Scooter Libby Verdicts

[cannon_fodder]

Michael - I appreciate the differences and whole heartedly agree the pergery is rarely prosecuted.  Likewise, the Libby thing is in no way connected to Whitewater.  

I was merely pointing out that those who are ready to cast a stone at the Bush administration for having a member that lied on the record - should remember that the head of Clinton administration (Clinton himself) was guilty of the same act.  While civil pergery is less prosecuted, it is the same act as Libby is guilty of.  Both lied to official after swearing to tell the truth.

The difference?  Libby lied and deprived the FBI of information and Clinton lied and deprived a citizen of information.  Pissing off the government is always more dangerous, but depriving a citizen is also a crime.  Just because it isnt prosecuted much doesnt mean the president should partake in it.

For the record, I dont care who gets head in the white house.  He shouldnt have lied about it but too much effort was wasted on that which hunt.  I am NOT complaining of a double standard because I think what Clinton did was handled well in a civil settlement proceeding later.  Libby deserves what he gets so screw him too.

Finally, I only brought up Whitewater because of the talk about pardons that is already circulating.  The same people defending the Clinton pardons are likely to be up in arms about this one.

Anywho, thanks for the link to the Clinton statements.  I havent read up on that in years.   And I agree with you that a witch hunt is unlikely.

[MichaelC]

It's fun looking over that old stuff ain't it?

Perjury is rarely prosecuted or prosecutable in a civil suit (I don't know of any cases where it was prosecuted in a civil case, I assume it may have happened sometime).  Criminal, or Federal, that's completely different.  

Democrats general admit that what Clinton said was a lie, or at least misleading.  Where the rub with Democrats is generally, is that Clinton was impeached over something that was relatively harmless and virtually unprosecutable.  The witch hunt, that began basically as soon as he took office.  The GOP claimed Perjury, which he was never charged with.  It wasn't prosecutable as Purjury.  But the GOP tried very hard to nail Clinton, it was the best opportunity they had.  Impeachment should not have been taken that lightly.

I've seen conservative TV guys talk about impeachment, and whether or not it's appropriate for Bush.  Some argue that it is.  There are bigger issues here, than there were when Clinton was facing impeachment.  There will be talk I imagine, but the Democrats aren't going to touch it.  The GOP "skinned the cat" one way, but there is another way.  If the cat is really that evil, it will skin itself.

How many ways did I spell perjury?

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

CL - Clinton was found not prosecuted in a political body.  That has no bearing on his guilt.

He told a grand jury and federal investigator that "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."  Then she produced a dress with his sperm on it.  Then he acquiesced and admitted having "relations" with her.  So his own admission, Bill Clinton is guilty of the same thing Scooter has been convicted of.

If you dont understand that, then you are really just a democrat on a witch hunt.  I am in no way defending Scooter, as I said above he should get whatever is coming.  I'm merely pointing out that this "SHOCKING" story isnt exactly a new turn of events in American politics.

and to head you off at the pass on the pardon - didnt Clinton pardon all of his friends that were convicted of fraud, mismanagement, and lying to protect his illegal financial activities?  Oh yeah, he did.

Both parties are corrupt and only concerned with their own power.  Screw 'em both.

Settle down. [V]  I was never Bill's biggest fan.  I simply responded to your question, i.e., why didn't Clinton go to jail?  He didn't go to jail because he was acquitted by Senate, and it absolutely has "bearing on his guilt".  I also noted that Scooter could yet be acquitted, or he could be pardoned.  I wasn't trying to spin this one way or the other, I was simply answering your question.

[cannon_fodder]

I can't spell at all.

Perjury or any other word for that matter.  I write on the fly so that doesnt help my cause either.

Except Humuhumunukunukuapuaa.  Which, for some reason, I learned how to spell.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

I do wonder how W^2 ('Weesel Wilson') has come this far without being prosecuted. He's admitted to lying twice.

The facts never seem to have gotten in the way here.

Libby did either lie or mis-remember, but so did a lot of other people. I'm willing to let the jurors speak there (though, the one who spoke, if representative, didn't seem to have a clue of what the trial was really about).

What is wrong, however, is for Democrats, and Wilson in particular to take it as validation to everything they've been promoting all along, which has little factual basis.

Not following you here.  Wilson said that he thought the Niger, Iraq, uranium thing was bogus...turns out now that US intelligence, George Tenent, and the President agree and and that it never should have been in the SOTU speech.  

Seems to me that testimony in the Libby trial, along with the administration's confessions about the bogus uranium claim, do indeed amount to a "validation to everything".

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

I do wonder how W^2 ('Weesel Wilson') has come this far without being prosecuted. He's admitted to lying twice.

The facts never seem to have gotten in the way here.

Libby did either lie or mis-remember, but so did a lot of other people. I'm willing to let the jurors speak there (though, the one who spoke, if representative, didn't seem to have a clue of what the trial was really about).

What is wrong, however, is for Democrats, and Wilson in particular to take it as validation to everything they've been promoting all along, which has little factual basis.

Not following you here.  Wilson said that he thought the Niger, Iraq, uranium thing was bogus...turns out now that US intelligence, George Tenent, and the President agree and and that it never should have been in the SOTU speech.  

Seems to me that testimony in the Libby trial, along with the administration's confessions about the bogus uranium claim, do indeed amount to a "validation to everything".

Perhaps if you read this on the 'bogus' claim:
http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

Wilson himself invalidated his own claim. Besides being a general PITA.

Those who consider yellow-cake to be the cornerstone for an Iraqi invasion, well, are just wrong.

But, there's really not much sense in going over it all again for those who so closely affiliate themselves with inaccurate information.

FWIW, Libby's trial was about him lying during the course of an investigation, the investigation which, by itself, produced not a single charge.

Libby's personal failing hardly reflects truth to the balance of every claim ever made.

That, or you'd probably more accurately blast on Fitzgerald for the poor job he did in getting to the truth.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

I do wonder how W^2 ('Weesel Wilson') has come this far without being prosecuted. He's admitted to lying twice.

The facts never seem to have gotten in the way here.

Libby did either lie or mis-remember, but so did a lot of other people. I'm willing to let the jurors speak there (though, the one who spoke, if representative, didn't seem to have a clue of what the trial was really about).

What is wrong, however, is for Democrats, and Wilson in particular to take it as validation to everything they've been promoting all along, which has little factual basis.

Not following you here.  Wilson said that he thought the Niger, Iraq, uranium thing was bogus...turns out now that US intelligence, George Tenent, and the President agree and and that it never should have been in the SOTU speech.  

Seems to me that testimony in the Libby trial, along with the administration's confessions about the bogus uranium claim, do indeed amount to a "validation to everything".

Perhaps if you read this on the 'bogus' claim:
http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

Perhaps what?  Read the concluding paragraph:

quote: The final word on the 16 words may have to await history's judgment. The Butler report's conclusion that British intelligence was "credible" clearly doesn't square with what US intelligence now believes. But these new reports show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said, even if British intelligence is eventually shown to be mistaken.

I've already said that I don't think Bush knew at the time that the uranium claim was bogus.  Five months later, after the US had been looking for WMDs in country for over three months, it was becoming clear that the claims about WMDs were "hyped".

Wilson spoke up and said what everybody else was thinking.  I surmise that that is when the administration started telling lies.  They wanted to cover up the WMD "intelligence".

[Wrinkle]

Of course, it depends on just what your "bogus uranium claim" and "uranium thing" contentions are (definition of "is" is?).

If these consist of Bush suggesting Iraq had yellow cake (was sold to him by Niger), it's been clearly shown that probably did/has not happen(ed), nor did Bush or anyone else in his administration suggest it had happened. He referenced a British intelligence report which said *they* believed he had *attempted* to obtain yellow cake. At the time, US Intelligence agreed, and Wilson himself reinforced that with his report to the CIA (which he countered in his own OpEd piece, and since with his public persona ungratis).

If your claims are that Bush either knew of, created or used the fabricated counterfeit purchase order discovered by Italian intelligence, you'd be incorrect as well. It was never considered authentic by either Bush or US Intelligence, besides having not occurred prior to the SOTU speech.

Your comment: "Wilson spoke up and said what everybody else was thinking" is absurdly false. Nobody, at least in the public, was thinking anything about yellow cake prior to Wilson's trip. And, when Wilson did speak up, his words were a direct dichotomy to the report he just gave to the CIA. He was lying then, as now.

Your comment: "Seems to me that testimony in the Libby trial, along with the administration's confessions about the bogus uranium claim, do indeed amount to a "validation to everything"." fails to make sense because there was no confession. And, what the Libby trial and "everything" have to do with each other is about the same as whale crap on the bottom of the ocean is to clouds in the sky.

But, then, if you see things this way, then it's really more a matter of perception, comprehension, or shear will.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

Of course, it depends on just what your "bogus uranium claim" and "uranium thing" contentions are (definition of "is" is?).

If these consist of Bush suggesting Iraq had yellow cake (was sold to him by Niger), it's been clearly shown that probably did/has not happen(ed), nor did Bush or anyone else in his administration suggest it had happened. He referenced a British intelligence report which said *they* believed he had *attempted* to obtain yellow cake. At the time, US Intelligence agreed, and Wilson himself reinforced that with his report to the CIA (which he countered in his own OpEd piece, and since with his public persona ungratis).

If your claims are that Bush either knew of, created or used the fabricated counterfeit purchase order discovered by Italian intelligence, you'd be incorrect as well. It was never considered authentic by either Bush or US Intelligence, besides having not occurred prior to the SOTU speech.

Your comment: "Wilson spoke up and said what everybody else was thinking" is absurdly false. Nobody, at least in the public, was thinking anything about yellow cake prior to Wilson's trip. And, when Wilson did speak up, his words were a direct dichotomy to the report he just gave to the CIA. He was lying then, as now.

Your comment: "Seems to me that testimony in the Libby trial, along with the administration's confessions about the bogus uranium claim, do indeed amount to a "validation to everything"." fails to make sense because there was no confession. And, what the Libby trial and "everything" have to do with each other is about the same as whale crap on the bottom of the ocean is to clouds in the sky.

But, then, if you see things this way, then it's really more a matter of perception, comprehension, or shear will.

I'm bewildered by your statement:

quote: If these consist of Bush suggesting Iraq had yellow cake (was sold to him by Niger), it's been clearly shown that probably did/has not happen(ed), nor did Bush or anyone else in his administration suggest it had happened.

Way to cover all the bases there, buddy.  Either Saddam had uranium, or he didn't.  Either the administration said he had it, or they didn't.  Or maybe this isn't what you meant to say.

So, do you believe that Iraq bought, or even attempted to buy, uranium from Niger?  Yes or no.  If yes, you are in a very small group.  That group  does not include US intelligence or the administration.

I've said, twice now, that I do not know whether or not Bush himself knew that the uranium claim was bogus at the time of the SOTU.  I've also said that I hoped he didn't know.  That is not my point.

The Libby coverup began five months later, when it was clear that Iraq did not have uranium.  We scoured the country and found no evidence of a nuke program.  None.

Lots of folks were beginning to wonder what the h*ll was going on.  The whole uranium story was starting to unravel.  Wilson saw that his own words were misused to support the bogus uranium claim and so he spoke up in order to set the record straight.

At that point, the administration could have said, "Yeah, I guess you're right.  Our bad.", which is what they did in the end, anyway (Tenent was fired for it, remember?)  But instead, they cooked up lies about Wilson and his wife.  Several administration officials leaked the identity of an agent working on WMDs in the process.  They ruined the career of a person whose job was to protect us from WMDs (Plame), and risked exposing all of her contacts.  Bonehead stuff.

When the CIA asked for an investigation of the boneheads, Scooter and Rove cooked up alibis to protect themselves and the administration.  Who's worse?  Scooter for lying, or Rove for lying and then changing his story at the last minute when it looked like he was going to be charged, too?  Take your pick.

You keep saying that the Libby trial had nothing to do with the bogus claim, and I keep telling you that it had everything to do with trying to cover it up.  The moment the administration decided to go after Wilson, certain individuals started digging holes for themselves.  Libby, couldn't slither out of his hole.

Now, I've just told the whole complex story, as I see it.  This is the third time.  Saying that Libby's lies had nothing to do with the hyped uranium claims is like saying that Capone's conviction on tax evasion had nothing to do with the fact that he was a bootlegging gangster.  People are smarter than that.

Why don't you provide your own story.  And when you get to the part where Libby lied, you'll probably have to start backing up.  Ask yourself, "Why would he have to lie to the FBI and grand jury in the first place?"