Mark, apart from the fact that your argument lacks moral principles, it would be both needless and political suicide to pardon Libby now. It would be needless because Libby has a chance at a new trial, and failing that, at an appeal. It would be political suicide, especially now, because Bush currently has himself embroiled in a prosecutor dump controversy. But that's just for starters. The bottom line, I think, is that if he tried pardoning Libby now would doom his presidency.

As soon as the new trial and appeal are denied, pardon him. This was political b/s, and the liar Joe Wilson gets a pass to this day. What a bunch of crap...

hmm

"this was all just a political issue from start to finish"

So let me get this straight. When anyone dare have a dissenting opinion on the Iraq war - believing that it is not in anybodies - including our best interest - you accuse them of being traitors, cowards, and part of some vast conspiracy to bring down the country for some reason or another that you have invented.

Now - Libby is convicted of perjury and obstructing justice regarding the investigation of an active CIA agent being outed - and your response is that this is "all political". Someone outed an active CIA agent - which would seem to qualify as treason as it endangered her life and ended her career - and while during the investigation that followed Libby - according 9 witnesses and agreed upon by a jury - found him guilty of lying and obstructing justice during that investigation.
And your response is that it is just political???

This just proves that you are nothing more than a lap dog of administration and those that support it. Do you even stop to think about what you post ? Of course there are those that would seek to use this as political ammunition - but none the less - all evidence appears that Libby is GUILTY. Who is the one is being more political here - those that would seek his punishment or you who would have him pardoned for no other reason than he works for guys you support.

Look - if this was the other way around - a democrat who did this - i am sure you would be foaming at the mouth (more than usual) calling for his blood. But because your so set on just defending them - regardless of what they actually do - you want him pardoned. Can you honestly say that if this was a democrat you would be saying the same thing...
Because if this were a democrat I would certainly want him rotting in prison just as much as I do Libby.

Kblack... I'm going to ask you the EXACT same thing... do you think about what you post?

Why don't you read the F'in' law and tell me how Plame was "outed" (and explain to me how Armitage's leak means that libby is guilty of anything then mis-remembering something and telling a grand jury that SHOULD NEVER have been empaneled.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000421----000-.html

Fitzgerald knew within TWO weeks of starting his investigation that what he was asked to investigate wasn't a crime, yet he continued... In fact, he knew that he didn't need to continue to investigate BEFORE he even talked to Libby.

So explain to me EXACTLY why you feel that this was Treason? Again, you're trying to do what some Conservatives do and just throw the word around and puff up your chest.

The point is, the jury didn't convict on one count because it was word versus word yet they convict when it's word against word, but with that trustworthy guy, Tim Russert.

And Kblack, we most definitely would say that someone perjuring themselves and obstructing justice should go to jail... it's what we've been saying about Bill Clinton for years. BTW... Just ask Juanita Broadrick on how good Clinton is at obstructing justice and covering up facts.

77 I want to foam at the mouth, but for a real legitimate reason, not some BS waste of time like Libby was put through.

Let's take William Jefferson for example or how about Jack Murtha, or how about anyone that actually commits a real crime. I cannot say without laughing at the stupity of this indictment and conviction that there was one ioda of validity in this investigation.

Armitage is the leaker; he confessed to it and Libby lied about who he told, whooooowhoooo, what a crime. Now $90k in the fridge or Jack Murtha on video, or even a certain Republican Congressman doing his thing with an intern seem to be more criminal than whether or not Libby lied or not...especially since Plame was already outed.

I suspect that you kook libs are so filled with hatred, that any blood in the water is better than no blood.

Give it up...pleeez!

What I want to know is: even after a congressional inquiry found that Val was instrumental in getting Joe the Liar sent to Niger to sip tea, why is he allowed to lie about who sent him? Why is this POS allowed to walk the streets free? He should be locked up at Git'mo, along with his desk-jockey wife.

kblack, you need to grow up and clean your bong. That residue is toxic...

I tend to agree with Rico that a pardon now would be political suicide, and not really in anyone's best interest, including Libby's.

Clarice Feldman has a brilliant summary of this case over at the American Thinker

Of course when Clinton was charged with the exact same crimes you guys thought he should be hanged.

Caucus of Corruption? Rampant hypocrisy.

To wait until, say, January 19th of 2009 - as Clinton waited until his last days to pardon a bunch of crooks and cronies - would be to essentially agree with the cruel liars who made this whole thing happen.

Waiting for the first lefttard to chime in with:

Yeah [bong hit], the Rethuglicans pardon their crooks and cronies [cough, cough] right away. ChimpyMcHalliburton! Bush, Lied [toke], people died! Where am I?

The first to post this kind of nonsense wins a prize.

Navydad,
you keep bringing up William Jefferson, yet I don't see anyone defending him. If he is charged and convicted, I don't know of anyone on this blog that would be unhappy. As for Murtha, if he were charged and convicted of a crime I would expect him to go to jail also.
Libby was charged and convicted of perjury and obstructing justice and you feel he should go free. Why should he get a free pass?

To pardon Libby would be to undermine the rule of law. The same rule of law we are fighting to impose in Iraq. The same Iraq that was the oblique centerpiece of this trial. Although the technical focus of the trial was very narrow, (hence all of the machinations from the right) Libby was found guilty. To advocate a pardon would be to unequivocally state that those in support have no real respect for the American judicial system. The same "America" that those on the right are always screaming about. The same America that more moderate folks are accused of hating and being unsupportive of. The exact same arguement that is being made to pardon Libby is one and the same that was used to impeach a sitting president. The later was about sex the former about disparaging a war critic. They both lied. That is the issue here.
As far as I know, Joe Wilson has not be charged with a crime. Nor has his wife or John Murtha. (What does Murtha have to do with anything in this discussion anyway?) "Real" crimes?? As opposed to what, fantasized crimes? Virtual crimes? Lying under oath is serious. So are making false statements and perjury. Discussing WHY he committed those crimes does not retract from the fact that he DID commit them. Why indeed!

Libby was convicted of perjury because he couldnt remember who told him what or when. A man has his career and life ruined and will go to prison because his memory is faulty, well isnt that great.

Sorry kblack, but there was no crime committed; Plame was not outed because she wasnt 'in' at the time Libby found out about her.

I fully expect you to start demanding of your senators that they drag Bill Clinton off to jail, as he actually did lie to a grand jury.

Now we have liberals saying that we have relativism in the use of obstruction of justice and perjury. I can't believe that TomAirplane STILL has the nerve to suggest that the Clinton affair was about just that, an affair, instead of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE and PERJURY... which oddly enough, is what you now claim to say the Libby trial was about, not about anything else.

Here's a SAD REALITY FOR YOU... the CIA knew Plame wasn't covert. Fitzgerald knew no law was violated, yet he kept on looking for something to charge someone with. If it hadn't been Libby, he would have charged someone with jaywalking outside after meeting with a grand jury.

So Jeff, why do you defend Clinton and his perjury, yet go after Libby when he wasn't even the person who committed the so called crime and claims to remember differently.

The best part of the whole trial was Fitzgerald fighting to keep memory experts from testifying... I wonder why that was?

Further, I wonder why Fitzgerald sought out Administration critics ONLY to be empanelled during Voir Dire.

This guy was nearly as bad a prosecutor as Nifong was. And because you like the results, you'll defend him. It's what y'all do.

Come on Casper, you don't really believe Libby did anything worse than Slick Willy did, now do you?

If you do, then you obviously don't know right from wrong.

BTW, the entire Dem wing of Congress hasn't said a word about WJ, only that they're promoting him to HS and BTW, Murtha did get a pass after Abscam. This, my friend, is totally hypocritical.

If we're to have a level playing field and less partisan bickering, then both sides need to sort thru the bad apples and play straight or this country will continue divisive politics for ever.
We don't want bad apples on our side either, but the Dems seem to welcome them with open arms.

Also Casper, no disrespect, but asking why Libby should get a free pass is exactly what we conservatives have said about Jefferson, Clinton, Murtha, The Swimmer and many others for years and it seems as though the MSM and the Dems take pride in a continued sense of division with the American people.

Just think about how much better our military would feel/perform if there was no partisan bickering and infighting within each political party....just imagine how our enemies would fear our unity and just imagine how easy it would be to raise children in a home where both parents were unified and so on. It makes sense, unless your agenda is a divisive one of course.

You need to familarize yourself with the trail. Not heresay, not opinion, not fantasy or wishful thinking. Libby was found guilty of obstruction of justice, perjury and making false statements. Just like Clinton. End of story. What applies to the goose applies to the gander. You are angry because HE WAS found guilty and now you are trying (feebly I might add) to say how unfair it all is, how no "real" crime was committed, how it is everyone elses fault EXCEPT Libbys. As Alexander DeLarg said; "I was led on by the treachery of others!"
You poor blind fool. I pity you and the way you cling for dear life onto some grand delusion that the rules apply only when they are in your favor. The jury decided he was guilty. Not you and not me and I dare say that it is vastly premature to think that a pardon will happen anytime soon, if it even does at all. BTW, implict in a pardon is an admission of guilt. (Hence what would he be pardoned for?) So either way he remains guilty and remains a felon.

Geeze...

Sandy Berger is still walking the streets after stealing classified information.

Thanks to your boy Clinton, 16 members of the FALN are free right now, after being sentenced for setting bombs in public areas.

Not to mention a whole lot of other pardons, that were quid-pro-quo in nature.

Man, I can cut the lefty hypocrisy here with a knife.

you know you guys would make this a lot more interesting if you could read..

1) I never said Libby was guilty of treason. I said he was guilty about lying and covering up someone who committed treason.

2) there is no hypocrisy - go after Clinton. He pardoned people who shouldn't have been pardoned and he lied to a grand jury. I never said anything about him. So your points are not in response to me...

However, lets remember that Clinton lied about a b-job and Libby lied to protect those who commit treason for political revenge.. Guess who I am more worried about...

Don’t you ever say I have just had enough? Spin it anyway you want. The man lied under oath to a federal agent. Eleven peers in our judicial system listen to the entire testimony and convicted him as a liar and felon. Now Republicans want to cherry pick bits and pieces of the trial and swift boat the Republican appointed prosecutor. Neocons keep saying there was no crime so Scooter should not have been asked questions. Then why in the hell didn’t he just tell the truth?

I concur the pardoning Scooter is political suicide. Scooter is no small fish. He was up front and center as one of the architect of this school house nation building dream to democratize the Arab heathens. Maybe a little time in prison will clear his memory so a deal can be made and the American people can be told the truth as to why 3200 troops are now dead. If Cheney wanted to get small potatoes Wilson so bad the reason for going to war had to be more than what was revealed during the Colin Powell circus at the United Nations.

What I'm tired of is our guys getting whacked while lefties who do worse skate away to lucrative book deals.

kblack,

Treason for political revenge? (Ed note: changed after original post...got a bit too heated)...

Joe Wilson lied, and it was his pack of lies in the NY Times which started this whole thing. If he was worried about his wife's supposed covert status, then the one thing he shouldn't have done is pen a pac of lies for the NY Times.

The moment that usually draws the greatest applause in Mr Bush's campaign speeches comes when the Republican nominee talks about bringing restore honour and integrity back to the White House. Bush 2000 campaign.

Isn't it sad in 2007 conservatives themselves are now talking about pardoning a felon and bashing the judical system. Can Republicans now be the party soft on crime?

ok - so we can choose to believe you Mark.

Or we can choose to believe the 9 witnesses who were actually involved in incident and the jurors who found him guilty.

Guess where my vote is...

oh - thats right - how could i forget - it must be some vast leftist conspiracy to bring down the US - right....get a grip

Joe Wilsons article in the NY Times was a rebuttal to the Administrations claims that Iraq was attempting to obtain yellow cake uranium in Niger.
He found no such evidence so what exactly did he lie about Mark?
Mr. Libby was convicted because he obstructed the investigation into who or whom leaked the name of a CIA agent; covert or not. Those are the facts and that is what the trial was about. The broader issue is why would Libby become a conduit for the spread of misinformation? Why would Cheney spend so much time orchestrating a smear campaign against a former diplomat who wrote an article about what he did NOT find.
A sad observation is there seems to be a fundemental inability of hard core conservatives to accept any responsibility or to admitt fault, weakness or poor judgement. Apparently this extra-human quality is reserved for only the purist of the pure. This edifying delusion states unequivocally that up is down and right is left. It is as if there is some nightmarish theme park of alternate reality where gravity ceases to exist and the universe is wholly divided in to us v.s. them.

Libby was convicted of perjury because he couldnt remember who told him what or when.

Then he should have said "I don't remember". Instead of that, he made false statements (lied) to the FBI and the Grand Jury. A big big difference.

there was no crime committed; Plame was not outed because she wasnt 'in' at the time Libby found out about her.

The what WAS Plame's job when Novak's article was published? Please include a reliable source for that info. From what I read, details about her professional career in the CIA are still classified....

Even the WH has never questioned her status as an covert operative. On the contrary. The president seemed mightily upset in 2003 that someone had leaked her indentity to the press...

You know more than the president?

To pardon Libby would be to undermine the rule of law.

This is instructive: it serves to put on display just exactly what the right is up against. You just can't argue with ignorance. Pardon me, it's either ignorance or a blatant disregard for the truth.

Let's walk through this...

Ever heard of a little document called the US Constitution? Well, in case you missed it, this is the legal document from which all governmental rights are derived.

Article II Section 2 says, in part:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States...and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

The incredible ignorance or perhaps misplaced arrogance, or perhaps both, to state that to grant a pardon is to undermine the rule of law is absurd.

Before waxing philosophical about standing up for the people and the judicial system, it makes sense to at least have an elementary understanding of the foundation of said judicial system.

Navydad,
Where do you see me giving anyone a pass? If Jefferson, Clinton, or Burger are convicted of crimes, they should go to jail, same as Libby.
If someone is convicted of a crime, regardless of their party, he or she should go to jail.

Casper, agreed.

Won't you also agree that it's an inequity that JW hasn't been indicted...a year later???

Murtha is caught on tape saying "Maybe later to a bribe" and gets a pass. If he had been a republican, all hell would have broken loose.

Clinton finally admitted he lied...and got a pass...why? Just because he's the President?

Hell, the Dems want to hang the entire Bush Adm. before they've been charged. How hypocritical.

These scenarios solidify my conservative beliefs..that's for sure.

Thanks to your boy Clinton, 16 members of the FALN are free right now, after being sentenced for setting bombs in public areas.

False.

None of the 16 were convicted "for setting bombs" or any crime which injured another person. They were convicted for conspiracy as well as for firearms and explosives violations. All of the 16 had served 19 years or longer in prison by then. Longer than usual for such crimes.

One thing you guys seem to forget is that Libby was prosecuted by a republican prosecutor (Fitzgerald), appointed by Bush and convicted after a multimillion dollar defence by some of the best lawyers in the country. The fact that there are people who should probably be in jail that are walking the streets, (Burger, North, O.J., Kennedy, Jefferson, Delay) dosen't mean he is should get off.

Maybe it's time to hold all of the people that are suppose to work for us to a higher standard. If you feel dems should go to jail for breaking the law then quit defending Libby. If you think Libby should be pardoned then don't complain about Burger walking free. Frankly, I sick of both sides.

Joe Wilson lied, and it was his pack of lies in the NY Times which started this whole thing.

Oh? Is there some new information? These allegations have been debunked years ago.

You really want us to go over them one by one?

You need to familarize yourself with the trail.

So do you, tomjeffairplane. It leads right over there to Daily Kos.

Berger didn't "walk free". He made a plea agreement with the US Attorney and pled guilty. He was sentenced to pay a fine and lost his security clearance for three years. Interestingly, Judge Robinson even increased the fine that was initially agreed upon by the U.S. Attorneys.
Berger was convicted and sentenced in accordance with the Law.

Libby too had the possibility of a plea agreement, still has I think. I'm sure he can reduce his sentence by agreeing to fully cooperate with Fitzgerald in his investigation to find the truth. Just like Abramoff is doing right now.

As you all know, Armitage was not the only one in the Administration who leaked Valerie Plame's identity to the press prior to July 14, 2003. Ari Fleisher and Karl Rove did too.
And not only was her identity leaked to Bob Novak, her identity was also leaked to Bob Woodward, Judith Miller, Bob Novak, Walter Pincus and Matthew Cooper.

I'm still waiting for Bush to uphold his word and fire the people involved in leaking Plame's identify to the press....

The fact that some Democrats have not been brought to justice bears NOTHING on Scooter Libby's guilt. The fact that there was no "underlying crime" bears NOTHING on his guilt. Plame's status and Joe Wilson's supposed lies bear NOTHING on his guilt. If you disagree, please explain why.

We have a government of laws, not of men, to prevent the very type of arbitrary enforcement of laws that Navydad and Mark seem to be advocating.

I have seen no reason why Scooter Libby deserves a pardon other than he was a high-ranking Republican official. If that's your best argument, just be honest about it. Scooter has his own high-priced lawyers that know much more than all of us do about whether his trial was fair.

Gar Wood

My last comment on this thread.
If the best reason you have for Libby being pardoned is that he is not as gulity as Burger, Clinton, or whoever. You lose. By that logic it should be ok for me to kill my wife of 31 years because O. J. got away with killing his wife. Either you are for the legal system or you are against it.

Let me see if my lobotomized disease ridden brain can comprehend the fantasmagoric excretions of the truly twisted.
Again, let us clarify. Mr. Wilson really DID find evidence of Iraq purchasing uranium in Niger. He just INTENTIONALLY lied about it in a (veted) article in the NY Times. The newspaper of record. The same paper that the administration uses to diseminate their propaganda about how justified our invasion of Iraq was. Is that correct? Is that what you are saying? That there really WAS a "deal" but because the big bad wolf was a democrat or a liberal or a "Bush hater" and that there was (and still remains)some unproven CONTENTION to give legitimacy to this CONJECTURE that THAT provides support to this hallucinatory creation of factual actuality out of thin air? Who are you; god?? You can create some "thing" out of nothing?
Which is my point exactly. The thought processes that enable this delusional adherence to a non existent body of self-created factuality is a hallmark of someone who requires Thorezine in order to walk upright.And to breathe.
There was no Iraq/Niger connection and that is a proven, irreducable, unfalsifiable fact. Even the president said so.
Libby is a felon. He lied in defense of the lies that both he himself and his boss perpitrated upon the American people and upon the world. I am man enough to accept a correction about the rule of law being undermined in relation to what a pardon entails, but what the hard core right is clamoring for is an expungement of guilt and that will never...and can never...happen because he DID lie under oath and DID purger himself and DID give false statements.
Unfortunately there are far bigger fish to fry than The Libby Trial. Just one more nail.....
As an aside, I find it interesting that no one picked up on my reference to Alexander DeLarg and no one as acquised to my earlier point...in a previous post...about Liby being a representative lawyer for Marc Rich.

Tom,

You're a bit off base, and it shows that you haven't the foggiest notion of the facts of the case.

The Administration never claimed that Saddam attempted to obtain uranium in Niger...the claim was that Saddam was attempting to obtain uranium in Africa, a claim which has been proved.

Wilson, in his CIA debriefing, confirmed what everyone already knew - that Saddam was trying to obtain uranium in Africa. What Wilson did in his op-ed was to lie - he said the opposite of what he said in his CIA debrief. Then he compounded the lie by asserting that his wife had nothing to do with his being chosen, even though she was instrumental in getting him selected for the mission to Niger. Further compounding the lie, Joe Wilson claimed that the fact of his wife's name appearing in print - long after it had already be in the public square - was an attempted by the Administration to ruin his life when, actually, the only reason the Administration was talking about Wilson and his non-covert wife was to debunk the nonsense Wilson wrote in his op-ed.

You're living in an Alternate Universe, so what I've written will have no immediate affect...but it might as time goes on. The truth will triumph over all lies, in the end...and we've been treated to a monumental set of lies vis a vis the Plame Kerfuffle.

Tom,

And, as an aside, if you think the NY Times (a) cheer-led for war and (b) is a paper that prints the truth then you are really, really deep into the Alternate Universe.

Casper,
"Either you are for the legal system or you are against it."

That is the best statement of this entire issue.

Im not sure why my fellow so-called conservatives are trying to defend Libby.
After all Libby is the same guy that represented the infamous Marc Rich and even testified on his behalf during several hearings.

Now for some reason he is a hero and should be pardoned for lying.

I dont get it.
Before he was a crook, he represented crooks for alot of money. He is no hero in my book.

Yeah, there are some people that should be in prison, some people that committed worse crimes then Libby and are not in prison.

Well guess what: life isnt fair.
It sounds like my fellow so-called conservatives on here want some type of polyanna society where all wrongs are corrected.

Hey dems, Bush won and kerry lost. Get over it.

Mr Noonan,
Joe Wilson may have lied. The Pope may have lied. Im sure many husbands have lied to their wives.

Unfortunately Libby lied while under oath and while being questioned by a FBI agent and was found guilty of doing that.

You lie under oath you should go to jail.

Plain and simple.

Quit making excuses for a liar and convicted felon.

Nobody criminalized political differences.

If he hadn't lied he would not have been convicted. All he had to do was say "I dont recall/remember" Or plead the 5th.

If you invoke you 5th amendment rights they cannot compel your testimony without offering immunity.

I've sat on two grand juries. The procedures are well established.

You're right IT...and that's why you and your buddies don't have those chicken farms anymore.

Yet you don't like people saying "life's not fair" to you.

It's amazing how quick you jump on conservatives. Your faux-conservatism is hilarious. You attack anyone and everyone for having a conservative view, yet all you project is a protectionist (if it protects you) worldview, and a worldview of the classic liberal.

Since you call people liars, I'll call you one. You are NO REPUBLICAN and Definitely no Conservative.

And to say Libby committed a crime because a jury wasn't allowed to hear evidence on memory recall is quite interesting. I wonder why Fitzgerald faught so hard to prevent Libby from exercising a HUGE portion of his defense?

Further, I wonder why Fitzgerald continued on with an investigation he knew the ansewr to within TWO weeks of the commencement of the investigation?

If he had an answer, why did he keep talking to people? But of course asking that question would require someone to question people's motives. And since you're this excellent Conservative, you don't do that right?

No one is buying what you're selling IT... again, that's probably why you don't have that chicken farm anymore.

Mark:
You parse better than Clinton. Attempted v.s. attempting. One word implies past tense and the other an on going in real time occurance. The more operative word you use was "claim". A claim is not substaniated in fact...or as a fact. It is just that; a claim; an accusation; a faith based contention and as all educated and reasonable people will agree that "claims" based on faith and not reason or verifiable actuality are not reliable.
The bottom line to all of this Libby stuff is this:
The hard core conservative movement in the United States today is dying yadda, yadda, yadda...

(Ed. Note: Try not to bore us).

Someone got out their thesaurus.

Yet, they didn't get out their dictionary.

The one difference between you and that insignificant sycophant (the correct spelling of the big word)... is that Mark is published, and is read by hundreds if not more daily.

All you are is a two-bit blog commentor who wants to be thought of as smart so looks up big words in a thesaurus, and then spells them incorrectly.

Nothing you said about Mark even remotely applies to him commenting on an editorial from the Wall Street Journal... hardly a newspaper based upon hate of the unknown and misjudgement and outright misrepresentation of facts.

Try again next time Jeff. And before you personally attack someone again, pick on someone your own size... look for IT... he's about your speed, and he claims to be conservative.

IT,

So, you want Clinton in jail?

And, Joe Wilson certainly lied, there is no "may" about it...

waw,

Just more subject-change attempts on the part of the left...they don't want us concentrating on who actually lied in the Plame Kerfuffle.

Scooter Libby doesn't come anywhere close to meeting the criteria for a presidential pardon. Among them:

The Department's regulations require a petitioner to wait a period of at least five years after conviction or release from confinement (whichever is later) before filing a pardon application (28 C.F.R. § 1.2).

The extent to which a petitioner has accepted responsibility for his or her criminal conduct and made restitution to its victims are important considerations. A petitioner should be genuinely desirous of forgiveness rather than vindication. While the absence of expressions of remorse should not preclude favorable consideration, a petitioner's attempt to minimize or rationalize culpability does not advance the case for pardon. In this regard, statements made in mitigation (e.g., "everybody was doing it," or "I didn't realize it was illegal") should be judged in context. Persons seeking a pardon on grounds of innocence or miscarriage of justice bear a formidable burden of persuasion.

http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/petitions.htm

Or plead the 5th.

If you invoke you 5th amendment rights they cannot compel your testimony without offering immunity.

I've sat on two grand juries. The procedures are well established.

Then they must not have explained the procedures to you very well, IT. I've never sat on a grand jury, but even I know that testimony before a grand jury is the exception to the 5th Amendment rule.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury

"IT,

So, you want Clinton in jail?

And, Joe Wilson certainly lied, there is no "may" about it..."

Yes Clinton should have gone to jail for lying under oath.

Joe Wilson: Did he lie under oath?

:)

wawilly,

Your personal insults are pretty funny. ;)

I must have REALLY gotten under your skin.

But again, I question your reading comprehension.

Where did I state that anyone else but me was forced to leave chicken production?

Spook,

You do not understand what you just quoted.
That statement (which was described to us endlessly) means that a person cannot be charged with a capital offense without a grand jury indictment. It does not mean they can be compelled to testify.

Here is a good lay mens description:
http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/terms/grand-jury.html

But lets take what you said further.
You assert you cannot invoke your 5th amendment rights during grand jury testimony?

If that is the case, then why not subpoena the accused? After all he would be forced to incriminate himself.
It would make capital murder case much easier.

But the bottom line, is you can invoke your 5th amendment rights, even during grand jury testimony.
Now if immunity is offered:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/08.html#2

You cannot invoke your 5th amendment rights.

Joe Wilson lied....Posted by: Mark Noonan at March 7, 2007 08:16 PM

It is simply sad that you can swift-boat another public servant. This one with enough credentials to be selected as an ambassador by Bush Sr. Have you even bothered to read his op?

He said quote. "It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place."

You need to get out a dictionary to understand the word "doubtful." If the administration had truth on their side surely they could have brushed aside a comment with the word “doubtful” in it.

This is all about Cheney in his own Machiavellian way angry he was mentioned in the article. Not that the article suggested he personally sent Wilson to Niger, but that his questions to the CIA got the ball rolling. How would he explain it to the “big guy” that his off the cuff request for information caused a CIA investigation into their prewar lies? He probably didn't really think the CIA would do anything. He needed distance or be sent to the wood shed. “ … Scooter I have something you need to do for me

No IT. It's just a glittering example of your "life's not fair" yet you ranted and raged and bitched and lamented about how something happened that was unfair.

You laud the phrase "life's not fair" only when you are gleefully happy about the outcome. I could go back and find posts where you were just stupid in statements about how the lives of people you know and your life was ruined by some EVIL plot... which by the way, no law was broken.

But to you, that wasn't fair... and this, where an investigation of no law was broken, you have the NERVE to say "life just isn't fair." That's truly amazing.

So to recap... in IT's world:

If it happens to me or I'm not happy about it = LIFE'S NOT FAIR AND I'M PISSED ABOUT IT.

If it happens to someone else or I'm happy about it = LIFE'S NOT FAIR AND I'M GONNA DO A DANCE OF GLEE ABOUT IT.

If it happens to me or I'm not happy about it = LIFE'S NOT FAIR AND I'M PISSED ABOUT IT.

Yes of course I am going to say that about myself.

If it happens to someone else or I'm happy about it = LIFE'S NOT FAIR AND I'M GONNA DO A DANCE OF GLEE ABOUT IT.

Where am I dancing with glee?

Its so easy to get under your skin.

This is fun. :)

"nd this, where an investigation of no law was broken, you have the NERVE to say "life just isn't fair." That's truly amazing."

You guys are missing the point.

It doesnt matter what the underlying investigation is.
Libby Lied. Under Oath.

I will use a real world example.

If the police arrest me for suspected drug dealing and during my arrest, I resist arrest and/or I give false/misleading statements. I will be charged with obstruction of justice and/or resisting arrest.

Later on, they realized it was my neighbor that was dealing drugs and they drop the charges.
I will still have to go to trial and face the resisting arrest/obstructing justice charges and I will be convicted.

The analogy is the same with Libby. Plame wasnt outed. However, during the investigation, Libby committed a separate crime.

He was convicted of multiple felonies. He should go to prison.

YOU disagree with that. You think he should be able to circumvent the judicial process.

If Libby is TRULY innocent, he can appeal all the way to the Supreme Court and his conviction will be over turned. Thats the way our justice system works.

Everyon calling for a pardon, seem to not have faith in the justice system. But yet, you seem to have faith in the system when other people are convicted.
Either you have faith in the justice system and the system of appeals or you dont.

Apparently none of you have faith in the system.
Maybe we should pardon all convicted felons?

IT, you're correct about the the Fifth Amendment/Grand Jury issue. I must have been thinking about when someone is granted immunity.

Later on, they realized it was my neighbor that was dealing drugs and they drop the charges.
I will still have to go to trial and face the resisting arrest/obstructing justice charges and I will be convicted.

But that's not what happened here. To use your analogy, the original investigation was against your neighbor, but the prosecutor discovers almost immediately that it was all a mistake. Not only could he not tie the drug deal to your neighbor, but there really was no drug deal to begin with. So, in order to save face and not come up empty handed, the prosecutor compells you to testify about your observations of or conversations with other neighbors about the neighbor who didn't commit a crime. You recall seeing your neighbor put something suspicious in the trunk of his car on a specific date, but another neighbor testifies that it was on a different date. The other neighbor also recalls the date that the two of you discussed the matter is different than the date you remember. The prosecutor subsequantly sends you to prison. You don't see anthing enherently wrong with that scenario? I has nothing to do with "fair"?

If the Libby scenario is wrong, then he will be acquitted on appeals. If he isnt, he should go to prison.
We dont know what all the jury heard. We only know what the media is telling us. Obviously it was enough to convict him of 4 felonies.
I realize the judicial system is not perfect, but thats why we have the appeals process.
If we need a president to intervene with a pardon, then obviously our judicial system is so fundamentally flawed that it should be thrown out immediately, vacate every current conviction and start over tomorrow.

No amount of debate is going to change my mind on that. If you are convicted of a felony, I believe you should go to prison.
I believe in the judicial system.

Everything you are telling me Spook, along with rest of the people that want a Libby pardon, is that you dont believe in our judicial system.

If you all did, we wouldnt be discussing this pardon.

Everything you are telling me Spook, along with rest of the people that want a Libby pardon, is that you dont believe in our judicial system.

If you'll read the 7th comment in this thread, you'll see that I am not in favor of a pardon. I just think the whole affair was a sham and a political witch hunt. It was most certainly not about justice. I do believe in our judicial system, but that doesn't mean that is can't be subverted for political reasons. I think that's what happened here.

IT:
Thank you for acknowledging your hypocrisy.

It explains why you aren't consistent on anything. You don't believe in what's good for the goose is good for the gander, if you're either personally.

The only part of you that gets under my skin is your lies that try to correct and explain prior lies. Nothing you say about yourself is consistent, except where you say you live.

It'd be amazing to see you actually say something conservative besides just saying you're conservative.

Oops sorry about that spook! I stand corrected Spook. Im telling you I need an eye checkup. :)

So if it was subverted for politcal reasons, then US Attorney Fitzgerald should go to prison right?
Why didnt the justice department fire him?
He has been on this case for a long time. Im sure there was plenty of time for the justice department to remove him.

I dont know much about Fitzgerald. But I havent seen anything negative from his past that makes me suspect he did this for partisan reasons. But I could be wrong.

The one thing that has been bugging me about this case: why didnt he testify at his at his own trial?

Im sure there was plenty of time for the justice department to remove him.

In politics, perception is reality, and firing Fitzgerald would have been portrayed as the Administration trying to hide something. The MSM would have gone apoplectic. There would have been cries for immediate impeachment. Besides, I suspect The White House thought that the whole affair would probably never get to trial, much less that Libby would be convicted. Everyone who applauds this verdict seems to lose sight of the fact that there was no underlying crime.

Incidently, two jurors are already calling for a pardon.

And, based on the comment of this juror, it's clear that the jury didn't have a clue what this trial was all about. They were obviously influenced by information and evidence outside the scope of the trial that the judge specifically excluded from consideration in his instructions to the jury. That alone ought to be automatic grounds for a new trial or, at least, a successful appeal.

The more I read about this mess, the more disillusioned and angry I get.

The one thing that has been bugging me about this case: why didnt he testify at his at his own trial?

I suspect that only his legal team knows for sure, but, in reality, there are only two logical explanations: (1) they thought the prosecutor had not proved his case beyond a reasonable doubt, and (2) they were afraid to subject Libby to Fitzgerald's cross examination. Based on everything I've read about the trial, my guess would be the former.

Spook, you have some experience in the spook community, so let me ask you...

Let's first assume Plame's status was not classified. If that was the case, why didn't Bush come out and say so right away? Or sometime thereafter? That just makes no sense to me. Rather, everyone of import involved in the issue -- including the president -- have consistently behaved as if her status was classified. What's up with that? Is this just some mammoth conspiracy theory which Bush, for some reason, has to keep perpetuating?

Now let's assume Plame's status was classified. If that was the case, why did people like Richard Armitage, Ari Fleischer, and several others, know about her? What possible reason was there for them being told? What happened to the "need to know" criterion? And given that they were told, why weren't they also told the information was classified? That's what both Armitage and Fleischer claim -- they claim they were told Wilson's wife was instrumental in getting him a "junket" to Africa, but claim no one told them the info was hush-hush because Wilson's wife was a classified agent. And when they found out, they freaked. That's why Armitage went to Fitzy and why Fleischer lawyered up before he went to Fitzy. They shouldn't have been in the loop in the first place. I get the feeling they understood that. I also get the feeling they realized they were getting set up from within.

Back in July on a B4B thread about the Plame affair I mentioned something to the effect that many things contribute to a general system failure. General system failures are rarely attributable to only one cause. The Plame affair is a case in point. And all of the variables have to be worked on in order to prevent something like this from happening again. That is by far the main thing -- we can't let this happen again. But one of the things of greatest concern is the internal carelessness with classified information exhibited by this administration -- a carelessness apparently motivated by petty politics. I mean my goodness, the only reason to get Plame's name involved in the first place was to infer that Wilson's trip was a boondoggle. Right or wrong, that case could have been pressed without adding the nepotism part. The nepotism part was just stupid, and petty, and despicable.

I find no solace in Libby's guilty verdict. But I'm not particularly upset about it either. After all, it was his reluctance to make it clear to Judy Miller that he absolved her from considering him as a confidential source that caused her to sit in jail for 85 days. That's pretty reprehensible in and of itself. But the story is bigger than Libby and Miller. And that sense, I think, is what the jury is responding to: why should the small fish fry and the big fish allowed to run free?

That's the typical small fish's perspective anyway. Of course the typical big fish's perspective is: that's what small fish are for.

I don't know how many folks you still keep in touch with in the spook community, Spook, or how close they are to the humint branch, but the feedback I'm getting is that many of them were very concerned about this episode. "Concern" is an understatement -- it was like a shot to the solarplexus for many in the humint community. And there was plenty of blame to go around -- CIA spokemen bear some of the blame, Wilson bears some of the blame, likewise the media (at least Novak -- the others realized they were playing with fire). But the lion's share goes to the behavior of the Bush administration. They played too fast and loose with classified info, and they should have known better -- in fact, they probably did. No one excels at pushing the envelope until it cracks better than Dick Cheney. Doing that is not a crime under the current statutes, but maybe it should be.

Here's another thing that no one talks about, and which isn't particularly appropos of the Plame affair, but I'll say it anyway because it is related: one of the biggest problems we have right now is that the intelligence leadership is adrift. They are having a very hard time keeping qualified people in key positions of power. The reasons why are complex and many, but they are real. And it is happening at one of the most crucial times in recent history, where accurate intelligence is absolutely critical. I'm not sure how much of it has to do with politics now, or just the decline in confidence among many of the key players because politics got so heavily into the mix in the recent past, but this is a big deal. And it has to stop, because the turmoil is making it harder and harder to obtain accurate intel. Some argue that that is precisely the administration's motive. But I will just say that it is as it is. And it has to be fixed.

Then there's Sylvestre Reyes. Lol!

All this pardon talk is a distraction. Here are some facts for my GOP friends that may lead us to why Libby lied:

1. There were two burglaries in Rome in 2001 (pre 9/11) -- one at the Niger ambassadors house and one at the embassy -- the only items taken were official letterhead and official stamps;

2. There was only one person prosecuted for the thefts -- a "maid" with connections with Italian Intelligence.

3. Long before Joe Wilson's trip etc, the famous forged documents from Niger that were the basis for Bush's claim that Sadam was seeking yellowcake from Africa -- were delivered to the CIA station chief in Rome. He rejected them out of hand as obvious forgeries.

4. In October 2001, Italian PM and Friend of Bush Berlusconi visited the US and brought with him the Niger documents. Bush turned them over to the CIA -- who again determined they were bogus.

5. In December 2001, Michael Ledeen (Office of Special Plans and Doug Feith lackey), Larry Franklin (who later pled guilty to giving AIPAC State secrets) and Ahmed Chalabi (bank defrauder) met in Rome, Harold Rhode from the OSP and members of Italian intelligence and the Italian Defense Department.
It is believed that at this meeting a plan was hatched to recycle the Niger documents through British Intelligence.

6. of course we know the rest of the story -- Bush cites British intelligence as the source of the Yellowcake allegation and warns that the smoking gun may come in the form of a "mushroom cloud." Even though he and Cheney and others knew that the documents were determined to be bogus by the CIA and even though the CIA had convinced him once already not to make the charge.
So why might have Libby lied? Well if you know anything about Strauss and Neo Con thought -- the idea of the "Noble Lie" to save the public from itself is openly acknowledged. If Feith, Chalabi Cheney and perhaps Bush himself were willing to deceive by recycling the discredited Niger documents-- why would Scooter blink about lying to federal investigators or the grand jury to cover it up?

I have heard the talking points about Libby's prosecution being about criminalizing a political dispute yada yada yada. But doesn't any of this give you Conservatives pause? Assuming the above is true -- and it is certainly verifiable -- aren't you the least bit concerned about what Libby, Cheney Feith and the OSP, Chalabi etc were up to? I am afraid I know the answer -- I saw Kate O'Bierne on Hardball last night fumble around for excuses -- it was frankly embarrassing to watch.

Ricorun,

But she wasn't covert - that has been established beyond reasonable doubt.

Armitage was the first person to release her name to the press...Fitz knew that almost as soon as he started investigating; the whole thing is a gigantic political hatchet job.

Rico,

I just got home from baby-sitting my granddaughter, and I don't have the time or energy to answer your long post tonight. Probably something we ought to discuss off the books anyway. I was involved in Sigint, not Humint, and the only other spook I regularly correspond with was in Naval Intelligence (and he retired 11 years ago).

Mark: "But she wasn't covert - that has been established beyond reasonable doubt."

Oh really? Several times in the past you have claimed you are a member of the fact-based community, right? Here you state that your viewpoint is correct beyond a reasonable doubt. I disagree. So what are your sources?

I think I have tracked out the logical dilemma for you (and others) into a big, simple take-home question: why hasn't Bush signed on to your "reasonable doubt" meme? Answer that question, will you? My guess is, you can't do it short of constructing a gigantic conspiracy theory that involves Bush and many others. And I know how you hate those. But the question isn't just directed at Mark -- I invite anyone willing to weigh in on it. But before you do, consider also the following...

Bush was fine with declassifying much of which suited his purposes in the NIE at the time. Why not add Plame's identity? He could have if he wanted to -- assuming Plame's identity was not classified to begin with. Then again, if it was classified, and as I understand the law, he couldn't even if he wanted to. But whatever -- the undeniable fact is, he didn't. How do you, Mark and all others, explain that? Despite however many pundits offered up opinions to try to deflect the question, the fact remains that NO ONE who buys into the idea that Plame's identity was not classified has EVER answered. Let me reiterate the question: Why hasn't Bush indicated that Plame was not covert? It's such a simple question. Had he managed to answer it -- then or now -- this problem would have gone away. But the fact that he hasn't even tried indicates to me that he can't. And that's a big problem.

Even worse for the proponents of the "Plame was not covert" meme is the fact that Bush required all his underlings to sign a release indicating they were not involved in the leak, and indicating that their contacts were absolved from confidentiality. Some such contacts rolled immediately. Others needed more convincing. One needed 85 days of jail time worth of convincing. What's up with that? If Scooter had nothing to hide, what's the big deal?

"Armitage was the first person to release her name to the press..."

Again no. Armitage was Novak's initial source. But he was clearly no where near the first "press" person contacted. That to me is the fundamental problem -- members of the administration carelessly and obviously broadly disseminated confidential information among themselves, perhaps anticipating that a more careless individual among their ranks would ultimately contact a more or less careless member of the press. And after several attempts, Novak got in touch with Armitage. Tah dah. Idiot meet idiot. Too bad, so sad Valerie. No one seems to care about her fate. After all, she committed the sin of marrying that blowhard Joe. But it's not just her who was affected, it was everyone who worked anywhere close to her. Though no one is likely to ever account for it, that's a crime in my book.