[QUOTE=Squink]
I’m sure you’ll be pleased to hear that Rep. John Conyers has scheduled hearings next week on the Use and Misuse of Presidential Clemency Power.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not pleased. Presidential Clemency Power is neither reveiwable or alterable.
I’d much prefer that Conyers, et al, review that which is not explicitly granted to the President by the Constitution.
[QUOTE=DoctorJ]
But Scooter still has to pay the fine!
Of course, it’ll take him about fifteen minutes to make that in the cushy Wingnut Welfare job he almost certainly has waiting for him.
[/QUOTE]
As if it’s going to actually come out of his pocket.
Bob
[QUOTE=Squink]
…I’m sure you’ll be pleased to hear that Rep. John Conyers has scheduled hearings next week on the Use and Misuse of Presidential Clemency Power. …
[/QUOTE]
Well, IMO that is a huge waste of time. The president has pretty much absolute power in this area; I’m not quite sure he can abuse it.
There are so many more investigations that need to be done, and charges that need to be filed, that this little pissant thing is just a distraction.
IIRC, his legal defense fund had something like 5 megabucks, so his fine amounts to about about a twentieth thereof. You can contribute here…
https://www.donationreport.com/init/controller/ProcessEntryCmd?key=J8Z6U5L3L1
Or not.
[QUOTE=straight man]
All right, I’ll try to explain this, and note, it has nothing to do with Scooter Libby.
A number of members of the administration committed a very serious crime – namely, leaking Plame’s CIA status. Had the guilty members been prosecuted, the administration would be hurting pretty badly. As it was, Libby took the bullet; he committed perjury for the sake of his associates and his boss, got prosecuted for it, and was convicted.
If you’re Cheney*, then a member of your staff is going to jail for covering for a crime that you authorized. Of course, you’re not about to commit hari-kiri, but you can probably see that it is unfair (albeit not unjust.) Hence, you push to have his punishment minimized, even when it makes you look a bit worse.
If you’re Bush*, then, as the head of the executive branch (and thus the penitentiary system), you are in a position where you will punish someone for helping you, and again, for covering for a crime that you personally authorized. You have the legal ability to avoid your job as spanker-in-chief; it is only decent to take it.
That said, I really would have liked to see Libby go to jail. I just have a hard time blaming President Bush for commuting Libby’s sentence. It’s enough to blame him for the original crime.
[/QUOTE]
Excuse my idealism, but I think there are about 300 million other people Bush owes his loyalty to before Scooter Libby. Yes, ha ha, I’m expecting decency from a member of this administration. But the best way to get incompetent, corrupt and badly behaved leaders is for the citizenry to expect only corruptability, incompetence and bad behavior from its leaders. You may think it was “decent” for Bush to stand by his fall guy. But this was a choice between standing by his fall guy and standing by the justice system of the nation he serves. His choice was nothing but indecent. “B-but… it’s ok because it was cronyism!” doesn’t wash as any kind of excuse.
[QUOTE=alreadymichigan]
Excuse my idealism, but I think there are about 300 million other people Bush owes his loyalty to before Scooter Libby.
[/QUOTE]
Okay, before I address anything else, do you actually wish to imply that Scooter Libby is not a citizen of the United States?Read your sentence again. You’ll get it.
[QUOTE=alreadymichigan]
Yes, ha ha, I’m expecting decency from a member of this administration. But the best way to get incompetent, corrupt and badly behaved leaders is for the citizenry to expect only corruptability, incompetence and bad behavior from its leaders. You may think it was “decent” for Bush to stand by his fall guy. But this was a choice between standing by his fall guy and standing by the justice system of the nation he serves. His choice was nothing but indecent. “B-but… it’s ok because it was cronyism!” doesn’t wash as any kind of excuse.
[/QUOTE]
The justice system of your nation includes the absolute power to pardon or commute sentences for any reason whatsoever. Maybe you could get after Bush for, you know, authorizing the leak (as alleged by Patrick Fitzgerald), or for shoving forward a sacrificial lamb (though it’s impossible to know for sure how Libby was given his unenviable position). Instead you’re getting after Bush for helping out a friend and an underling in an entirely legal fashion, a friend who took a fall for him. What do you think he should do in this situation, let Libby pay for a much larger crime?
[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
No, you have established what is true–that Scooter did not receive an e-mail from Joe Schmoe on the 15th. Now that you know that, what can you conclude from it, without the aid of your spider-sense?
[/QUOTE]
I’m pretty sure that I can conclude that Scooter actively tried to hinder my investigation by lying about when and where he got certain information, so I can pursue charges against him.
You seem to think that this revelation means that the prosecutor should pursue “real” charges against the “real” criminals.
It doesn’t work that way, proving that someone lied does not necessarily point you towards knowing the truth about who committed what crime. You may only be able to prove they lied about a tangential issue anyway, where the serious lies remain unproven because information is limited.
Holy unintended consequences, Batman! It seems that by casting Scooter’s scoot as a reaction to an unreasonable sentence rather than an obvious act of cronyism, Bush has thrown a giant bone to defense lawyers everywhere:
(Bolding mine.)
[QUOTE=David Simmons]
I concede. I can’t argue with someone who can read the minds of 12 people from afar.
[/QUOTE]
Very glib, but did you actually read the reaction after the case? Here, I’ll help you:
Fitzgerald is a skilled prosecutor apparently, who was admittedly doing his job. As he saw it, it was to play to the sympathies the jury would have for the fall guy for the evil administration. And he did. If you find this speculative, so be it.
[QUOTE=Squink]
Pick a time frame you’re interested in, and stick with it. Switching from the future to the past like that in an attempt to score points just makes you look like a moron.
Fitzgerald was appointed by Comey in 2003. Gonzo had nothing to do with it.
[/quote]
Then why did you introduce Gonzo as a reason that charges are not being brought? Don’t get pissy when someone reacts to the specific point you introduced. See what I mean? Just doing my part to help you not look like a moron. No need to thank me.
What the f@#$ does this have to do with why there were no criminal charges that resulted from the Fitzgerald investigation or as an outcome of the Libby conviction? What was stopping Fitzgerald from leveling any charge he wanted to? Why would this series of actions “prod” the Justice Department, when no such prodding was necessary by virtue of the existence of a Special Prosecutor. You have introduced this fact as evidence of…what, again? Makes no sense.
All this fuss over a simple prisoner exchange.
Hamas released Alan Johnston, who was an enemy of Palestine, so in the spirit of reciprocity, Bush released Scooter Libby, who was an an enemy of the USA.
strat: Yes, it’s speculative, to the point of imaginary. You’re starting from the point of view that Cheney and Rove were innocent of any wrongdoing, therefore any impression that all 12 jurors might have had to the contrary was entirely the doing of a politically-motivated (cte, btw) prosecutor, amazingly successful at hypnotizing every one of them. And, for that matter, that Libby’s own attorney was utterly helpless to break the spell Fitzie was weaviing for them with his magic powers, and the judge too was so clouded by the spell that he did nothing to limit it.
Amazing powers that man has, aren’t they? If only he’d devote them exclusively to the cause of Good. :rolleyes:
Or, maybe they’re all humans who could hear, see, and think for themselves.
Admissible evidence. What, is your view of a special prosecutor’s function defined by Starr, not by ones with ethics?
[QUOTE=Cheesesteak]
I’m pretty sure that I can conclude that Scooter actively tried to hinder my investigation by lying about when and where he got certain information, so I can pursue charges against him.
[/quote]
Yes, that’s a reasonable conclusion.
Are you reading the same thread? I’m reacting to people who suppose just such a thing ought to occur, and they point to this conviction as proof of something it is not.
Yes, exactly. Then you’re right back where you started. If you can prove a case, do it. If not, then we’re all speculating about what currently unknowable thing did or didn’t occur. But this conviction did not ultimately prove anything other than Libby lied and what was “true” as it relates to the specific statements that constituted the perjury. Period.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
strat: Yes, it’s speculative, to the point of imaginary. You’re starting from the point of view that Cheney and Rove were innocent of any wrongdoing, therefore any impression that all 12 jurors might have had to the contrary was entirely the doing of a politically-motivated (cte, btw) prosecutor, amazingly successful at hypnotizing every one of them. And, for that matter, that Libby’s own attorney was utterly helpless to break the spell Fitzie was weaviing for them with his magic powers, and the judge too was so clouded by the spell that he did nothing to limit it.
Amazing powers that man has, aren’t they? If only he’d devote them exclusively to the cause of Good. :rolleyes:
[/quote]
Sheesh. As I stated in this very thread, Fitzgerald was doing his job. I don’t fault him for that. I didn’t say he hypnotized anyone. I said he conducted his prosecution of these particular charges with skill, and his own words indicated that part of his strategy was to play to the notion that there was this evil cloud over the administration, and that Libby was just the tip of the iceberg. Trial attorneys do this all the time, right? I’m not suggesting he did anything wrong or that the jury didn’t think with clear minds that he presented the best case. So if there’s anything purely from the realm of imagination being posted here, I don’t think I’m the one doing it.
I’m not a fan of the special prosecutor function at all. It seems designed to create the sort of dysfunction this investigation did–and Starr’s was just as bad. I was angered at the outcome of that investigation to the point where I switched parties, in case you think I have a specific axe to grind here (which clearly you do).
[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
…part of his strategy was to play to the notion that there was this evil cloud over the administration, and that Libby was just the tip of the iceberg.
[/quote]
And that does indeed mean you discount the possibility that he was actually presenting facts, not just “playing to a notion”. Come on now. I’m merely holding your fantasy up to the light here. :rolleyes:
[quote]
I’m not a fan of the special prosecutor function at all. It seems designed to create the sort of dysfunction this investigation did[/qjote]What dysfunction was that? Its inability to find a legal way to get admissible evidence against the real perpetrators of the crime, due to Libby’s taking the fall? No prosecutor can do that.
Fitzgerald’s was as bad as Starr’s how? :dubious: Do you have anything beyond the traditional “Yeah, well, *Clinton * …” defense here?
[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
Then why did you introduce Gonzo as a reason that charges are not being brought?
[/QUOTE]
Because Gonzales is currently attorney general.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
And that does indeed mean you discount the possibility that he was actually presenting facts, not just “playing to a notion”. Come on now. I’m merely holding your fantasy up to the light here. :rolleyes:
[/quote]
Are you for real? Then why didn’t his “facts” lead to a single conviction of what he was investigating? Hell, how about a single charge? Do you think if you say something enough times or with enough rolleyes it takes on an aura or truth?
No, the same sort of dysfunction as Starr’s where millions of dollars and immeasurable time and energy is dedicated to getting to the bottom of something and nothing is ever proven. Where these meta-charges are the only things that stick to the wall–“Well, maybe we can’t prove you did anything criminal, but we’ll charge with improper conduct within our fruitless investigation.”
That’s not to excuse perjury. That’s to say these investigations almost invariably turn into pointless clusterf@#$s. As Starr’s did. And as Fitzgerald’s did.
You keep propping up your straw men. Seems to make you happy. Despite my specific statement that I thought Starr’s investigation was outrageous, you clearly feel more comfortable attacking a position I have specifically disavowed. Have fun.
[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
Very glib, but did you actually read the reaction after the case? Here, I’ll help you:Fitzgerald is a skilled prosecutor apparently, who was admittedly doing his job. As he saw it, it was to play to the sympathies the jury would have for the fall guy for the evil administration. And he did. If you find this speculative, so be it.
[/QUOTE]
Glib? What I call glib is dismissing the jury as predisposed to convict, the rulings of a judge who followed the sentencing guidelines, and a three judge panel (two appointed by Republicans) of an appeals court who ruled that Libby was unlikely to prevail on appeal.
All your above cite says with regard to Libby is that he was was guilty of two crimes, perjury and obstruction of justice. The quoted juror merely asked how come there weren’t others also on trial. One reason was because Libby lied and obfuscated and so helped them, whoever they were, escape punishment.
So he was “set up to be a fall guy.” Well, that’s what happens to a fall guy, he takes a fall. Did Fitzgerald set him up? The Judge? If you really think he was set up why blame Fitzgeral, the judge and the jury? Don’t those who supposedly set him up come in for a little blame?
Your whole presentation here is merely a repetition of the tired crap coming out of the administration.
[QUOTE=Squink]
Because Gonzales is currently attorney general.
[/QUOTE]
As he was when Fitzgerald’s investigation concluded. When Libby was charged. You remember Fitzgerald, right? The Special Prosecutor who was empowered to bring whatever charges he thought fit to the Grand Jury, whether Gonzo liked it or not. So, again what is your point?
[QUOTE=David Simmons]
Glib? What I call glib is dismissing the jury as predisposed to convict, the rulings of a judge who followed the sentencing guidelines, and a three judge panel (two appointed by Republicans) of an appeals court who ruled that Libby was unlikely to prevail on appeal.
All your above cite says with regard to Libby is that he was was guilty of two crimes, perjury and obstruction of justice. The quoted juror merely asked how come there weren’t others also on trial. One reason was because Libby lied and obfuscated and so helped them, whoever they were, escape punishment.
So he was “set up to be a fall guy.” Well, that’s what happens to a fall guy, he takes a fall. Did Fitzgerald set him up? The Judge? If you really think he was set up why blame Fitzgeral, the judge and the jury? Don’t those who supposedly set him up come in for a little blame?
Your whole presentation here is merely a repetition of the tired crap coming out of the administration.
[/QUOTE]
The straw men continue. You’re picking nits.
Fitzgerald’s own words in the trial suggest that he believed the jury could be swayed, at least in part, by an argument that Libby–while fully guilty–was also the scapegoat for a corrupt administration. Do I know he believed this? No, only he does. But I know what he said.
The jury not only responded with a guilty verdict, but provided rhetoric afterward showing they they bought into this line of argument.
I’m not arguing Libby was a fall guy. The attorneys did and the jury was inclined to believe it. Before you spout your tired crap, what of these statements seems illogical to you?
Okay, again the baseless claim. Show the evidence that demonstrates this is so. Not the details that lead you to think it’s possible. Help us out by playing out the syllogism that maps a “he’s protecting the administration from being charged with something criminal” conclusion to the specific facts established in the case. I’ll wait. And let me again give you a hint–if that could be done with any sort of reasonable certainty, charges would have been brought. And (I may have mentioned this before) they were not. Not a single one.