, CIA analysts wrote an intelligence report saying former Prime Minister Mayki "interpreted 'expanding commercial relations' to mean that the (Iraqi) delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales." In fact, the Intelligence Committee report said that "for most analysts" Wilson's trip to Niger "lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal."

 

[This_person]

How can that be when he *admitted* he lied to the Grand Jury and there was solid evidence of such?

How did Clinton get acquitted, with solid evidence AND a confession, yet Libby gets convicted?

I dont understand these things and wish you would explain them to me.

And, why did he lose his law license again?

 

[awpitt]

We're not still talking about OJ, are we?

He wasn't removed from office, which is comparable to acquittal, even though by no means does it make him not guilty. Not one Democrat voted for removal - almost all Republicans voted for it. Doesn't exactly suggest an impartial jury, does it? For some reason, it's horrible to have a Supreme Court filled with Republican appointed justices, but it's perfectly just to have a President acquitted by the votes of his fellow party members.

Impeachment is a political process, and it's perfectly ok to yank a President out of office over something that has never been a crime. So acquittal is kind of weird terminology, because it doesn't mean quite the same thing.

Maybe it’s time for a couple of Constitutional amendments.

First, instead of having the Senate sit as the jury for impeachment trials, they could empanel 100 judges from across the country to sit as the jury. This might take some of the partisanship out of an impeachment trial.

Second, there should be some type of limits placed on the President’s power to pardon. I’m not sure how. Maybe a Constitutionally designated panel would have to endorse a petition for pardon before the President could grant it.

 

[Kerad]

Or maybe you prefer Factcheck.org...
http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

Either link was fine...you were referring to the meeting I had mentioned. I thought maybe something "new" had come out that I missed.

Personally, I never considered that meeting as proof of anything. Especially since uranium was never specifically mentioned either in conversation or on any documents...nor brought up at any other time in the future. I understand the PM thought that uranium may have been what Iraq was interested in, but that's as far as it got.

And yes, of course I understand that uranium may have been exactly what Iraq wanted. But they certainly weren't pressing very hard on it, and I would need alot more than that to consider proof enough to run with.


Heck...even if Iraq came out and begged to buy uranium, the PM said it would have been impossible, due to the UN sanctions (and other difficulties). Proof again that the sanctions were indeed having their intended effect. (Which is a different subject altogether...)

 

[ylexot]

Personally, I never considered that meeting as proof of anything. Especially since uranium was never specifically mentioned either in conversation or on any documents...nor brought up at any other time in the future. I understand the PM thought that uranium may have been what Iraq was interested in, but that's as far as it got.

I'll take a bunch of CIA analysts over you (or Joe Wilson) any day.

 

[Kerad]

I'll take a bunch of CIA analysts over you (or Joe Wilson) any day.

 

[ylexot]

Would you like to take a shot at proving the analysts wrong? Go ahead. Prove that Iraq was not seeking to buy uranium. Or how about this...if the Iraqi's were truly trying to expand commercial relations in some other way, what commercial expansion were they looking for?

And just to help you out some...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger

Niger is the poorest country in the world, ranking last on the United Nations Development Programme's Human Development Index. It is a landlocked, sub-Saharan nation, whose economy centers on subsistence crops, livestock, and some of the world's largest uranium deposits.

 

[Kerad]

Would you like to take a shot at proving the analysts wrong? Go ahead. Prove that Iraq was not seeking to buy uranium. Or how about this...if the Iraqi's were truly trying to expand commercial relations in some other way, what commercial expansion were they looking for?

And just to help you out some...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger

You may have misunderstood. The " " was more of a "Of course you should trust the CIA analysts more than me".

Anyways...unless our troops have uncovered Saddam's secret nuclear weapon factories within the last half hour, Joe Wilson's assessments on the Nigerian/Iraq uranium connection have not been proven wrong.

I'm not looking to take this already wandering thread even further off course.

 

[PsyOps]

Well, it's either one of two reasons. Either you're correct, and the entire legal and judicial system of the United States is wrong. Or you're wrong, and perjury actually is still a crime.

Then why isn't Clinton in prison?