By lying about when he had heard something, in a context in which he had no meaningful role? Even the prosecutor admitted that Libby didn't out Plame. Yet Obama wants to demagogue the issue (obviously for all the people like the folks who turned out Pepper in Florida years ago, who were afraid of thespians and extroverts). This is why, IMHO, you cannot trust democrats with the judicial system. They are far more likely than Republicans to use it as a tool of policy implementation, and for political reasons.Oy! Where to begin.
Perjury and obstruction of justice, I think -- I'm not a lawyer, are both felonies. And here is what the Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said after Libby's sentence was commuted by the Decider (not to be confused with the Judge):
The sentence in this case was imposed pursuant to the laws governing sentencings which occur every day throughout this country. In this case, an experienced federal judge considered extensive argument from the parties and then imposed a sentence consistent with the applicable laws. It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals. That principle guided the judge during both the trial and the sentencing."Meaningful role"? Is that, like, a legal argument? And get your facts straight. Libby entered into a conspiracy and did endeavor to out Valerie Plame, he just didn't beat Richard Armitage to the punch as to whom and when he told. Moreover he was convicted of lying under oath and obstructing justice, that in protecting the lead, if unindicted, co-conspirator of the treasonous act of outing an undercover CIA agent.
That traitor to his country is Dick Cheney.
I'll repeat that: Dick Cheney is a traitor to the United States of America.
I say that realizing, of course, how utterly meaningless the word "traitor" has been rendered; bandied about as it has been over the last 7 years, and primarily from those who cannot comprehend dissent as vital to a democracy. Moreover, if the Constitution has been rendered meaningless, as it apparently is now, how can one break any law where only might makes right and America is regressed unto a nation of men? And yet, there it is. The man is a traitor. There, I said it again!
Libby's crimes go directly to covering up the vice president's treason, and the jury found him without credibility as to when or about what he spoke to the Veep on the matter.
In turn, the Vice President acted with the knowledge and consent, as well as the depraved indifference, of the President via his hatchet man Karl Rove, who, by the way, missed an indictment himself and by the skin of this teeth.
You cannot trust Democrats with the judicial system? Sir, you say this on the heels of an ongoing and most vile malfeasance being perpetrated on "the judicial system," and wholly by Republicans (and Joe Lieberman), beginning with Bush v. Gore to the de facto elimination of FISA, not to mention Habeus Corpus, to extraordinary rendition, to water-boarding, to Alberto Gonzalez (both as White House Counsel and as Att'y General), to the continuing obstruction of justice by the president, maintaining the cover-up of his own role in committing this treason by way of pardoning Scooter Libby.
But if it's a legal mind you crave, I'm rather impressed with Glenn Greenwald's:
We have the country we have -- one in which our most powerful political leaders are literally beyond the reach of the law in every sense, where we casually invade and bomb and occupy countries that have not attacked us, where our moral standing in the world has collapsed with good reason, where we are viewed on every continent in the world as a rogue, dangerous and lawless nation -- because we are ruled by a Beltway elite and political press that is sickly and cowardly and slavish at its core.I suspect you might wish at some point to rephrase your "cannot trust Democrats with the judicial system" because it implies you do trust Republicans. And I don't believe that to be the case, because only a complete idiot, or someone equivalently corrupt, could ever trust these Republicans.
And I like to think, old friend, that you are neither.
8 comments:
I knew I would get a rise out of you with that.
First, calling Cheney a traitor (meaning he is guilty of treason. This is an enumerated impeachable offense so where is the Boy Mayor on this?) somehow does not seem relevant to any legal analysis of Libby's case. So I will move on (no pun intended). Further, you claim Libby conspired to out Plame, yet I do not recall a conviction or even a charge for that. Perhaps I missed something.
Your point about a lack of firings is a good one. Armitrage by admission, and Rove by corroboration, are both implicated. Armitrage resigned, so no firing possible. Rove, IMHO, should have fallen on his sword, or Bush should have pushed him out but neither has happened. What I found curious however is that Armitrage has not been charged. Clearly he admitted to revealing a name in violation of law. What standard is being applied here? I can't say, but I do note that no Dems have called for charges (loudly enough for me to hear anyway). So what gives? Perhaps you can explain why Armitrage, who admitted a role, and Libby, who was never charged with a role, are treated differently. And let me reiterate-Libby was charged with perjury and obstruction for lying about when he knew what he did, not for taking any cognizable action to out Plame. Fitzgerald's statement about Libby slowing him up is the usual Washington claptrap. If Libby was trying to slow up the investigation, that is a conspiratorial act in furtherance of the original crime. Why wasn't that charged.
As for not wanting to trust Dems with control of the judiciary, my point, which is applied broadly, stands. Look at your history of the high court. Whether or not we like the ultimate decisions (and there are several I think will never be revisited), Dem appointments in modern times are more likely to legislate from the bench (though I must admit that Republican appointees engaged in this as well, notably under the Warren Court). Again, though you and I like the results, this does not make it right, and the later Courts are criticized for supposed "activism" when, in reality, they are refusing to be activist and intrude on Congress' role.
Furthermore, this occurs at every level, from the High Court to the Montgomery County Municipal Court, where the judges are famously known to be revenue agents for the county. One need look no further than Philadelphia, a one-party town where judges are elected, and you cannot even get on the democratic ballot unless you are a partisan machine pol (which further helps you to get elected). Or the deplorable NJ Supreme Court, which conveniently overlooked a state law and allowed the Democratic party to put Lautenberg on the ballot in place of the disgraced Torricelli, just prior to the general election, and after a date set out in state law as the deadline for making ballot changes. And a couple of recent actions, seemingly unrelated, cause me to further doubt the democrat's respect for a basic, inviolate, bright line that they will not cross. The DC circuit ruled that pain and suffering awards are taxable income, and the Congress passed (and Bush signed) a law permitting the Virgin Islands to impose property taxes in a manner not allowed under the Constitution (but since it isn't the IRS doing the taxing, it is seemingly okay). What do these cases have in common? The erosion of heretofore bright lines, embodied in the Constitution's proscription against direct taxation (except for income). In the case of the DC circuit, they decided that money for pain and suffering was "income." In fact, the statute says that any money you receive is income, which would effectively make the constitutional proscription a nullity. The VI legislation simply highlights the willingness of the Dems to find "end runs" around the constitution (though, you will argue, reps do that too).
As for FISA and habeas corpus, the "courts are open" as the Supremes famously stated a century or two ago, and greivances are being addressed. This is how the process is supposed to work, and if the Gitmo detainees are right, they can get money from us in court, then take it home and use it to buy C-4 for their suicide bombs. Seems right to me! And as for rendition and water-boarding, yes, these are distasteful for americans, and perhaps illegal if the Bush argument doesn't carry the day. A democratic administration can always clarify this as well, and tie the hands of future administrations, if it so chooses. I seem to recall, in the days after 9-11, Cheney saying that to effectively combat terror, things would have to be done that americans find distasteful. This set a question before the american people about what they would tolerate. So criticize it if you like, but to claim crime and treason when we were very clearly told what would happen, and why, and we were given a choice as to whether to permit it, hardly strikes me as a dark and conspiratorial act.
Finally, I cannot help but point out that the fervor and bile I hear from the left, much of which borders on revolutionary, convinces me that I don't want them to have power to appoint puppet judges that will erode my rights in favor of the groups that voted for them. We are fighting for the future of this country, you and I (and those like us), and it is apparent that we each feel a force is pulling us in the wrong direction. Last time the country was this fractionalized, it led to seccession. Is that the direction we want? Surprisingly, it seems that there is sentiment on both sides. Question becomes then where to draw the line between Jesusland and the People's Republic of Cambridge. That, I couldn't tell you--I just hope I won't need a visa to visit Fenway.
Commander Guy II
And here is a fun little factoid from CNN. Apparently, Libby represented Marc Rich before joining the Bush team. Marc Rich was the person convicted of tax evasion and trading with Iran, and pardoned by Clinton after his wife made hefty donations.
Now, I gotta get back to work. Someone has to pay for the Democratic welfare giveaways.
One final point on law--Yes, perjury and obstruction are both felonies. Recall that the perjury was concerning matter peripheral to the crime being investigated. Also obstruction is a federal prosecutor's tool to beat up on uncooperative folks--you can be charged with obstruction for refusing to cooperate in an investigation even if you have no legal duty to do so. Suppose Fitz wanted to subpoena papers and you fought the subpoena. That is technically obstruction.
Recently, Federal prosecutors had to drop a number of white-collar cases because they were threatening to charge companies with crimes being comptemplated against certain financial sector employees (accountants and the like) when the companies were paying for the employee's lawyers. What charges would have been assessed against the companies, you ask? Obstruction, for one.
Get the picture?
i get the picture, and i'm all in favor of fucking over white-collar criminals... i've said it to you before and i'll say it here now: "if you want peace, work for justice... "
what you call "peripheral" is what goes directly to the obstruction, i.e., covering up for the boss, i.e., the vice president and, 99% likely, the president...
legal evidence pointing to bush & cheney generating a conspiracy to commit a treasonous act -- outing an UNDERCOVER cia operative... (victoria toensing wrote the law following the revelations made by former cia op phillip agee, and now she's engaging in similar legalistic sophistries as thee) -- also generated a lot of circumstantial evidence, the kind that would have brought indictments against lesser mortals but not for the most powerful man in the world and his sock-puppet...("equal justice under law" being a bedtime story, i guess)...
fitzgerald could only get at cheney & bush by getting libby to flip, big fish by way of the little fish: happens every good goddamn day in america...
the sentence of 30 mos in prison is not unusual, i.e., if you've been following multiple outlets of news generated on the subject, while juxtaposed with the fact this president/former governor is notorious for being a hardass on convicts, but suddenly soft on he would otherwise implicate him (unless he'll be commuting perjury sentences from 30 mos. to zero nationwide... ? no... ? thought not... )
i'm not naive, nor am i surprised at this outcome... but i'd rather you didn't insult my intelligence by citing cheney's lack of a conviction in any trial for treason... we both know what has happened here, and that the books are cooked, and libby lied to a grand jury about the cooking of those books...
he was justly convicted and sentenced, and his de facto pardon merely proves the consipiracy is on-going...
might you acknowledge that reality... ?
post hoc ergo propter hoc? That isn't much of an operating theory unless you can prove that the result could not have occurred under any other set of facts.
You ask me to acknowledge reality. I will acknowledge that it is your reality. This isn't insulting your intelligence, rather it acknowledges that if your reality (being your underlying assumptions) are correct, then your analysis is correct. But from an analytical position, you are doing what I (or any jurist) would not do, and that is to use negative inferences whenever possible, including to bridge gaps between pieces of circumstantial evidence. There are other rhetorical fallacies, but this isn't the Mass Debating Team (read that quickly and you will see why they changed their name). But in the Court of Public Opinion, you have all evidence admitted, including inferential evidence, and a bazillion jurists. But I posit, as I have posited before, if the evidence is so gosh-darn clear, why, oh why, are not more prosecutions being brought.
I need look no further than the liberal criticism that constantly regards Bush to be a blithering idiot (and no one I ever spoke to thinks he is one of the sharper knives in the drawer). But, if your version of the truth is to be absolute reality, he cannot be stupid--he must be an evil genius (okay, an evil genius that mangles the english language. But hey, maybe that is an act too!)
Let's examine your statement: "he was justly convicted and sentenced, and his de facto pardon merely proves the consipiracy is on-going..." Suppose Bush hadn't commuted the sentence; would that have proved the lack of a conspiracy? Further, was the prosecution possible only because Libby might have useful information? These are rhetorical fallacies, and base ones at that. And I know you are smarter than that. So please don't say I am insulting your intelligence when you throw out a statement that the pardon proves the conspiracy, because you then have to prove that the conspiracy was a prerequisite, yet Libby was convicted without a charge of conspiracy. I will give you the benefit of the doubt an assume there was to be more to your analysis, but space and time don't permit it.
At the end of the day, I think that you will find the "outing" of Plame was combination of events, all of which were overlaid with a disregard for the sensitivity of the information being bandied about. Not all bad things happen by design, yet you have continually insisted that every misstep or consequence by this administration is the result of deliberate malfeasanse, not misfeasanse; and that Bush and his team are not so much inept as they are acting with a dark, subversive purpose.
History often proves otherwise. And I think that it will do so again.
And why, I wonder, aren't you putting your considerable talents in this area to productive use, and help take down that mendacious bitch?
Were I a liberal, I would be even more furious with Hillary today than last week. A total dodge on the commutation issue. I can see why she ducked it, but that is the textbook definition of cop-out.
She is trying to hold to the center stripe, if only to stake out a position that she thinks she can win on--doesn't matter if she doesn't believe it, or will abandon every principle she espoused on January 21st, 2009. This strategy of tell the greatest number of people what they want to hear worked well for Bill, after all. Heck, has anyone noticed that she is running a general election campaign, which means she has essentially concluded that she cannot lose the primary? What hubris!
You have talked the talk, how abotu walking the walk? You are close to NH these days. I think you ought to get your thing on and man a phone or something. You would be good at it, and enjoy it. Even if she wins NH, a strong second showing by Obama would surely blow an ill wind up that glacial skirt.
Okay, I read Greenwald's piece. Well-composed, punctuation in all the right places, compelling oratory, practically brought me to tears.
But it is still a screed. An opinion, masquerading as fact, and full of the sort of syllogism he would never use before a judge unless he wanted said judge to conveniently overlook a law he thought unfair.
And in that, I realize that he is the mirror image of the neocons he considers to be a dangerous cult, blinded by his hatred and willing to glom onto any inference, any nuance that furthers his case. Yes, I know this sort well, having jousted with them often. Smart, yes. Passionate and well meaning, yes. But just as dangerous to american ideals as those they would seek to lock up.
Personally, I say give them all firearms and let them settle it the old-fashioned way. Then we might be rid of them all.
Commander Guy Deux.
I am just scratching my noggin over this one:
WASHINGTON (CNN)–Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy (D – Vermont) and ranking member Sen. Arlen Specter (R – Pennsylvania) both have concerns towards the conduct of the Libby trial prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald. On CNN’s Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, Sen. Specter indicated he’d be comfortable bringing Fitzgerald before the Judiciary Committee: “Why were they pursuing the matter long after there was no underlying crime on the outing of the CIA agent? Why were they pursuing it after we knew who the leaker was?”
Sen. Leahy agreed, saying, “I think you may very well see Mr. Fitzgerald before the Senate Judiciary Committee.”
Okay, now what do we make of this? Personally, I don't know. Why would Leahy gang up on Fitzgerald when Fitz was carrying the Dem's water for them? After all, the polls were against commutation, and this gives the Dems an issue. Why would he then call Fitz' conduct into question, esp. when no rabid right wingers are? Isn't that biting the hand . . .?
C.G.2.
Post a Comment