Scooter Libby commuted

[Walsingham]

Mustard gas was certainly found. Mustard gas is a WMD prohibited under the chemical weapons convention. There was a strong suggestion that nerve gas may also have been used during the halabja massacre, due to the condition of the bodies found without external lesions. Inteestingly the lack of lesions was used as 'proof' that the whole footage thing was a hoax as argued by the Iraqi government.

 

But that has nothing to do with Scooter Libby.

[Lokey]

During his 7 years in office Geroge W Bush has issues 0 pardon and comuted the prison penalty from 1 perjury conviction

Wow, no one called this obviously lie? I guess no one questioned Limbaugh, Russert, O Reilly, etc when they say it either. Sigh.

[Gfted1]

^Well dont let that hold you back, fire away with the facts.

[Tale]

During his 7 years in office Geroge W Bush has issues 0 pardon and comuted the prison penalty from 1 perjury conviction

Wow, no one called this obviously lie? I guess no one questioned Limbaugh, Russert, O Reilly, etc when they say it either. Sigh.

I looked it up and couldn't find anything to contest it. Maybe I didn't look hard enough.

 

wikipedia cites 113, with 4 commutes.

The 113 are supposedly people who served their time, as well.

Edited July 5, 2007 by Tale

[Kaftan Barlast]

Mustard gas was certainly found. Mustard gas is a WMD prohibited under the chemical weapons convention.

 

 

 

Gah, I looked it up and its correct. A WMD used to be something with the capacity to kill 10,000+ people in one go(a nuke) and now they're applying it to mean any unconventional weapon. A box of rat poison is passable as a WMD nowadays.

[Walsingham]

WMD definition thread

 

http://forums.obsidianent.com/index.php?showtopic=47389

[Gorgon]

We invaded Iraq based on lies from the Bush Administration. Lies that have gotten tens of thousands killed. If that isn't an impeachable offense then nothing is.

Plausible deniability.

[Guard Dog]

For those of you calling for impeachment, try pointing out to me what law, or Constitutional clause or amendment Bush has violated. I won't hold my breath waiting for your answer. At least with Clinton there was a crime committed. Perjury. It did not merit impeachment and that entire debacle was less about rule of law than it was about politics.

 

I find it incredibly ironic that Libby was also convicted of perjury and most people here seems to think he deserved to go to prison for 30 months. His prosecution was political also, just like Clinton. As Enoch correctly pointed out.

 

I wonder, since Bill Clinton was censured and disbarred by the court for Perjury why none of you who thought Libby deserved prison are calling for Clinton to go to prison. Perjury is a crime right? Or is it only a crime when committed by someone of the opposite political party from you?

[Gorgon]

Clintons lie about sexual relations was of no consequence whatsoever. Maybe it doesen't matter to the law what you lie about, but it does to most people when they think rationally about it.

[Guard Dog]

Clintons lie about sexual relations was of no consequence whatsoever. Maybe it doesen't matter to the law what you lie about, but it does to most people when they think rationally about it.

It is a lie under oath, that is Perjury, de facto and de jure.

 

But by trying to put a happy face on it you are side stepping my question.

[Pop]

You've got your head on wrong if you can't tell the difference between lying to cover up an affair and lying to cover up violations of national security, which is exactly what the Plame leak was. That Valerie Plame wasn't in another country and in immediate danger is irrelevant. She was covert (yes, she was undercover. The CIA said this. The CIA referred the leak to the DoJ, there's no sleight of hand to be made over this) and her cover was blown by somebody in the Bush Administration. You don't do that ****. Ever. So to protect the office, Libby tried to shine on the DoJ. He didn't have to, the actual leaker (Armitage) told DoJ the straight story and got off. But Libby tried to obstruct justice, and thus he was put on trouble. Yeah, he was part of an unpopular, delusional administration. But he's not Jesus Christ, and the democrats aren't Pharisees. Libby was prosecuted because he broke. the. ****ing. law. And he should have done his time.

Edited July 6, 2007 by Pop

[Guard Dog]

Pop, you side stepped the question. Both commited the same crime. Do they both deserve prision? Perjury is perjury right?

[Pop]

Since Libby was convicted of 4 charges and Clinton was accused of 2, no.

[Guard Dog]

Since Libby was convicted of 4 charges and Clinton was accused of 2, no.

I'd say that pretty well makes my point. You and Gorgon have both openly stated your dislike for the current administration and everyone in it. You have both stated you like the democrats. And here you have just said that the same crime committed by both sides deserves different punishment. Harsher for the side you dislike, less for the side you like. Remember, perjury is perjury.

 

I'm not saying being a partisan is a bad thing, Pop. I'm just trying to point out the inherent hypocrisy you must accept as soon as you make yourself into one.

[Pop]

I'm perfectly fine with, say, 3 charges of perjury warranting jail time. It's a moot point regardless, as Clinton was acquitted.

[WITHTEETH]

For those of you calling for impeachment, try pointing out to me what law, or Constitutional clause or amendment Bush has violated. I won't hold my breath waiting for your answer. At least with Clinton there was a crime committed. Perjury. It did not merit impeachment and that entire debacle was less about rule of law than it was about politics.

One resulted in juicy tabloids, the other resulted in 3,600 US soldier deaths, billions of dollars spent , losing liberty and cutting out constitution so two religious groups could fight it out and create more terrorists.

 

I do not know much about law, but does a person that lies about being gay to the court get the same punishment as a person who lies about brainwashing children into an occult? Hypothetical question. Do they get the same sentence?

Edited July 6, 2007 by WITHTEETH

[Guard Dog]

One resulted in juicy tabloids, the other resulted in 3,600 US soldier deaths, billions of dollars spent , losing liberty and cutting out constitution so two religious groups could fight it out and create more terrorists.

 

There is one thing you are missing here Teeth, and as much as it sucks, there is no getting around it. The Iraq war was legal. Unconventional to be sure, but the Congress did give the President permission to attack Iraq on Oct 11, 2002 in a joint resolution. The Constitution grants Congress the authority to declare war. They chose to give that authority away in this case and that was also legal. And a little stupid. You cannot impeach a President unless he violates law, and Bush has not done that.

 

Most of the arguments on this board are based on emotion rather than cold reasoning. You (not you Teeth, just a general term) hate the war, the man, the political philosophy, therefore think he deserves to be impeached. You THINK Constituitonal freedoms have been violated. But you cannot say which ones because the answer is none. But if people THINK they have it takes on a truth of it's own.

 

The cold truth of the matter is Bush has not comitted a crime. Clinton on the other hand lied under oath and obstructed justice. Granted, I do not think he deserved to be impeached, but he actually DID something illegal and opened the door. If he had just come out from the get go and said "Yes, I did that. So what?" the whole business would never have happened.

 

I do not know much about law, but does a person that lies about being gay to the court get the same punishment as a person who lies about brainwashing children into an occult? Hypothetical question. Do they get the same sentence?

 

Technically, yes. I'm not sure about federal sentencing guidelines but in Florida we allow judges very little wiggle room in determining sentencing. The penalty for perjury under Florida Criminal Code is 6-18 months in prison with a fine. Perjury is perjury. The court may not take motive under consideration in determining sentencing. That is the jury's job. That is why I dislike the concept of "Hate Crime" because it makes a judgement on motive, which is unknowable, and unmeasurable.

 

I could easily get side tracked here but to stay on topic, my whole point here is not to defend Bush or impune Clinton. I am simply pointing out that everyone is screaming about "corruption" from one political party, but is mute about the same actions from the other political party. That is hipocrisy.

[Walsingham]

Not wanting to make you feel you're out n your own, GD, I can see the logic you are using. However, where I can see Pop's angle is that there is a massive difference in the root of the offence. Casting my creaky memory back I can recall thinking the entire investigation into Clinton's impropriety was a waste of money and public interest. Ought there really be special prosecutors running around sniffing underwear?

 

The principle at stake here is that a crony of the President acted in a way that seriously flouted both the letter and intention of the law. A law in this instance designed to protect federal employees in risk of their lives. The message now sent is that as a presidential agent you have carte blanche and will not be bound by law. This is not a healthy position to take.

[Sand]

What I found interesting that Bush thought 30 months was "excessive" while the death penalty is not. 30 months for perjury is a right punishment for what Libby is guilty of.

Edited July 6, 2007 by Sand

[Tale]

30 months is beyond the federal sentencing recommendation for perjury. I believe that has been stated already in this thread.

[Sand]

Perjury and Obstruction of Justice, sorry. Also the reccommended punishments also tend to be too light.

[Tale]

What's the sentencing recommendation for obstruction of justice?

 

Your opinion of federal sentencing recommendations is wholly irrelevant. I suspect they exist only to support your bias.

Edited July 6, 2007 by Tale

[Guard Dog]

Not wanting to make you feel you're out n your own, GD, I can see the logic you are using. However, where I can see Pop's angle is that there is a massive difference in the root of the offense. Casting my creaky memory back I can recall thinking the entire investigation into Clinton's impropriety was a waste of money and public interest. Ought there really be special prosecutors running around sniffing underwear?

 

No, I agree the concept of special prosecutors has been much abused in recent years. However, let me turn this around on you. Clinton would never have committed the crime if there had not been an investigation into an matter unrelated to the crime. Can we not say the same for Libby? The DOJ began the investigation KNOWING it was Armitage who leaked Plame's ID. So does that not make the whole investigation unnecessary? And if there had been no investigation Libby would never have had the opportunity to commit the crime. So I ask again, and please answer this: If Libby deserves to go to prison for perjury, doesn't Bill Clinton deserve to go for the exact same offense committed under the exact same circumstances?

[Tale]

Not wanting to make you feel you're out n your own, GD, I can see the logic you are using. However, where I can see Pop's angle is that there is a massive difference in the root of the offense. Casting my creaky memory back I can recall thinking the entire investigation into Clinton's impropriety was a waste of money and public interest. Ought there really be special prosecutors running around sniffing underwear?

 

No, I agree the concept of special prosecutors has been much abused in recent years. However, let me turn this around on you. Clinton would never have committed the crime if there had not been an investigation into an matter unrelated to the crime. Can we not say the same for Libby? The DOJ began the investigation KNOWING it was Armitage who leaked Plame's ID. So does that not make the whole investigation unnecessary? And if there had been no investigation Libby would never have had the opportunity to commit the crime. So I ask again, and please answer this: If Libby deserves to go to prison for perjury, doesn't Bill Clinton deserve to go for the exact same offense committed under the exact same circumstances?

I don't know if my sources are right or not, but Clinton had:

1 count perjury

1 count obstruction of justice

 

Libby has:

2 counts perjury

1 count obstruction of justice

1 count of making false statements to federal investigators

 

 

Maybe in Florida "perjury is perjury" but everywhere else 2 counts and 4 total charges is not the same as 1 count and 2 total charges.

 

You're also not turning Walshingham's statement around. He's not saying "if there hadn't been an investigation." He's saying that the two crimes the perjury were meant to conceal are drastically different in the seriousness of offense.

Edited July 6, 2007 by Tale

[Guard Dog]

I don't know if my sources are right or not, but Clinton had:

1 count perjury

1 count obstruction of justice

 

Libby has:

2 counts perjury

1 count obstruction of justice

1 count of making false statements to federal investigators

 

 

Maybe in Florida "perjury is perjury" but everywhere else 2 counts and 4 total charges is not the same as 1 count and 2 total charges.

No you are right, the more counts you have, usually the stiffer the sentence. But the counts almost always run concurrent so you will not be in prision longer than it takes to seve one count. For example, in FL, one count will get you six months. But two might get you two eight month terms that run concurrent. It does not matter what you lied about. The law makes no distinction as to how serious the offense is because that can be completely subjective. Perjury is perjury.

 

But what I'm trying to do is force eveyone to see their own bias here.

Edited July 6, 2007 by Guard Dog