Bush commutes Libby's prison sentence

[deep]

"I don't know what Arkansan is for chutzpah, but this is a gigantic case of it," Snow told reporters in an off-camera briefing Wednesday.

So this is their big retort?


Remember they took office on the claim of
"Restoring honor and dignity to the Whitehouse".

And their reply is in effect "We doing the same thing they did".

[struckpx]

who is clinton to comment on this? honestly.....

[BVS]

Well, none of us are as clean as a whistle so who cares, right?

[diamond]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
Well, none of us are as clean as a whistle so who cares, right?

John 8:7

[BVS]

Originally posted by diamond


John 8:7

That post was in reference to one of his previous posts.

But it's interesting you post that passage.

[Lila64]

Originally posted by diamond


Here's what the White House has to say about Clinton's remarks:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- White House spokesman Tony Snow fired back at former President Bill Clinton after Clinton charged that the Bush administration believes the law is a "minor obstacle" in the "Scooter" Libby case.


The Clintons campaign at the Iowa State Fairgrounds in Des Moines on Monday.

"I don't know what Arkansan is for chutzpah, but this is a gigantic case of it," Snow told reporters in an off-camera briefing Wednesday.

Webster's New World dictionary defines chutzpah as "shameless audacity; imprudence; brass."

Tony Snow is Jewish? Who knew

[Lila64]

Originally posted by struckpx
who is clinton to comment on this? honestly.....

Last I checked he was a former president.

[unico]

Originally posted by Bluer White


These are not facts. Cheney did not out Plame. A Cheney henchman did not out Plame. The special prosectuor knew who and chose not to indict. It was this man:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14533384/site/newsweek/
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/...age/index.html

I agree that the whole Libby situation is lousy and stinks to high heaven. If it was my choice he would have spent a few months in the slammer as he is a convicted felon. But conspiracy theories and cover-up theories are just that. They are not facts. No matter how many times they might be reguritated.

could someone please post the msn article here? everytime i try to open it it shuts down safari.

[U2democrat]

MSNBC.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Armitage's Role in Plame Case
A book coauthored by NEWSWEEK's Michael Isikoff details Richard Armitage's central role in the Valerie Plame leak.
By Michael Isikoff
Newsweek
Sept. 4, 2006 issue - In the early morning of Oct. 1, 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell received an urgent phone call from his No. 2 at the State Department. Richard Armitage was clearly agitated. As recounted in a new book, "Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War," Armitage had been at home reading the newspaper and had come across a column by journalist Robert Novak. Months earlier, Novak had caused a huge stir when he revealed that Valerie Plame, wife of Iraq-war critic Joseph Wilson, was a CIA officer. Ever since, Washington had been trying to find out who leaked the information to Novak. The columnist himself had kept quiet. But now, in a second column, Novak provided a tantalizing clue: his primary source, he wrote, was a "senior administration official" who was "not a partisan gunslinger." Armitage was shaken. After reading the column, he knew immediately who the leaker was. On the phone with Powell that morning, Armitage was "in deep distress," says a source directly familiar with the conversation who asked not to be identified because of legal sensitivities. "I'm sure he's talking about me."

Armitage's admission led to a flurry of anxious phone calls and meetings that day at the State Department. (Days earlier, the Justice Department had launched a criminal investigation into the Plame leak after the CIA informed officials there that she was an undercover officer.) Within hours, William Howard Taft IV, the State Department's legal adviser, notified a senior Justice official that Armitage had information relevant to the case. The next day, a team of FBI agents and Justice prosecutors investigating the leak questioned the deputy secretary. Armitage acknowledged that he had passed along to Novak information contained in a classified State Department memo: that Wilson's wife worked on weapons-of-mass-destruction issues at the CIA. (The memo made no reference to her undercover status.) Armitage had met with Novak in his State Department office on July 8, 2003—just days before Novak published his first piece identifying Plame. Powell, Armitage and Taft, the only three officials at the State Department who knew the story, never breathed a word of it publicly and Armitage's role remained secret.

Armitage, a well-known gossip who loves to dish and receive juicy tidbits about Washington characters, apparently hadn't thought through the possible implications of telling Novak about Plame's identity. "I'm afraid I may be the guy that caused this whole thing," he later told Carl Ford Jr., State's intelligence chief. Ford says Armitage admitted to him that he had "slipped up" and told Novak more than he should have. "He was basically beside himself that he was the guy that f---ed up. My sense from Rich is that it was just chitchat," Ford recalls in "Hubris," to be published next week by Crown and co-written by the author of this article and David Corn, Washington editor of The Nation magazine.


As it turned out, Novak wasn't the only person Armitage talked to about Plame. Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward has also said he was told of Plame's identity in June 2003. Woodward did not respond to requests for comment for this article, but, as late as last week, he referred reporters to his comments in November 2005 that he learned of her identity in a "casual and offhand" conversation with an administration official he declined to identify. According to three government officials, a lawyer familiar with the case and an Armitage confidant, all of whom would not be named discussing these details, Armitage told Woodward about Plame three weeks before talking to Novak. Armitage has consistently refused to discuss the case; through an assistant last week he declined to comment for this story. Novak would say only: "I don't discuss my sources until they reveal themselves."


Armitage's central role as the primary source on Plame is detailed for the first time in "Hubris," which recounts the leak case and the inside battles at the CIA and White House in the run-up to the war. The disclosures about Armitage, gleaned from interviews with colleagues, friends and lawyers directly involved in the case, underscore one of the ironies of the Plame investigation: that the initial leak, seized on by administration critics as evidence of how far the White House was willing to go to smear an opponent, came from a man who had no apparent intention of harming anyone.

Indeed, Armitage was a member of the administration's small moderate wing. Along with his boss and good friend, Powell, he had deep misgivings about President George W. Bush's march to war. A barrel-chested Vietnam vet who had volunteered for combat, Armitage at times expressed disdain for Dick Cheney and other administration war hawks who had never served in the military. Armitage routinely returned from White House meetings shaking his head at the armchair warriors. "One day," says Powell's former chief of staff Larry Wilkerson, "we were walking into his office and Rich turned to me and said, 'Larry, these guys never heard a bullet go by their ears in anger ... None of them ever served. They're a bunch of jerks'."

But officials at the White House also told reporters about Wilson's wife in an effort to discredit Wilson for his public attacks on Bush's handling of Iraq intelligence. Karl Rove confirmed to Novak that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, and days later offered the same information to Time reporter Matt Cooper. The inquiry into the case led to the indictment of Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. Armitage himself was aggressively investigated by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, but was never charged. Fitzgerald found no evidence that Armitage knew of Plame's covert CIA status when he talked to Novak and Woodward. The decision to go to the FBI that panicky October afternoon also may have helped Armitage. Powell, Armitage and Taft were aware of the perils of a cover-up—all three had lived through the Iran-contra scandal at the Defense Department in the late 1980s.


Taft, the State Department lawyer, also felt obligated to inform White House counsel Alberto Gonzales. But Powell and his aides feared the White House would then leak that Armitage had been Novak's source—possibly to embarrass State Department officials who had been unenthusiastic about Bush's Iraq policy. So Taft told Gonzales the bare minimum: that the State Department had passed some information about the case to Justice. He didn't mention Armitage. Taft asked if Gonzales wanted to know the details. The president's lawyer, playing the case by the book, said no, and Taft told him nothing more. Armitage's role thus remained that rarest of Washington phenomena: a hot secret that never leaked.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14533384...wsweek/page/0/


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MSN Privacy . Legal
© 2007 MSNBC.com

[unico]

Okay Bluer White, I read the CNN article that you showed. Note that that article is a year old now. There have been developments since. If you click on the link on the left, CNN has a much more detailed timeline of the events that took place throughout this investigation.

For example, this one:

The New York Times, citing lawyers close to the case, reports that notes in the hands of a federal prosecutor indicate that Libby first heard Valerie Plame's name from Cheney in a conversation on June 12, 2003, a month before the Bob Novak column made it public knowledge. This would seem to conflict with Libby's grand jury testimony that he had not heard of Plame until he was asked about her by reporters.

And of course, in 2007 when Fitzgerald himself said that this investigation has left a cloud over the white house. Libby is refusing to answer direct questions to protect Cheney's involvement. No Cheney didn't himself out Plame. Cheney ORDERED it.

www.findlaw.com has some great articles too of people well versed in legal studies examining this case. Last time you posted her you said Plame was not covert, which is untrue. I'd suggest checking some of the findlaw articles instead of year-old CNN reports. Only because I think those would be more accurate. Yes the article you shared is important, however the context of this investigation is even more important.

[anitram]

What does the fact that Armitage was the leak have to do with the fact that Libby perjured himself? Absolutely nothing. I wasn't aware that it was a legal defense to state that "the other guy committed crime 1, and then I committed crime 2, so therefore I should not have been prosecuted."

[hardyharhar]

Originally posted by diamond
it was a witch hunt, GW recognize that fact and didn't let Scooter off scot fre.

Once you ppl freely admit those facts you'll start feeling better about yourselves and stop being so miserable.

I doubt that some of you can, you prefer being angry and miserable over sane and productive.

It's that simple.

dbs

Wow, talk about self righteous

[unico]

ewww you quoted it!!!

[Lila64]

forgive him, as he's still a newbie
Though give him points for Godzilla

\back on topic, if possible

[phillyfan26]

There's so many things wrong with the posts about Clinton, the biggest thing being that Clinton's pardoning has nothing to do with this case. This case isn't about the pardons of Bush, for one because this wasn't even a pardon! This is about THE COVER UP.

And some of the posts in this thread leave a sickening feeling in my stomach. It's amazing what political parties can do to people.

- phillyfan26, Independent

[BVS]

Originally posted by phillyfan26
It's amazing what political parties can do to people.

- phillyfan26, Independent

It is, and I applaud your participation, intellect, and passion in the whole realm...

[struckpx]

Originally posted by phillyfan26
There's so many things wrong with the posts about Clinton, the biggest thing being that Clinton's pardoning has nothing to do with this case. This case isn't about the pardons of Bush, for one because this wasn't even a pardon! This is about THE COVER UP.

And some of the posts in this thread leave a sickening feeling in my stomach. It's amazing what political parties can do to people.

- phillyfan26, Independent

No, the point of bringing up Clinton is showing how other Presidents have used this method, not only a Republican Conservative like Bush. For us to make a big deal out of this when Clinton's commutal's were just as sketchy is of note. That is why we are bringing it up. If that were not the case, then we should not bring up any artifical evidence for it has nothing to do w/ this case. The amount of jail time that others have received on similar offenses don't elicit the same circumstances as this one, therefore are refutable. That is your argument.

Precedent is what makes up every facet of this country. We rely on it, live on it, and breathe it. For Clinton to condemn this and smile about it is another one of his great lies that we have become so used to. Look into the Marc Rich case or the FALN terrorist commutals and you will find that Libby's case pale's in comparison to those.

Both Clinton and Libby are very similar. That is also why this argument keeps being brought up. They both are/were high ranking officials, lied under oath and both were tried for alleged or actual crimes.

Differences: Clinton was elected President, Libby a staffer unelected by anyone but Dick Cheney. both are supposed to hold high morals, but one was officially publicly elected. Prior to this case, none of us would have been able to even know what Libby looked like.

Here's the catcher:

Scooter Libby is a convicted Felon, Bill Clinton, although many senators voted to impeach him, was not convicted of anything.

For further evidence, I refer all of you to Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution. It reads:

"The President...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

So, he was convicted in a US court of law, which means his crime was an offense against the United States and the president commuted his sentence, also known as a reprieve, which the Constitution allows to.

Now, what do you not understand about this? Should I go further into Clinton's commutals? I would love to indulge in those, for they are much worse than Libby's.

I look forward to feedback. Is that not enough evidence? What else should I put?

[Lila64]

[Diemen]

Originally posted by struckpx


No, the point of bringing up Clinton is showing how other Presidents have used this method, not only a Republican Conservative like Bush. For us to make a big deal out of this when Clinton's commutal's were just as sketchy is of note. That is why we are bringing it up. If that were not the case, then we should not bring up any artifical evidence for it has nothing to do w/ this case. The amount of jail time that others have received on similar offenses don't elicit the same circumstances as this one, therefore are refutable. That is your argument.

Precedent is what makes up every facet of this country. We rely on it, live on it, and breathe it. For Clinton to condemn this and smile about it is another one of his great lies that we have become so used to. Look into the Marc Rich case or the FALN terrorist commutals and you will find that Libby's case pale's in comparison to those.

Both Clinton and Libby are very similar. That is also why this argument keeps being brought up. They both are/were high ranking officials, lied under oath and both were tried for alleged or actual crimes.

Differences: Clinton was elected President, Libby a staffer unelected by anyone but Dick Cheney. both are supposed to hold high morals, but one was officially publicly elected. Prior to this case, none of us would have been able to even know what Libby looked like.

Here's the catcher:

Scooter Libby is a convicted Felon, Bill Clinton, although many senators voted to impeach him, was not convicted of anything.

For further evidence, I refer all of you to Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution. It reads:

"The President...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

So, he was convicted in a US court of law, which means his crime was an offense against the United States and the president commuted his sentence, also known as a reprieve, which the Constitution allows to.

Now, what do you not understand about this? Should I go further into Clinton's commutals? I would love to indulge in those, for they are much worse than Libby's.

I look forward to feedback. Is that not enough evidence? What else should I put?

You just don't get it, do you?

Bush came into the White House on the charge of restoring honor, dignity and morality to the office. Now suddenly when he's caught doing just the opposite, " the other guy did it to" is supposed to be justification? Please.

Face it, the ONLY reason Bush did this is so that no one further up the line will face any legal action for the traitorous act of outing a CIA agent. No amount of comparison to Clinton or past presidents reduces the cowardly and corrupt nature of that act. What Bush did was wrong. Comparing it to Clinton's wrongs doesn't change the fact that it's wrong.

[struckpx]

Originally posted by Diemen


You just don't get it, do you?

Bush came into the White House on the charge of restoring honor, dignity and morality to the office. Now suddenly when he's caught doing just the opposite, " the other guy did it to" is supposed to be justification? Please.

Face it, the ONLY reason Bush did this is so that no one further up the line will face any legal action for the traitorous act of outing a CIA agent. No amount of comparison to Clinton or past presidents reduces the cowardly and corrupt nature of that act. What Bush did was wrong. Comparing it to Clinton's wrongs doesn't change the fact that it's wrong.

I am not saying that he didn't do it because of that. I am sure he did it b/c of Cheney. I am making the point that you cannot say that he did this for party issues, because, as mentioned, the President before him did it as well, on many more occasions. Comparing it to Clinton's wrongs, shows how easy Clinton get off actually. So, it actually exposes Clinton in a new light.

And yes, he has run a very tight line on his morals. Bailing out one of his good friends would be expected. Any President, no matter what party would have done this if they were in the same shoes, so for the Democrats to go all hoopla on Bush is quite immature.