Verdict reached in CIA leak trial of Lewis 'Scooter' Libby

[talloulou]

It's not iron-clad reasoning that is readily expressible. There's a need for a proper narrative. The story has to go well. If the Admin pardons Libby I think it will hurt the GOP worse than letting the scandal simply decay.
I think that the internal party pressure not to pardon him will outweigh the pressure to pardon him. If Libby's pardoned it kind of seals the GOP as the party of corruption for a few more years. And after Nixon, Iran-Contra, and the Iraq debacleS, to have such a high profile wrongdoer pardoned just makes for the wrong story- one that's too hard to sell.

Just MHO. I have no facts to back it up [nor am I sure where to look for such]; however, I am willing to take small bets on it.

I agree with everything you've said however Bush is well known for basically not giving a fvck what others think and he has no problem doing unpopular things. He also seems pretty loyal towards those in his circle regardless of how unpopular they are. I'd say it could go either way depending on Libby's sentence. Has he been sentenced yet?

 

[aps]

I agree with everything you've said however Bush is well known for basically not giving a fvck what others think and he has no problem doing unpopular things. He also seems pretty loyal towards those in his circle regardless of how unpopular they are. I'd say it could go either way depending on Libby's sentence. Has he been sentenced yet?

I agree. Libby won't be sentenced until June 2007. I think he could pardon Libby, but not until Libby is sentenced. With all the bad news for this White House in the last couple of weeks, now is not the time to do it. The problem here is there a conflict of interest, but it didn't seem to stop his father from pardoning Caspar Weinberger.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I agree with everything you've said however Bush is well known for basically not giving a fvck what others think and he has no problem doing unpopular things. He also seems pretty loyal towards those in his circle regardless of how unpopular they are. I'd say it could go either way depending on Libby's sentence. Has he been sentenced yet?

He'l be sentenced June 5th

 

[talloulou]

I agree. Libby won't be sentenced until June 2007. I think he could pardon Libby, but not until Libby is sentenced. With all the bad news for this White House in the last couple of weeks, now is not the time to do it. The problem here is there a conflict of interest, but it didn't seem to stop his father from pardoning Caspar Weinberger.

I don't think "conflict of interest" is a problem as the only limits, from my understanding, on presidential pardons is "impeachment."

In any event the pardon definitely wouldn't come before any appeals or sentencing. My guess is the whole process will take awhile but this idea that Bush wouldn't pardon doesn't ring true in my mind. If Libby gets a tough sentence and his appeals fail I think there's a great chance Bush would pardon him. I also don't think it will hurt the Republican party much as most of the people who will be overly outraged over any pardon already hate Bush. Bush is not running for re-election and its unlikely that someone who would normally vote Republican would leave the party based on Bush pardoning someone.

If Libby's appeals fail and he gets a tough sentence I'll take the bet. I think Bush will pardon him. What should we bet $20?

 

[aps]

I don't think "conflict of interest" is a problem as the only limits, from my understanding, on presidential pardons is "impeachment."

In any event the pardon definitely wouldn't come before any appeals or sentencing. My guess is the whole process will take awhile but this idea that Bush wouldn't pardon doesn't ring true in my mind. If Libby gets a tough sentence and his appeals fail I think there's a great chance Bush would pardon him. I also don't think it will hurt the Republican party much as most of the people who will be overly outraged over any pardon already hate Bush. Bush is not running for re-election and its unlikely that someone who would normally vote Republican would leave the party based on Bush pardoning someone.

If Libby's appeals fail and he gets a tough sentence I'll take the bet. I think Bush will pardon him. What should we bet $20?

Conflict of interest is not a problem in the sense that Bush has the right to pardon Libby even when there is a conflict of interest. That doesn't mean that it's morally appropriate, if that makes sense.

I would not be upset if Libby got pardoned (not even upset with Bush). And, since I don't feel strongly about it, I am not willing to bet $$ on this. Maybe you wanna bet Simon??

 

[talloulou]

Conflict of interest is not a problem in the sense that Bush has the right to pardon Libby even when there is a conflict of interest. That doesn't mean that it's morally appropriate, if that makes sense.

I would not be upset if Libby got pardoned (not even upset with Bush). And, since I don't feel strongly about it, I am not willing to bet $$ on this. Maybe you wanna bet Simon??

Well most pardons are probably not "morally appropriate." I mean really if the President pardons someone for a crime while others rot in jail after having been convicted of very similar crimes how can that be just?

 

[talloulou]

Yes Simon said he'd take small bets. So $20 or less I'm in. If Libby is sentenced and fails on appeal then Bush will pardon him.

Do we have a bet Simon?

 

[PrimBabUB]

Really? Care to show us how the Democrats orchestrated this trial? As far as I can tell it was the CIA who originally called for the independent investigation and Fitzgerald is a life-long Republican.

Exactly where do you get the Democratic conspiracy theory from (other than being a sore loser that so many things are going south for the GOP)?

The CIA originally called for the independent investigation? Well, gee, was that a surprise? considering who Miss I'm So Outed worked for?

I guess you didn't pay attention to the whole 9/11 commission mess of an investigation when it became quite obvious that the CIA under Clinton had decided to become political and protect their asses to protect his sorry *** over the national security threat of terrorism mess which they had totally ignored?

Wasn't this all about who outed Wilson's wife? Armitage did.

 

[jallman]

The CIA originally called for the independent investigation? Well, gee, was that a surprise? considering who Miss I'm So Outed worked for?

I guess you didn't pay attention to the whole 9/11 commission mess of an investigation when it became quite obvious that the CIA under Clinton had decided to become political and protect their asses to protect his sorry *** over the national security threat of terrorism mess which they had totally ignored?

Wasn't this all about who outed Wilson's wife? Armitage did.

But it became about Libby lying under oath. I don't know about you, but if someone is needlessly lying to me, I tend to err on the side of caution and get real curious as to what they may be covering up. If Libby lied to a grand jury and a federal prosecutor for no reason, then he has no one to blame for his predicament but himself.

 

[PrimBabUB]

But it became about Libby lying under oath. I don't know about you, but if someone is needlessly lying to me, I tend to err on the side of caution and get real curious as to what they may be covering up. If Libby lied to a grand jury and a federal prosecutor for no reason, then he has no one to blame for his predicament but himself.

Did Clinton face the same punishment for lying under oath? Not to mention going on TV and looking us all in the eye and lying? If you can look straight into the camera and boldly lie to the American people can we use 'your' analogy of 'what else did he cover up'?

 

[jallman]

Did Clinton face the same punishment for lying under oath? Not to mention going on TV and looking us all in the eye and lying? If you can look straight into the camera and boldly lie to the American people can we use 'your' analogy of 'what else did he cover up'?

Absolutely. You are jousting with windmills here anyway because Libby has not faced punishment yet since the sentencing will not be until June. :doh

 

[aps]

Did Clinton face the same punishment for lying under oath? Not to mention going on TV and looking us all in the eye and lying? If you can look straight into the camera and boldly lie to the American people can we use 'your' analogy of 'what else did he cover up'?

What jallman said.

Clinton was covering up his affair with Monica Lewinsky.

Sooooo.......what was Libby covering up with his lies? The fact that he leaked classified information to persons who were not entitled to receive it.

I think one of the reasons that Libby was so sloppy in his lies was that he genuinely thought that the reporters were never going to have to testify that he was their source for outing Valerie Plame. Judith Miller went to jail on this principle. How long did it take Libby to contact her and let her know she could reveal her source?

 

[jallman]

Judith Miller went to jail on this principle. How long did it take Libby to contact her and let her know she could reveal her source?

Ouch. Game, set, match. :doh

 

[PrimBabUB]

What jallman said.

Clinton was covering up his affair with Monica Lewinsky.

Sooooo.......what was Libby covering up with his lies? The fact that he leaked classified information to persons who were not entitled to receive it.

I think one of the reasons that Libby was so sloppy in his lies was that he genuinely thought that the reporters were never going to have to testify that he was their source for outing Valerie Plame. Judith Miller went to jail on this principle. How long did it take Libby to contact her and let her know she could reveal her source?

Armitage outed the bimbo. Libby was Nifonged.

I love it it when someone flops around like a flounder that has just been gigged.

 

[jallman]

Armitage outed the bimbo. Libby was Nifonged.

I love it it when someone flops around like a flounder that has just been gigged.

Wha-wha-what?

 

[aps]

Armitage outed the bimbo. Libby was Nifonged.

I love it it when someone flops around like a flounder that has just been gigged.

Armitage outed her to one reporter. How does that turn into him outing her to the public?

Tell me WHY Libby would need to lie and say he never told Judith Miller about Plame if he had nothing to hide by admitting such?

 

[26 X World Champs]

Wasn't this all about who outed Wilson's wife? Armitage did.

Are you that out of touch with the charges and the trial? Libby was convicted of lying to the Grand Jury. Get it? Perjury....Wilson is background only but had nothing, repeat, nothing to do with this trial.

Libby tried and failed to us a lame "I don't recall" defense that was laughable. He also lied about conversations he said he had with well known public figures all of whom testified against him.

If you believe that Tim Russert conspired to send Libby to jail then this is a pointless debate to have with you. To actually believe that Libby is not guilty of lying is to completely ignore the truth.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Did Clinton face the same punishment for lying under oath? Not to mention going on TV and looking us all in the eye and lying? If you can look straight into the camera and boldly lie to the American people can we use 'your' analogy of 'what else did he cover up'?

Two very important points:

1. What difference does it make what Clinton did? This trial was about LIBBY, not Clinton. To all of you who somehow want to let Libby slide after getting convicted in what was a fair trial is totally bizarre. One has nothing to do with the other. If someone gets away with murder does that mean the next person who commits murder also gets off?

2. Clinton WAS tried in the Senate and found not guilty....conveniently Republican whiners omit this basic fact.

To recap, Libby was tried and found guilty and Clinton was tried and found innocent....It's so simple really.

 

[Binary_Digit]

"As it turned out, Novak wasn't the only person Armitage talked to about Plame. Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward has also said he was told of Plame's identity in June 2003. Woodward did not respond to requests for comment for this article, but, as late as last week, he referred reporters to his comments in November 2005 that he learned of her identity in a "casual and offhand" conversation with an administration official he declined to identify. According to three government officials, a lawyer familiar with the case and an Armitage confidant, all of whom would not be named discussing these details, Armitage told Woodward about Plame three weeks before talking to Novak. (snip) Armitage, a well-known gossip who loves to dish and receive juicy tidbits about Washington characters, apparently hadn't thought through the possible implications of telling Novak about Plame's identity. "I'm afraid I may be the guy that caused this whole thing," he later told Carl Ford Jr."

Richard Armitage's Role in Plame Case - Newsweek National News - MSNBC.com

 

[jallman]

Two very important points:

1. What difference does it make what Clinton did? This trial was about LIBBY, not Clinton. To all of you who somehow want to let Libby slide after getting convicted in what was a fair trial is totally bizarre. One has nothing to do with the other. If someone gets away with murder does that mean the next person who commits murder also gets off?

2. Clinton WAS tried in the Senate and found not guilty....conveniently Republican whiners omit this basic fact.

To recap, Libby was tried and found guilty and Clinton was tried and found innocent....It's so simple really.

But champs...come one now...you and I both know that Clinton clearly lied in his hearings. Whether he got off or not aside...in order to maintain any integrity, you have to acknowledge the fact that he clearly lied.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Yes Simon said he'd take small bets. So $20 or less I'm in. If Libby is sentenced and fails on appeal then Bush will pardon him.

Do we have a bet Simon?

sure
By the end date listed 12:01pm EST Jan 2009

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by jallman:
But champs...come one now...you and I both know that Clinton clearly lied in his hearings. Whether he got off or not aside...in order to maintain any integrity, you have to acknowledge the fact that he clearly lied.

That was Bill.

Libby's not a Bluesman!

 

[jallman]

That was Bill.

Libby's not a Bluesman!

I am not saying the two cases have anything to do with each other. However, since someone brought the Clinton card into play, we might as well maintain our honesty.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by jallman:
I am not saying the two cases have anything to do with each other. However, since someone brought the Clinton card into play, we might as well maintain our honesty.

Yeah, but........

Libby's not a Bluesman!

 

[26 X World Champs]

But champs...come one now...you and I both know that Clinton clearly lied in his hearings. Whether he got off or not aside...in order to maintain any integrity, you have to acknowledge the fact that he clearly lied.

I agree that he lied about having sex out of wedlock. I would have too most likely. Not the same as lying about a cover-up of a political smear campaign that the Bushies were conducting to protect their warped war plan AND then to put off indictments so they would happen after the 2004 Presidential election.

Compare the reasons for both lies? One lied about blow jobs...the other lied to push forward a war and to get a President elected!

I again want to point out that Clinton was tried and found not guilty and Libby was tried and found guilty...that is vital in what I consider a ridiculous comparison of two wrongs make a right.