Thread: U.S. v. Libby

am i also suffering from alzheimer's or is my response to post #274 missing?

Originally Posted by raycarey

am i also suffering from alzheimer's or is my response to post #274 missing?

Probably a touch of CRS (can't remember shit) there ray.
It happens to us all - but, back on topic. Once again I ask you:
What if his name had been Karl instead of Sandy ?

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Once again I ask you: What if his name had been Karl instead of Sandy ?

you've never asked me, "what if his name had been karl instead of sandy". never. so why you do say you are asking me 'again'? you do understand the meaning of the word 'again', right? i hope i don't have to point this out to you.....again.

i'm not going click through to your link----you've already been told, "bloggers need not apply". however, i'm assuming the thesis is karl rove would have been crucified if he had done what berger did. wow.....that's certainly one clever blogger!
but i'll give the standard bush white house reply....'i don't deal in hypotheticals'.

btw, over two years ago i started a thread questioning berger's behavior and the justice meted out......where the fuck were you? posting about jane fonda and skylab?

sandy berger - Ajarn Forum - Living, Teaching, and Surviving in Thailand.

Originally Posted by raycarey

btw, over two years ago i started a thread questioning berger's behavior and the justice meted out......where the fuck were you? posting about jane fonda and skylab?

sandy berger - Ajarn Forum - Living, Teaching, and Surviving in Thailand.

Well, it's only recently that Berger had to give up his law license and the ramifications of his previous criminal activities have fully come to light.
Besides, I don't have time (nor inclination) to check out Ajarn...

Originally Posted by attaboy

ray, your concern during a "time of war" doesn't ring true

i responded earlier to this, but for some reason it's not here.

anyway, it was something along the lines of....

gee, you think? what gave me away? i guess i'll have to work on my subtlety.

you do realize that it was the vice president's office, and libby in particular, that were trying to scare the american public about the threat from AQ and making broad, sweeping declarations about 'the war on terror' and 'the long war'...... and at the very same time, libby was blabbing to reporters about the identity of a CIA agent.

and when asked about it by the FBI, he lied.

here's fitzgerald on why he prosecuted libby ....

"QUESTION: You've received a lot of criticism in the last couple months, because Rich Armitage had come forward and said he was the first leaker, that you knew that at the beginning.
"Do you think this now justifies your investigation? And what do you have to say to those critics?
"FITZGERALD: I would say this: It's not the verdict that justifies the investigation, it's the facts.
"If people would step back and look at what happened here, when the investigation began in the fall of 2003, and then when I got appointed special counsel at the end of December 2003, what is now clear is what we knew at that time.
"By that point in time, we knew Mr. Libby had told a story that what he had told reporters had come not from other government officials but from reporter Tim Russert.
"It's also now public that by that point in time the FBI had learned that, in fact, Tim Russert did not tell Mr. Libby that information. In fact, Tim Russert didn't know it. Tim Russert could not have told him.
"And for us, as investigators and prosecutors, to take a case where a high-level official is telling a story that the basis of his information wasn't from government officials but came from a reporter, [when] the reporter had told us that was not true, other officials had told us the information came from them, we could not walk away from that.
"And to me, it's inconceivable that any responsible prosecutor would walk away from the facts that we saw in December 2003 and say, 'There's nothing here; move along, folks.'
"And one responsibility we have as prosecutors is we cannot always explain what we do, why we charge or why we don't charge. But at the end of the day, if we look you in the eye and say, 'We made a decision: Charges are not appropriate,' we have to feel comfortable ourselves that that's the case.
"And none of us on the team can walk away from what we knew in December 2003. . . .
"And so we've brought charges, we went to trial and we've proved the case. So we think the facts justify themselves."

CNN.com - Transcripts

Originally Posted by raycarey

i responded earlier to this, but for some reason it's not here.

Nothing from this thread has been deleted from as far back as I can remember, if that's what you are wondering.

^
i had a couple of brower windows open yesterday and firefox crashed .....and while i definitely typed the post, i might not have pressed 'post quick reply'.

^
Definitely CRS...

Here's a good argument for Bush not to pardon Libby but to simply commute his sentence. The prision term should be eliminated and Scooter should pay a fine (like Burger did)...

The Dream :-

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

(like Burger did)

can't let it go, can you? but hey, it's cool for me....my thread is headed for 300 and probably 20 of them are you wringing your hands about sandy berger.

btw, you know who investigated and prosecuted berger, don't you?

the gonzalez justice department.

bring it up with gonzo if you're unhappy about berger's sentence.

Friggin' world's coming apart at the seams and two white guys are bickering about how long their threads are going be.

LMFHO.

Originally Posted by kerux

Friggin' world's coming apart at the seams and two white guys are bickering about how long their threads are going be.

Well, we all know a conservative's Johnson is longer than a cut & run Democrat's!

Of course jew Alan Dirtbag Dershowtiz will come to the aid of fellow jew Irwin Libby. If only we non-jews helped each other half as much.

^ Alan Dershowitz is a Jewish Zionist that attacks people and accuses anyone who criticizes US Middle East foreign policy and/or Israel an anti-semite.

Dershowitz truly is, a scumbag.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Heh...looks like Patrick Fitzgerald's appointment was unconstitutional . Some big names weigh in:

fitzgerald was appointed by bush.

bring it up with him.

Heh...

all those NeoCons are nothing more than Mossad recruited agents

don't know about that, but what i do know is that it's amusing to read all the right-wing radicals crying in their soup about the mess they're in.

We're all in a mess.

WASHINGTON, June 13 — I. Lewis Libby Jr., once one of the most powerful men in government, was escorted by federal marshals out a side door in a federal courtroom here Thursday for processing after a judge issued a final ruling that he would have to begin serving his 30-month prison sentence shortly, even before his appeals were exhausted.

Mr. Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was temporarily released after surrendering his passport and completing forms. He will have to report to a federal prison sometime in the next several weeks to begin serving his sentence after his conviction in March on four felony counts for lying in a C.I.A. leak investigation

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/15/wa...gvFplN5iNIM64A

Commutation time right around the corner

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Some big names weigh in:
"A dozen legal scholars, including a noted civil libertarian, Alan Dershowitz, are coming to the aid of a convicted White House aide facing a 2 1/2-year prison sentence. The scholars submitted an amicus brief Thursday to Judge Reggie Walton arguing that that there are serious constitutional questions about the legal authority of the special prosecutor who pursued Libby on obstruction of justice, perjury and false statement charges, Patrick Fitzgerald"

Judge Walton was especially acid when Mr. Robbins noted that 12 law professors including Alan Dershowitz of Harvard submitted a brief arguing that Mr. Libby be kept out of prison because his grounds for appeal might be accepted by a higher court. The judge said that the brief was not even as good “as I would expect from a first-year law student,” and that the academics just wanted to put their names forward in a high-profile case.

same NYT link

^
Obviously Judge Walton is a Clinton apointee...