So -- what happens now? DO you think GW will pardon him now, wait 18 months and pardon him then, or let him serve his whole sentence?
Judge Won't Delay Libby Prison Term
- Thread starter Joeychgo
- Start date
So -- what happens now? DO you think GW will pardon him now, wait 18 months and pardon him then, or let him serve his whole sentence?
Libby should be released. If he is unable to get a decision in his favor for this non-crime, then he should be pardoned.
Obama's attorney just wrote an article saying Bush SHOULD pardon him- but only because he thought it would be a political liability for Bush. I don't think I agree with this. He's alienating the base of the party, this is one of the issues that they are pissed off about. If it was a political liability, the Republican candidates wouldn't all be talking about it.
Obama's attorney just wrote an article saying Bush SHOULD pardon him- but only because he thought it would be a political liability for Bush. I don't think I agree with this. He's alienating the base of the party, this is one of the issues that they are pissed off about. If it was a political liability, the Republican candidates wouldn't all be talking about it.
Well, the judge says he has to go to jail pending appeal - so his only way to avoid doing time is if he gets a pardon now.
If GW decides to wait until after the elections next year to pardon him, then libby will do about 16 months of his 30 month sentence.
Personally, I think if GW is going to pardon him, he should do it now. Not wait. If he waits, its purely politics.
If GW decides to wait until after the elections next year to pardon him, then libby will do about 16 months of his 30 month sentence.
Personally, I think if GW is going to pardon him, he should do it now. Not wait. If he waits, its purely politics.
Well up until this bullcrap decision (he's not a flight risk), there was an argument that said it'd be best for him to prove his innocence. With the pardon comes the presumption of guilt when granted before a trail.
He should do it very soon with a clear explanation- reinforced by the GOP talking heads.
From what Fox is saying - GW has said no pardon for now.
Marcus
Dedicated LVC Member
Perjury is a non-crime? Since when? Sometime after 1999? Or do you actually buy his "I forgot" alibi?
Libby was found guilty of four felonies -- two counts of perjury, one count of making false statements to the FBI and one count of obstructing justice.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Sandy Burglar, former Clinton White House national security adviser, who steals classified documents that would have made Clinton look bad over 9/11 by stuffing them down his pants, gets a fine and loses his White House security clearance TEMPORARILY - and Libby can't remember what he said when and goes to prison for 2 years.
Any questions?
Any questions?
That was a misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified information, to which he plead guilty. Libby was convicted of 4 felonies.
It was also in 2005 when he was convicted and not under Clinton's protection.
Dont try to make this a democrat thing - thats BS.
It was also in 2005 when he was convicted and not under Clinton's protection.
Dont try to make this a democrat thing - thats BS.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Libby was prosecuted by an out-of-control prosecutor who was ostensibly looking for the leaker, whose identity he had all the time (Richard Armitage), so why would he even need to question Libby? The purpose of the investigation was to identify the leaker, and since Fitzfong already knew the identity, he wasted 2 years and millions of tax dollars in order to trap Libby in a PROCESS CRIME which actually had nothing to do with the original investigation.
Frankly I'm stunned that you actually believe that stealing classified documents is a lesser offense than misstating when you told somebody something.
You really are a biased piece of work.
IM not Biased whatsoever -
Sentences are handed out based on what crime they were convicted of.
Sandy Burglar was convicted of a single misdemeanor, Libby of 4 felonies. I dont make the laws - I am only pointing out the differences. I also didnt express an opinion so you can shove your "You really are a biased piece of work." comment.
Sentences are handed out based on what crime they were convicted of.
Sandy Burglar was convicted of a single misdemeanor, Libby of 4 felonies. I dont make the laws - I am only pointing out the differences. I also didnt express an opinion so you can shove your "You really are a biased piece of work." comment.
to "obstruct justice" there has to be a crime commited that is being investigated. There wasn't in this case. Hence no obstruction, thus nullifying the other charges.
I agree - as I said - I havent expressed an opinon on the case - But one that point I agree - you cant obstruct justice when there is no underlying crime. Thats going to be a big appeal issue.
But the fact IS - Libby was convicted of 4 felonies. Burglar only 1 misdemeanor. That was my only point.
But the fact IS - Libby was convicted of 4 felonies. Burglar only 1 misdemeanor. That was my only point.
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
Democrats are always held to a lower standard than Republicans are. That is my only point.
Marcus
Dedicated LVC Member
Whenever you guys can't make a valid case, you change the subject. Sandy Berger has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but regardless...
If there was any evidence that Berger stole or destroyed original documents, then they would have thrown the book at him. But there wasn't. Even if his intention was to hide or destroy evidence, he couldn't have because the materials he took were printed copies of documents that were safe and sound on hard drives. The people in charge of the archives stated that there were no hand-written notes on them. And despite the conspiracy theories, there's zero evidence that he ever stole anything in past visits, only wild conjecture. Since wild conjecture isn't valid evidence in a court of law (supposedly), he got the punishment required by law.
Back to the subject at hand...
The fact that Armitage was officially the first "leaker" doesn't automatically exonerate later leakers of any wrongdoing. If there was a concerted effort in the White House to punish Wilson by outing his wife, that is a serious offense. Fitzgerald was looking into that, therefore Libby needed to be questioned. Libby lied under oath about the chain of events and he was found guilty for it.
It is indeed a travesty that Libby is going to jail because it is most likely he was just a fall guy. The jury certainly felt that way after hearing the testimony, many of them wondering why Fiztgerald didn't pursue it further. Why didn't he? We may never know. But I think it's easy to imagine the firestorm that would have erupted if Cheney had been indicted.
We ended up with a case that had a narrow focus (the leaker) instead of looking at a possible underlying crime (an administration plot to punish Wilson).
The defense in the Watergate trials tried to do the same thing, make it all about the break-in and leave it at that. Luckily congress stepped in and broke through to the underlying crime.
But not this time.
If there was any evidence that Berger stole or destroyed original documents, then they would have thrown the book at him. But there wasn't. Even if his intention was to hide or destroy evidence, he couldn't have because the materials he took were printed copies of documents that were safe and sound on hard drives. The people in charge of the archives stated that there were no hand-written notes on them. And despite the conspiracy theories, there's zero evidence that he ever stole anything in past visits, only wild conjecture. Since wild conjecture isn't valid evidence in a court of law (supposedly), he got the punishment required by law.
Back to the subject at hand...
The fact that Armitage was officially the first "leaker" doesn't automatically exonerate later leakers of any wrongdoing. If there was a concerted effort in the White House to punish Wilson by outing his wife, that is a serious offense. Fitzgerald was looking into that, therefore Libby needed to be questioned. Libby lied under oath about the chain of events and he was found guilty for it.
It is indeed a travesty that Libby is going to jail because it is most likely he was just a fall guy. The jury certainly felt that way after hearing the testimony, many of them wondering why Fiztgerald didn't pursue it further. Why didn't he? We may never know. But I think it's easy to imagine the firestorm that would have erupted if Cheney had been indicted.
We ended up with a case that had a narrow focus (the leaker) instead of looking at a possible underlying crime (an administration plot to punish Wilson).
The defense in the Watergate trials tried to do the same thing, make it all about the break-in and leave it at that. Luckily congress stepped in and broke through to the underlying crime.
But not this time.
Marcus
Dedicated LVC Member
I'm sure they'll whip out an old Ann Coulter article.
...and it would be factually accurate, as are all her articles and books. Just because she holds a certian bias doesn't mean she can't be right (as u would like to assume).
There was evidence of Sandy Bergers crime (not the least of which was his own admission)...
"Headline: Ex-Clinton Aide to Admit Taking Classified Papers
Source: New York Times
Dateline: April 1, 2005
Byline: Eric Lichtblau
WASHINGTON, March 31 - Samuel R. Berger, a national security adviser to President Bill Clinton, has agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge and give up his security clearance for three years for removing classified material from a government archive, the Justice Department and associates of Mr. Berger's said Thursday..."
"Headline: Berger to Plead Guilty to Taking Materials
Source: The Associated Press
Dateline: March 31, 2005
Byline: Mark Sherman
WASHINGTON - Former national security adviser Sandy Berger will plead guilty to taking classified documents from the National Archives, the Justice Department said Thursday..."
"Headline: Berger's Burglary
Source: New York Post
Byline: Editorial
Dateline: April 4, 2005
Sandy Berger, the top Clinton national- security official and erstwhile close adviser to Sen. John Kerry, has finally confessed what he spent nearly a year heatedly denying: that he intentionally smuggled classified documents from the National Archives — and deliberately destroyed them..."
There is no proof of any illegal info every being leaked in reguards to the Libby case. Libby was being question about the release of legal information.
The thing is that the legal system, in this instance assumed guilt until proven innocent (and even then still assumes guilt) in reguards to the the baseless charge of a conspiricy to leak classified info. There was no evidence to justify an extensive investigation and Libby should never have been questioned. When there was a discrepancy with what Libby said, they jumped on it and got someone tied to the admin to be found guilty (of a process crime, nothing to do with the original charge, or Bush). Basically, a liberal controlled justice department attempted to make it a crime to be a conservative (or to be associated with a conservative), at least in DC.
Your own bias is blatantly obvious in this issue, Tommy, due to your lack of intellectual honesty (should be skeptical of all criminal charges of this nature, not just Berger's, reguardless of party when it comes to these things). Instead, because the charge (although baseless) was serious u assumed it must be true, apparently.
All that is irrelevant.
2 reasons....
Libby wasnt charged with leaking - he was charged with Perjury and obstruction of justice. And convicted by a Jury.
Berger was charged with a misdemeanor - and plead guilty.
Those ARE the facts. Further - there was a republican congress and a republican Attorney General - thus a Republican US Attorney. If Berger got off lighter then he should have, and Libby was treated unfairly harsh - there wasnt a democrat in sight that could be at fault.
So lets not make this a Republican / Democrat issue.
Does libby deserve to go away? From what I know, I dont think so. I think GW should stand up right now and pardon him.
Remember Libby? thats what this thread was about - not Berger.
2 reasons....
Libby wasnt charged with leaking - he was charged with Perjury and obstruction of justice. And convicted by a Jury.
Berger was charged with a misdemeanor - and plead guilty.
Those ARE the facts. Further - there was a republican congress and a republican Attorney General - thus a Republican US Attorney. If Berger got off lighter then he should have, and Libby was treated unfairly harsh - there wasnt a democrat in sight that could be at fault.
So lets not make this a Republican / Democrat issue.
Does libby deserve to go away? From what I know, I dont think so. I think GW should stand up right now and pardon him.
Remember Libby? thats what this thread was about - not Berger.
Marcus
Dedicated LVC Member
Which I didn't argue against. I read those very same articles before I posted. What I said was that no original documents were stolen or destroyed. In other words, nothing has been lost. No damning evidence that bin-Laden spent a night in the Lincoln Bedroom, or any other such nonsense.
I'm not skeptical of Berger's guilt. He was clearly guilty. I was addressing the false claims you guys perpetuate that the documents he took or destroyed are forever lost. They are not. The originals are still safe and sound in the National Archives.
But back to Libby...
Marcus
Dedicated LVC Member
The trouble with her is trying to separate her purported facts from the opinion and rhetoric. Mostly, it's her substituting fabricated context for the real context in regards to quotes and news articles. There have been numerous examples cited of her snipping a quote from some obscure newspaper article to make a point, when in fact the article says the exact opposite when read in full. I don't resent her because she's conservative, and certainly not because she's right. I resent her because, exactly like Michael Moore, she's a half truth-telling propagandist, and too many soft-headed fools eat her crap up like candy.
The Justice department is filled with democrats, many of whom apparently have a beef against Bush and will conduct frevilous prosecution against his admin.
Please provide some examples...
It was still classified information. Weather it was the original document or not, it is a federal offense (a felony, not a misdemenor) to remove that info. The fact that the info was backed up is irrelevent. The dissemination of that info was to be controled, so there is a law in place that it can't be removed. He broke that law, plain and simple. To say it wasn't an issue because it wasn't the original document misses the point.