Dems furious over Libby's commutation

[82ndtrooper]

As could easily be predicted the dems are furious this morning over the Presidents descision to commute the 2.5 year jail sentence of Scooter Libby. Gee, Imagine that ? :rolleyes:

One democrat this morning on CNBC compaired the Paris Hilton jail term to Scooter Libby. How much more of this oral vomit can the Americans stand ? I can smell their puke all the way here in Kentucky.

Here's my personal thoughts: Valerie Plame was about as "covert" as someone waving a flag out their apartment window with an CIA emblem blowing in the wind. She did in fact work as a covered operative under the Bruster Jennings Inc cover in Europe, however she was terminated from her posistion and brought back to work in a cubicle at Langley along with her daily Mocca Latte from the campus cafeteria at the time that her name was mentioned, or not mentioned by someone within the executive branch of the POTUS. I believe an anonymous agent was quoted in the National Review as "having been so poor with her trade craft that she was suited better at Langley than being part of the counter proliferation ops under the Bruster Jennings Inc cover"

Joe Wilson, an outspoken critic of the Presidents foreign policy and decision to invade Iraq was her husbund who for some incredibly odd reason was sent to Africa to investigate the import and or manufacture of "Yello Cake" Why was he sent and who made this decision ? Again, Valerie Plame was already not a consideration, so her husbund was chosen. Why ?

In my personal opinion there was never any "Outing" of Valerie Plame as a covert operative with the agency. The democrats, lead by Joe Wilson made this a two year investigation with congressional hearings and a heap of coverage over the MSM as some sort of major crime. Maybe it was, maybe it was not. I dont give a hoot about some lady working at Langley in a cubicle. Since when do real operatives actually get a cubicle at Langley ? I'll tell ya. When they have lost respect from their peers within the clandistine service of the agency. Just ask Bob Baer he's now written two books that are clearly out of his own anger for being drawn from the field for poor trade craft and rogue decisions. He's had an axe to grind with the agency since he was let go.

Scotter Libby is only one man that the President has commuted his sentence. I think it's a good kick in the balls to the democrats for spending the Americans tax payers dollars for yet another poke at the administration.

Whether you agree or disagree with me you have to remember that Bill Clinton pardoned 173 individuals on his LAST OFFICIAL DAY as President. He pardoned Bill Rich, a billionaire who fled the country to avoid being prosecuted for major tax evasion charges. By the way, his wife was suspected as another of Bill Clintons "side strokes" If Hillary wants to raise taxes, then let her collect the back owed taxes from Bill Rich, who her husbund pardoned on his last hour of service in the Oval Office. Hillary has already voiced her disgust with the commutation of Scooter Libby. Did she forget the 173 individuals that her husbund pardoned ? I'd like to know what crimes each and every one of those 173 had been charged with.

I suggest that President Bush just pardone him altogether. That's another good kick in the nuts for the democrats.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,287790,00.html

[Ret10Echo]

Gee, President Bush is the first to EVER do this....not!


http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardons6b.htm

[The Reaper]

Klinton appears to have had a real issue with courts martial.

He pardoned people all the way back to 1891. Wonder if they were still being held?:rolleyes:

I noticed his brother got a pardon for his cocaine dealing, his Whitewater pals got excused, as did his convicted cabinet members. Lots of pardons for Arkansas residents, too.

Hmm, they weren't complaining then.

TR

[incommin]

It is always a matter of who's ox is getting gored...... all things are political these days. Integrity and selfless service is lacking on both sides of the isles in DC.

Jim

[82ndtrooper]

It is always a matter of who's ox is getting gored...... all things are political these days. Integrity and selfless service is lacking on both sides of the isles in DC.

Jim

Your certainly correct in your statment and cannot disagree with you.

However, if you listen to a liberal Bush hater, you'd think that this was the first time a President has commuted a sentence in the history of all Presidents that have served our country. The younger generation, deeply rooted with left ideology, seems to be brainwashed to the point that in the face of facts and acts of corruption that Bill Clinton could not have possibly pardoned persons such as Bill Rich, a large campaign contributor, a wife that was rumored to have been another of Clintons bed buddys, and major tax evasion, the very initiative that liberal democrats want so badly to raise if they are elected.............TAXES.

Valerie Plames husbund was just on CNBC and he said "The Presidents act of commuting Scooter Libby's sentence is a sign that even he may have obstucted justice" ..............What ? :confused:

What was and is the fascination with Bill Klinton and his Presidency to these crack pots ?

If I saw Bill Klinton trip into a busy city street in front of a bus I would take pictures and then walk the other direction. I've actually thought of purchasing Bill Klintons autobiography and using every page as toilet paper and filming it to put on UTUBE.

[x-factor]

I don't want to get into a political debate. With regards to this post:
- Criticizing Bush in this instance has nothing to do with excusing what other Presidents have done.
- Criticizing Bush for the pardon does not mean that Wilson didn't have his own agenda or that he's right about any of the Iraq stuff.
- Criticizing Bush for this pardon is criticizing Bush for completely disrespecting the level of the crime committed here and the seriousness of the potential consequences.

Libby (among others) should swing for the Plame thing. You don't ever mess with cover. Ever. Period. Never. Ever. Never... Sometimes? No really, never. But what if her hus-? NO, NEVER.

There is no "well, she's undercover but not really." If she's undercover, then she's undercover and you protect that because its about more than just her career. I don't care what her husband said or did.

A smart counter-intel analyst can potentially take that one little piece of information (her identity) and track Plame back to her sources, her coworkers, any issues she worked, etc. There's a possibility that someone got a bullet in their head as a result of this whole fiasco. Not to mention the fact that it becomes harder to recruit sources when they think they could eventually be exposed to their internal security ministry by someone's silly political agenda back in DC.

82nd...You're a good guy and you're entitled to your opinion, but you don't know what you're talking about in this case. People in every intel agency rotate between field and headquarters assignments all the time. Its the same way military officers rotate between staff jobs and field commands as they move up the chain. You misunderstood Baer's books if you think having a job in DC necessarily means you're a do-nothing.

[The Reaper]

I think that if you are going to be permitted your position, you have to permit those who disagree with you to have theirs.

Are you saying that Libby leaked Plame's name? I thought that was Armitage, over at State? What did Libby really do to get 30 months? For that matter, I think Plame's husband did more to out her and jeopardize national security than anyone else has. Has he been charged?

It is extremely ironic that those who found no fault with Billy Boy pardoning familiy members who were drug dealers, college buddies, business associates, cabinet members, tax dodgers, criminals who had fled the country, campaign donors, etc. are upset about this pardon. At least Libby didn't buy his commutation (not pardon).

Hillary's brother, Hugh Rodham, collected $400,000 from two serious criminals who got pardons. When the news of the payments broke, the Clintons claimed surprise and demanded Rodham give the money back.

The former wife of disgraced financier Marc Rich gave $450,000 to Clinton's presidential library and raised and contributed more than $1 million to campaigns of the Clintons and other Democrats. Her husband, who had fled the country rather than fight charges of massive tax fraud and trading with Iran during the 1979 hostage crisis, suddenly received a pardon. "Utterly false," Bill Clinton later said about charges he sold the pardon. "There was absolutely no quid pro quo." Yeah, right.:rolleyes:

Kind of like the dismissals of politically apppinted Federal Attorneys deemed to be sub-standard is a huge issue after the Klintons fired not only every prosecutor, INCLUDING the ones investigating them, but salaried workers like the WH Travel Office as well.

Why the sudden moral outrage when these are the perqs of the office holder and the previous administration set such a dismal record that it is unlikely the current one will ever be able to reach their degree of self-service, cronyism, criminality, and political shenanigans?

TR

[x-factor]

When did I say he wasn't entitled to his position? I said exactly the opposite. My point regarding 82nd was that he's basing his position at least partially on an inaccurate understanding of the facts.

Are you saying that Libby leaked Plame's name? I thought that was Armitage, over at State? What did Libby really do to get 30 months?

I like Armitage alot, but he should have been charged too. As for Libby, he participated (either as a principle or accessory, either before or after) in the crime.

Like I said, you don't mess with cover. Ever.

For that matter, I think Plame's husband did more to out her and jeopardize national security than anyone else has. Has he been charged?

If there's a charge that can be made, then charge him, but thats not what I was addressing. I'm talking only about the issue of violating cover protections, which is a completely non-partisan question.


As a constitutional issue, the pardon/commute power was meant to protect the independence of the executive branch by providing a counter to politicized criminal legislation and/or excessive judicial inquests. Its been long since corrupted (historically speaking, Clinton wasn't the first or the worst on either side) into a tool for crass quid pro quo exchanges and to resurrect stooges who take the bullet for their superiors in ethics investigations.

[Ret10Echo]

But he was not sentenced for the actual wrong that started the whole thing but for lying to the grand jury. So the act of disclosing the information remains basically unpunished not only in the case of Libby but all the others who were initially looked at for disclosing the same information.


http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/Libby_Sentencing_memo052507.pdf

A portion of the qutoed section of the U.S. code:

(a) Factors To Be Considered in Imposing a Sentence.— The court shall impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes set forth in paragraph (2) of this subsection. The court, in determining the particular sentence to be imposed, shall consider—
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant;
(2) the need for the sentence imposed—
(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense;
(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;
(C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and
(D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner;


This entire event does nothing but further erode the public opion of those in government.....all party affiliation aside. :mad:

[afchic]

It is extremely ironic that those who found no fault with Billy Boy pardoning familiy members who were drug dealers, business associates, cabinet members, tax dodgers, criminals who had fled the country, campaign donors, etc. are upset about this pardon. TR


I agree, but I find it just as ironic that the people that are alright with Libby's sentence being commuted, wanted to hang Clinton. In my opinion, they are both lawyers, who knew the ramifications of perguring themselves, but both thought they could get away with it. Either pergury is wrong or it isn't. You can't have it both ways, depending on who is involved.

I liken it to saying to my children that lying is wrong and will get you punished, but.... sometimes it is alright depending on who you are lying to, and what for.

Both political parties need to get off the whole "it's alright when we do it, but it is wrong if the other party does" All presidents pardon, all commute sentences. Some of the American people will agree with the reasons, while others will not. That will never change the process, unless we the people justify our outrage without casting "political" stones. If it is okay for one party it should be okay for another, if it is bad for one party, it should be bad for the other.

[rubberneck]

I agree, but I find it just as ironic that the people that are alright with Libby's sentence being commuted, wanted to hang Clinton. In my opinion, they are both lawyers, who knew the ramifications of perguring themselves, but both thought they could get away with it. Either pergury is wrong or it isn't. You can't have it both ways, depending on who is involved.

I liken it to saying to my children that lying is wrong and will get you punished, but.... sometimes it is alright depending on who you are lying to, and what for.

Both political parties need to get off the whole "it's alright when we do it, but it is wrong if the other party does" All presidents pardon, all commute sentences. Some of the American people will agree with the reasons, while others will not. That will never change the process, unless we the people justify our outrage without casting "political" stones. If it is okay for one party it should be okay for another, if it is bad for one party, it should be bad for the other.


I think you are missing the point. Scooter Libby did not get off scott free. He is still a convicted felon. He still lost his law license. He still has $250,000 in fines to pay. He still is on probation for two years. And finally his good name has been destroyed (by his own hand).

That may not be enough for some but it seems pretty steep price to pay for lying about a crime that never existed in the first place. It is even steeper when you contrast the punishment received by the original source of the leak. Nada, zippo, zilch. Also keep in mind that under oath Robert Wilson perjured himself when he said he could not remember who submitted his name to the White House. How the hell do you forget that you wife was responsible for that? What was his punishment for lying under oath?

That is where the proportionality of the commutation comes in. If the original source of the leak is looking at 25 years in the federal pen than and Joe Wilson was looking at a perjury conviction than I would be pretty pissed that Scooter got a good deal. That isn't the case here. YMMV.

[Shar]

Also keep in mind that under oath Robert Wilson perjured himself when he said he could not remember who submitted his name to the White House. How the hell do you forget that you wife was responsible for that? What was his punishment for lying under oath?

The best punishment to give Robert Wilson would be forbidding him from appearing on the talk show circuit, giving interviews, etc. I honestly think he's continuing to fuel this whole thing because the man just likes to see his face on TV and hear himself speak. IMHO his wife has gotten completely lost in the shuffle because he's made this all about him.

Clearly lying under oath is a bad thing, and I wouldn't be happy if Bush had pardoned Libby outright. But let's compare this to any other lying under oath verdict... 30 months was steep. When Martha got 5 months in jail the talking heads all thought it was a serious miscarriage of justice and an incredibly harsh sentence... 30 months is a bit longer than 5 months.

[82ndtrooper]

I don't want to get into a political debate. With regards to this post:
- Criticizing Bush in this instance has nothing to do with excusing what other Presidents have done.
- Criticizing Bush for the pardon does not mean that Wilson didn't have his own agenda or that he's right about any of the Iraq stuff.
- Criticizing Bush for this pardon is criticizing Bush for completely disrespecting the level of the crime committed here and the seriousness of the potential consequences.

Libby (among others) should swing for the Plame thing. You don't ever mess with cover. Ever. Period. Never. Ever. Never... Sometimes? No really, never. But what if her hus-? NO, NEVER.

There is no "well, she's undercover but not really." If she's undercover, then she's undercover and you protect that because its about more than just her career. I don't care what her husband said or did.

A smart counter-intel analyst can potentially take that one little piece of information (her identity) and track Plame back to her sources, her coworkers, any issues she worked, etc. There's a possibility that someone got a bullet in their head as a result of this whole fiasco. Not to mention the fact that it becomes harder to recruit sources when they think they could eventually be exposed to their internal security ministry by someone's silly political agenda back in DC.

82nd...You're a good guy and you're entitled to your opinion, but you don't know what you're talking about in this case. People in every intel agency rotate between field and headquarters assignments all the time. Its the same way military officers rotate between staff jobs and field commands as they move up the chain. You misunderstood Baer's books if you think having a job in DC necessarily means you're a do-nothing.

Bob Baer got stuck with a desk job at Langley HQ. Why ? if you listen to him, you'd believe that the Agency routed him out of his position with the clandestine service. I'll take a guess and say that if your a covered operative and suddenly find your self lacking in overseas assignments, you might not be on the invitation list to the next mixer. Bobs book "Sleeping with the Devil" is fairly written and any discussion of the text of the book would require more than this forum and merely a thread, especially with individuals that understand the complexities of the middle east far beyond myself and others here. What I will give Mr. Baer is a pat on the back for his years of self sacrifice to this country, but I wont be purchasing another of his books. He's lock step with left and I'm lock step with the right. I'm certain Mr. Baer participated in many activities in the middle east that he now references as *corruption* in both of his best sellers. It's been convenient during the last 6 and half years for Mr. Baer to start to open his mouth through a type writer.

TR reached the thread before I could comment, but he has broken the bottle already on the possiblility that Joe Wilson himself was a larger part of his wifes dilemma than Libby or Armitage. I still want to know why he was chosen to for the trip to Africa. Was he paid as a "Blue Badger" ? Was his wife instrumental in this choice ? For the life of me I cannot see any reasonable answer to as why he was the chosen one for that trip.

Some time ago someone here said this "Her tradecraft was lousy" Perhaps her husbunds bafoonery was intentional. Remember, they wanted the President, and for an impeachment. Instead they go Scooter and now he's commuted of his jail time.

As for cover and Valerie Plame, I would not purport to understand any activities of agents with the Central Intelligence Agency. And I do not watch James Bond movies as a tutorial for their activities. But something about her and her status has alway's bothered me from the start of the entire drama that the left and the democrats in congress made it out to be. She had spent the last six years prior to her supposed "outing" at Langley without any overseas assignments. 6 years is a long time to sit in Va when your trained to develope assets. I guess she cold called them through a secure line.

[echoes]

Klinton appears to have had a real issue with courts martial.

He pardoned people all the way back to 1891. Wonder if they were still being held?:rolleyes:

I noticed his brother got a pardon for his cocaine dealing, his Whitewater pals got excused, as did his convicted cabinet members. Lots of pardons for Arkansas residents, too.

Hmm, they weren't complaining then.

TR

Sir,

Now those who are "liberal" and claim the middle of the road, SHOULD look at their party's track record. Just my .02, whaterever.

I cannot believe that Klinton is even a consideration for them? Don't they realize that she is a divisor among their party...not a uniter?

Holly

[The Reaper]

I agree, but I find it just as ironic that the people that are alright with Libby's sentence being commuted, wanted to hang Clinton. In my opinion, they are both lawyers, who knew the ramifications of perguring themselves, but both thought they could get away with it. Either pergury is wrong or it isn't. You can't have it both ways, depending on who is involved.

I liken it to saying to my children that lying is wrong and will get you punished, but.... sometimes it is alright depending on who you are lying to, and what for.

Both political parties need to get off the whole "it's alright when we do it, but it is wrong if the other party does" All presidents pardon, all commute sentences. Some of the American people will agree with the reasons, while others will not. That will never change the process, unless we the people justify our outrage without casting "political" stones. If it is okay for one party it should be okay for another, if it is bad for one party, it should be bad for the other.

Let me put it this way.

I would be okay with letting my kids play at Scooter Libby's house as a convicted liar who got out of his jail time.

I would NOT let them visit most of the PARDONED felons on Klinton's list, even under armed surveillance.

If you look at his conviction and punishment for perjury (even without the commuted jail sentence), it makes me wonder how many years Bill and Hill should be facing right now, as two of the biggest liars, deniers, fabricators, prevaricators, and parsers in the business. And yet when they wrote their books, their memories were restored. Curious how that works. :rolleyes:

TR

[sf11b_p]

Libby (among others) should swing for the Plame thing. You don't ever mess with cover. Ever. Period. Never. Ever. Never... Sometimes? No really, never. But what if her hus-? NO, NEVER.




After two years of investigation no one, no one, was charged or convicted for leaking Ms. Plame's name or breaking her "covert" status if indeed any actual cover existed. Which considering the number of friends and neigbors interviewed by national news who knew she was with CIA seems questionable to me.

The verdict against Libby was on charges of perjury, making false statements and obstruction of justice, related to the investigation. None were charges of breaking the cover of an operational covert CIA agent.

[jatx]

Regardless of who the next President is, there need to be some public hangings. The casual treatment of classified information throughout Washington is a terrible threat to the country. It didn't begin with the current Commander in Chief, but it sure didn't end with him, either. :mad:

[The Reaper]

Regardless of who the next President is, there need to be some public hangings. The casual treatment of classified information throughout Washington is a terrible threat to the country. It didn't begin with the current Commander in Chief, but it sure didn't end with him, either. :mad:

Good point.

If you get a $250,000 fine and 30 months for lying and obstructing an investigation of an outing, why is Sandy Berger not in jail for stealing and then allegedly destroying classified documents?

TR

[kgoerz]

I agree, but I find it just as ironic that the people that are alright with Libby's sentence being commuted, wanted to hang Clinton. In my opinion, they are both lawyers, who knew the ramifications of perguring themselves, but both thought they could get away with it. Either pergury is wrong or it isn't. You can't have it both ways, depending on who is involved.

I liken it to saying to my children that lying is wrong and will get you punished, but.... sometimes it is alright depending on who you are lying to, and what for.

Big difference. It amazes me how soon people forget. I think the Pardon stinks but don't compare it to Clinton's Pardons. This was a political Pardon. You have to look at the reason for the Pardon. Libby was on the Bush Staff. He is being Pardoned because he was a member of the Team. Yes he was convicted of a crime. But his crime hurt no one. He was convicted of lying under oath. No CIA Spies were hung or shot. These type of Pardons are common.
What doe's Bush and his Family gain from this Pardon? Is there video of Libby's wife clapping at a Bush Million dollar fund raiser like the wife of one of Clinton's Pardoned Criminals. Was Libby's testimony needed to convict Bush of a crime, NO to all of these.
Clinton did not Pardon people because they were on his Staff or just friends. He was paid for the Pardons. Big difference there. The Clinton's profited personally from those Pardons. Money, testimony or lack of. The people who refused to testify and were thrown in jail were pardoned. Just gaudinesses I guess.
Most of their crimes were outright low life drug dealing and theft. Their crimes had multiple victims. Destroyed people financially. Libby didn't contribute millions to Bush. He didn't protect Bush in any of his testimony. The Clinton's were out right bribed. Absolutely no comparison. I am sure someone will post a list of the Clinton Pardons along with the motivation behind them.
The whole Pardon system needs to be changed. Presidential Pardons are for extreme circumstances. Unjust convictions that Judges cant overturn. Where doing the right thing was lawfully wrong at the time.

[Shar]

Presidential Pardons are for extreme circumstances. Unjust convictions that Judges cant overturn. Where doing the right thing was lawfully wrong at the time.

I recently came across a document at my Grandmother's house that floored me. The short of it is that my Great Grandfather was first commuted and then fully pardoned by President Woodrow Wilson when he was a LT and then a MAJ in the USA Vet Corps. I am still trying to figure the whole thing out, but I would definitely say it doesn't fit in the "extreme circumstances" category (he wasnt' in jail or anything, just not given full duties or something). It boils down to a disagreement involving the dissection of a horse's hoof, maggots and a letter of protest written by my Great Grandfather that got him court martialed. I guess at that point the President intervened.

My family has a long history with the Army, but is not in any way rich, famous or influential enough to merit, ask for or receive special treatment (ala Wilson or Libby, et al). I definitely think that at one point when the country was small and LT's could write the President for help and the President, as Commander in Chief, could listen - they had a place. Now when all they seem to be used for is political bargaining chips (ala Bill), a second look may be merited especially when total scumbags are set free because they can pay the cash. However, in this case I do think the President was within the pervue granted him. I will be curious to see what, if anything, he does at the end of his term when the real "get out of jail free" cards are handed out.

[x-factor]

After two years of investigation no one, no one, was charged or convicted for leaking Ms. Plame's name or breaking her "covert" status if indeed any actual cover existed. Which considering the number of friends and neigbors interviewed by national news who knew she was with CIA seems questionable to me.

That she was undercover is not debatable. Its a fact. People close to her may have figured it out (or claim to have known all along to get themselvs on TV) but thats a far cry from it being public knowledge accessible by every counterintelligence organization in the world. Pundits, news media, White House strategists, etc don't get to judge whether they think cover is deserved or not. Her covered status was an operational call made by the CIA in accordance with their chartered mission and the rest of the government is legally obligated to respect it. Any argument to the contrary is just BS equivocation.

The verdict against Libby was on charges of perjury, making false statements and obstruction of justice, related to the investigation. None were charges of breaking the cover of an operational covert CIA agent.

Yes, the conviction was only for perjury and obstruction, but the issue was the outing of a covered officer. Furthermore, it was the perjury and obstruction that prevented more serious charges from ever being brought. Lets not mince words, he took the bullet for someone higher up (probably Cheney and/or Rove) and he's getting off light. The whole $250K fine thing is a joke. He'll make probably ten times that just on his book deal. And the "loss of career" argument is bogus too. He'll take a couple years off to write his book, then be right back in the swing of things either in the GOP infrastructure or at a cushy corporate gig.

why is Sandy Berger not in jail for stealing and then allegedly destroying classified documents?

Berger's crime (as I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong) was one of stupidity, laziness, and/or arrogance not maliciousness (taking his own classified notes out of the reading room at the Archives). So you can just take his clearance and call it a day. Nothing was divulged, much less intentionally divulged.

Thats the real issue here: intent. Whatever the group was that decided to blow Plame's cover did it with malicious intent and conscious disregard for national security. They outed Plame because it was more expedient than refuting his argument in honest debate. This pardon says pretty plainly "the political needs of my administration were more important than national security at the time and I'm not ashamed of it."

The right comparing it to Clinton's pardons doesn't do anything to make it stink any less. Jatx is right. The entire government needs a fundamental reeducation on the whole concept of classified information and why its not anything to play politics with.

The left beating the drum about it doesn't do anything to wipe their slate clean either. Kgoerzis right. Presidents of all stripes need to be held accountable for using the pardon for other than its constitutionally intended purposes: correcting obvious mistakes by the justice system and protecting against legislative witch hunts.

[The Reaper]

Berger's crime (as I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong) was one of stupidity, laziness, and/or arrogance not maliciousness (taking his own classified notes out of the reading room at the Archives). So you can just take his clearance and call it a day. Nothing was divulged, much less intentionally divulged.

Stand corrected.

While the MSM would like to spin the Berger story as you have stated it, evidence indicates that he was deliberately taking classified documents to prevent people from discovering the extent of his and Bill's knowledge and duplicity as it related to AQ during the Clinton administration.

Why do you believe the worst of Libby's motives when he was not convicted of what you accuse, and ignore those of Berger, who in fact was convicted, but received an extraordinarily light sentence?

TR

[x-factor]

What evidence? (honest question, do you have a link?)

If Berger was trying to lift the originals (which I don't believe he even had access to), then throw him in the cell right next to Libby and his crew.

[Sionnach]

It's my understanding that Ms. Plame was no longer covert, nor had she been for years. If there's evidence to the contrary, please point me to it, because I prefer to know when I'm wrong.

I'm a guest in someone's house, so I'll keep my politics to myself, but let's say I'm not a huge fan of our present administration. That said, I believe, in no uncertain terms, Scooter Libby's conviction was the result of a politically motivated attack. Someone in the administration had to pay, and the charges on Libby were the only ones the prosecutor could get to stick. I don't believe folks should be thrown in prison because someone dislikes his or her politics.

If this was REALLY about protecting covert operatives, and if, at the time of the incident, she was covert according to the law, Dick Armitage has admitted inadvertently outing her. Shouldn't he be on trial?

Are we really serious about "state secrets"? Why was Sandy Berger not punished to the full extent of the law? Armitage's unintentional outing of a "covert" agent is a far cry from Sandy Berger intentionally stealing and destroying classified documents, and a hell of a lot less dangerous than a staffer lying about a crime that hasn't even been proven to have occurred.
It's not about secrets, it's about politics.

It's my understanding that the President was well within his Constitutional authority to commute Libby's sentence, and I saw very little hostile press with President Clinton exercised the same powers.

[Sionnach]

What evidence? (honest question, do you have a link?)

If Berger was trying to lift the originals (which I don't believe he even had access to), then throw him in the cell right next to Libby and his crew.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16706-2005Mar31.html

This is the good one: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/20/AR2006122001968.html

Stuffing a document down your pants to hide it from the guards, and later destroying said documents doesn't constitute willful and malicious?

Edit: TR slam-dunked this one below.

[The Reaper]

What evidence? (honest question, do you have a link?)

If Berger was trying to lift the originals (which I don't believe he even had access to), then throw him in the cell right next to Libby and his crew.

The fact that he was caught taking five copies of classified code word documents pertaining to terror threats during the 2000 millennium celebration, some of which bore handwritten notes from Clinton-era officials who had reviewed them, which he concealed on his person before dumping them under a construction trailer. The fact that he took several copies of the same document would seem to indicate that he was trying to remove all traces of some evidence.

"President Clinton's national security adviser removed classified documents from the National Archives, hid them under a construction trailer and later tried to find the trash collector to retrieve them, the agency's internal watchdog said Wednesday."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-12-20-berger-documents_x.htm

"The document, written by former National Security Council terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke, was an "after-action review" prepared in early 2000 detailing the administration's actions to thwart terrorist attacks during the millennium celebration. It contained considerable discussion about the administration's awareness of the rising threat of attacks on U.S. soil."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16706-2005Mar31.html

"According to the charges, Berger -- between September 2 and October 2, 2003 -- "knowingly removed classified documents from the National Archives and Records Administration and stored and retained such documents at places," such as his private Washington office.

Berger's associates admit he took five copies of an after-action report detailing the 2000 millennium terror plot from the Archives. The aides say Berger returned to his office, discovered that three of the copies appeared to be duplicates and cut them up with scissors.

The revelations were a dramatic change from Berger's claim last year that he had made an "honest mistake" and either misplaced or unintentionally threw the documents away."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/08/berger.sentenced/

He plead guilty to illegally removing highly classified documents from the National Archives and intentionally destroying some of them and was sentenced Thursday to community service and probation and fined $50,000 for illegally removing highly classified documents from the National Archives and intentionally destroying some of them.

Okay, he stole classified documents, improperly stored them, destroyed some, gave some back, and lied about it. He got community service and a $50,000 fine.

"Scooter" Libby was sentenced to 30 months in prison and a $250,000 fine for lying to investigators looking into the leak of a CIA operative's identity.

Why is this difference not significant?

Did you really miss all of this, or are you just choosing to ignore it?

TR

[kgoerz]

Yes, the conviction was only for perjury and obstruction, but the issue was the outing of a covered officer. Furthermore, it was the perjury and obstruction that prevented more serious charges from ever being brought. Lets not mince words, he took the bullet for someone higher up (probably Cheney and/or Rove) and he's getting off light.

The outing of a covered officer is not the issue. If he was convicted of outing a undercover officer it would, but he didn't. Don't make stuff up, stick to the facts. Saying he took bullets for higher ups sounds like the crap we heard on the view. When the left has no ammo they just make stuff up.

That she was undercover is not debatable. Its a fact.

Undercover is not what most people think. There are many different levels. Just saying you work in a different Dept is considered undercover even if it's just to keep the numbers straight with Embassy staff. It's not all and mostly never is Spy vs Spy stuff. It's a granted status that covers a broad range of topics. It cant be explained on a open Forum but no spies were outed to the enemy.

[Tubbs]

That she was undercover is not debatable. Its a fact.

I really don't want to get invovled in this debate, however I do have some questions for you.
While I am neither disputing, or trying to rebut your statements, I would like to see the evidence that you have to back them up, other than your own articulations scattered across your posts in this thread.
The only people on this site who I will generally take at face value are the ones with QP under their titles. Not only is this their house, but I trust their level of integrity from my own personl experience (please don't take this to mean I doubt yours, but I have never worked with you). Plus I think that if I really pissed of TR I might just catch a random butt whupin'.;)
In all seroius though, you have done a whole lot of talking without any concrete evidence to back up your points. I'm not saying you don't have any or they are invalid, I just want to see your proof and where you are getting your information.

[82ndtrooper]

That she was undercover is not debatable. Its a fact. People close to her may have figured it out (or claim to have known all along to get themselvs on TV) but thats a far cry from it being public knowledge accessible by every counterintelligence organization in the world. Pundits, news media, White House strategists, etc don't get to judge whether they think cover is deserved or not. Her covered status was an operational call made by the CIA in accordance with their chartered mission and the rest of the government is legally obligated to respect it. Any argument to the contrary is just BS equivocation.



Yes, the conviction was only for perjury and obstruction, but the issue was the outing of a covered officer. Furthermore, it was the perjury and obstruction that prevented more serious charges from ever being brought. Lets not mince words, he took the bullet for someone higher up (probably Cheney and/or Rove) and he's getting off light. The whole $250K fine thing is a joke. He'll make probably ten times that just on his book deal. And the "loss of career" argument is bogus too. He'll take a couple years off to write his book, then be right back in the swing of things either in the GOP infrastructure or at a cushy corporate gig.



Berger's crime (as I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong) was one of stupidity, laziness, and/or arrogance not maliciousness (taking his own classified notes out of the reading room at the Archives). So you can just take his clearance and call it a day. Nothing was divulged, much less intentionally divulged.

Thats the real issue here: intent. Whatever the group was that decided to blow Plame's cover did it with malicious intent and conscious disregard for national security. They outed Plame because it was more expedient than refuting his argument in honest debate. This pardon says pretty plainly "the political needs of my administration were more important than national security at the time and I'm not ashamed of it."

The right comparing it to Clinton's pardons doesn't do anything to make it stink any less. Jatx is right. The entire government needs a fundamental reeducation on the whole concept of classified information and why its not anything to play politics with.

The left beating the drum about it doesn't do anything to wipe their slate clean either. Kgoerzis right. Presidents of all stripes need to be held accountable for using the pardon for other than its constitutionally intended purposes: correcting obvious mistakes by the justice system and protecting against legislative witch hunts.

Do you personally know Valerie Plame ? and or her husbund Ambassador to Africa Joe C. Wilson ?

IIRC two U.S. Army Generals who sat in the green room with Joe C. Wilson at NYC's Fox News testified that Joe Wilson bosted about his wifes employment with the Central Intelligence Agency. Also Joe Wilson apparently was fond of introducing his wife in Washington circles as "My CIA Wife" These observations were prior to her supposed "outing" as a NOC (Non Official covered" operative. The holiest of holies.

Through research I have learned that Joe C. Wilson recounted not having been i the same green room with the two U.S. Army Generals who were guests of the show. How convenient, but records later surfaced that placed him at the Fox News network HQ on the same dates and times as Joe C. Wilson suddenly claimed that he had not been there.

If Joe Wilsons wife, Valerie Plame, was in fact a NOC with the CIA, then her husbund is either a bafoon, or Valerie's cover never existed to the extent that the MSM and loud mouths like Chris Matthews of CNBC desired for her to be. After all, I believe the American citizens, at least those of us with a brain, have alway's seen the Valerie Plame incident as an orchestrated attack on the current administration. I believe they wanted Bush and his impeachment, but Scooter was the fall guy with a secret handshake for a pardon or commutation as has been decided. I'm not much on conspiracy theory's and this board is no place for them so I will not go any further with this topic. My only thought is that if Valerie Plame was a NOC officer then her husbund was as much to blame for her outing as Armitage or anyone else that mentioned her name.

There is also the lack of agreement as why Joe C. Wilson was sent to Niger to meet with key personell to establish any link with Iraq and Africa for what is referred to "increased business relations" between Iraq and Africa. No one seems be convinced either way of Valeries participation in the decision to send her husbund to Niger. It's strange that an outspoken critic of the administration would be the one sent to Niger to find "Yellow Cake" evidence and ties with Iraq and Suddam Hussien. Did anybody really think that Joe C. Wilson would have reported anything but the title of the New Yorks times article "What I didn't find in Africa" ?

Personally I'm glad that Scooter go a commutation for his sentence. Sandy Berger should be taking showers with BUBBA and Bill and Hillary should be investigated for every lie, wrong doing, investigation of attorneys, and possibly even bring the Vince Foster mystery death back to the surface.

[Monsoon65]

If Berger was trying to lift the originals (which I don't believe he even had access to), then throw him in the cell right next to Libby and his crew.

Originals, copies, I don't care what it is, Berger should have had his testicles nailed to the floorboards for what he did.

On Friday, I'll give that a try at my intel vault. I can pretty much guarentee you that the only "community service" that I'll get is breaking rocks at Fort Leavenworth as an E-1.

[x-factor]

TR - I stand corrected on the facts of the Berger case. He should have a cell too. Period. This has never been a partisan argument on my part.

Sio - Even if she's no longer operating in a clandestine status, you still don't talk about her past activities as a field officer. As I said, a good CI officer can take the few leaked facts and through some good research unravel entire operations.

kgoerz - I'm well aware of different types of cover. I'm not going to go into it further for the same OPSEC reasons that you alluded to, but suffice it to say that (for the same reasons I just mentioned to Sio) this was indeed a potentially harmful leak in my judgement. Also, whether it actually resulted in harm isn't the point. The disregard for operations in favor of politics is. If they White House had ripped Wilson in the presss as a spotlight-seeking, partisan blowhard I wouldn't have said a thing other than "well, thats politics."

As for the rest, I think the circumstances of the case pretty well establish that there was some coordinated strategy to confront Wilson by leaking the name and that it did not originate with Libby. Who it originated with (Cheney, Rove, other?), no one can say for sure. I agree that they apparently didn't have enough evidence to charge anyone else and sadly thats the way the justice system works some time. To be clear, I'm not calling for any further legal action thats not warranted by evidence. I'm talking about what ethically should be, not what is legally practical.

82nd - If Wilson acted like that then he's an ass too. However, a) there's a little bit of a difference between outing your wife to fellow national security officials and outing her to the whole world and b) we're not talking about him, we're talking about Libby and the people responsible for the outing. The "but the other kids did it too" line is not a suitable defense.

I'm not defending Democrats in general. I'm not maligning Republicans in general. I'm talking about the Libby case in particular. I think the whole thing stinks and I think any President should hold his staff to a higher standard.

[Sionnach]

Sio - Even if she's no longer operating in a clandestine status, you still don't talk about her past activities as a field officer. As I said, a good CI officer can take the few leaked facts and through some good research unravel entire operations.


I understand, x-factor. My main, although meandering, point was that if the Libby case was truly about outing an operative, then Richard Armitage should be in jail, as he as admitted to "outing her."

[82ndtrooper]

X:

What specific activities involving Valerie Plame were actually discussed ? By anyone ? Libby, Armitage, Rove, Cheney, Bush ? Interestingly enough Joe C. Wilson apologizes to his wife in the front page of his book. What was he apologizing for ? and Why ? Merely a loving gesture on his part ? or was this apology a sub concious or concious effort on his part to clear the air in his own bedroom ?

While I admit to not reading every single piece of news regarding the Plame incident, I've alway's been under the impression that Valeries name was merely mentioned. If her past activities were something that had been published for counter intel guy's too see all one had to do was Google the name "Valerie Plame" and we quickly learned that she did in fact at the very least work under the cover status with the now defunct cover corporation of Bruster Jennings in counter proliferation.

Your an intel guy, working in northren Va. You've claimed to have deployed with two SF Groups and worked "closely" with them. Maybe your a spook, maybe your not. I cant speak for others on this forum, but I can only read what is available and try to read between the lines. My perspective is Joe Wilson is a blow hard and has been for some time. After all, they both sought attention from various magazines for such expose's as "heres our house" and "here's our antiques" Seems to me that Valeries cover was clearly last on the list of Joe C. Wilson concerns.

Maybe his apology to her in the preface of his book has more proof to it than has been given credit.

[CSB]

Within hours of the communtation of his sentence, Scooter Libby paid in full with a single money order the entire $250,000 (plus a $400 "special assessment").
So much for the "sting" of a "big fine." Do you think he will ever disclose who gave him the money for that?

Scooter Libby was rewarded and sheltered for doing exactly what his boss, the vice-president (if not the president), told him to do: "Disclose the identity of a CIA agent, lie your way out of trouble if you get caught. If you get convicted, I'll pardon you."

Libby is being rewarded for being faithful. Albert Speer was faithful, Alfred Krupp was faithful.

COMMENCE RANT, AT RISK OF THREAD HIJACK:

Alberto Gonzales is faithful. I have no doubt that if the President asked Alberto Gonzales to draft a position paper in support of "rounding up all the homo's and gassing them in gas chambers" Alberto would diligently research the Japanese Internment cases from the 1940's, add Supreme Court cases for compulsory medical teatment, add statistical correlations between homosexuality an HIV/AIDS, incorporate Center for Disease Control quarantine regulations, and produce a well written articulate memorandum of law in support of "rounding up all the homo's and gassing them in gas chambers." After all, he had no problem drafting memorandum describing just how much torture was acceptable.

Any true JAG officer with a set of balls would have told the president: "Read the Geneva Convention: Torture is torture. " What part about "NO" don't you understand? If you have to ask, then don't do it.

Colin Powell was faithful. He stood in front of the United Nations and made claims that were unproven and unprovable. Damn shoddy performance from a general officer.

END OF RANT (I could go on for a long time.)

[Ret10Echo]

Within hours of the communtation of his sentence, Scooter Libby paid in full with a single money order the entire $250,000 (plus a $400 "special assessment").
So much for the "sting" of a "big fine." Do you think he will ever disclose who gave him the money for that?

Scooter Libby was rewarded and sheltered for doing exactly what his boss, the vice-president (if not the president), told him to do: "Disclose the identity of a CIA agent, lie your way out of trouble if you get caught. If you get convicted, I'll pardon you."

Libby is being rewarded for being faithful. Albert Speer was faithful, Alfred Krupp was faithful.

COMMENCE RANT, AT RISK OF THREAD HIJACK:

Alberto Gonzales is faithful. I have no doubt that if the President asked Alberto Gonzales to draft a position paper in support of "rounding up all the homo's and gassing them in gas chambers" Alberto would diligently research the Japanese Internment cases from the 1940's, add Supreme Court cases for compulsory medical teatment, add statistical correlations between homosexuality an HIV/AIDS, incorporate Center for Disease Control quarantine regulations, and produce a well written articulate memorandum of law in support of "rounding up all the homo's and gassing them in gas chambers." After all, he had no problem drafting memorandum describing just how much torture was acceptable.

Any true JAG officer with a set of balls would have told the president: "Read the Geneva Convention: Torture is torture. " What part about "NO" don't you understand? If you have to ask, then don't do it.

Colin Powell was faithful. He stood in front of the United Nations and made claims that were unproven and unprovable. Damn shoddy performance from a general officer.

END OF RANT (I could go on for a long time.)

I'll make this quick...to avoid continuing the hijack, but the Libby connection is in this. Consider the source and spin....

Not sure if you have seen this, but before we throw Colin Powell under the bus...I can not vouch for the comments and the opinions, but watching the program was interesting. I have included the text from the program.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/

RICHARD CLARKE: Powell gets a speech, written by Scooter Libby, sent to him. And he's told, "This is the kind of speech we would like you to give at the U.N." It's very strange for the vice president's senior adviser to be writing the speech and saying to the secretary Of State, "This is what you should be saying."

NARRATOR: Powell was skeptical of Libby's speech. He turned to tenet for help.

CARL W. FORD, Jr.: He took the initiative to tell his staff, INR and CIA, "We're going to have to got through this. I don't like this." So his mind was already attuned to the fact that he wanted to make it better than he saw it.

LAWRENCE WILKERSON, Chief of Staff, State Dept. 2002-05: Secretary Powell was not reluctant at all to throw things out completely. We threw the meeting between Mohammad Atta and Iraqi intelligence operatives in Prague out.

NARRATOR: Powell and his senior staff spent the weekend at CIA headquarters.

LARRY WILKERSON: I sat in the room, looking into George Tenet's eyes, as did the secretary of state, and heard with the firmness that only George could give it* and I don't mean terminology like "slam dunk," although he was a basketball aficionado and used that kind of terminology a lot* but I mean eyeball-to-eyeball contact between two of the most powerful men in the administration, Colin Powell and George Tenet, and George Tenet assuring Colin Powell that the information he was presenting to the U.N. was ironclad.

NARRATOR: But even at that time, inside the CIA, there were serious doubts about the accuracy of a central part of Powell's speech. It, too, had come from the NIE.
"Baghdad has mobile facilities for producing bacterial and toxin BW agents. These facilities can evade detection and are highly survivable."
The source for this information was code-named "Curveball."

--------

NARRATOR: But as Curveball's allegations became a crucial part of the NIE, what few knew, including Secretary Powell, was that Curveball was the sole source for most of the information.

DAVID KAY: He was not told the truth when he was at the Agency. When he was going over the data, he was told this was based on not one source but multiple sources. One of the sources he was told it was based on was already known to be a fabricator. He was not told that the Germans had denied the U.S. access to it. He was not told that there had been warnings from the Germans that this guy was, to say the least, undependable, alcoholic. So all the* all the fine-grained stuff that might have caused him even then not to use it, he wasn't given an opportunity to hear firsthand.

NARRATOR: In February of 2003, Secretary Powell arrived at the united nations to put his personal prestige on the line.

ROBIN WRIGHT, The Washington Post: Colin Powell was the most powerful voice within the administration cautioning against the dangers of going to war and the costs* human, political, diplomatic. At the end of the day, however, Colin Powell is a team player. He wasn't going to walk away from the administration on the eve of going to war, which was not only abandoning his commander-in-chief, but also the troops, many of which he still knew.

COLIN POWELL, Secretary of State: [U.N., February 5, 2003] Let me turn now to nuclear weapons*

NARRATOR: Powell insisted George Tenet sit in camera range right behind him. The usual allegations were made.
----
DAVID KAY: From very early on I said, "Things are not panning out the way you thought they existed here." And it was specific cases, whether we were talking about the aluminum tubes or we're talking about the nuclear program, in general, or the biological program or the chemical program.

NARRATOR: Powell received the bad news directly from Tenet.

LAWRENCE WILKERSON: I remember these scenes where he would come through my door and say, "Well, George just called and he took another pillar out. Another substantial aspect of my presentation is gone." He took it like a soldier, but it was a blow. It was a blow to me. I mean, I wrote out my resignation. I put it in my center drawer, typed it myself. I wouldn't even make my staff assistant type it. "Dear President Bush, I've come to the point in my service where I no longer can serve, given the nature of your foreign policy," and so forth. "And therefore, I respectfully submit my resignation." And once a week or so, I would take it out and look at it and fold it back up carefully and put it back in my center drawer, never having the intestinal fortitude to submit it. You know, I won't speak for Colin Powell, but I'll tell you it really affected me.

[x-factor]

While I admit to not reading every single piece of news regarding the Plame incident, I've alway's been under the impression that Valeries name was merely mentioned. If her past activities were something that had been published for counter intel guy's too see all one had to do was Google the name "Valerie Plame" and we quickly learned that she did in fact at the very least work under the cover status with the now defunct cover corporation of Bruster Jennings in counter proliferation.

Once the name is out in the open, it unlocks a whole bunch of other stuff. Your post is perfect example. From the name, they got the cover corporation. What do you think they might get from that? etc etc etc.

Maybe your a spook, maybe your not.

If I were undercover I wouldn't be posting here at all. I'm an analyst. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't mention which DoD agency I work for because its just better to not to give out info you don't have to.

I cant speak for others on this forum, but I can only read what is available and try to read between the lines.

Thats all I'm doing too. I form my political opinions based mostly on the unvarnished committee hearings and press conferences I listen to on CSPAN on the drive home and on the Sunday morning show interviews.

My perspective is Joe Wilson is a blow hard and has been for some time. After all, they both sought attention from various magazines for such expose's as "heres our house" and "here's our antiques" Seems to me that Valeries cover was clearly last on the list of Joe C. Wilson concerns.

That Wilson is blowhard and/or moron I have no opinion on.

[Razor]

However, a) there's a little bit of a difference between outing your wife to fellow national security officials and outing her to the whole world...

And here's where I'll disagree. There are no 'wink-wink-nudge-nudge' passes given for this. Either you keep your mouth shut, or you're culpable for whatever passes.

[The Reaper]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/our_faux_constitutional_crisis.html

July 06, 2007
Our Faux Constitutional Crisis
By Rich Lowry

Practically everything else in American life has been dumbed down, so why not constitutional crises? The braying over President Bush’s commutation of Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s prison sentence is that Bush has undermined the rule of law and the Constitution.

The Founders would be bemused at this, since — inconveniently for the Scooter-must-hang left — they included the pardon power in the Constitution. There it is in Article II, Section 2: The president “shall have the power to grant reprieves and pardons.” They didn’t include a proviso that the power shall not extend to persons vilified by left-wing bloggers as the personification of “the case for war.”

Bush can hardly create a constitutional crisis by exercising a plenary constitutional power, and doing it in a way that has become almost routine. The first President Bush pardoned former CIA official Clair George (convicted of lying to Congress), former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger (indicted for perjury), and former National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane (pled guilty to withholding information from Congress). Like the current Bush’s commutation, these Iran-contra pardons violated the Justice-department guidelines. And somehow, the republic survived.

President Clinton pardoned or commuted the sentences of former Arkansas operator Susan McDougal (jailed for myriad offenses); former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros (caught up in an interminable independent-counsel investigation about whether he lied to the FBI); former CIA Director John Deutch (in the midst of a plea bargain over his mishandling of classified material); and eight people connected to the scandal around former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy (all of whom had been convicted of or pled guilty to illegal acts).

This leaves aside Clinton’s truly egregious pardons and commutations: sixteen Puerto Rican terrorists over the opposition of the FBI and the Federal Bureau of Prisons; the international fugitive Marc Rich; one man convicted of mail fraud and perjury and another convicted of cocaine trafficking, each of whom had paid $200,000 to Hillary Clinton’s brother Hugh Rodman to represent them.

Bush’s commutation is nothing like those outrageous acts of clemency. It is perfectly in the mainstream of pardons throughout the past 20 years in cases that are considered politicized prosecutions by the aggrieved administrations. The Founders created the pardon power to grant relief from a justice system that might, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, be “too sanguinary and cruel.” It doesn’t serve that function so much anymore, but has turned out to be a safety valve in an era when each party criminalizes political disputes when it suits its purposes.

This creates a perpetual argument over whose perjury is worse. Liberals say that Libby’s perjury is more serious than Clinton’s because Libby lied about the war and Clinton lied only about sex. Actually, Libby’s case wasn’t about the war, but about whether or not he had misremembered when and from whom he first had heard that Joe Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, worked at the CIA. There also is an ambiguity to Libby’s case, with its complex assortment of conflicting memories, that didn’t exist in that of Bill Clinton, who admitted to testifying falsely under oath.

Regardless, except for the most blatant crimes, the political arena is the best forum for politically controversial charges of wrongdoing. Rather than commuting Libby’s sentence on grounds that it was excessive, Bush should have pardoned him altogether on grounds that the case had become a way to make one man pay for the alleged sins of the administration regarding the war. Our system of government provides a straightforward method to punish an administration without resorting to special prosecutors and criminal charges, which is to vote against the president or his party.

Just wait: The same people hyperventilating about Libby now will have exactly the opposite attitude about the criminalization of politics when a Democrat is back in the White House. Then, they will grow fond of Article II, Section 2 all over again.

[x-factor]

Clearly I'm pretty mad about the whole Libby thing, but anyone calling it a constitutional crisis needs to reread the constitution cause its pretty much black-and-white on this.

[sf11b_p]

That she was undercover is not debatable. Its a fact. People close to her may have figured it out (or claim to have known all along to get themselvs on TV) but thats a far cry from it being public knowledge accessible by every counterintelligence organization in the world. Pundits, news media, White House strategists, etc don't get to judge whether they think cover is deserved or not. Her covered status was an operational call made by the CIA in accordance with their chartered mission and the rest of the government is legally obligated to respect it. Any argument to the contrary is just BS equivocation.


I should have written, if any cover remained, if she and her husband broke her "cover" so much her neighbors considered it common knowledge I'd say it was accessible. Still the point is Libby was not convicted for outing her.


Yes, the conviction was only for perjury and obstruction, but the issue was the outing of a covered officer. Furthermore, it was the perjury and obstruction that prevented more serious charges from ever being brought. Lets not mince words, he took the bullet for someone higher up (probably Cheney and/or Rove) and he's getting off light. The whole $250K fine thing is a joke. He'll make probably ten times that just on his book deal. And the "loss of career" argument is bogus too. He'll take a couple years off to write his book, then be right back in the swing of things either in the GOP infrastructure or at a cushy corporate gig.

Richard Armitage revealed the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame to syndicated columnist Robert Novak in 2003. Karl Rove talked with two reporters about Plame but never supplied her name or CIA role. Of the three Libby gets the most attention from Fitzgerald, now why is that.

The right comparing it to Clinton's pardons doesn't do anything to make it stink any less. Jatx is right. The entire government needs a fundamental reeducation on the whole concept of classified information and why its not anything to play politics with.

Comparing Libby to any pardon is ridiculous, Libby wasn't pardoned, his sentence was commuted, the conviction stands.

But why does Fitzgerald seem to focus on Libby. What does come to light regarding Clintons pardons is Marc Rich (Reich). Rich was charged with tax evasion and illegal trading with Iran. Libby was defense counsel and Fitzgerald and James Comey were prosecutors. Libby is credited for the legal groundwork that led to then President Clintons pardon, just before leaving office, of Marc Rich. This of course had nothing to do with the large donations given to the Democratic party and the Clinton library by Denise Rich.

The pardon so infuriated Justice lawyers who had worked on the case that the Southern District promptly launched an investigation into whether the pardon had been "proper." One former prosecutor we spoke to described the Rich case as "the single most rancorous case in the history of the Southern District." WSJ - January 20, 2007

Comey as Deputy Attorney General appointed Fitzgerald to investigate the Plame leak.

So the whole thing seems a poor example of honest judgment to me. This never was the case to set an example for exposing classified information. Especially when the only charges brought were perjury and obstruction.

[Sigaba]

From the DoJ website.

Clemency Statistics


Presidential Clemency Actions by Fiscal Year (1900 to 1945) (http://www.justice.gov/pardon/actions_fiscal.htm)
Presidential Clemency Actions by Administration (1945 to present) (http://www.justice.gov/pardon/actions_administration.htm)

Clemency Recipients

Pardons and Commutations Granted by Bush the Elder (http://www.justice.gov/pardon/bushgrants.htm)

Pardons Granted by President Clinton (http://www.justice.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm)

Commutations Granted by President Clinton (http://www.justice.gov/pardon/clinton_comm.htm)

Commutations Granted by Bush the Younger (http://www.justice.gov/pardon/bush-comm.htm)

Pardons Granted by Bush the Younger (http://www.justice.gov/pardon/bushpardon-grants.htm)

In my experience, cutting and pasting into an email the full list of President Clinton's pardons will result in a deafening silence from the message's recipient.:p

_________________________________
* This necropost is brought to you by the Coalition of Over Caffeinated Insomniacs.

[Dozer523]

From the DoJ website.
In my experience, cutting and pasting into an email the full list of President Clinton's pardons will result in a deafening silence from the message's recipient.:p
Well I'm hoping Raymond Phillip Weaver said thanks, probably with his mouth full of pancakes. Courts Martial in 1947 for stealing four pounds of butter from the Navy.:rolleyes:

[ZonieDiver]

In my experience, cutting and pasting into an email the full list of President Clinton's pardons will result in a deafening silence from the message's recipient.

In the "Politics Makes Strange Bedfellows Department" - one Clinton pardon was for former Arizona Governor J. Fife Symington III (back in the old days of Arizona - when I was in high school - we had governors with names like "One-Eyed Jack" Williams, not J. Fife Symington III :D). It seems that on a spring break while both were in college (Harvard for Symington and Georgetown for Clinton), Clinton swam out too far and was drowning. Symington swam out and saved him. At least that's the story I heard!