U2 Feedback

U2 Feedback (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/)
-   Free Your Mind Archive (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/f290/)
-   -   Bush commutes Libby's prison sentence (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/f290/bush-commutes-libbys-prison-sentence-177891.html)

unico 07-03-2007 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bluer White


It was Armitage that leaked Plame's name. The prosecutor knew that very early on. And why wasn't Armitage indicted? Because Plame didn't have a protected status.

but my point is, that the big coverup here is that Cheney ordered the leak. Cheney ordering the link is the outing I'm speaking of. Yes, Libby is a liar, but the bigger scandal behind all this is the White House involvement.

anitram 07-03-2007 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bluer White


It was Armitage that leaked Plame's name. The prosecutor knew that very early on. And why wasn't Armitage indicted? Because Plame didn't have a protected status.

And this justifies Libby perjuring himself and obstructing justice?

This must be some kind of new legal defence I'm unfamiliar with.

phillyfan26 07-03-2007 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MadelynIris


Why are you saying this was a life-and-death case?

You don't think leaking of any CIA info is risky?

But really it is beside the point. Perjury is perjury.

phillyfan26 07-03-2007 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by diamond


At least Bush has the nuts to do it now like a man and not as weakling leaving office.

And why don't you learn how to spell the word hypocrisy first before commenting on the word.

Your continual vapid boring predictable posts force me to put you back on Ignore.

dbs

You wouldn't call your posts which stray from the point and reek of blind conservatism a bit predicatble as well?

What are your thoughts on the actual case?

Bluer White 07-03-2007 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by unico


but my point is, that the big coverup here is that Cheney ordered the leak. Cheney ordering the link is the outing I'm speaking of. Yes, Libby is a liar, but the bigger scandal behind all this is the White House involvement.

The scandal is Cheney ordering a leak of a non-covert agent's name, you mean?

Surely Cheney didn't order Armitage to let it slip. An opponent of the war and much more of an ally to Colin Powell than to the White House.

Last night Olbermann called what Libby did "treason." I guess it's all in how these media outlets choose to frame the issue. In here as well.

phillyfan26 07-03-2007 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by diamond
And I post Clintons pardons 400 vs Bush's of 80 because of the hypocrites that never fussed over Clinton's corruptness but sure squeal for what Bush did. Hypocrites:down:

:banghead:

1. The issue is not pardons.

2. Even if it was, numbers do not tell the whole story.

3. The issue is Bush commuting Scooter Libby, no other ones. We're discussing this one.

Bluer White 07-03-2007 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by anitram

And this justifies Libby perjuring himself and obstructing justice?

YES!!! It gave Libby a free shot to say whatever he wanted!!!



No, of course not. Please.

MadelynIris 07-03-2007 03:20 PM

I think his sentence was excessive. If I were President, I would have left the fine ($250,000) and commuted the sentence to time served and to 2 years probation.

phillyfan26 07-03-2007 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MadelynIris
I think his sentence was excessive. If I were President, I would have left the fine ($250,000) and commuted the sentence to time served and to 2 years probation.
Why was it excessive?

MadelynIris 07-03-2007 03:24 PM

They didn't order the leak. One Sunday morning, an op-ed appears in the paper from a former diplomat.

The white house assembled a rebuttal, and in the process disclosed that this former diplomat was sent by his wife (or his wife's boss). His wife happened to work at the CIA. Very strange. When everyone went to investigate, including Novak, they printed what they found out.

Scooter's account went against others. Therefore, he lied, therefore, 3 years prison.

phillyfan26 07-03-2007 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MadelynIris
They didn't order the leak. One Sunday morning, an op-ed appears in the paper from a former diplomat.

The white house assembled a rebuttal, and in the process disclosed that this former diplomat was sent by his wife (or his wife's boss). His wife happened to work at the CIA. Very strange. When everyone went to investigate, including Novak, they printed what they found out.

Scooter's account went against others. Therefore, he lied, therefore, 3 years prison.

He perjured himself! That's a felony! Last I checked, a felony is a serious crime. Especially something involving government matters.

Let alone the suspicion of a cover-up, it is a fair sentence.

anitram 07-03-2007 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bluer White
No, of course not. Please.
So then what is the purpose of discussing Armitage here? What is the purpose of discussing Clinton?

And as for the excessive sentencing - talk about a Republican talking point. It is within the guidelines for the offences for which he was convicted. By the way, they mandate a prison sentence. If Bush felt it was excessive, he was free to have Libby sit in jail for 15 months and then pardon him when he left office. Or 10 months and pardon him. But he did no such thing, he completely commuted the sentence.

For those who feel it's excessive, on what grounds, legally do you feel that way. And second, do you believe he should have served no time when the sentencing guidelines for perjury and obstruction of justice call for a prison term?

unico 07-03-2007 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bluer White


The scandal is Cheney ordering a leak of a non-covert agent's name, you mean?

Non-covert? Her covert status was confirmed!

MadelynIris 07-03-2007 03:40 PM

Not having the stats of "average sentences for perjury" in front of me, I'm mostly going on what I've heard and read from the media, and their feelings on the sentence.

Even the most liberal columnists have felt this way too:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061801366.html

Quote:

I don't expect George Bush to appreciate this. He is the privileged son of a privileged son, and he fears nothing except, probably, doubt. But the rest of us ought to consider what Fitzgerald has wrought and whether we are better off for his efforts. I have come to hate the war and I cannot approve of lying under oath -- not by Scooter, not by Bill Clinton, not by anybody. But the underlying crime is absent, the sentence is excessive and the investigation should not have been conducted in the first place. This is a mess. Should Libby be pardoned? Maybe. Should his sentence be commuted? Definitely.

financeguy 07-03-2007 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by anitram
And as for the excessive sentencing - talk about a Republican talking point. It is within the guidelines for the offences for which he was convicted. By the way, they mandate a prison sentence. If Bush felt it was excessive, he was free to have Libby sit in jail for 15 months and then pardon him when he left office. Or 10 months and pardon him. But he did no such thing, he completely commuted the sentence.
What exactly are the guidelines, i.e. minimum and maximum?

phillyfan26 07-03-2007 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MadelynIris
Not having the stats of "average sentences for perjury" in front of me, I'm mostly going on what I've heard and read from the media, and their feelings on the sentence.

Even the most liberal columnists have felt this way too:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061801366.html


Columnists don't write the law. The law calls for prison terms, as Anitram said.

When I ask why you think it is excessive, I'm not asking you to find people who think it is excessive. I don't see how it is.

BVS 07-03-2007 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MadelynIris


Even the most liberal columnists have felt this way too:

Why do columnist count more than juries?

MadelynIris 07-03-2007 03:55 PM

Like I said, I don't have stats, but a variety of folks, like Dershowitz, Law professor at Harvard saying:
Quote:

DERSHOWITZ: Well, considering all of the circumstances of the case, first offender, good record, generally, you wouldn't get a sentence of that length, especially since judges now have enormous discretion -- we'll find out in the next days or weeks how much discretion -- but they generally have discretion to tailor the sentence to the particular defendant. And...
https://newsbusters.org/node/13370

MadelynIris 07-03-2007 04:01 PM

Quote:

Why do columnist count more than juries?
BVS, did the jury impose the sentence?

BVS 07-03-2007 04:03 PM

:lol: newsbusters...


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:16 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com