No "Pound Me In The Ass Prison" for Scooter

The BBQ Pit
181

[QUOTE=Lemur866]

As I’ve asked many times, why exactly was no one charged with violating the IIPA? I’ve been told several times that no one was charged because justice was obstructed–proveably obstructed in Libby’s case (he was convicted of it, after all), and probaly obstructed in other cases, albeit non-proveably.

Except this doesn’t make sense. What facts were hidden? That Libby, Armitage, Rove et al called up reporters and told them Plame was a CIA agent, in an attempt to discredit Joe Wilson’s report? This WAS NOT HIDDEN. It was proven that Libby did this and lied about it. It was proven Rove, Armitage and Fleisher did this, although they apparently they managed to avoid making statements that could be proved perjorous.

So what other crimes should have been charged? Who violated the IIPA? Why didn’t Fitzgerald prosecute anyone for violating the IIPA? Rove and Armitage admitted to Fitzgerald that they revealed Plame’s status to various journalists, why wasn’t this admission enough to prosecute them for violating the IIPA? “Obstruction of justice” isn’t an answer, because all this information was eventually revealed. It is not “obstruction of justice” to refrain from making a confession to the prosecutor. The only thing not proven is that Cheney ordered the whole thing. But if the underlings weren’t prosecuted for revealing Plame’s status, Cheney isn’t going to be prosecuted for telling them to reveal Plame’s status. It has to have been a crime for them to reveal Plame’s status for Cheney’s role in ordering it to be a crime. If I tell you to do something that is a crime, you and I have committed a criminal conspiracy. If I tell you to do something that is not a crime, you and I have not committed a criminal conspiracy.

All this is not to say that Libby didn’t deserve his sentence. Thing is, Libby committed perjury, and perjury is a crime. Libby deserved his sentence. Bush’s pardon/commutation is not exactly surprising, but neither is it laudable. Libby isn’t a “fall guy” in the sense that he’s being punished even though he did nothing wrong. He DID do something wrong, he committed perjury! Neither is he a “fall guy” in the sense that he’s protecting the other members of the conspiracy he took part in, because other members of the conspiracy were shown to have talked to reporters about Plame, and NONE OF THEM WERE CHARGED.

[/QUOTE]

IMHO it doesn’t make sense if one ignores that the background included the case of the Dismissal of US attorneys.

2 things stuck in my mind: it was mentioned that Fitzgerald was on the list of possible dismissals, the information has shown that lots of pressure was turned against the prosecutors to minimize the prosecution of republican politicians and enhance the prosecution of Democrats.

Karl Rove’s 11th hour testimonies (I remember there were several) to deal with the early contradictions and get himself out, were the item that told me that this administration had a prosecutor that was being more than fair to the ones giving him the job.

So to me the surprise will always remain that someone was even indicted. I suspect even Fitzgerald could not stomach the level of contempt he found in the Plame case, so to make the investigation not be seen as a joke, he had to act on the evidence, but in the end I think he was pressured to not shake the apple cart too much.

182

[QUOTE=Lemur866]
So what other crimes should have been charged? Who violated the IIPA? Why didn’t Fitzgerald prosecute anyone for violating the IIPA? Rove and Armitage admitted to Fitzgerald that they revealed Plame’s status to various journalists, why wasn’t this admission enough to prosecute them for violating the IIPA? “Obstruction of justice” isn’t an answer, because all this information was eventually revealed. It is not “obstruction of justice” to refrain from making a confession to the prosecutor. The only thing not proven is that Cheney ordered the whole thing. But if the underlings weren’t prosecuted for revealing Plame’s status, Cheney isn’t going to be prosecuted for telling them to reveal Plame’s status. It has to have been a crime for them to reveal Plame’s status for Cheney’s role in ordering it to be a crime. If I tell you to do something that is a crime, you and I have committed a criminal conspiracy. If I tell you to do something that is not a crime, you and I have not committed a criminal conspiracy.
[/QUOTE]

The common refrain that we hear from the various analysts is that it’s very difficult to convict someone of the IIPA. Since the law was enacted in 1982, only 1 person has been convicted of violating it. I’m not clear if there was any evidence that Cheny, Libby, Rove, et al knew that Plame was covert. The law is written so that one must knowingly reveal a covert agent’s name. But I also believe there are other hurdles that make it difficult to prosecute although I can’t say that I know what those hurdles are.

183

[QUOTE=kaylasdad99]
Sorry, I got you confused with straight man for a bit. I thought this discussion was supposed to be about bashing (or defending) Bush for the commutation, and I wasn’t expecting a sidetrack that appears to be claiming not to take a position on the Bush-bash. Anyway, I give up. Why do you have an issue with the sentence?
[/QUOTE]
No problem. I don’t have an issue with the sentence. I think he committed perjury, and for that one should be whacked hard.

184

[QUOTE=Zakalwe]
This is a “straw that broke the camel’s back thing”, but I’m sick of this fucking bullshit goddamn non-answer. Multiple people have told you that they can’t figure out what the fuck you’re on about. In the time it took you to type the non-answer above, you could have easily explained your position, so why not do it unless you’re being deliberately obtuse?

In summary, my position vis-a-vis your participation in this thread is a request for you to explain yourself clearly or shut the fuck up.
[/QUOTE]
In summary, my position is that I don’t give a shit if my participation is not up to your exacting standards. I have explained in great detail what my point was, although several people in this thread preferred to knock down straw men, then act annoyed and bewildered when I pointed out they were responding to a position I didn’t take. You have a problem with that? Tough shit.

And if you can’t see exactly what I was arguing in this thread (here’s a hint–whether or not I think the sentence or the commutation were appropriate is irrelevant to my point), then reading comprehension is not your strong suit either.

185

[QUOTE=David Simmons]
I don’t know whether or not this is true and I don’t think you do either.
[/quote]
Well, let me word this more precisely then: he didn’t do anything criminal for which Fitzgerald had sufficient evidence to make a charge stick, a statement we can currently make for about six billion people.

Again, I heard him say a lot of things. The facts don’t seem to support that contention. I think it was virtually impossible for him right from the start to get this to stick, despite his best efforts, and in retrospect he was trying to spin the millions of dollars and months of distraction his fruitless investigation required–“I was so close, folks–if only Libby hadn’t lied!” Just my opinion, of course.

186

[QUOTE=Lemur866]
And this is why they lied (in court and in public), not just because they had potentially violated the IIPA, but because they didn’t want us to know what they had done, regardless of whether they had violated the IIPA or not.
[/QUOTE]
I agree with this last part. I think Libby was trying to cover up something potentially embarrassing, not criminal, and he never thought it would come back to bite him.

187

[QUOTE=Lemur866]
The only thing not proven is that Cheney ordered the whole thing. But if the underlings weren’t prosecuted for revealing Plame’s status, Cheney isn’t going to be prosecuted for telling them to reveal Plame’s status. It has to have been a crime for them to reveal Plame’s status for Cheney’s role in ordering it to be a crime. If I tell you to do something that is a crime, you and I have committed a criminal conspiracy. If I tell you to do something that is not a crime, you and I have not committed a criminal conspiracy.
[/quote]
A question I have with this logic is that under IIPA, there is the requirement that the people have to know that the person is covert in order to violate the law. If Cheney were to know that Plame is covert, but the others were to not, it may be possible that his ordering or orchestrating the leak would be a crime while the others would not have committed one.

188

[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
Well, let me word this more precisely then: he didn’t do anything criminal for which Fitzgerald had sufficient evidence to make a charge stick, a statement we can currently make for about six billion people.
[/QUOTE]

Interesting theory.

So, you’re saying that the US Government should have some sort of evidence before incarcerating people?

-Joe

189

[QUOTE=Merijeek]
Interesting theory.

So, you’re saying that the US Government should have some sort of evidence before incarcerating people?

-Joe
[/QUOTE]
I’m obstinately libertarian in that regard, yes. :wink:

190

[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
No problem. I don’t have an issue with the sentence. I think he committed perjury, and for that one should be whacked hard.
[/QUOTE]
You know, now that you explicitly say so, it’s clear that your line

was intended to be read as

I’m happy to cop to an error with my reading of it as

But I suspect you were under no misapprehensions as to what my reading of it was. Yet rather than clarify your meaning, you chose to appear to invite me to answer the [wrong] question again. I find that to be somewhat dickish, FWIW.

Rather than turn this into a Stratocaster flame, I’ll just get back on topic, and say I think Bush and Cheney should both resign. Is Pooty-poot-Putin still up there in oh-my-god-they-killed-Kennybunkport (those bastards) with Georgie? He should resign too.

And if Carole Stream disagrees, she should resign too. So there.

191

[QUOTE=kaylasdad99]
Rather than turn this into a Stratocaster flame, I’ll just get back on topic, and say I think Bush and Cheney should both resign. Is Pooty-poot-Putin still up there in oh-my-god-they-killed-Kennybunkport (those bastards) with Georgie? He should resign too.

And if Carole Stream disagrees, she should resign too. So there.
[/QUOTE]

And Bud Selig.

192

[QUOTE=kaylasdad99]
But I suspect you were under no misapprehensions as to what my reading of it was. Yet rather than clarify your meaning, you chose to appear to invite me to answer the [wrong] question again. I find that to be somewhat dickish, FWIW.
[/QUOTE]
Go ahead and consider me dickish to whatever degree you’d like, but FWIW, until you clarified your interpretation of my question with this last post, I did not at all infer that meaning. Hence my befuddlement at your line of questioning. I did not at all think that post was ambiguous, though I see it now that you’ve pointed it out.

If you’d prefer to assign a different motive or line of thought to me, feel free; it won’t be the first time someone has in this thread.

193

Well, okay, if you say you misinterpreted me, I’ll take that at face value, drop the characterization of dickishness towards my responses, and be happy that you seem to share my disdain for the administration.

FWIW, however, in re: post 184: indicating that someone else’s reading comprehension is a more likely cause for miscommunication than one’s own unclear writing doesn’t strike me as very polite.

194

[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
And if you can’t see exactly what I was arguing in this thread (here’s a hint–whether or not I think the sentence or the commutation were appropriate is irrelevant to my point), then reading comprehension is not your strong suit either.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe after all the “strawmen” and such, I don’t feel like digging back through 3 fucking pages to see what your original point was. So.

Presumably you give a shit about people properly comprehending what you write (unless, for you, writing is a mastubatory excercise - in which case, have at it and I’ll cheerfully ignore your stuff from now on). If the comprehension of others is a desired outcome, why not take exactly the same amount of time and re-explain yourself clearly rather than be a fucking pissy little bitch?

195

[QUOTE=Zakalwe]
Maybe after all the “strawmen” and such, I don’t feel like digging back through 3 fucking pages to see what your original point was. So.
[/quote]
Then why don’t you shut the fuck up since now it’s clear the real issue isn’t that you misinterpreted my position, it’s that you felt compelled to post a snotty comment about my being unclear when you hadn’t bothered to read the thread.

You seem to be an idiot, so I’ll try to make this especially clear. I wasn’t being coy. I wasn’t trying to make people guess about my position. I wasn’t trying to craft a gotcha or seem mysterious or dickish or whatever. Is it possible to get through your head that I was responding to people (one who did so innocently) who assigned a position to me that (1) I did not assert at any point, and (2) had nothing to do with what I was arguing? The posts I was responding to were non sequiturs. My reaction was one of confusion (where it seemed innocent) or annoyance (where the other person seemed to be crafting a straw man).

So, if someone asks me a question point blank, if it’s even remotely related to the topic, I’ll try to answer; I believe I have in this thread. But if at some point in this thread someone asks me, “So, then what you’re saying is that you think Libby is not guilty by reason of insanity. Typical Republican excuse making! I should have known,” I will react the same way I did previously. I will ask some form of “What the hell are you talking about? I said no such thing.” I will not create even more confusion by pretending that the question was on point just so drive-by morons who are curious won’t be left wondering. At that point, if you parachute into the thread, huffing and puffing, “God almighty! Why don’t you just tell them whether or not you think he’s not guilty by reason of insanity?,” then you will have yet again confirmed your imbecility.

Anyway, that’s why, since you asked so nicely.

196

[QUOTE=kaylasdad99]
FWIW, however, in re: post 184: indicating that someone else’s reading comprehension is a more likely cause for miscommunication than one’s own unclear writing doesn’t strike me as very polite.
[/QUOTE]
Hey, he started it! :wink:

197

[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
when you hadn’t bothered to read the thread.
[/quote]
Beg pardon? I read every word of the thread, but I did it as it was posted, so I’ve been reading the thread for six days now. I’m happy for you that this is the single most important you do with your life and thus six days later, the things on page one are still fresh in your mind, but maybe you could have pity on those of us who don’t have perfect fucking recall.

No, you were trying to force everyone to research your position - which is dickish whether you were being coy about it or not.

And your response for both cases was “you know what I said, look it up!” That makes absolutely no sense. If your reaction truly was confusion, wouldn’t a better response have been (To steal your quote below) "“What the hell are you talking about? I said Libby was a pathological liar, that’s not the same thing as insane.” You get to express annoyance and still clarify your position in case the mistake was an honest one. Two birds with one stone and it takes no longer than just acting like a dick.

I find it intensely amusing that you have now typed several hundred words in response to me without taking a couple dozen to set the matter to rest once and for all. I must conclude that you have no actual position on this matter. I further conclude that this is necessary that you might continue your mindless defense of this indefensible action on behalf a corrupt administration. Duck and weave, my brother, duck and weave.

198

[QUOTE=Zakalwe]
No, you were trying to force everyone to research your position - which is dickish whether you were being coy about it or not.
[/quote]
You really are this obtuse, it’s not an act? If someone constructs a straw man, I have no position to clarify–I will NOT play that game. If someone makes a vague, “What are you talking about?” statement because a case of snottiness gets the better of him, I’m supposed to read minds and recap everything I’ve said in a multi-page thread? Sure, that makes sense.

Now I have to assume you have so much much invested in a f@#$ing message board thread that you can’t concede the simplest point. If you consider my answers dickish, I can live with that horrible shame. Better dickish than a moron.

This is a riot! I am defending an indefensible act on behalf of a corrupt adminstration. You’re either stupid or a liar, if you say you’ve actually been reading this thread. What part of this seems ambiguous to you?

Sorry for all the ducking and weaving I did in that post, my brother. How perceptive of you to have detected it. Too funny. See, if you’re taking notes, this is what I meant by reading comprehension being a hurdle you’re having trouble getting over, since you still seem to think there’s some matter I need to put to rest. Anyway, sorry for the mindless defense of Libby that post implied. You saw right through it.

You really aren’t very good at this, are you? Anyway, thanks for maintaining the proud tradition in this thread of frothing at the mouth and creating straw men rather than debating honestly. Or maybe you really are as dense as you appear. Either way, nicely done!

199

Stratocaster, I have also followed this thread from the start and mostly kept my mouth shut. FWIW, IMO you have been acting as a total dickwad.

200

[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
I don’t have an issue with the sentence. I think he committed perjury, and for that one should be whacked hard.
[/QUOTE]
Thank you.

You just happen to think that the perjury was committed in a lost cause since there was no original crime to convict anyone of anyway. Is that about right?