You mean the kind of loyalty that would get you to support the boss that was constitutionally elected by the will of the people of his country?
When was the last time a president pardoned someone from his own administration?
And this wasn’t a pardon.
Well, that’s the Bush Admin’s STORY about what happened. It sounds like a carefully contrived tissue of lies designed to avoid responsibility for treasonable acts, to me. Armitage is the “accidental” leaker? Ho ha, what a jest. Much more likely that Cheney told Libby to “Dig up something we can use to hurt this bastard!” and Libby did just that. The story about Armitage just came out after the fact, when they were figuring out who could credibly be cited as the original leaker without going to jail.
But anybody who wants to take the Bush White House at their word is welcome to. And those who do, please drop me an email, I can get you on a list of hot investment opportunities in Nigeria, which is famous for their many investment opportunities!
(I do not mean to imply that I think John Mace buys the Bush line about Armitage, it is most likely he is just relating it.)
Misdemeanor, no jail sentence.
Care to wager against that happening?
For the 1,000 time, there was no treasonous act. You even admitted that in your Pit thread on the subject, IIRC. Leaking classified information to the press is not treason. Never has been, and isn’t now.
Armitrage admitted to being the guy who told Novak. I don’t see any reason for him to do that if it weren’t true. It’s probably even in Fitzgerald’s case notes, if those are public and someone knows how to dig them up.
Think it through.
What evidence couldn’t be gathered? You know what that evidence was, I know what that evidence was, the American people know what that evidence was. That Cheney ordered the whole thing. That’s what was being covered up.
What other evidence is there? What other crime was committed? We know for a fact that Libby and Armitage and Rove and Fleisher and so forth revealed (and/or “confirmed”, which is the same thing) Plame’s status to lots of various reporters. Was that covered up? No it wasn’t. So why weren’t they prosecuted for doing so? They tried to cover that up, but it was completely unsuccessful given that the reporters in question eventually caved in the face of contempt of court and testified.
So let’s get this straight. Libby told several reporters about Plame’s status right? He lied about it in court, the reporters contradicted him, right? And this is perjury, for which he was convicted, and rightly so. So why was he never prosecuted or even indicted for the actual act of revealing Plame’s status? THIS WAS NOT COVERED UP. His attempt to cover it up failed. Why wasn’t he prosecuted? The actual facts of the matter were revealed in court, the coverup was not successful.
As for why you think I asserted that Cheny was immune to criminal charges, of course Cheney’s not immune. All I asserted was that, since Libby, Rove, Armitage, Fleischer and so forth were never prosecuted for revealing Plame’s status, I don’t understand how Cheney could be prosecuted for doing so, given that all he did was order them to reveal Plame’s status. Sure, that’s a potential conspiracy charge, the guy who gives the order to rob the bank is just as guilty as the guys who put on the ski masks or the guy who drives the getaway car. But if the guys who put on the ski masks and drove the getaway car never got prosecuted for bank robbery, how can you imagine that the guy who ordered the bank robbery would be prosecuted if they weren’t?
The only thing that was successfully covered up was that Cheney ordered it. That’s the scuttlebutt that can’t be proven even though we all “know” it happened. If Cheney ordered Libby to commit a crime, then Cheny committed a crime, whether we can prove it or not. Except, we know for a fact–because it was proven in court–that Libby leaked Plame’s status to several reporters, so why wasn’t he prosecuted for doing that? Why was he only prosecuted for perjury? Under what theory would Cheney be prosecuted for leaking Plame’s status, but the guys who actually leaked Plame’s status would not? Yes, they could be granted immunity by the prosecutor if they gave up Cheney. Except that never happened, none of the leakers got immunity in return for testimony. The way prosecutors do these things is indict the street level thugs with the crimes, get them to plea bargain, and use their testimony against the boss. Except if you never indict the street thugs with a crime, how can you get them to plea bargain?
As for the impeachment angle, congress already has all the information. We know Scooter and Armitage and Rove and so forth leaked the information, we “know” Cheney ordered it. Libby’s stonewall succeeded only in the sense that it prevented Cheney from having to testify to Fitzgerald. If congress wanted to impeach Cheney over this, they could.
The main thing I’m objecting to is the notion that the stonewall prevented any prosecution except Libby’s perjury charge. Except, how did that work, exactly? Did Libby violate the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or not? If he did, how did his perjury cover up that fact? If Cheney was going to be prosecuted under the act, why wasn’t Libby, who was PROVEN to have disclosed Plame’s status and then lied about it?
I would also recommend Plame affair - Wikipedia, everything in the current article conforms to my understanding of the facts.
Eh. You asked the last time it was done-- now you’re moving the goal post. I’m not going to play the little game where if it’s not exactly the same, you don’t think it’s comparable.
He also pardoned Rostenkowski, who was in jail at the time. He wasn’t in his administration, but he was in the same party in Congress at the time Clinton was in office.
Not now.
I guess moving the goalposts is OK if we both do it. 
Bush is such an idiot… doesn’t he realize he could have gotten millions for his Presidential Library if he had played his cards right? 
I mentioned John Deutch above. I’m sure you will agree that there are some parallels with these cases, as they both involve the improper handling of classified information.
Of course, they are different cases, sure. But you asked if there is precedent for this, and there is quite recent record of this.
I didn’t set any goal posts. 
If he got lucky, he wouldn’t have to commute or pardon and lose some of his declining approval points.
WAAAAAH WAAAH WAAAH! Clinton this Clinton that WAAAAAH WAAAH WAAAH!
Strawman and abosufuckinglutely not a fucking thing to do with it, everytime the Bush admin lies, misleads, is corrupt, persues political opponents through its prosecutors, tortures, incarcerates and avoids applying the rules of law to its own kind, or abuses the rights of others, the fucking neo-cons go into the following
WAAAAAH WAAAH WAAAH! Clinton this, Clinton that, Clinton the other WAAAAAH WAAAH WAAAH!
As if the sins of any other president has fucking anything to do with the current disgraceful behaviour of this current admin.
The sins of others can be debated and condemned on their own merits, fuck off with the typical Republican diversion tactics, the Bush admin alone is accountable for its actions, there is no need to referance this to any other person, its crimes stand up in their own awfulness, and cannot be moderated by whining like small children “Well he did it”
When are you pubbies going to take responsibility instead of being like the drug addled idiot who blames all around him for his own problems ??
Libby did the crime, he should fucking do the time, he is part of an administration that has locked away without any evidence of wrongdoing, hundreds of people from other countries they have been resposible for abduction and torture, wrongful detention and who knows what else, and then the pubbies complain that Clinton isn’t very nice for one or another reason, get some fucking sense of proportion!
Libby is part of an admin that did something traitorous, and he lied about his part in it, the effect of all this was to go to war based on a lie and put the US at risk of great harm, meanwhile plenty of US military people are dying in a stupid pointless war, and if that isn’t traitorous it is damned close to it.
http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2007/03/comparing_lewis.html
The 30 mos was right on. Not excessive at all.
I wonder when Victor Rita can expect his commutation.
Daniel
The Washington Post was of the opinion that it was excessive. Of course, that doesn’t mean it isn’t so for Rita as well.
Their disappointment extends only so far that Libby serves no jail time at all. They seem to approve of his commutation in principle.
The thing that galls me is that I really think that for someone like Libby, the only real punishment would be jail time. Money, eh. I think he’s got plenty of friends who could hook him up with very well-paying jobs. Especially since he had friends who could get him a commuted sentence.
I don’t know if 30 months was excessive or not. What I do know is that zero months seems intolerably low.
The argument I suspect is being made is something along these lines:
DEM: Disgraceful commutation of Libby!
PUB: Clinton did similar things when he was President.
DEM: As if the sins of any other president has anything to do with the current disgraceful behavior of this current administration!
PUB: No, they don’t, but the ferocity with which you, Dem, attack those sins says something about what you really believe. In other words, if Clinton’s behavior passed unremarked by you, but Bush’s elicts a firestorm of indignation, then I question your sincerity in believing this was bad.
DEM: Well, I condemned Clinton just as loudly when he did it, fuckface!
PUB: OK, no worries, then!
- or -
DEM: Disgraceful commutation of Libby!
PUB: Clinton did similar things when he was President.
DEM: As if the sins of any other president has anything to do with the current disgraceful behavior of this current administration!
PUB: No, they don’t, but the ferocity with which you, Dem, attack those sins says something about what you really believe. In other words, if Clinton’s behavior passed unremarked by you, but Bush’s elicts a firestorm of indignation, then I question your sincerity in believing this was bad.
DEM: But Clinton had good reasons, and this case is nothing like those were!
PUB: You’re a little bitch hypocrite, then, aren’t you?
By the way: in case anyone is wondering, I find this decison appalling. Lying under oath - perjury - is a serious crime. It makes the administration of justice impossible, and when engaged upon by a government official it should be punished harshly. Libby was fairly convicted and his sentence was within the sentencing guidelines for the offense. He should serve his time.