test

OUTRAGEOUS... after the judge in the case was adamant about not reducing the sentence, in fact being overtly outright about upholding his verdict, it is unconscionable to me that George Bush (so flagrantly) ignores the will of the Judiciary. HELLS BELLS, THIS MAN COMMITTED TREASON AT THE BEHEST OF THE VICE PRESIDENT OF AMERICA. With this sort of "justice" shouldn't all Americans NOT convicted of MURDER be free to walk the streets?? Once again, Bush proves that we ought to re-consider whether our government should not be put under the auspices of the International World Court in the Hague. Obviously, as Americans we cannot stop this maniac, perhaps the threat of an entire globe of people threatening to place him in a jail cell for a long period of time, might daunt him from such atrocities in the next year, or so, until we can put this mental midget behind us all.
Michael in Florida

While Olby was worshipping Our Favorite Felon, did he attribute a comment to Slippery by saying "Something that David Shuster just made up"? He seemed a bit flustered afterward. An Olbyan slip of the tongue if I've ever heard one.

How many commutations and pardons does Pres. Bush have left to grant until he ties Slick Willie's total of 185?

Now Olby acknowledges the seriousness of the UK bombing attempts. Amazing. Someone must have reminded him of the soap-flakes incident.

Are you kidding, Michael? Really? Its funny when a conservative is convicted, liberals shout "Rule of Law" and "a Jury has made its decision..."

Yet, when a murderer is on death row, all we hear from libs is "No Jury is perfect" and "What if they were wrong?"

And as far as "THIS MAN COMMITTED TREASON..." Really? Treason? I thought he was convicted of LYING TO A GRAND JURY. You know, just like BILL CLINTON. You remember him, right- your hero?

President Bill Clinton was widely criticized for some pardons and other acts of executive clemency; collectively, this controversy has sometimes been called Pardongate in the press. Federal prosecutor Mary Jo White was appointed to investigate the pardons. She was later replaced by James Comey.

FALN Pardons of 1999
On August 11 1999, Clinton commuted the sentences of 16 members of FALN, a violent Puerto Rican nationalist group that set off 120 bombs in the United States mostly in New York City and Chicago, convicted for conspiracies to commit robbery, bomb-making, and sedition, as well as for firearms and explosives violations. None of the 16 were convicted of bombings or any crime which injured another person, though they were sentenced with terms ranging from 35 to 105 years in prison for the conviction of conspiracy and sedition. Congress, however, recognizes that the FALN is responsible for "6 deaths and the permanent maiming of dozens of others, including law enforcement officials." All of the 16 had served 19 years or longer in prison, which was a longer sentence than such crimes typically received, according to the White House.[citation needed] Clinton offered clemency, on condition that the prisoners renounce violence, at the appeal of 10 Nobel Peace Prize laureates, President Jimmy Carter, the cardinal of New York, and the archbishop of Puerto Rico. The commutation was opposed by U.S. Attorney's Office, the FBI, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons and criticized by many including former victims of FALN terrorist activities, the Fraternal Order of Police, members of Congress, and Hillary Clinton in her campaign for Senator. Congress condemned the action, with a vote of 95-2 in the Senate and 311-41 in the House. The U.S. House Committee on Government Reform held an investigation on the matter, but the Justice Department prevented FBI officials from testifying. President Clinton cited executive privilege for his refusal to turn over some documents to Congress related to his decision to offer clemency to members of the FALN terrorist group.

Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory pardons
In March 2000, Bill Clinton pardoned Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory, owners of the carnival company United Shows International, for charges of bank fraud from a 1982 conviction (the couple were already out of jail, but the prior conviction prevented them from doing business transactions in certain states). First Lady Hillary Clinton's youngest brother, Tony Rodham, was an acquaintance of the Gregorys, and had lobbied Clinton on their behalf. In October 2006, the group Judicial Watch filed a request with the U.S. Justice Department for an investigation, alleging that Rodham had received $107,000 from the Gregorys for the pardons, in the form of loans that were never repaid, as part of a quid pro quo scheme.

Pardons signed on final day in office
Clinton issued 140 pardons on his last day of office (January 20, 2001). Some controversial pardons include the following:

Carlos A. Vignali had his sentence for cocaine trafficking commuted, after serving 6 of 15 years in federal prison.
Almon Glenn Braswell was pardoned of his mail fraud and perjury convictions, even while a federal investigation was underway regarding additional money laundering and tax evasion charges. Braswell and Carlos Vignali each paid approximately $200,000 to Hillary Clinton's brother, Hugh Rodham, to represent their respective cases for clemency. Hugh Rodham returned the payments after they were disclosed to the public. Braswell would later invoke the Fifth Amendment at a Senate Committee hearing in 2001, when questioned about allegations of his having systematically defrauded senior citizens of millions of dollars.
Marc Rich, a fugitive, was pardoned of tax evasion, after clemency pleas from Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, among many other international luminaries. Denise Rich, Marc's former wife, was a close friend of the Clintons and had made substantial donations to both Clinton's library and Hillary's Senate campaign. Several months after her last donation, emails reveal Republican attorney "Scooter" Libby asked her to approach Clinton about pardoning Marc Rich. Clinton agreed to a pardon that required Marc Rich to pay a $100,000,000 fine before he could return to the United States. According to Paul Volcker's independent investigation of Iraqi Oil-for-Food kickback schemes, Marc Rich was a middleman for several suspect Iraqi oil deals involving over 4 million barrels of oil.
Susan McDougal, who had already completed her sentence, was pardoned for her role in the Whitewater scandal; McDougal had served 18 months on contempt charges for refusing to testify about Clinton's role.
Roger Clinton, the president's half-brother, on drug charges. Roger Clinton would be charged with drunk driving and disorderly conduct in an unrelated incident within a year of the pardon. He was also briefly alleged to have been utilized in lobbying for the Braswell pardon, among others.
It has been pointed out that the total number of pardons Clinton granted was comparable to other presidents and that Republican presidential pardons have also been controversial, including President Gerald Ford's pardon of former President Richard Nixon on September 8, 1974 and President George H. W. Bush's pardons of six Reagan administration officials accused or convicted in connection with the Iran-Contra affair and Orlando Bosch.

Leave it to NBC News to DOWNPLAY the terrorist attempts in Britain and INTERVIEW, YES INTERVIEW Al Queda terrorists.

Is it any wonder that NBC is Al Jazeera @ 30 Rock?

NBC News is Al Jazeera at 30 Rock.
NBC News is Al Jazeera at 30 Rock.
NBC News is Al Jazeera at 30 Rock.
NBC News is Al Jazeera at 30 Rock.
NBC News is Al Jazeera at 30 Rock.
NBC News is Al Jazeera at 30 Rock.
NBC News is Al Jazeera at 30 Rock.
NBC News is Al Jazeera at 30 Rock.
NBC News is Al Jazeera at 30 Rock.
NBC News is Al Jazeera at 30 Rock.

Special Comment tomorrow calling on Bush and Cheney to resign! Good thing for W the 4 people that still watch Olbermann already have their minds set.

Oh great. Olby implores the Pres and VP to resign. They're running for the official pens to sign resignation letters right now at your urging, Olby. You're so influential (with loonachicks). I'm sure the loonachicks swooned when they heard you're preposterous suggestion.

N15pca high fives Obama-Rama.

Olby's has been coming in a solid third lately, of course it was time for another Special Education Comment. But his last several efforts to pimp his ratings by one of these ratings stunts have fallen short. But Olby tries, tries, tries again. And always, always, always fails.

The collective convulsing of the nutroots combined with the complete unhinging of Olbermann is absolutely lovely!

I would not be surprised if he has to pulled out of the msnbc studio tomorrow night in a straight jacket.

Way to address the lengthy posting about Slick Willie, Annon...

And, "The Tooth"... Libby wasn't charged with leaking anything. The special prosecutor knew before and during the "investigation" that the original source "leak" was former CLINTON stooge, Richard Armitage.

Of course, the biggest offender of "outing" Mrs. Plame was... her HUSBAND who dropped that info at every cocktail party they went to. "Pssst, hey- did you know my wife was in the CIA? Isn't that cool. Aren't I cool?"

Valerie Plame was NOT a covert agent. Her covert status was not leaked, because it did not exist. There was NO CRIME COMMITTED. But, the special prosecutor determined that Scooter's account differed from Tim Russerts, so therefore, Scooter must have "lied".

But, please - feel free to ignore these facts.

Doesn’t Patrick Fitzgerald look like a man who has dodged a bullet and is ready to get out of town? That was my first impression after watching the special-prosecutor’s press conference after news came down Wednesday about Scooter Libby. It would seem that prosecuting a Bush official before a Washington jury is not necessarily a slam dunk after all when the gruel is this thin.

Two crucial decisions were made in order for this sorry state of affairs to have played out this way. The first was when the Justice Department folded under political and media pressure because of the Plame leak and appointed a special counsel. When DOJ made the appointment they knew that the leak did not constitute a violation of the law. Yet, instead of standing on that solid legal ground they abdicated their official responsibility.

The Plame/Wilson defenders wanted administration blood because the administration had had the audacity to question the credibility of Joe Wilson and defend themselves against his charges. Therefore, the Department of Justice, in order to completely inoculate themselves, gave power and independence to Fitzgerald that was not available to Ken Starr, Lawrence Walsh, or any prior independent counsel under the old independent-counsel law. Fitzgerald became unique in our judicial history in that he was accountable to no one. And here even if justice had retained some authority they could hardly have asked Fitzgerald why he continued to pursue a non-crime because they knew from the beginning there was no crime.

From there the players’ moves were predictable. Fitzgerald began his Sherman’s march through the law and the press until he thought he had finally come up with something to justify his lofty mandate — a case that would not have been brought in any other part of the country.

The media by then was suffering from Stockholm syndrome — They feared and loved Fitzgerald at the same time. He was establishing terrible precedent by his willingness to throw reporters in jail over much less than serious national-security matters — the Ashcroft standard! Yet Fitzgerald was doing the Lord’s work in their eyes. This was a “bad leak” not a “good leak” like the kind they like to use. And it was much better to get the Tim Russert and Ari Fleischer treatment than it is to get the Judith Miller treatment. Fitzgerald paid no price for his prosecutorial inconsistencies, his erroneous public statements, or his possible conflicts of interest. And now they get to point out how this case revealed the “deep truths” about the White House.

The second decision was made by Libby himself. It was the decision to spend eight hours without counsel in a grand-jury room with Fitzgerald with this controversy swirling around him while trying to remember and recount conversations with various news reporters — reporters who he knew would be interviewed about these conversations themselves. These, of course, were reporters Libby had no right to expect to do him any favors. This sounds like a man with nothing to hide. This sounds like a man who doesn’t appreciate the position he is in or what or whom he is dealing with.

It is ironic that what Libby is facing today is not due to the evil machinations so often attributed to the White House but rather due to an apparent naivety.

Like most Washington political fights, very few participants have been left unscathed. Among the results of this investigation and trial, there will be less cooperation by public officials in future investigations and less ability of reporters to get information. We should ask ourselves: Are our institutions or is our sense of justice stronger because of this prosecution?

Well that's it then if KO says W must go then he must go......my god this guy is so full of it he probably really believes his words have weight on a subject that no one outside the beltway give one fig about.

I have a question for KO and the rest all worked up about Libby..why are you not demanding that Richard Armitage be brought to justice?

"notice the coward above won't document what right wing site that came from."

Thats really funny coming from an annon. You're such a coward, you can't even use a fake name.

Dumbass.

Dear brave "annon":

At the time of her "outing" Valerie Plame was NOT (say it with me) a covert agent.

So says her employer. (not her husband- who's living his Walter Mitty life through her)

Brave annon said: "America will remember in 08'"

Remember what, dumbass? Here's a clue for Olberloon and the rest of you libs- BUSH ISN'T RUNNING AGAIN. And sorry to upset you, but NEITHER IS CHENEY!!!!

So, what will they remember? William "The Refrigerator" Jefferson? The Dems NOT stopping the war? Pelosi and Reed's decisive leadership?

Keep dreaming.

Holy Shit! Brave annon got me! Wikipedia quotes- WoW!

From Wikipedia (spell it right, dumbass):

Only douchebag liberal post on message boards using annon as a handle. Also, only intellectually void "Progressives" cite Wikipedia as a source, as any dumbass (I'm looking at YOU brave annon) can update the entries.

Ouch.

Anonyloons,

The one and only person who leaked Valerie Plame's name is Richard Armitage. He did it. Nobody else did. Scooter Libby didn't to id. Why was Armitage not charged with anything and why does not a liberal in America even care?

Gee, brave annon- ANOTHER Wikipedia quote? You got me again!

Any comment on how former Clinton stooge Richard Armitage is the one who (if you belive it) "Outed" Plame?

I know that you creamed your pants when Scooter was charged with the same thing that Martha Stewart was, but since the Special Prosecutor found NO CRIME, no one was charged.

You're still a dumbass.

Oh Brave annon... I noticed that you failed to address WHAT the "American People" will also remember-

William "The Refrigerator" Jefferson
The DEMS who PROMISED to end the war (They didn't even have the GUTS to cut off funding to the troops they keep connning you into beliving they "support")
Pelosi and Reed? HAHAHAHAHAHA

When it comes down to Hillary (Obama?) and Fred- FRED WINS IN A LANDSLIDE.

Suck it, loser!

What a fantastic review Johnny D! No one does it better! Isn't it amazing that Man Tan Man somehow forgets to mention that Clinton had 38 COMMUTATIONS and 147 PARDONS!!!! And Obama Rama even went into more detail!

GREAT THANKS!

Well, unlike most liberals- well, at least their "base" - I have a job to go to in the morning.

So, goodnight brave annon- to quote another one of your heroes, Rev. Jessie: "keep hope alive!"

"And we know this because...we can trust whatever members of the Bush administration say ?"

Because Armitage himself has long since admitted it.

"Fomer Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage has admitted he was the first to leak the identity of of a CIA agent to reporters"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15489180/

Why are you stupid?

Dumbfuck Anonyloon,

Richard Armitage is Colin Powell's boy and is no friend anymore to the Bush Administration. If you do not know this then you are even dumber than your name. But you still haven't explained why Fitzgerald didn't charge him with anything. The guy confessed!

Dumbfuck Olbyloon,

So you are saying that Armitage is covering for the Bush administration? Then you must also be saying that he lied to Fitzgerald, and is part of the conspiracy. So Fitzgerald lets him get away with that? How fucking stupid are you?

Reaction of juror to Libby verdict:

"Because so many of the jurors believed Libby was the fall guy, Collins said, he would have 'no problem' if Bush decided to pardon Libby."

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:BLDCVfdoAwsJ:www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-03-06-libby-jury_N.htm+jurors+reaction+scooter+libby+verdict&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=16&gl=us&client=firefox-a

The jurors didn't want Libby to serve time. They were the triers of fact. Collins wasn't the only juror to speak out at the time. Another juror appeared on Hardball and stated the same.

How fucking stupid are you?

Posted by: Rico at July 2, 2007 11:19 PM

Everyone who voted for, supported, still believes in anything this administration does or says should be asking themselves that. Rule of law? He is the law. What a embarrasment to our country to have leadership like we have. No honor. No integrity.

Dumbfuck Olbyloon,

If Armitage is part of the conspiracy why aren't you mad at him? Why isn't Fitzgerald mad at him? Why aren't you, or any other dingbat leftist in the country, demanding that Armitage be in prison? How fucking stupid are you people?

"There is hardly a soul left who believes ANYTHIng ANYONE IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION SAYS.
Except Rico and Obama watch him fizzle !"

I imagine that the sentence commutation is driving you up a wall. Hence your hysterical (and not "hysterical" as in "funny") postings here. I feel your pain.

"now you tell me who's stupid ?"

You. I provide a confession, you provide nothing. Dont believe it if you want, but so far its more than you've brought to the table.

"You believe someone covering for Cheney, Libby and Rove.
Good one !"

Got proof? Didnt think so. Just saying so isnt proof of anything. Dont want me to believe anyone who is/was connected with the White House? Fine. But you havent given me any reason to believe you, an anonymous internet poster, over them either.

Look! Over there! A Rove conspiracy! --->

The reason (excuse) Bush used to commute Libby's sentence is foolish. He could have pardoned him at any time in essence reducing the sentence to something less than excessive. Even Martha Stewart did 9 months, and did so admirably. Just goes to show what a hypocritical leader of a political party Bush is. Have any of the Republican candidates for president stated if they support this being so weak kneed he had to commute Libby's sentence?

If Bush can be extorted by Libby to commute his sentence, just how well will he be able to stand up to world leaders? We saw how China made him grovel, has Bin Laden done the same?

The reason (excuse) Bush used to commute Libby's sentence is foolish. He could have pardoned him at any time in essence reducing the sentence to something less than excessive. Even Martha Stewart did 9 months, and did so admirably. Just goes to show what a hypocritical leader of a political party Bush is. Have any of the Republican candidates for president stated if they support this being so weak kneed he had to commute Libby's sentence?

If Bush can be extorted by Libby to commute his sentence, just how well will he be able to stand up to world leaders? We saw how China made him grovel, has Bin Laden done the same?

No wonder no one watches MSNBC! Where do they find morons like Keith Oberstupid? Thank god he is not on FoxNews, or I would quit watching it. O'Reilly eats MSNBC's lunch! Hey Keith...go to Hell! O.K.?

Codas,

I don't like bringing up Clinton but it is unavoidable. He pardoned on his way out of office and had the right to do it. You can't use the rule of law argument because there was no violation of law, even if it was the "evil" Bush, who did not even pardon but commuted the sentence. He had nothing more to lose by granting a full pardon and did accept the jury's finding of guilt. As stated above, the jury didn't want Libby to serve time.

One more thought:

I think Bush is committing a grave miscarriage of justice if he does not grant a full pardon to the two border patrol agents (have to look up names) before his term expires. I find it shameful that he hasn't already done it.

Opinion polls prove nothing, elections do. And it's a long, long way from now until November of '08.

And it is true that while Plame had once been a covert agent, she no longer was at the time she was identified in Novak's column. Remember, Libby wasn't convicted for "outing" her, he was convicted for perjury. You know, that same thing that Bill Clinton did under oath?

NO matter what candidate the GOP puts out, they will be crushed !

Posted by: at July 2, 2007 11:30 PM

When then if you are so sure......

Take a 5th mortgage on your mobile home and go to Vegas.

You can't use the rule of law argument because there was no violation of law,
Posted by: Sharon at July 2, 2007 11:33 PM

It's called perjury. He was convicted. The Right chanted "Rule of law" while they impeached a president for perjury. Hypocrites. They didn't care about the rule of law then and they sure don't now. Only power and money and a fasle religious morality passing as the real deal to people who are dumb.

Codas,

You Olbyloons never seem to have an answer for my questions. So funny!

Rico,

You never seem to accept any answer that isn't the one you think is correct is sufficient. Like most on your side of the street. That doesn't persaude me that you are something above a loon. Even a Olbyloon.

Codas,

Are you listening? Libby is still convicted. If Clinton had been convicted, he would not have served time. Do you think the jurors are "dumb" because they convicted but didn't think Libby should serve time? I don't remember the numbers for impeachment for Clinton. Did any Democrats vote to impeach? I know Fred Thompson voted to impeach but not to convict. If Democrats feel Bush committed high crimes and misdemeanors, they have an obligation to pursue impeachment. If the public is behind the reasoning, what is there to lose to go on record and make everyone accountable, whether it is yeah or nay? It wouldn't "be good for the country"? Then when would impeachment ever be instituted? I can't think of anything more egregious than what Bush has been accused of.

Codas,

Your answers are never the answers to the questions I ask. I don't expect the "correct" answser from you. You are leftist dingbats, after all. But I just want your answer to be to the question asked.
Instead, you always "move on" to a new topic.

As a matter of fact, if I want you to stop talking about something, all I have to do is start talking about it with you, and you no longer want to talk about it anymore. So fu nny!

Do you think the jurors are "dumb" because they convicted but didn't think Libby should serve time?
Posted by: Sharon at July 2, 2007 11:51 PM

I think they didn't think Libby should do time because they knew who the real crooks were and they couldn't get to the real truth obviously because of Libby covering. Then Bush covers himself by not perdoning but commuting. You don't buy this bullshit do you?

As a matter of fact, if I want you to stop talking about something, all I have to do is start talking about it with you, and you no longer want to talk about it anymore. So fu nny!

HA! I think that works with my husband.

Sharon,

It is very unfair to do that to your husband. It's dirty pool. Women!

Hey realist,

Get real! Everyone there is playing to a constituency. What about the jurors who heard the case and convicted him? See my comments above.

Rico,

If being a leftist dingbat is the opposite of what you are then I am one proudly. Don't talk to me like you are some kind of something. You ask stupid questions that you already think you have the answers to. Like most of you... No honor. No integrity whatsoever.

Rico,

Did a light go off when I made the comparison: )

Rico,

Did a light go off when I made the comparison: )

Hey anon,

I'll just keep repeating it. The jury did not want Libby to serve time. Their verdict was not nullified. It stands! The sentence was nullified.

Codas,

Name a stupid question I asked and explain why it's stupid.

I have a sick little one...bye

Codas,

Name a stupid question I asked and explain why it's stupid.

Posted by: Rico at July 3, 2007 12:06 AM

Answer.
How fucking stupid are you people?

Posted by: Rico at July 2, 2007 11:27 PM

That is insulting and stupid. My answer was right for me.
I asked you back, How stupid are you? Your defending aa administration that will go down as the least respected in our history speakf for itself.

MOST DANGEROUS PARDON(sentence commuting) IN U.S. HISTORY!!!!!!!!!!!! SCOOTER LIBBY OUTTED AND ALREADY OUTTED SECRETARY/CIA OFFICER AND THEN FORGOT ABOUT IT. OUTRAGE!!!!!!!!! MORE DANGEROUS THAN PARDONING FALN TERRORIST!!!! MORE DANGEROUS THAN PARDONING A CONVICTED FELON BROTHER-IN-LAW.
Wow, Dan Olbermann is on his game. Love the Olby defenders. Go down with the sinking ship. How exactly was the rule of law not obeyed? Isn't the constitution the rule of law? The president commuting the sentence of a criminal is against the rule of law? Are these the same liberals who howled because Bush never pardoned any death row inmates?
Cowards, liers, and crazies oh my.

Love the Olby defenders. Go down with the sinking ship.

Posted by: The Factor at July 3, 2007 12:13 AM

Have you looked at the water level around you lately?

Codas,

I was asking that Anonyloon how it could be that he theorizes that Armitage lied when he said he, and he alone, outed Valerie Plame, but the Anonyloon and Patrick Fitzgerald ain't even mad at him, with Fitzgerald pressing no charges. Are you mad at Richard Armitage, Codas? Do you demand that he be in prison?

For anyone who thinks this "pardon " is just, please directly answer this question:
Libby was indicted by a Bush-appointed prosecutor who was given his authority by the Bush Justice Department and then a Bush- appointed judge presided while a jury of his peers convicted him. Where is the miscarriage of justice that required a president to swoop in?

Posted by: the realist at July 3, 2007 12:05 AM

Realist, lets change you name to retardist.
How about the fact those 30 months goes over any sentencing guidelines for perjury. What was the miscarriage of justice for the terrorist that Clinton pardoned? Or Hillary Rotten Clinton's brother?

Are you mad at Richard Armitage, Codas? Do you demand that he be in prison?

Posted by: Rico at July 3, 2007 12:18 AM

I think the person wearing orange should be Dick Cheney. The rest of them, most of all Libby are just covering his ass. I think he is a criminal. That is my opinion.

Have you looked at the water level around you lately?
Posted by: codas at July 3, 2007 12:16 AM

Posted by: at July 3, 2007 12:21 AM

Yes I have and Olby is neck deep in forth place wearing a tin-foil hat with Rosie.

Codas,

But you did it again. You didn't answer the question I asked. You are such a dingbat, and you don't even have any shame about it. That's funny!

Clinton's Pardons:

David Phillip Aronsohn D. Minn. 1961 Failure to pay special occupational tax on wagering, 26 U.S.C. § 7203
Wanda Kaye Bain-Prentice D. Ariz. 1982 Mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341
Antonio Barucco U. S. Army general court-martial 1945 Desertion in violation of the 58th Article of War
Kristine Margo Beck D. Idaho 1981 Bank embezzlement, 18 U.S.C. § 656
David Christopher Billmaier D. New Mex. 1980 Possession with intent to distribute amphetamines, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
Terry Lee Brown E. D. Ky. 1962 Interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle, 18 U.S.C. § 2312
Joe Carl Bruton N. D. Tex. 1979 Conspiracy to commit mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Nolan Lynn DeMarce W. D. Wis. 1983 Making false statements to obtain bank loans, 18 U.S.C. § 1014
Jimmy C. Dick N. D. Calif. 1976 Conspiracy to manufacture counterfeit Federal Reserve Notes, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Edward Eugene Dishman W. D. Okla. 1983 Conspiracy to defraud the United States and Oklahoma counties, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Brenda Kay Engle S. D. Ind. 1983 Conspiracy to commit theft from interstate shipment, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Mary Theresa Fajer D. Oregon 1980 Conspiracy to commit bank embezzlement, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 371
Albert James Forte D. Dist. Col. 1973 Making and subscribing false and fraudulent income tax return, 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1)
Fendley Lee Frazier S. D. Ala. 1965 Interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle, 18 U.S.C. § 2312
Robert Linward Freeland, Jr. N. D. Ind. 1983 Forcible rescue of seized property, 26 U.S.C. § 7212(b)
Ralph Leon Furst S. D. Calif. 1966 Embezzlement of United States mail (U.S. Code section not cited)
Barbara Ann Gericke W. D. Wis. 1984 Conspiracy to introduce contraband into federal prison, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1791
Billy Joe Gilmore N. D. Tex. 1982 Mail fraud and aiding and abetting, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 2
Loreto Joseph Iafrate N. D. W. Va. 1976 Failure to record receipt of firearms, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(m) and 924(a)
Carl Bruce Jones W. D. Mo. 1983 Distribution of marijuana and use of telephone to facilitate marijuana distribution, 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 843(b)
Candace Deon Leverenz N. D. Calif. 1972 Unlawful distribution of LSD, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)
George William Lindgren S. D. N. Y. 1975 Bank embezzlement, 18 U.S.C. § 656
Brian George Meierkord C. D. Ill. 1983 Making false statement to bank, 18 U.S.C. § 1014
Jackie Lee Miller N. D. Okla. 1983 Conspiracy to defraud the United States, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Joseph Patrick Naulty E. D. Pa. 1980 Carrying away goods moving as part of foreign shipment, 18 U.S.C. § 659
Theodore Roosevelt Noel N. D. Ala. 1972 Selling whiskey in unstamped containers and making false statement in the acquisition of firearms from licensed dealer, 26 U.S.C. § 5604(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(6) and 924(a)
Mary Louise Oaks M. D. La. 1979 Conspiracy to defraud the government with respect to claims, 18 U.S.C. § 286
Robert Paul Padelsky D. Utah 1980 Misapplication of bank funds, 18 U.S.C. § 656
Elizabeth Amy Peterson D. Nev. 1985 Conspiracy to make false statements to bank, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Susan Lauranne Prather W. D. Ark. 1975 Causing marijuana to be transported through the mail, 21 U.S.C. § 843(b)
Gary Lynn Quammen W. D. Wis. 1976 Misapplication of bank funds, 18 U.S.C. § 656
Robert Ronal Raymond D. Conn. 1972 Conspiracy to manufacture, receive, possess, and sell firearms silencers, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Elizabeth Hogg Rushing N. D. Ga. 1978 Misapplication of bank funds, 18 U.S.C. § 656
Marc Alan Schaffer S. D. N. Y. 1968 Submission of false statements to Selective Service System Local Board, 50 U.S.C. Appendix § 462(a)
Roy Aaron Smith E. D. Tex. 1982 Misprision of a felony, 18 U.S.C. § 4
Diane Dorothea Smunk D. So. Dak. 1984 Embezzlement by government employee, 18 U.S.C. § 641
Thomas Peter Stathakis D. So. Car. 1976 Selling and delivering firearms to out-of-state resident and falsifying firearms records, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(b)(3), 922(m), and 924(a)
Kathleen Vacanti C. D. Calif. 1979 Conspiracy to defraud the United States by obtaining payment of false claims, presenting false claims to the United States, forging a writing, and aiding and abetting, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 286, 287, and 495
Pupi White W. D. Mo. 1985 Making false statement on United States passport application, 18 U.S.C. § 911
Charles Coleman Wicker E. D. Mo. 1975 Conspiracy to conduct illegal gambling business, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Roderick Douglas Woods S. D. Miss. 1982 Misappropriation of bank funds and aiding and abetting, 18 U.S.C. §§ 656 and 2

April 17, 1995
NAME DISTRICT SENTENCED OFFENSE
Bradley Vaughn Barisic N. D. Calif. 1980 Making false statement to National Labor Relations Board, 18 U.S.C. § 1001
Herschel L. Brantley U. S. Air Force general court-martial 1951 Larceny in violation of 93rd Article of War
Linda Bailey Byars D. So. Car. 1975 Bank embezzlement, 18 U.S.C. § 656
Patricia Ann Chapin W. D. Mo. 1986 Falsifying prescription for controlled substance, 21 U.S.C. § 843(a)(4)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2
Ronald Jacobs E. D. Pa. 1967 Theft from interstate shipment, 18 U.S.C. § 659
Margaret Mary Marks N. D. Ohio 1984 Willful misapplication of bank funds, 18 U.S.C. § 657
John Richard Martin S. D. Calif. 1956 Embezzlement of funds from savings and loan association, 18 U.S.C. § 657
Earl Thomas McKinney 1. U. S. Air Force summary court-martial 1. 1951 1. Absent without leave

2. U. S. Air Force general court-martial 2. 1959 2. Larceny by check, writing check with insufficient funds, and false claims, in violation of U.C.M.J. Articles 121, 132, and 134

Shirley Jean Odoms S. D. Tex. 1978 Filing false claim for tax refund, 18 U.S.C. § 287
Jack Pakis W. D. Ark. 1972 Operation of illegal gambling business, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1955
Gordon Roberts, Jr. M. D. La. 1977 Interstate transportation of forged and falsely made securities, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 2314
Carl Edward Terhune, Jr. N. D. Okla. 1985 Issuing United States Postal Service money orders while postal employee with intent to defraud Postal Service, 18 U.S.C. § 500

December 23, 1997
NAME DISTRICT SENTENCED OFFENSE
Irving Frank Avery D. Colo. 1984 Possession of counterfeit plates, 18 U.S.C. §§ 474 and 2
Billy K. Berry E. D. Ark. 1986 Medicaid and mail fraud, 42 U.S.C. § 1396h(a)(1)(i) and 18 U.S.C. § 1341
Clio Louise Carson D. Wyo. 1979 Transmission of wagering information, 18 U.S.C. § 1084
Giuseppe Casadei-Severei D. Puerto Rico 1987 Obstruction of justice, 18 U.S.C. § 1503
Glen Edison Chapman 1. W. D. No.Car.
1. 1955
1. Removing, possessing, and concealing non-tax-paid whiskey, 26 U.S.C. §§ 5632 and 7206

2. W. D. No. Car. 2. 1957 2. Removing, possessing, and concealing non-tax-paid whiskey, 26 U.S.C. §§ 5632 and 5008(b)(1)

Ralph Wallace Crawford C. D. Calif. 1985 Mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341
Aaron Golden W. D. Tex. 1986 Failure to file a currency transaction report, 31 U.S.C. §§ 5313 and 5322(a)
Monroe Lee King S. D. Tex. 1973 Making plates for counterfeiting Federal Reserve Notes, 18 U.S.C. § 474
Ralph Lee Limbaugh N. D. Ala. 1974 Theft from interstate shipment, 18 U.S.C. § 659
George Edward Maynes, Jr. D. Canal Zone 1975 Distribution of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
Charley Morgan N.D. Okla. 1964 Unlawful possession of still and manufacture of mash, 26 U.S.C. §§ 5179(a), 5601(a)(1), and 5601(a)(7)
Linzie Murle Morse W. D. La. 1973 Interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicle and selling stolen motor vehicle, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2312 and 2313
Charles Patrick Murrin C. D. Calif. 1988 Bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a)
Moises Jaurequi Ramos D. New Mexico 1983 Misprision of a felony, 18 U.S.C. § 4
William Ray Richardson W. D. Mo. 1983 Interstate transportation of stolen property, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 2314
Raymond Phillip Weaver U. S. Navy summary court-martial 1947 Theft of four pounds of butter
Bill Wayne West E. D. Miss. 1984 Dealing in firearms without license, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(1) and 924(a)
Anita Glenn Whitlock D. Dist. Col. 1978 Bank embezzlement, 18 U.S.C. § 656
Edward Kenneth Williams, Jr. S. D. Iowa 1979 Receiving and selling stolen motor vehicles and aiding and abetting the same, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 2313
Larry Edward Winfield W. D. Ark. 1987 Mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341
Louis Anthony Winters 1. U.S. Navy general
court-martial 1. 1957
1. Unauthorized absence from duty

2.D. So. Dak. 2. 1969 2. Assault with dangerous weapon, 18 U.S.C. § 1153

December 24, 1998
NAME DISTRICT SENTENCED OFFENSE
Haig Ardash Arakelian
(aka Haig Arthur Arakelian)
S. D. Calif. 1975 Possession of marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 844
Estel Edmond Ashworth N. D. Tex. 1974 Theft of mail by Postal employee, 18 U.S.C. § 1709
Vincent Anthony Burgio C. D. Calif. 1972 Possession of counterfeit government obligations, 18 U.S.C. § 472
Thomas Earl Burton E. D. Va. 1982 Attempted possession with intent to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846
Jesse Cuevas D. Neb. 1984 Unauthorized possession of food stamps, 7 U.S.C. § 2024(b)
Harry Erla Fox U.S. Army summary and special courts- martial 1961 Absence without leave, Article 86, U.C.M.J.
James William Gardner D. Wyo. 1983 Conspiracy to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1)
Alejandro Cruz Guedea U.S. Army general court-martial 1949 Larceny of government property
Sebraien Michael Haygood E. D. N. Y. 1982 Importation of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a) and 960(a)(1)
Warren Curtis Hultgren, Jr. W. D. Tex. 1982 Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1)
Sharon Sue Johnson E. D. Ark. 1986 Bank embezzlement, 18 U.S.C. § 656
Ronald Ray Kelly U.S. Marine Corps special court-martial 1969 Unauthorized absences, escape from lawful custody, and breaking restriction
Francis Dale Knippling D. So. Dak. 1985 Conversion of mortgaged property, 18 U.S.C. § 658
Michael Ray Krukar D. Alaska 1988 Unlawful distribution of marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
Michael Francis Larkin D. Mass. 1984 False statements to HUD, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1001
Leslie Jan McCall W. D. Okla. 1988 Use of telephone to facilitate cocaine distribution, 21 U.S.C. § 843(b)
Bobby Joe Miller E. D. Tex. 1982 Misprision of a felony, 18 U.S.C. § 4
William Edward Payne D. Ore. 1965 Willful attempt to evade excise tax on wagers, 26 U.S.C. § 7201
Robert Earl Radke C. D. Calif. 1981 Willful attempt to evade income taxes, 26 U.S.C. § 7201
David Walter Ratliff N. D. Okla. 1981 Making false statement to the government, 18 U.S.C. § 1001
Billy Wayne Reynolds E. D. Tex. 1981 Mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341
Benito Maldonado Sanchez, Jr. W. D. Tex. 1960 Possession of marijuana without payment of transfer tax, 26 U.S.C. § 4744(1)
Vicki Lynn Seals
(fka Vicki Lynn Miller)
W. D. Tex. 1984 Making a false statement to a federally insured bank while an employee of that bank, 18 U.S.C.§ 1005
Lewis Craig Seymour W. D. Okla. 1979 Distribution of Phencyclidine (PCP), 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
Irving A. Smith D. Md. 1957 Conspiracy to engage in price-fixing, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 2 (Sherman Act)
Darrin Paul Sobin E. D. Calif. 1987 Conspiracy to manufacture marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
Monty Mac Stewart W. D. Okla. 1983 Conspiracy to defraud U.S. and counties within Oklahoma, mail fraud, and aiding and abetting filing a false income tax return, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 371, and 1341, and 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1)
Kevin Lester Teker W. D. Wash. 1989 Maliciously damaging property used in an activity affecting interstate commerce by means of an explosive, 18 U.S.C. § 844(i)
John Timothy Thompson W. D. Okla. 1986 Use of the telephone to facilitate cocaine distribution, 21 U.S.C. § 843(b)
Paul Loy Tobin S. D. Ala. 1968 Interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicle, 18 U.S.C. § 2312
Gerald William Wachter E. D. Pa. 1974 Conspiracy to cause stolen goods to be transported in interstate commerce, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Marian Lane Wolf N. D. Tex. 1988 Misprision of a felony, 18 U.S.C. § 4
Samuel Harrell Woodard 1. U.S. Air Force summary court-martial 1. 1952 1. Absent without leave
2. S. D. Ga. 2. 1955 2. Theft from an interstate shipment, 18 U.S.C. § 659

February 19, 1999
NAME DISTRICT SENTENCED OFFENSE
Henry Ossian Flipper U.S. Army general court-martial 1891 Conduct unbecoming an officer

December 23, 1999
NAME DISTRICT SENTENCED OFFENSE
Meredith Marcus Appleton, II W. D. Okla. 1990 Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846
Steven Laurence Barnett E. D. Calif. 1987 Misapplication of bank funds and aiding and abetting the same, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 657
Russell Carl Clifton N. D. Calif. 1977 Transmission of a false distress signal, 47 U.S.C. § 325 (misdemeanor)
Albert McMullen Cox S. D. Ga. 1987 Bribery of a public official, 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)
Bernard Earl Crandall C. D. Ill. 1985 Theft from interstate shipment, 18 U.S.C. § 659
Eugene Harold Del Carlo N. D. Calif. 1979 Conspiracy and blackmail, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 873 (misdemeanors)
Kenneth Lee Deusterman D. Minn. 1991 False statement to HUD, 18 U.S.C. § 1012 (misdemeanor)
Frank Allen Els E. D. Wash. 1976 Possession of an unregistered firearm, 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d)
Arthur Neil Evans N. D. Calif. 1954 Protecting and assisting a deserter from the U.S. Army, 18 U.S.C. § 1381
Elizabeth Marie Frederick (fka Elizabeth Sigmon) D. So. Dak. 1987 Distribution and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
Jackie Lynn Gano N. D. Iowa 1976 Receiving money or benefits through transactions of federal credit institution with intent to defraud while officer or employee of institution, 18 U.S.C. § 1006
Daniel Clifton Gilmour, Jr. D. So. Car. 1985 Importation of marijuana, 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960, 963, and 18 U.S.C. § 2
Michael Lee Gilmour D. So. Car. 1985 Importation of marijuana, 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960, 963, and 18 U.S.C. § 2
Theodore Avram Goodman S. D. Calif. 1981 Unauthorized sale of government property, 18 U.S.C. § 641
Michael Charles Jorgensen D. N. Mex. 1981 Misprision of a felony, 18 U.S.C. § 4
Leonard Charles Kampf E. D. Va. 1990 Conveyance of government property without authority, 18 U.S.C. § 641
Kenneth Marshall Knull Navy general court-martial 1976 Disobeying a lawful general order, negligently suffering destruction of military property, negligently hazarding two Naval vessels, Articles 92, 108, and 110, UCMJ
Reza Arabian Maleki D. No. Dak. 1984 Conspiracy to make false statements to INS; false statements to INS, and aiding and abetting the same, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 371, and 1001
William Ronald McGuire E. D. N. Y. 1978 Income tax evasion, 26 U.S.C. § 7201
Freddie Meeks Navy general court-martial 1944 Making a mutiny during wartime
Steven Dwayne Miller E. D. Tex. 1985 Possession of counterfeit Federal Reserve notes with intent to sell or otherwise use same, 18 U.S.C. § 474
Jodie David Moreland W. D. La. 1987 Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(6), and 846
Lloyd Robert Odell E. D. Wash. 1983 Theft of government property, 18 U.S.C. § 641
John Richard Palubicki E. D. Wis. 1988 Conspiracy to defraud the IRS; income tax evasion, 18 U.S.C. § 371 and 26 U.S.C. § 7201
Patricia Ann Palubicki E. D. Wis. 1988 Conspiracy to defraud the IRS; income tax evasion, 18 U.S.C. § 371 and 26 U.S.C. § 7201
Mark Edwin Pixley D. Oregon 1991 Aiding in the manufacture, by cultivation, of marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2
Theodore Alfred Rhone D. Dist. Col. 1987 Wire fraud and aiding and abetting same, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1343
Warren David Samet S. D. Fla. 1968 Transporting, concealing, and facilitating the transportation of marijuana that was acquired without paying the tax imposed, 26 U.S.C. § 4744(a)(2)
Steven Elliott Skorman N. D. Ga. 1972 Distributing lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
Ronald Marsh Smith Army general court-martial 1977 Stealing mail matter, Article 134, UCMJ
Richard Beauchamp Steele S. D. Tex. 1989 Conspiracy to eliminate competition by fixing prices in interstate commerce, 15 U.S.C. § 1
Christine Ann Summerbell (fka Christine Ann McKeown) W. D. Wis. 1984 Theft of mail by postal employee, 18 U.S.C. § 1709
Robert A. Suvino W. D. Ark. 1988 Conspiracy to commit mail fraud and mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1341
Daniel Larry Thomas, Jr. N. D. Ohio 1987 Illegal use of a communication facility to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 843
Howard Edwin Walraven W. D. Ark. 1968 Theft from an interstate shipment, 18 U.S.C. § 659
Martin Harry Wesenberg E. D. Wis. 1964 Willfully failing to pay the special occupational tax on wagering, and aiding and abetting the same, 26 U.S.C. § 7203 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (misdemeanor)
Virgil Edwin West N. D. Okla. 1982 Mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1341

February 19, 2000
NAME DISTRICT SENTENCED OFFENSE
Preston Theodore King 1. M.D. Ga.
1. 1961
1. Failure to appear for physical examination; failure to appear for induction into the Armed Forces, 50 U.S.C. App. § 46

2. M.D. Ga. 2. 1962 (indicted) 2. Bail jumping, 18 U.S.C. § 3146

March 15, 2000
NAME DISTRICT SENTENCED OFFENSE
Gregory Leon Crosby D. Maine 1987 Theft by postal employee, 18 U.S.C. § 1709
Everett Gale Dague N. D. Iowa 1982 Conspiracy to obstruct commerce by extortion, extortion, demanding or receiving illegal payments on behalf of a labor union, and demanding or accepting illegal unloading fees from a motor vehicle driver, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1951, 29 U.S.C. §§186(b)(1) and (2)
Terry Stephen Duller W. D. Wis. 1990 Engaging in illegal gambling business, 18 U.S.C. § 1955; failure to pay excise tax, 26 U.S.C. § 7262
Richard George Frye D. Maine 1973 Knowingly shipping and transporting a firearm in interstate commerce, having been convicted of a felony, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and 924
Edgar Allen Gregory, Jr. S. D. Ala. 1986 Conspiracy to willfully misapply bank funds, make false statements to a bank, and commit wire fraud; misapplication of bank funds by person connected with a bank, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 656, and 2
Vonna Jo Gregory S. D. Ala. 1986 Conspiracy to willfully misapply bank funds, make false statements to a bank, and commit wire fraud; misapplication of bank funds by person connected with a bank, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 656, and 2
Carl David Hamilton E. D. Ark. 1986 Bank fraud, and conspiracy to commit wire and bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 371
Charles Edward Kirschner D. Alaska 1993 Theft of bank property, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b)
Charles Douglas Megla W. D. Ky. 1980 Mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 2
Owen Neil Nordine D. Ariz. 1963 Interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle, 18 U.S.C. § 2312
William Thomas Rohring D. Minn. 1986 Forgery of U.S. Treasury check, 18 U.S.C. § 510
Lawrence David Share S. D. Calif. 1975 Conspiracy to commit securities fraud, sale of unregistered securities, and the use of manipulative devices in connection with the sale of securities, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 2, and 15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a), 77q(a), 77x, 78ff, and 78j(b)
Wayne Cletus Steinkamp N. D. Iowa 1988 Conspiracy in restraint of trade in interstate commerce, 15 U.S.C. § 1
Peter John Thomas D. Del. 1978 Conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. § 846
Heather Elizabeth Wilson
(fka Heather Elizabeth Calvin)
E. D. Okla. 1993 Use of telephone to facilitate commission of drug-trafficking felony, 21 U.S.C. § 843(b)
Donna Marie Yellow Owl

(fka Donna Marie Coursey)
D. Montana 1988 False statements, 18 U.S.C. § 1001

July 7, 2000
NAME DISTRICT SENTENCED OFFENSE
Carl Stanley Gilbreath N. D. Ga. 1971 Interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle, 18 U.S.C. § 2312
Claudette Dean Goodson
(fka Claudette Goodson
Findeisen)
E. D. No. Car. 1986 Aiding and abetting embezzlement of government funds, 18 U.S.C. §§ 641 and 2
Dane Robert Hessling S. D. Ohio 1987 Conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846, and distribution and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
Elwood Dwight Hopkins D. New Jersey 1962 1. Theft of government property, 18 U.S.C. § 641

2. Mutilation of coins, 18 U.S.C. § 331

Thomas Vernon Jones D. Wyo. 1989 Filing a false tax return 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1)
Madison Dow Kimball, Jr. W. D. Ark. 1983 Bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a)
Cynthia Lou LeBlanc

(fka Cynthia Lou Gallagher)
N. D. Tex. 1978 Conspiracy to distribute and possess methaqualone, 21 U.S.C. § 846
Peter Thomas Lipps C. D. Calif. 1981 Possession of counterfeit government obligation, 18 U.S.C. § 472

John Carroll Michiaels N. D. Ind. 1989 Purloining and coverting property of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and aiding and abetting therein, 18 U.S.C. §§ 641 and 2
Richard Edwin Sacchi M. D. Fla. 1989 Conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846
Horace Carroll Smith D. So. Car. 1992 Conspiracy to violate the federal securities laws, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 2
Tammy Lawan Tallant E. D. Okla. 1991 Misprision of a felony, 18 U.S.C. § 4
Carl Dennis Waren W. D. Ark. 1980 Interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicles, 18 U.S.C. § 2314
Robert Alexander Warr D. So. Car. 1982 False statements, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 and 2
James H. Wetzel, Jr. E. D. La. 1981 Conspiracy to distribute cocaine, 18 U.S.C. § 371, and 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
Diane Mae Zeman
(aka Diane Mae Moseman)
E. D. N. Y. 1981 Use of a telephone to facilitate importation of hashish oil, 21 U.S.C. § 843(b)

October 20, 2000
NAME DISTRICT SENTENCED OFFENSE
William Oshel Casto, III E. D. Wis. 1984 Embezzlement by a bank employee, 18 U.S.C. § 656
Donald Demerest Hall D. Del 1974 Misapplication of bank funds by an employee, 18 U.S.C. § 656
Cheryl Ada Elizabeth Little S. D. Fla. 1978 Conspiracy with intent to distribute a controlled substance, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1)
Joe Clint McMillan M. D. No. Car. 1992 Conspiracy to violate the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1
Jeralyn Kay Rust D. Minn. 1990 Wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2
Jane Marie Schoffstall S. D. Calif. 1989 Possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance (methamphetamine), 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
William Calvin Smith, Jr. E. D. Pa. 1970 Interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle, 18 U.S.C. § 2312

November 21, 2000
NAME DISTRICT SENTENCED OFFENSE
Glen David Curry S. D. Ala. 1982 Conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine, distributing and possessing with intent to distribute cocaine, and using a telephone to facilitate distribution of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 843(b), and 846
Dave Meyer Hartson, III E. D. La. 1993 Mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 2
Carl Edward Karstetter M. D. Pa. 1992 Conversion of government property, 18 U.S.C. § 641
Donald Spencer Lewis S. D. Tex. 1991 False statements to a government agency, 18 U.S.C. § 1001
Walter Sidney Orlinsky D. Md. 1982 Extortion under color of official right, 18 U.S.C. § 1951
Howard Charles Petersen D. Neb. 1971 Embezzlement by a bank employee and making false entries in a bank's records, 18 U.S.C. §§ 656 and 1005
John Laurence Silvi D. New Jersey 1992 Conspiracy to make unlawful payments to a union official, 18 U.S.C. § 371, 29 U.S.C. § 186
Laurence John Silvi, II D. New Jersey 1992 Conspiracy to bribe a union official, 18 U.S.C. § 371, 29 U.S.C. § 186
John Donald Vodde N. D. Ind. 1989 Possession and distribution of cocaine, and aiding and abetting, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2
Melinda Kay Stewart Vodde N. D. Ind. 1989 Distribution of cocaine, and aiding and abetting, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2
Philip Donald Winn D. Dist. Col. 1994 Conspiracy to give illegal gratuities, 18 U.S.C. § 371

December 22, 2000
NAME DISTRICT SENTENCED OFFENSE
Jimmy Lee Allen W. D. Ark. 1990 False statements to agency of United States, 15 U.S.C. § 714m(a)
Virgil Lamoin Baker E. D. (now S. D.) Ill. 1959 Violation of the Military Training and Service Act, 50 U.S.C. App. § 462
Garran Dee Barker E. D. Ark 1986 Conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Nancy M. Baxter W. D. Va. 1990 Tax evasion and filing a false amended tax return; 26 U.S.C. §§ 7201 and 7206(1)
Charles N. Besser N. D. Ill 1985 Mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341
Harlan Richard Billings D. Maine 1985 Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute in excess of 1,000 pounds of marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 846
Edward Raymond Birdseye E. D. Calif. 1992 Unlawful use of a communication facility, 21 U.S.C. § 843(b)
Roscoe Crosby Blunt, Jr. Army court-martial 1945 Fraternization, Article of War 96
Charles Edward Boggs E. D. Ark. 1977 Receiving a stolen motor vehicle which was part of interstate commerce, 18 U.S.C. § 2313
Terry Coy Bonner N. D. W. Va. 1986 Possession of an illegally made destructive device, 26 U.S.C. § 5861(c)
Alfred Whitney Brown, III E. D. La. 1992 Illegal sale of wildlife by allowing hunting over a baited field, 16 U.S.C. §§ 3372(a)(1), 3372(c)(1)(A), and 3373(d)(1)(B), and 18 U.S.C. § 2
William Robert Carpenter N. D. Calif. 1991 Possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
Philip Vito DiGirolamo N. D. Calif. 1984 Conspiracy to import marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 963; willfully subscribing to a false tax return, 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1)
Peter Welling Dionis N. D. N. Y. 1976 Conspiracy, importation, and possession with intent to distribute hashish, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 952(a), and 963, and 18 U.S.C. § 2
Darrin Dean Dorn S. D. Iowa 1981 Conspiracy to damage property by means and use of an explosive, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Peter Bailey Gimbel S. D. N. Y. 1991 Conspiracy to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846
Philip Joseph Grandmaison D. New Hamp. 1996 Mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1346
Joe Robert Grist W. D. Tex. 1990 Misapplication of funds by a bank employee, 18 U.S.C. § 656
LeRoy Kenneth Hartung, Jr. D. Nev. 1986 Interception of wire communications, 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)
Joseph Riddick Hendrick, III W. D. No. Car. 1997 Mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341
Judd Blair Hirschberg N. D. Ill. 1991 Mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341
Robert Quinn Houston S. D. Miss. 1986 Conspiracy to obstruct commerce by extortion, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a)
Martin Joseph Hughes N. D. Ohio 1987 Aiding and abetting the falsification of union records, aiding and assisting in the submission of false tax records, making false statements to a government agency, 29 U.S.C. § 439(c) and 18 U.S.C. § 2, 26 U.S.C. § 7204, 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (as modified)
Jere Wayne Johnson W. D. Okla. 1982 Conspiracy to defraud the United States and Garfield County, Oklahoma, while serving as a county commissioner, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Michael Thomas Johnson S. D. Miss. 1987 Filing false tax returns, 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1)
Daniel Wayne Keys S. D. Tex. 1977 Possession with intent to distribute marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
Larry Ray Killough E. D. Ark. 1985 Unlawful distribution of prescription drugs, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
Jack Kligman E. D. Pa. 1985 Conspiracy and mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1341
Hector Osvaldo Labagnara D. New Jersey 1976 Conspiracy to transport stolen motor vehicles in interstate commerce, to receive and sell stolen motor vehicles, to transport false vehicle registrations in interstate commerce, and to receive and dispose of false vehicle registrations; receipt and sale of stolen motor vehicles; 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 2313
Moses Jubilee Lestz
(fka Michael Eugene Lestz)
W. D. Ark. 1982 Forgery of United States savings bond, 18 U.S.C. § 495
Leon Lee Liebscher W. D. Okla. 1982 Conspiracy to defraud the United States (tax evasion), 18 U.S.C. § 371
Pierluigi Mancini N. D. Ga. 1985 Possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)
John Ross McCown, Jr. D. Neb. 1992 Structuring of transactions to evade reporting requirements, 31 U.S.C. §§ 5324(3) and 5322(b) and 18 U.S.C. § 2
Edward Francis McKenna, III S. D. Miss. 1993 Possession with intent to distribute anabolic steroids, 21 U.S.C. § 333(e)(1)
Andrew Kirkpatrick Mearns, III D. Del. 1978 Conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841
Ralph Eugene Meczyk N. D. Ill. 1987 Filing false partnership and individual federal income tax returns, and aiding and abetting therein, 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2
Philip James Morin W. D. Tex. 1984 Distribution of cocaine; 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
Thomas Edward Nash, Jr. W. D. No. Car. 1988 Conspiracy to restrain interstate trade and commerce, 15 U.S.C. § 1
Roger Lee Nelson D. Neb. 1981 Aiding and abetting mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 2
Jose Rene Pineda-Martinez 1. S. D. Tex. 1. 1983
1. Entering U.S. without inspection (misdemeanor),
8 U.S.C. § 1325

2. S. D. Tex. 2. 1983
2. Transporting an illegal alien within the U.S., 8 U.S.C.
§ 1324(a)(2)

3. S. D. Tex. 3. 1984 3. Transporting an illegal alien within the U.S., 8 U.S.C.
§ 1324(a)(2)

John Russell Raup Air Force general court-martial 1984 Larceny of government property and wrongful possession of marijuana; U.C.M.J. Articles 121 and 134
James William Rogers D. So. Car. 1983 (as modified) Conspiracy to commit racketeering, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)
George Wisham Roper, II E. D. Va. 1974 Conspiracy to bribe public officials and to defraud the United States government, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Daniel Rostenkowski D. Dist. Col. 1996 Mail fraud (two counts), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1346
Dean Raymond Rush W. D. Tex. 1993 False statements on a loan application, 18 U.S.C. § 1014
Archibald R. Schaffer, III D. Dist. Col. 2000 Violation of the Meat Inspection Act, 21 U.S.C. § 622
Anthony Andrew Schmidt D. Kan. 1985 Conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846
Stanley Sirote E. D. N. Y. 1974 Bribery of a public official, 18 U.S.C. § 201(f)
Dent Elwood Snider, Jr. D. Colo. 1981 Use of a telephone to facilitate the distribution of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 843(b)
James Lawrence Swisher M. D. No. Car. 1977 Obstruction of a criminal investigation, 18 U.S.C. § 1510
Larry Kalvy Thompson N. D. Tex. 1988 Aiding and abetting misapplication of bank funds, misprision of a felony, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 4, and 657
Stephanie Marie Vetter D. New Mex. 1979 Possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
Danny Ray Walker E. D. Ark. 1975 Interstate transportation of stolen property, 18 U.S.C. § 2316
Thomas Andrew Warren S. D. Fla. 1975 Conspiracy to import marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 963
Michael Lynn Weatherford E. D. No. Car. 1986 Aiding and abetting interstate travel in aid of racketeering, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1952(a) and 2
Jack Weinstein D. Nev. 1975 Conspiracy and interstate transportation of stolen property, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 2314, and 2
Robert Owen Wilson M. D. Tenn. 1980 Mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341
Charles Elvin Witherspoon E. D. Tex. 1977 Embezzlement of bank funds, 18 U.S.C. § 656
Charles Z. Yonce, Jr. D. So. Car. 1988 Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and aiding and abetting therein, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, and 841(b)(1)(B), and 18 U.S.C. § 2

January 20, 2001
NAME DISTRICT SENTENCED OFFENSE
Verla Jean Allen W. D. Ark. 1990 False statements to agency of United States, 15 U.S.C. § 714m(a)
Bernice Ruth Altschul D. Ariz. 1992 Conspiracy to commit money laundering, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Nicholas M. Altiere S. D. Fla. 1983 Importation of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a)(1) and 960(a)(1)
Joe Anderson, Jr. S. D. Ala. 1988 Income tax evasion, 26 U.S.C. § 7201
William Sterling Anderson D. So. Car. 1987 Conspiracy to defraud a federally insured financial institution, false statements to a federally insured financial institution, wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 371, 1014, and 1343
Mansour T. Azizkhani W. D. Okla. 1984 Conspiracy and making false statements in bank loan applications, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1014
Cleveland Victor Babin, Jr. W. D. Okla. 1987 Conspiracy to commit offense against the United States by utilizing the U.S. mail in furtherance of a scheme to defraud, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Chris Harmon Bagley W. D. Okla. 1989 Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846
Scott Lynn Bane C. D. Ill. 1984 Unlawful distribution of marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2
Thomas Cleveland Barber M. D. Fla. 1977 Issuing worthless checks, 18 U.S.C. §§ 7 and 13
Peggy Ann Bargon C. D. Ill. 1995 Violation of Lacey Act, violation of Bald Eagle Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 3372(a)(1), 3373(d)(2), and 668(a); 18 U.S.C. § 2
Tansukhlal Bhatka W. D. Ark. 1991 Filing fraudulent income tax returns, 26 U.S.C. § 7201
David Roscoe Blampied D. Idaho 1979 Conspiracy to distribute cocaine, 26 U.S.C. § 846
William Arthur Borders, Jr. N. D. Ga. 1982 Conspiracy to corruptly solicit and accept money in return for influencing the official acts of a federal district court judge, and to defraud the United States in connection with the performance of lawful government functions; corruptly influencing, obstructing, impeding, and endeavoring to influence, obstruct, and impede the due administration of justice, and aiding and abetting therein; traveling interstate with intent to commit bribery, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1503, 2, and 1952
Arthur David Borel E. D. Ark. 1991 Odometer rollback, 15 U.S.C. § 1984
Douglas Charles Borel E. D. Ark. 1991 Odometer rollback, 15 U.S.C. § 1984
George Thomas Brabham E. D. Tex. 1989 Making a false statement or report to a federally insured bank, 18 U.S.C. § 1014
Almon Glenn Braswell 1. N. D. Ga. 1. 1983 1. Mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341
2. N. D. Ga. 2. 1983 2. Perjury, 18 U.S.C. § 1623
3. N. D. Ga. 3. 1983 3. Filing false income tax return, 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1)
Leonard Browder D. So. Car. 1990 Illegal dispensing of controlled substance and Medicaid fraud, 21 U.S.C. §§ 827(a)(3), 843(a)(3), 843(a)(4)(A), and 843(c); 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 2
David Steven Brown S. D. N. Y. 1987 Securities fraud and mail fraud, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78ff; 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 2; 17 C.F.R. §240.106-5
Delores Caroylene Burleson E. D. Okla. 1978 Possession of marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 844(a)
John H. Bustamante N. D. Ohio 1993 Wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1343
Mary Louise Campbell N. D. Miss. 1988 Aiding and abetting the unauthorized use and transfer of food stamps, 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 7 U.S.C. § 2024(b)
Eloida Candelaria D. New Mex. 1992 False information in registering to vote, 42 U.S.C. § 1973i(c)
Dennis Sobrevinas Capili E. D. Calif. 1990 Filing false statements in alien registration, 8 U.S.C. § 1306(c)
Donna Denise Chambers E. D. Wis. 1986 Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine, possession with intent to distribute cocaine, use of a telephone to facilitate cocaine conspiracy, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 843(b)
Douglas Eugene Chapman E. D. Ark. 1993 Bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1344
Ronald Keith Chapman E. D. Ark. 1993 Bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1344
Francisco Larios Chavez S. D. Calif. 1986 Aiding and abetting illegal entry of aliens, 8 U.S.C. § 1325 and 18 U.S.C. § 2
Henry G. Cisneros D. Dist. Col. 1999 False statement (misdemeanor), 18 U.S.C. § 1018
Roger Clinton 1. W. D. Ark. 1. 1985 1. Conspiracy to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846
2. W.D. Ark. 2. 1985
2. Distribution of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)

Stuart Harris Cohn S. D. N. Y. 1983 Illegal sale of commodity options, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6c(c) and 13(b), and 18 U.S.C. § 2
David M. Cooper N. D. Ohio 1992 Conspiracy to defraud the government, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Ernest Harley Cox, Jr. E. D. Ark. 1991 Conspiracy to defraud a federally insured savings and loan, misapplication of bank funds, false statements, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 657, and 1014
John F. Cross, Jr. E. D. Ark. 1995 Embezzlement, 18 U.S.C. § 656
Rickey Lee Cunningham S. D. Tex. 1973 Possession with intent to distribute marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
Richard Anthony De Labio D. Md. 1977 Mail fraud, aiding and abetting, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 2
John Deutch D. Dist. Col. 2001 information Offenses charged in January 19, 2001, information
Richard Douglas N. D. Calif. 1998 False statements to a government agent, 18 U.S.C. § 1001
Edward Reynolds Downe, Jr. S. D. N. Y. 1993 Conspiracy to commit wire fraud and to subscribe to false income tax returns, securities fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 371 and 15 U.S.C. §§ 78p and 78ff
Marvin Dean Dudley D. Neb. 1992 False statements, 18 U.S.C. § 1014
Larry Lee Duncan W. D. Okla. 1992 Altering an automobile odometer, 15 U.S.C. § 1984
Robert Clinton Fain E. D. Ark. 1982 Aiding and assisting in the preparation and filing of a false corporate tax return, 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2)
Marcos Arcenio Fernandez S. D. Fla. 1980 Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 846
Alvarez Ferrouillet 1. E. D. La. 1. 1997 1. Interstate transportation of stolen property, 18 U.S.C. § 2314; money laundering, 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1) (b)(i); engaging in a monetary transaction with criminally derived property, 18 U.S.C. § 1957; false statements to government agents, 18 U.S.C. § 1001

2. N. D. Miss. 2. 1997 2. Conspiracy to make false statements to a financial institution, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1014

William Denis Fugazy S. D. N. Y. 1997 Perjury in a bankruptcy proceeding, 18 U.S.C. § 152
Lloyd Reid George E. D. Ark. 1997 Aiding and abetting mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 2
Louis Goldstein N. D. Ill. 1985 Possession of goods stolen from interstate shipment, 18 U.S.C. § 659
Rubye Lee Gordon M. D. Ga. 1974 Forgery of U.S. Treasury checks, 18 U.S.C. § 495
Pincus Green S. D. N. Y. 1984 superseding indictment Wire fraud, mail fraud, racketeering, racketeering conspiracy, criminal forfeiture, income tax evasion, and trading with Iran in violation of trade embargo, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1341, 1962(c), 1962(d), 1963, and 2; 26 U.S.C. § 7201, 50 U.S.C. § 1705, and 31 C.F.R. §§ 535.206(a)(4), 535.208 and 535.701
Robert Ivey Hamner C. D. Ill. 1986 Conspiracy to distribute marijuana, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1)
Samuel Price Handley W. D. Ky. 1963 Conspiracy to steal government property, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Woodie Randolph Handley W. D. Ky. 1963 Conspiracy to steal government property, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Jay Houston Harmon 1. E. D. Ark. 1. 1982 1. Conspiracy to import marijuana, conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute, importation of marijuana, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. §§ 963, 846, 952, and 841(a)

2. M. D. Ga. 2. 1986 2. Conspiracy to import cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960, and 963

John J. Hemmingson E. D. La. 1997 Interstate transportation of stolen property, 18 U.S.C. § 2314; money laundering, 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(b)(i); engaging in a monetary transaction with criminally derived property, 18 U.S.C. § 1957
David S. Herdlinger W. D. Ark. 1986 Mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341
Debi Rae Huckleberry,

(fka Debi Rae VanDenakker)
D. Utah 1986 Distribution of methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
Donald Ray James W. D. Tenn. 1983 Mail fraud, wire fraud, and false statements to a bank to influence credit approval, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, and 1014
Stanley Pruet Jobe W. D. Tex. 1994 Conspiracy to commit bank fraud, bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1005, 1014, and 1344
Ruben H. Johnson W. D. Tex. 1989 Theft and misapplication of bank funds by a bank officer or director (13 counts), 18 U.S.C. § 656
Linda Jones,

(fka Linda D. Medlar)
N. D. Tex. 1998 Conspiracy to commit bank fraud, to make a false statement to a bank, to launder monetary instruments, and to engage in monetary transactions in property derived from specific unlawful activity; aiding and abetting bank fraud; aiding and abetting false statements to a bank; aiding and abetting laundering monetary instruments; aiding and abetting engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specific unlawful activity; obstruction of justice; falsifying, concealing and covering up a material fact by trick, scheme, or device; making a false statement; 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 371, 1001, 1014, 1344(1) and (2), 1503, 1956(a)(1)(A)(i) and (B)(i), and 1957
James Howard Lake D. Dist. Col. 1998 Illegal corporate campaign contributions (two counts), wire fraud, 2 U.S.C. §§ 437g(d)(1)(A), 441b(a), and 441f, and 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1343, and 1346
June Louise Lewis N. D. Ohio 1991 Embezzlement by a bank employee, 18 U.S.C. § 656
Salim Bonnor Lewis S. D. N. Y. 1989 Securities fraud, record keeping violations, margin violations, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78ff, 78g(a), 78g(f), and 78j(b), and 18 U.S.C. § 2
John Leighton Lodwick W. D. Mo. 1968 Income tax evasion, 26 U.S.C. § 7201
Hildebrando Lopez S. D. Tex. 1981 Distribution of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
Jose Julio Luaces, Jr. S. D. Fla. 1989 Possession of an unregistered firearm, 26 U.S.C. §§ 5861(d) and 5871
James Timothy Maness W. D. Tenn. 1985 Conspiracy to distribute Valium, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1)
James Lowell Manning E. D. Ark. 1982 Aiding and assisting in the preparation of a false corporate income tax return, 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2)
John Robert Martin N. D. Fla. 1987 Income tax evasion, 26 U.S.C. § 7201
Frank Ayala Martinez W. D. Tex. 1989 Conspiracy to supply false documents to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Silvia Leticia Beltran Martinez W. D. Tex. 1989 Conspiracy to supply false documents to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 18 U.S.C. § 371
John Francis McCormick D. Mass. 1988 Racketeering, racketeering conspiracy, aiding and abetting Hobbjay houston harmons Act extortion (five counts), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c) and (d), 1951, and 2
Susan H. McDougal E. D. Ark. 1996 Mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341; aiding and abetting in misapplication of Small Business Investment Corporation funds, 18 U.S.C. §§ 657 and 2; aiding and abetting in making false entries, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1006 and 2; aiding and abetting in making false statements, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1014 and 2
Howard Lawrence Mechanic, (aka Gary Robert Tredway) 1. E. D. Mo. 1. 1970 1. Violating the Civil Disobedience Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. § 213(a)

2. D. Ariz. 2. 2000 2. Failure to appear, 18 U.S.C. § 3150

3. D. Ariz. 3. 2000 3. Making a false statement in acquiring a passport, 18 U.S.C. § 1542

Brook K. Mitchell, Sr. D. Dist. Col. 1999 Conspiracy to illegally obtain USDA subsidy payments, false statements to USDA (two counts), false entries on USDA forms, 15 U.S.C. §§ 741m(d), 714m(a), and 714m(b)(ii); 18 U.S.C. § 2
Charles Wilfred Morgan, III W. D. Ark. 1984 Conspiracy to distribute cocaine, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Samuel Loring Morison D. Md. 1985 Willful transmission of defense information, unauthorized possession and retention of defense information, theft of government property, 18 U.S.C. §§ 641, 793(d), and 793(e)
Richard Anthony Nazzaro D. Mass. 1988 Perjury and conspiracy to commit mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1623
Charlene Ann Nosenko N. D. Ill. 1990 Conspiracy to defraud the United States, and influencing or injuring an officer or juror generally, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1503
Vernon Raymond Obermeier S. D. Ill. 1989 Conspiracy to distribute cocaine, distribution of cocaine, and using a communications facility to facilitate distribution of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 843(b)
Miguelina Ogalde D. Puerto Rico 1981 Conspiracy to import cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a) and 963
David C. Owen D. Kans. 1993 Filing a false tax return, 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1)
Robert William Palmer E. D. Ark. 1995 Conspiracy to make false statements, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Kelli Anne Perhosky

(fka Kelli Anne Flynn)
W. D. Pa. 1989 Conspiracy to commit mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Richard H. Pezzopane N. D. Ill. 1988 Conspiracy to commit racketeering, mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(d) and 1341
Orville Rex Phillips W. D. Tex. 1991 Unlawful structuring of a financial transaction, 31 U.S.C. § 5324
Vinson Stewart Poling, Jr. D. Md. 1980 Making a false bank entry, and aiding and abetting, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1005 and 2
Normal Lyle Prouse D. Minn. 1990 Operating or directing the operation of a common carrier while under the influence of alcohol, 18 U.S.C. § 342
Willie H. H. Pruitt, Jr. U.S. Air Force special court-martial 1954 Absent without official leave, UCMJ
Danny Martin Pursley, Sr. M. D. Tenn. 1991 Aiding and abetting the conduct of an illegal gambling business, and obstruction of state laws to facilitate illegal gambling, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1511, 1955, and 2
Charles D. Ravenel D. So. Car. 1996 Conspiring to defraud the United States, 18 U.S.C. § 371
William Clyde Ray W. D. Okla. 1989 Fraud using the telephone, 18 U.S.C. § 1343
Alfredo Luna Regalado S. D. Tex. 1987 Failure to report the transportation of currency in excess of $10,000 into the United States, 31 U.S.C. § 5316(a)(1)(B)
Ildefonso Reynes Ricafort Veterans Administration Compensation and Pension Service 1987 Submission of false claims to Veterans Administration, 38 U.S.C. § 3503(a), now codified at 38 U.S.C. § 6103(a)
Marc Rich S. D. N. Y. 1984 superseding indictment Wire fraud, mail fraud, racketeering, racketeering conspiracy, criminal forfeiture, income tax evasion, and trading with Iran in violation of trade embargo, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1341, 1962(c), 1962(d), 1963, and 2; 26 U.S.C. § 7201, 50 U.S.C. § 1705, and 31 C.F.R. §§ 535.206(a)(4), 535.208 and 535.701
Howard Winfield Riddle N. D. Tex. 1989 Violation of the Lacey Act (receipt of illegally imported animal skins), 18 U.S.C. § 545
Richard Wilson Riley, Jr. D. So. Car. 1993 Conspiring to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute marijuana and cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846
Samuel Lee Robbins W. D. Tex. 1990 Misprision of a felony, 18 U.S.C. § 4
Joel Gonzales Rodriguez S. D. Tex. 1991 Theft of mail by a postal employee, 18 U.S.C. § 1709
Michael James Rogers S. D. Tex. 1977 Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846
Anna Louise Ross N. D. Tex. 1988 Distribution of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); 18 U.S.C. § 2
Gerald Glen Rust E. D. Tex. 1991 False declarations before grand jury, 18 U.S.C. § 1623
Jerri Ann Rust E. D. Tex. 1991 False declarations before grand jury, 18 U.S.C. § 1623
Bettye June Rutherford D. New Mex. 1992 Possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(D)
Gregory Lee Sands D. So. Dak. 1990 Conspiracy to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846
Adolph Schwimmer S. D. Calif. 1950 Conspiracy to violate the Neutrality Act and export control laws, and conspiracy to export arms, ammunition, etc. to a foreign country, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 88 (1946 ed.) and 371, 22 U.S.C. § 452, and 50 U.S.C. § 701
Albert A. Seretti, Jr. D. Nev. 1983 Conspiracy and wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 371, 1343
Patricia Campbell Hearst Shaw N. D. Calif. 1976 Armed bank robbery and using a firearm during a felony, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and (d) and 924(c)(1)
Dennis Joseph Smith 1. U.S. Army summary court-martial 1. 1951 1. Unauthorized absence
2. U.S. Army summary court-martial 2. 1952 2. Failure to obey off limits instructions
3. U.S. Army special court-martial 3. 1954 3. Unauthorized absence
Gerald Owen Smith S. D. Miss. 1956 Armed bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113

Stephen A. Smith E. D. Ark. 1996 Conspiracy to misapply Small Business Administration loans, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Jimmie Lee Speake N. D. Tex. 1976 Conspiracy to possess and utter counterfeit $20 Federal Reserve notes, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Charles Bernard Stewart M. D. Ga. 1986 Illegally destroying U.S. mail, 18 U.S.C. § 1703(a)
Marlena Francisca Stewart-Rollins N. D. Ohio 1989 Conspiracy to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846
John Fife Symington, III D. Ariz. 1996 indictment; 1997 superseding indictment False statements to federally insured financial institutions, wire fraud, attempted extortion, and false statements in bankruptcy proceeding, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1014, 1343, 1951, 152, 2(a) and 2(b)
Richard Lee Tannehill D. Colo. 1990 Conspiracy in restraint of trade, 15 U.S.C. § 1
Nicholas C. Tenaglia E. D. Pa. 1985 Receipt of illegal payments under the Medicare Program, 42 U.S.C. § 1395nn(b)(1)(B)
Gary Allen Thomas W. D. Tex. 1987 Theft of mail by postal employee, 18 U.S.C. § 1709
Larry Weldon Todd W. D. Tex. 1983 Conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States in violation of the Lacey Act and the Airborne Hunting Act, 18 U.S.C. § 371; 16 U.S.C. §§ 3372(a)(1), 3373(d)(1)(B), and 742j-1
Olga C. Trevino W. D. Tex. 1987 Misapplication by a bank employee, 18 U.S.C. § 656
Ignatious Vamvouklis D. New. Hamp. 1991 Possession of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 844(a)
Patricia A. Van De Weerd W. D. Wis. 1990 Theft by U.S. postal employee, 18 U.S.C. § 1711
Christopher V. Wade E. D. Ark. 1995 Bank fraud and false statements on a loan application, 18 U.S.C. §§ 152 and 1014
Bill Wayne Warmath W. D. Tenn. 1965 Obstruction of correspondence, 18 U.S.C. § 1720
Jack Kenneth Watson D. Oregon 1985 Making false statements of material facts to the United States Forest Service, 18 U.S.C. § 1001
Donna Lynn Webb N. D. Fla. 1989 False entry in savings and loan record by employee, 18 U.S.C. § 1006
Donald William Wells M. D. No. Car. 1973 Possession of an unregistered firearm, 26 U.S.C. §§ 5861(d) and 5871
Robert H. Wendt E. D. Mo. 1982 Conspiracy to effectuate the escape of a federal prisoner, 18 U.S.C. § 371
Jack L. Williams D. Dist. Col. 1998 Making false statements to federal agents (two counts), 18 U.S.C. § 1001
Kevin Arthur Williams D. Neb. 1990 Conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846
Robert Michael Williams E. D. Mich. 1981 Conspiracy to transport in foreign commerce securities obtained by fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 2314
Jimmie Lee Wilson E. D. Ark. 1990 Converting property mortgaged or pledged to a farm credit agency, and converting public money to personal use, 18 U.S.C. §§ 641 and 658
Thelma Louise Wingate M. D. Ga. 1991 Mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 2
Mitchell Couey Wood E. D. Ark. 1986 Conspiracy to possess and to distribute cocaine, 18 U.S.C. § 371 and 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)
Warren Stannard Wood S. D. Calif. 1978 Conspiracy to defraud the United States by filing a false document with the Securities and Exchange Commission, 18 U.S.C. § 371; 15 U.S.C. §§ 78m. 78n, and 78ff
Dewey Worthey E. D. Ark. 1988 Medicaid fraud, 42 U.S.C. § 1396
Rick Allen Yale S. D. Ill. 1992 Bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344 and 2
Joseph A. Yasak N. D. Ill. 1988 Knowingly making under oath a false declaration regarding a material fact before a Grand Jury, 18 U.S.C. § 1623
William Stanley Yingling E. D. Ark. 1979 Receipt of a stolen motor vehicle, 18 U.S.C. § 2313
Philip David Young W. D. La. 1992 Interstate transportation and sale of fish and wildlife, 16 U.S.C. §§ 3372(a)(2)(A) and 3373(d)(1)(B)

If I had to guess, Factor, I wouldn't think you'd be smart enough to give a coherent answer to my question. Thanks for proving me correct.
When your back is against the wall, all you got is 'CLINTON'.
We all understand your predicament !

Posted by: the realist at July 3, 2007 12:25 AM

How about the fact that Scooter didn't leak Plames name, her husband did dumbass. How about the fact that it is not illegal to leak her name.

Things that may or may not be relevant to this discussion:

(1) Richard Armitage did admit to leaking Valerie Plame's identity first. Patrick Fitzgerald knew this early in the investigation. Additionally, If you believe that Armitage is covering for Bush, you either know nothing about politics, or you are a moron (they are not exactly on the same side on many issues -- especially the Iraq war).

(2) According to a Mason-Dixon poll released today, 52% of Americans would not even consider voting for Hilary Clinton (that's right -- wouldn't even consider it). Because she is the likely nominee (Obama=Dean, right down to the nobody knows what he stands for and he is leading the early fundraising battle). The 2008 election is far from over.

http://news.aol.com/elections-blog/2007/06/29/mason-dixon-poll-52-percent-against-hillary/

(3) Here is the full story of the Libby/Plame incident (complete to cites from Congressional Reports on the issue). Upon reading it, if you are not satisfied that a $250,000 fine and 2 years of probation is sufficient, I don't know what to tell you.

http://community.myfoxstl.com/blogs/unitaryexecutive/2007/03/16/To_Pardon_or_Not_to_Pardon

(4) The prosecutor made the argument at sentencing that the jail sentence should be adjusted according to the gravity of the underlying crime. Interestingly, he failed to mention (because the judge forclosed mention of it) THAT THERE WAS NO UNDERLYING CRIME (and the prosecutor knew this at the time of the "offense")!!!! That's right, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act requires intent, and while you can argue until you are blue in the face about Ms. Plame's covert status, you can't even get DU, or Common Dreams, or MoveOn, or any other lunitics to argue that Richard Armitage had the necessary intent.

Additionally, compare this punishment with that of Sandy Berger, who STOLE classified document and lied about it ($50,000 plus community service). There is no way that what Scotter Libby did was 5 times worse (lying about a crime that was not committed v. lying about a crime that the liar committed). Don't forget, Libby is still being punished.

(5) Article II Section 2 of the US Constitution states: "The President...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences (sic) against the United States." SCOTUS has defined a reprieve as the commutation or lessening of a sentence already imposed; it does not affect the legal guilt of a person. Therefore, both the rule of law and the jury verdict were upheld with this decision.

Most legal scholars consider this power almost plenary in nature; therefore, Clinton can pardon Marc Rich, and Bush can commute the sentence of Scooter Libby. And you know what? I wouldn't want it any other way.

So, you don't think that felons should be punished according to the law? Figures.

Bushist fascist pussies really fear getting caught, don't they?

They get do get caught, they whine and snivel and whine until Mommy brings them back in from the woodshed where abusive Daddy beat the living crap out of them but they were too afraid of him to cry. So then they take their anger out on others and fail to develop empathy. At all.

Who does that remind you of?

For those of you looking for a higher ranking offical convicted of a crime than Scooter Libby.
Henry Cisneros was the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, appointed to that position by president Bill Clinton. Cisneros, it should be remembered, was convicted in 1995 on 18 counts of conspiracy, false statements and obstruction of justice.
Naturally, on his way out of the White House in 2001, Clinton pardoned Cisneros.

Yeah Bush , Chenney and Rove letting these criminals go scott free not like ol' Bill Clinton he only let upstanding citizens be pardoned.

http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm

Wow! 4th place on Friday.

A special 'krazy koment' Tues. night. I wonder how big the circle jerk is gona be?

judging by the ratings it's gona be a small circle of jerk-offs!

Circle jerks, jerk-offs, get it?

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

By the way Olby Stooges when are those Karl Rove indicments gona show up?

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

Sharon I agree with you about the border patrol agents but we all know what's going on there.

Back to Friday night, Dopey had the never funny Mo Rocca on with his book ' All the Presidents Pets'?

I looked it up on B&N's website. Why did Olby have somebody with a 4 year old book on? You can't even get a new copy from B&N, only used ones.

You have got to be a kool-aid gulpin', A.C.C.S., all out Zombie Olby Stooge to hang out and say you enjoyed that segment.

Because the ratings are such a joke at this point. I tune in just to laugh my ass off. At this point can we not say that except for his talking parrots. Who even from the left would want to go on this mess? It could be a career killer!

Dennis Miller said it best the other day when asked why the wacky left fails on radio and right now on Dopey's show.

They come out screaming with their shock and awe in the first segment, but then they have to keep it up for three hours. And nobody wants to hear a lunatic for that amount of time.

In the case of Keith 'The ultimate loser' he can't keep an audience for even an hour!

And what's Tues. night's 'krazy koment' going to be? Keith telling Bush and Cheney to step down?

Keith telling Bush and Cheney to step down.

Keith telling Bush and Cheney to step down.

Will this be with camera twists? I've got to know.

Keith telling Bush and Cheney to step down will be enough for me to have a piss in my pants moment.

A camera twist could make me choke on my popcorn.

I can't wait till Hillary Rotten comes out against the Scooter Libby pardon while she stands next to her perjurer, murderer, rapist and disbarred husband.

Bingo Factor! I heard that tape to on Mark Samone's show.

Joe Wilson saying he was the one, too funny!

By the way glad to see A.C.C.S. stop by, hard night at the booth?

By the way, is that ice cream on your lips or did you just blow a seal?

Factor,

Bubba a "murderer"? I think you need to throttle back a little bit.

Hey, "the realist" in regards to the whole Global Warming farce, can you answer this ONE QUESTION:

If the earth is now warmer/hotter than its been in over 300 years, what caused the warming 300 years ago when there were no eeeeeevil SUVs, Haliburton, or republicans?

Seriously. Because I DO believe that the earth is warmer. I just believe that the earth has cycles of warm and cool temperatures.

The realist wouldn't know a parody if it hit him in his tin foil hat causing him to spit up all over his Che Guevara shirt (yes, Limbaugh meant everything he said, right down to the part where he said we should require anyone over the age 10 to smoke cigarettes).

Retardist,
Everyone on this site has proven you wrong except for your fellow Olby loons. You just have your head stuck stuck up your ass you can't read. Who appointed Ken Star?

The loons avoid clintons pardon list like the plague while they spew bs and lies about Bush........ Need I say more? Nope.

I almost feel sorry for some people on this site. All they have left to really say is the same old "You didn't answer my question" bullshit. Talk about Clinton. Say Olbyloons a couple thousand times. They just come here with the hope of ganging up and feeling like they are the majority. Your not. Your ship is already deep. Your dead in the water.

Codas,

If you don't answer questions then you don't get to ask any, either. Right? It's only fair. But if you don't answer questions then don't even pretend that there is any "debate" going on, because it's not a debate. You are just on a stream of consciousness jag.

"Your ship is already deep. Your[sic] dead in the water". If that is true then why are you still so miserable all of the time? Oops-My bad! That was a question.

If that is true then why are you still so miserable all of the time?

Posted by: Rico at July 3, 2007 1:15 AM

Another stupid question with no answer but the one you provide. Here is a question for you. You really don't know how thick and dull you are, do you?

Bush respects the jury's verdict, says Olby, "as he ignores it". Another Olbermann Lie.

Why do you start off by saying this is a lie? Bush said, "I respect the jury's verdict." ... and then he ignored the verdict by not allowing Libby to go to jail. No lie.

This site is a first for me. Is this really all you've got? Pretty sad, I must say.

Codas,

Thanks for the explanation. The reason why you are so miserable is because I ask you questions. Got it! Not that I wasn't aware of that all the time. To a leftist dingbat a direct question is both a threat, and an insult. To you a question is like a slap in the face. WTF? Some of the reasons why you dingbats won't answer any can be kind of interesting, but they're all made up reasons, of course.

I have to say that it's been fun making you squirm, and I look forward to doing it in the near future. Peace-Out!(for now)

> Why do you start off by saying this is a lie?

Because it is a lie. The jury's verdict was guilty. Bush could have overturned it. He didn't. The jury didn't sentence Libby to jail. In fact, one juror interviewed on A-Mess-NBC is fine with the commutation.

Let me break this down in a way even an OlbyLoon can understand. The jury verdict said NOTHING about Libby going to jail. Bush UPHELD the jury verdict. Olbermann lied. Clear now?

"For anyone who thinks this "pardon " is just, answer this question:
Libby was indicted by a Bush-appointed prosecutor who was given his authority by the Bush Justice Department and then a Bush- appointed judge presided while a jury of his peers convicted him. Where is the miscarriage of justice that required a president to swoop in?"

Posted by: the realist at July 3, 2007 12:51 AM

Technically, that is a very easy question: there was no pardon (pay attention Aaron, the jury verdict was not overturned, the judge's sentence was commuted. There is a difference). Scooter's legal guilt was not affected by this decision.

Now, your true question may be whether it was just to reduce his sentence. The short answer is that the punishment was too severe (it was nearly identical to the statutory punishment for the underlying alleged crime). In Federalist 74, AH states that the prerogative of an executive action to reduce a sentence is to mitigate the harsh justice of the criminal code. Here, the President believed that the penalty was too harsh, and pardoned Libby.

Let's review the facts of the Plame Affair and tell me that 30 months in prison is the correct punishment...

In early 2002, it became necessary to investigate reports that Iraq had tried to purchase yellowcake uranium from Africa (and more specifically, Niger). On February 12, 2002, Valerie Plame offered up the name of her husband (Joe Wilson) to her bosses at CPD as someone with sufficient connections to the area as a former ambassador to investigate the claim (see here, p. 39 ? to this day, she continues to deny this). About a week later, Mrs. Plame-Wilson set up a meeting between her husband and several CIA higher-ups to determine whether a trip to Niger was worthwhile (she told her husband that he would be investigating "this crazy report" about a sale of uranium from Niger to Iraq -- so at least he went into it with an open mind). On February 26, 2002, Mr. Wilson arrived in Niger to investigate these reports.

In his report disseminated on March 8, 2002, Mr. Wilson described his discussions with former Nigerian Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki. The former Prime Minister told him that he was unaware of any sales of uranium to Iraq during his tenure as PM or Foreign Minister. He did, however, remember being approached by an Iraqi delegation in order to meet about "expanding commercial relations" between Iraq and Niger. Mayaki interpreted this to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss yellowcake uranium sales. This was a reasonable assumption since a man named Wissam al-Zahawie was involved (who happened to be Iraq's senior public envoy for nuclear matters). Fortunately, these meetings never occurred because Iraq was under sanctions from the UN and Mayaki did not want to hurt relationships with countries that offered aid to Niger (such as the U.S.).

In his 2003 State of the Union, President Bush said the following: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Showing urgency that would make a DMV worker blush, 6 months later in the New York Times Mr. Wilson published an op-ed that claimed that his trip to Niger debunked the President?s claims. It also stated that Vice President Cheney?s office was responsible for sending him on the trip (Val and Joe have yet to learn that communication forms the basis of a meaningful relationship). He made these accusations despite the fact that his conversations with Mayaki actually bolstered the president?s claims (facts are of no consequence to the virulently anti-Bush).

After Vice President Cheney revealed that he had no knowledge of Wilson's trip, Robert Novak did some research into why someone like Joe Wilson was sent on such an important mission and not someone from the CIA. He then published an article in the Washington Post stating that the CIA regarded Wilson?s report as less than definitive, and that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was responsible for sending him on the trip. Because Plame's name was not widely known at the time, liberals went nuts claiming that the administration was trying to punish a war critic by outing his undercover wife (who could not defend herself because she was on a clandestine mission stapling papers together deep in a foreign land known as "Virginia").

The uproar that followed Novak's column led to the appointment of Patrick Fitzgerald as a special prosecutor, whose job it would be to determine whether the Intelligence Identities Protection Act was violated by Novak's source for the information that led to the disclosure of Plame's name. As it turned out, Richard Armitage, the former #2 diplomat in the State Department, was the source for Novak's column (Mr. Armitage was anti-Iraq War, by the way). This fit poorly into the Left's template that the Bush administration exposed Mrs. Plame because Armitage was essentially on their side, but it didn't matter because, despite knowing it from the beginning, Fitzgerald never revealed who the true source was. This allowed for four years of speculation that only hurt the Bush administration and made Wilson and Plame into media darlings (despite their bouts with "non-truth").

Fitzgerald never got anywhere with the charges of violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act because it required, among other things, legally covert status and an intent to disclose knowingly-classified information. None of these were present in the Plame case. So where does Mr. Libby come in? Well, when the original crime being investigated is proven meritless, special prosecutors tend to look for perjury and obstruction of justice charges (just ask President Clinton). Mr. Libby misstated when he first heard the name of Mr. Wilson's wife. Make no mistake, if he intentionally withheld this information or lied about it, he is guilty and should probably go to jail. It is much more likely, though, that he simply had a memory lapse (the exact person from whom one hears of someone is much easier to forget than, say, having sex or stuffing classified documents from the national archive down your pants). There were even disputes among the witnesses giving testimony at the trial (Fleischer and Pincus being the most notable example of this).

Again, if you think that the judge was right, I don't know what to tell you. Plus, the Pardon Power is virtually plenary, so (as aptly shown above), presidents can do whatever they want. It is the consequence of winning elections.

Poor poor Mr. Codas - His daddy now has a 27% approval rating. And he calls us thick and dull?! Interesting. Get off your high-horse, holmes, and have a look around. You're the one who's dead in the water. Sucks to be on your side in '08, doesn't it? Don't worry though, bud, we on the left will take care of even you! We don't just care about our wallets. We actually care about our fellow Americans too. Anyway, I've had enough of this. You're saying all the same crap and following all the same right wing liars you have been throughout this criminal administration anyway. Wake up, my man! While you're still young!

I have to say that it's been fun making you squirm, and I look forward to doing it in the near future. Peace-Out!(for now)

Posted by: Rico at July 3, 2007 1:38 AM

This guy is really freaking goofy! The more I read here the more i see, I aint the sharpest tool in the shed but I think I have some sense. Debate? Who? You have all the answers. Defending your own twisted takeis what you are good at. That doesn't make you right. Just blind to any thoughts outside of what you can handle.

Kansas Thompson 42 Obama 46
>>

Survey USA must have taken their sample from wellfare moms or prison inmates. Edwards couldn't poll 50 percent against "vacant" in Kansas. Obama beating Thompson? Just because Obama's momma is a Kansan, doesn't make the Illinois liberal popular here!

Hey ... johnny dollar (nice name, by the way) ... you're an idiot! Not even Bush can overturn a verdict of a jury as you say he can. He can pardon someone. He can commute someone's sentence (as he did with Libby). But he cannot just say, "Nope, sorry, I don't agree with this. I think he's innocent instead." Again, and I'll try and make this easy for even you to understand. But Bush said after the original verdict ... of the jury ... (nice and slow for you) ... that "I respect the jury's decision." Google it. Olbermann simply stated, Bush said he respected the decision of the jury and then goes and doesn't actually respect it, by giving Libby the "get out of jail free" card. Did you follow that or do I need to make you feel the sting of my wit one more time?! Woohoo! Dems in '08, motha F er's!

Aaron, you are an ignorant fool. Once more, just for the Olbyloons...

Commuting the sentence does NOT disrespect the jury verdict, because the jury never said he should go to jail. They just said he was guilty, and for that matter so did Bush. Therefore, Olbermann, who lied when he said Bush was overturning the constitution, similarly lied when he claimed Bush was going against the jury verdict.

The jury Didn't Sentence Him to Jail. Got that? The jury doesn't do sentencing. And NOTHING the jury decided was changed in even one micron by what Bush did.

Geez, you know you don't have to defend EVERY lie that spews from Krazy Keith. If you do, you just might be an OlbyLoon.

I thought Orange Boy was going to short circuit in the first 5 minutes! The spin (with accompanying lies) was non-stop tonight. I think you D Kos'ers (or Med Matters or Zsa-Zsa Posters) definitey got their fill tonight!

Codas: Early on when I first started checking in here, I recall 'Rico' asking me an incredibly simplistic question that went something like this....'if somebody hits you at work, what would you do to make sure they never did it again'? In Rico's mind, that ridiculous question was supposed to have relevance to the war in Iraq. He badgered me all day to 'answer' this silly question, just like he is badgering you now.

The moral of this story is to illustrate the folly of trying to 'debate' with anyone who would attempt to equate complex multicultural international relationships, including warfare with something akin to an interoffice personal rivalry.

Asking someone if they are 'mad' at someone who was never prosecuted by the Bush appointed prosecuter is every bit as ridiculous. Scooter Libby was tried and convicted for lying under oath and obstruction of justice by a jury of his peers...Armitage wasn't, presumably because Armatage never lied under oath like Libby did.

You can argue all day long about whether you believe an underlying crime was or was not committed regarding the outing of Plame, but that is not the issue. The issue remains that according to Patrick (Republican) Fitzgerald, Libby effectively "threw sand in his face" and made it impossible for him to make that determination himself in 2004, when it should have been made (before the election).

On John Gibson's tv show on FNC, he was interviewing Rich Lowry. They both noted that a "certain anchor on another network, head would explode" !! LOL
I wonder who they could have been referring too. I was hoping you could have put a graphic of Man Under Desk head exploded tonite.

Clearly Mr. Johnny, you cannot be reasoned with ... as with many on the right. You see things in some ... I don't know ... sort of blinding light that takes reality and reason out of your "logic". I NEVER said the jury decided on Libby's sentence (of how long he goes to jail), I only said that they found him guilty. I, like you, (and good for you), know that the jury does not hand out the extent of the penalty, only the judge does that. Got it, and I'm glad you do too. But don't start making up other sh*t. Simple go by what Olbermann said. Can you do that? AGAIN, Bush said he respected the decision of the jury ... which found Libby guilty. Then Bush disrespected that decision ... by making Libby unguilty. Yes, I know that "officially" Libby will be marked for the rest of his life with "guilty". But you're simply bringing apples to this orange fight. There is no respect in anything Bush did by that jury. Simple. I'm done with you. Promise.

> Then Bush disrespected that decision ... by making Libby unguilty

I THOUGHT you were ignorant. Now I wonder if you're just deliberately lying like Keith does. No matter, you don't have to be F Lee Bailey to see through the illogic and stupidity of what you just wrote. Anything to defend the infamous, deplorable Olbermann!

Aaron: Johnny is splitting hairs again....which is essentially what he does every time he accuses Olbermann of 'lying'.

Libby was sentenced under Justice Department guidelines for that type of a crime. Bush clearly disrespected our system of justice, as well as his own guidelines and precedents when he decided to intervene for obvious personal and political reasons....and yes, he DID disrespect that jury's verdict when he personally decided a sentence for a friend was 'too harsh', even though it was well within the guidelines of the law for which that jury decided was broken.

Good point Mike -- he certainly disrespected the verdict of Libby juror Ann Redington, who told Chris Matthews in March: "I don't want [Libby] to go to jail."

Genius: It is irrelevant what juror Ann Redington 'wanted'. That juror voted guilty to this crime and the judge sentenced libby within guidelines set for that particular crime.

To pu it another way....you, me, Aaron, or Johnny Dollar would be going to jail with no possibility of executive intervention if we had been convicted of the same thing....and that is what makes this a travesty.

Genius: It is irrelevant what juror Ann Redington 'wanted'. That juror voted guilty to this crime and the judge sentenced libby within guidelines set for that particular crime.

To pu it another way....you, me, Aaron, or Johnny Dollar would be going to jail with no possibility of executive intervention if we had been convicted of the same thing....and that is what makes this a travesty.

Posted by: Mike at July 3, 2007 3:15 AM

With that logic one could label any presidential pardon "a travesty".

"Crime of the Century"? Really Keith? I guess you forgot about that little thing called 9/11. You remember that Keith, don't you? You once did a show from Ground Zero saying "this is personal". Then when a former National Security Adviser steals and destroys classified documents to sabotage the 9/11 Investigation Commission, your reaction is 'meh'. When our government begins monitoring terrorists phone calls, tracking their finances, and conducting other terrorist fighting measures to protect our country from another attack, you say 'stop'. When our government catches terrorists attacking our soldiers on the battle field and houses them in prisons so they can't hurt anybody else, you say 'release them'. When terrorists try to attack our country and other countries such as Great Britain, you say 'they're just morons', 'there is no terror threat', 'it's all part of a right wing conspiracy'. For Keith Olbermann, the most important issue our time, the "Crime of the Century", and the reason why the President and Vice President of the United States must resign is...Scooter Libby.

Posted by Warner Todd Huston on July 2, 2007 - 23:30.
I keep seeing this talking point phrase in multiple MSM stories about the Libby conviction; "Libby was convicted in March, the highest-ranking White House official ordered to prison since the Iran-Contra affair roiled the Reagan administration in the 1980s."(emphasis, mine) This is a misleading statement that makes the reader imagine that no high-ranking Presidential appointee, adviser, or member of the White House has been convicted of anything or sentenced to anything since Reagan's era. But, at least one past official's name should be placed above that of Libby's. Henry Cisneros was the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, appointed to that position by President Bill Clinton. Cisneros, it should be remembered, was indicted in 1995 on 18 counts of conspiracy, false statements and obstruction of justice. Cisneros pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of lying to the FBI. Now, I'd dare say that Libby, who only worked in the office of the Vice President, was a minnow in the pond in which Cisneros swam. Cisneros was the Secretary of HUD, a presidential cabinet member, after all!

Naturally, on his way out of the White House in 2001, Clinton pardoned Cisneros.
=============================
Gee--what did fat ass say about his boy crush clinton when he gave the convicted CABINET MEMBER --a pardon?Why nothing--fat ass was busy blowing up his bill clinton blow up doll--for --err big boy fun---hey--fat ass does not wear lady eyeglases for nothing.Wasn't henry convicted by a jury too? Yet Libby still has to pay the fine--still has a conviction ------but the pardon clinton gave sponged away everything for his HUD Sec? Worst president ever?Really fat ass?Who says--you--you orange tinted putz?
BTW---anyone see fat ass on Letterman--wow---he's getting even fatter.

Hmmm---the women hating orange fat ass --showed his hate for women once again last night----Paris Hilton 's segment carried the lable "felon watch"-----where was rthe felon lable for the former Nixon AG--that fat ass greatly thanks for his parrot act?Oh wait--that felon is a man------Ms Hilton is not-----hence she gets the felon lable .

Uber-sham made an interesting comment in his worse-worser-worst segment. He said the Hannity Freedom Concerts were sponsored by "Hong Kong Tourism Board". I can't find this anywhere on the web, the sponsors are here: http://freedomalliance.org/freedomconcert.htm .

You don't think Mr. Uber-sham would lie about something like this, do you?

He also forgot to mention that even if the "Hong Kong Tourism Board" sponsored the tour it is contributing to the Freedom Alliance Scholarship Fund that honors the bravery and dedication exhibited by Americans in our armed forces who have sacrificed life and limb by providing educational scholarships to their children.

What worthwhile Fund does Uber-sham have?

What a vile man, how can anyone watch his show for more than 2 minutes.

Its a glorious day. Libby's sentence is commuted! And the leftys are crying fowl and promising to use this as an issue to retake the white house. Bah. The average american doesn't care...

Only freaks like Olbermann, Pelosi, Reid and the rest of the loons on this site care. And they are crushed. Losers! Hope he pardons him when he leaves office.

Susan McDougal vs Libby... we are square losers!

Says Brandon:

"Olby's has been coming in a solid third lately, of course it was time for another Special Education Comment. But his last several efforts to pimp his ratings by one of these ratings stunts have fallen short. But Olby tries, tries, tries again. And always, always, always fails."

END QUOTE

I have a feeling both Olby and Mathews are starting to feel the heat. Mathews is turning into Phil Donahue. Donahue was going to beat O'Reilly and he started out as a one on one interview. When the rating weren't there in sank back to his Jerry Springer style and ran his "Angry White Men" show in the ground. Pathetic.

Now Mathews sets up Coulter (he's tupid because she cana hold her own against anyone) and then he had on Sharpton to debate Hitchens(spelling). BWahahahaha, an atheist that is going to hell and a Christian, racist and a thief that is going to hell. Big time interview right there.

I've said it before. Olby can not carry on an interview one on one, eye ball to eye ball because of his nervous tick and beady, darting eye balls. People like him are only good at throwing flames and his condition doesn't allow anyone else to speak or comprehend what he hears when he allows someone a few seconds to speak. His jaw slides around, his lips quiver, he has gag like reflexes in his thoart, his eyes dart around.

Take note. He rarely if ever inteviews someone eye to eye. When he interviews someone the guest is put on a split screen. When Olby speaks you see both on a split screen. When the guest speaks the screen is changed to just the guest and you can't see Olby. They do this so you can't see the convulsions coming out of this freak.

What a day....
-no traffic on the way to work.
-no lines at starbucks.
-yankees won last night.
Oh And Scooter is a free man. Bwah!

Says Liverpool:

"What a vile man, how can anyone watch his show for more than 2 minutes."

END QUOTE

Welcome to the site Liverpool. I've always wondered when I hear some liberal saying some off the wall BS how do they think anyone believes them. Just read posts from:

Average American Idiot
Mike the Pot Head
balheadedrat
Sir Liar
Bill O chiiken shit O'lielly
chicken clucker

I started listening to some speeches from liberals in the '04 election. John Kerry was making statements that had no subject or predicates of verbs. They were not sentences. He was merely stating catch phrases. That's all it takeds to motivate these simple simon liberals. This is one statment Kerry made:

"Ken Ley, Enron along with Halliburton, Trent Lott, Tom Delay."

His speech was full of crap like this. It lathers up some stupid, dumbass, simple simon liberal.

I could take a puppet and shove a tape recorder with the following message up it's ass and it would take the liberal vote:

"The religious right, Jerry Falwell, Pat Roberson, Karl Rove, Ken Ley, Dick Cheney, Halliburton, Karl Rove, Enron, Tom Delay, big oil, big drug, tax breaks for the wealthy, white man is out to getchasucka, George Bush, Karl Rove, Karl Rove, Karl Rove, Karl Rove, Karl Rove.........snap..........crackel.............pop...........I'm Hillary Rodham Clinton and I approve of this message.

Well, all you Olbyloons? Once again Olby spnds night after night preaching and farther and farther down that well to hell he falls.

Lets see, so far for the record:

Halliburton and Cheney?
Abu Ghraib went to GW's desk?
Gitmo torture?
US Attorney firings?
Wire tapping violating BofR's?

Just to name a few. Either George Bush is God, the smartest man in the world or is just plain doing his damned job.

Well, simple simon liberals, which one is it?

Many thanks President Bush. I knew you had nuts the size of 60 pound striped melons we kids used to pay for school back in the 70's and now today Americans are too lazy (liberal word AKA, not willing)to work so we got invaded by Mexicans.

For anyone who did not complain about President Clinton's behavior with regards to his pardons, (Marc Rich), and they complain now about Libby's commutation....you are not being intellectually honest.

Drudge has an excellent link that defends the absolute/unrestricted (except for impeachment) executive power by President Clinton, the ol' dawg himself....

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/18/opinion/18CLIN.html?pagewanted=all&ei=5070&en=66ba82eaf117b24b&ex=1183521600

###
[Bush's] "forfeited his claim to be President"?....Not quite Keith.....He used a constitutional power correctly and legally. You lie.

Keith Olbermann is the biggest liar and hypocrite on TV today. I read his coverage, the bombast, the demogoguery, the lies. Once again red meat is fed to the leftist mob on COUNTDOWN. Enjoy your cold, satisfying meal while the country moves on to more important issues.

And this is my post today, the 1,524th day since the declaration of Mission Accomplished in Iraq.....

I am cee, good night and good luck.

"I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden

"There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration's policies in Iraq. Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back." NYT 1/28/07

"I think the Vietnamese are better off in Vietnam," George McGovern - NEWSWEEK

"Lefties: Leave these pathetic drowning rats alone to stew in each other's juices. Get yourselves out in the street and fight this criminal administration in ways that really mean something, and that are noted by more than a handful of keyboard heroes!" Sir Loin of Beef

"American liberals need to face these truths: The demand for self-government was and remains strong in Iraq despite all our mistakes and the violent efforts of al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias to disrupt it." DEMOCRAT Bob Kerrey

"If we end up saying that because these people are committing these acts of terrorism in Iraq or Afghanistan, that we shouldn't have done the removal of Saddam or the removal of the Taliban, then we are making a fundamental mistake about our own future, about security, about the values we should be defending in the world." TONY BLAIR

Whose worse. Here is a Clinton pardon swept under the carpet.

GOOGLE this- Melvin J. Reynolds,

Better yet FACT- he is a Democratic Congressman from Illinois, who was convicted of bank fraud, 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice, and solicitation of child pornography had his sentence commuted on the bank fraud charged and was allowed to serve the final months under the auspices of a half way house. He had served his entire sentence on child sex abuse charges before the commutation of the later convictions. PARDONED BY CLINTON

Now shaddup you Wilson loving losers.

Oh happy day.....Scooter is free!
Today- Joe Wilson is miserable. NBC is miserable. KeithO is miserable. 'Why do you care what my name is' is miserable. Mike is miserable. Steal My Worthless Opinion is miserable. MSNBC is miserable. Average American Patriot is miserable. Valerie (I married my grampa) Plame is miserable. Its just another great day to have the white house!

I'd be inclined to feel a whole lot better about the commutation of Libby's sentence had the President commuted the sentences of (or better still, pardoned outright) Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean, as well.

Keith Kronkite calling for Bush/Cheney resignations tonight in yet another not-ready-for-prime-time "speshul komment???" Must-see-TV!

That would lead to (try saying THIS with a straight face...)

President Pelosi.

It is hard to believe that GE shareholders are continuing to put up with the left wing lunacy that MSNBC has become.

The orange one is red in the face
Commuted time in Scooter's case
Keith's breakdown is pending
Career will be ending
For the proven total disgrace

This story is ratings gold for MSNBC who has tied their future to the 15% of the population that actually loves feeding on the blood of Scooter Libby.

Well, I guess it is too bad that there is no one else up for execution on the gallows of the left. It will soon be a return to arguments over Congressional subpoenas and that pesky Iraq War no one is doing anything substanative to stop.

But for now the cold fleshy raw meat is for the taking at COUNTDOWN. Enjoy it leftists.

Boy, do I feel sorry for the guy who has to watch Olbermann tonight for our benefit here at OW. Some alcohol may be in order!

If Scooter didn't work for VP Dick
Dingbat Olbyloons wouldn't give a lick
Still trying to start a putsch
To bring down the hated Bush
Nightly Krazy Keith shows he's a little prick

Of course Bush commuted Libby's sentence - Bush/Cheney knew Scooter was to fragile to withstand any kind of time in stir without trading some dangerous info to Fitzgerald; while commutation is the height of monarchical arrogance, the only behavior your president is capable of. A presidential pardon says: "he's guilty but did what he did for the country, for reasons I canot tell you".

Bush's commutation explicity expressed: "sure he's guilty, but I think the sentence is too tough." No "realpolitk" involved; no clear expression of rewarding some patriotic altruism. Just a brazen veto of our system of justice.

Once again; no surprise. I agree with cee that it is time to move on without shock or surprise. The crimes surrpounding the Plame exposure are, at least for now, well-protected.

Clearly the next move to preserve our constitution would be to initiate impeachment proceeding against Bush for his flagrant circumvention of the FISA laws - Hell, we have him on film admitting to breaking these laws with clear intent and repeatedly. Case closed. if the Democrats ever grow some balls.

SLOB,

Amen to that, brother!

let's not forget all you Bush haters:

Six years ago, during his final hours in the White House, Bill Clinton pardoned fugitive financier Marc Rich, whose ex-wife Denise had given generously to Clinton’s campaigns and to his presidential library.

funny how you Democratic morons seems to forget that.

let's not forget all you Bush haters:

Six years ago, during his final hours in the White House, Bill Clinton pardoned fugitive financier Marc Rich, whose ex-wife Denise had given generously to Clinton’s campaigns and to his presidential library.

funny how all you Democratic morons seems to forget that.

Even Joe Scarborough was mocking Keith's remarks on MSNBC this morning, specifically his claim that the Libby pardon was, "the greatest crime of this young century". Joe even played Keith's clip before doing an on-air Fisking of his remark (though waking up in the morning, flipping on the TV and seeing Keith's face before breakfast without warning is at least a potential nominee for "the greatest crime of this young century").

Scarborough seemed to think that some little incident in New York and Arlington, Va., on 9/11/01 probably was a better candidate for the title of "the greatest crime of this young century". Of course Keith and his supporters are perfectly free to try and convince the American public otherwise, but since the left believes terrorism should be a law enforcement issue, and not an act of war to begin with, I'm not quite sure how Olbermann now plans to classify the Sept. 11 attacks.

iF A SPECIAL COMMENT OCCURS
AND NO ONE SEES IT OR HEARS IT
JUST HOW SPECIAL IS IT REALLY?

Keith calling for resignations is the equivalent of farting into a tornado

How funny was it to hear Hillary use the word cronyism yesterday and have sexy bill sitting next to her

To all you wingnutty liberals I say Sandy Burger.....suck on it

Danatello,

I see your Sandy Berger and I raise you one David Safavian and one Claude Allen.

And yes; many of Clinton's pardons stank to high heaven, like much of his administration. I agree. You need to think about the nature of your "arguments" and what they say about your fundamental sense of law and morality.

The Problem is it WAS NOT the jury's duty to prosecute Cheney or Rove. They were given the task of reviewing the case against Libby. End of dscussion. The mere fact that they sensed a crime above is ridiculous and over-reaching.

Problem with you Dems is that you scream about subversion of the law and then defend actions that don't take the law into account. Juries aren't given the power to judge outside of the crime presented to them... end of discussion.

Its even screwy for you to endorse their actions. If Fitzgerald could indict either Cheney or Rove - he would have. Thats why after millions of dollars, you got Scooter for perjury. And in the end, the jail sentence was viewed by many as excessive.

The Problem is it WAS NOT the jury's duty to prosecute Cheney or Rove. They were given the task of reviewing the case against Libby. End of dscussion. The mere fact that they sensed a crime above is ridiculous and over-reaching.

Problem with you Dems is that you scream about subversion of the law and then defend actions that don't take the law into account. Juries aren't given the power to judge outside of the crime presented to them... end of discussion.

Its even screwy for you to endorse their actions. If Fitzgerald could indict either Cheney or Rove - he would have. Thats why after millions of dollars, you got Scooter for perjury. And in the end, the jail sentence was viewed by many as excessive.

I would say the pot is sufficiently stirred for tonight's S.K.

Olby's head may explode on stage tonight.

"had more access to the truth about the higher ups."

Which is- if you care- Armitage outted Plame. Whats your issue? Weenie

let's not forget all you Bush haters:

Six years ago, during his final hours in the White House, Bill Clinton pardoned fugitive financier Marc Rich, whose ex-wife Denise had given generously to Clinton’s campaigns and to his presidential library.

funny how you Democratic morons seem to forget that.

Interesting Point Loin, I guess the biggest problem i have is in the High and mightyness of one Hillary Clinton who is gonna sit and lecture me using the word cronyism, I literally almost choked on my tongue when I saw that

Hey look, Im a conservative and Bush is in defensible mainly because hes NOT a conservative, but the bottom line to me is I looked at Sandy Burger and thought he should go to jail, and he didint, if you look at Scooter and think he should have done time, I dont...therein is the dance we do in this country

And I think we all agree tonight represents the truest chance of a true Howard Beale moment for the queefmeister

List of Clinton's Pardons...

http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm

Is that realy your defense Feech? Clinton did it too? FDR issued over 3000 clemency orders. The savior himself, Reagan issued 406.

Amertiage confessed to it... why do you assholes think you know more than the people involved.

I am so tired of Olbermann, when will NBC pull the plug on this hack?

AP/ Sept 7, 2007
On Thursday, Richard Armitage went on CBS News and confessed: he was the original source for the Robert Novak column that outed Valerie Wilson as a CIA officer

You are a lot dumber than those you profess to be idiots... what a loser.

No matter what new travesty Bush dreams up, we find the apologists using essentially the same defense over and over and over again. It always goes something like this:

CLINTON DID IT TOO!!!!!!

The obvious stategy is to try to force the opposition into defending something FORMER president Bill Clinton did rather than confront Bush's current misdeed. This way the discussion gets derailed onto another 'did not - did too' track that has little or nothing to do with the current issue.

This 'Clinton was bad too' line of thought ignors the twin FACTS that 1) - Many Bush detractors were not fond of Clinton either, & 2) - Two wrongs never make a right.

I could easily compare Clinton's misdeeds all day long with GWB's, but it would be much like comparing the deeds of mob boss John Gotti with those of a casual shoplifter.

Did both Bush and Clinton dishonor the Oval Office? YES! But that is where the comparison ends.

Did Clinton start an endless and unnecessary quadmire that has now taken about 4000 American lives and ruined the lives of many, many times that number, .... and has hopelessly divided the country? NO!

Did Clinton take a balanced federal budget and create record deficits, along with a new record national debt with every passing month? NO!.....In fact, I believe Clinton achieved just the opposite.

I could go on and on...but those two are the biggies.

The extreme right love to keep painting all of this as simply left/right politics, but it isn't. The problems and abuses by Bush are very real, and anything Clinton did pales by direct comparison.

That said, shame on you Bill Clinton!!!!

Anon asked (begged)....

"I am so tired of Olbermann, when will NBC pull the plug on this hack?"

###
No...this is a ratings bonanza for the pathetic MSNBC. A Special Comment will draw the firnge who care about this case and bump up the ratings. Then it will be on to other tactics like the Ann Coulter/Barbara Edwards trick to try to boost their numbers.

Yes, MSNBC is a circus, an amusement park for those who like the ideology. Keith Olbermann is just one of the silly side-show barkers.

I can't wait for Bush's approval rating to go up so all you olbyloons can eat your spew about Bush "hurting the (R)'s!"

I think you all need to remember where you are posting. Olbermann is a guy WHO NEVER presents the facts in an even handed manner. I bring out the other side here because you WONT EVER GET THE OTHER SIDE FROM THE OLBERMANNFURER

Again let me spell it out for you, You cant claim high ground on GWB when the President before him was just as much a boob. Bush is an awful President also, Clintons administration was as corrupt as their has ever been

Again I go back to my original post, last night HILLARY CLINTON who last time I looked was running for the oval office, is going to lecture the masses on CRONYISM? ARE YOU SHITTING ME?

Mike- Today's thread started with YOUR friends' collective outrage of the sentence commuting... therefore its easy to juxtapose it with HIS pardon of Susan McDougal. Very similar in the fact that both were sent to jail during witch hunts against the President in power. Years ago there were crickets from the left when McDougal, Rich and Melvin J. Reynolds.

Your boy calls it the crime of the century? Your outrage is shameful.

Look up cronyism and you'll see this entry from 1999

Roger Clinton- PARDONNED, the president's half-brother, on drug charges after having served the entire sentence more than a decade before. Roger Clinton would be charged with drunk driving and disorderly conduct in an unrelated incident within a year of the pardon.[15] He was also briefly alleged to have been utilized in lobbying for the Braswell pardon, among others.

Although it is hardly a significant crime... it does smell.

Says Anonymous:

"HIS pardon of Susan McDougal"

END QUOTE

I thought McDougal went to jail for contempt of court?

Either way, she kept her mouth shut to keep the truth about Bill Clinton from coming out. She paid a price and as usual willie used her like a whore and threw her out. I have to wonder does it make it any better getting screwed by a president? Liberals are stupid.

The news keeps getting better. First Scooter is freed and then... the democrats just promised hearings on the issue.

Are you dems sick of chasing your tails yet? It is quite amusing. Hearings to analyze Bush's executive right to commute a sentence? Toady is beautiful!

Truthy- the democrats have won back congress because the general population had lost faith in Bush's administration. Yet the congress has done nothing (outside of a minimum wage bump). The entire government is a sham nowadays. You have Bush and Cheney vs. Pelosi, Reid and Schumer. Its not pretty. But you Bush bashers are wasting your time. He can't run in 2008 so why don't you do something constructive. Instead you insist day-in-day-out on Bush bashing. Hardly constructive.

Says Cee:

"Yes, MSNBC is a circus, an amusement park for those who like the ideology. Keith Olbermann is just one of the silly side-show barkers."

END QUOTE

They continue to swing farther to the left and their ratings continue to slide.

Olby's future will be short. His numbers have flattened and will eventually drop. Only idiots will watch his show because only an idiot would put any credibility that comes out of this man's (cough, cough) eunuch's mouth.

It just shows how stupid liberals really are.

On one hand they call Fox News conservative even while FNC has over half their contributors as liberal while defending a man who hasn't had an opposing voice since his show was created.

They are in an uproar over the Libby and call it a crime of the century when there is not a whiff from liberals or the liberal biased media to Sandy Burger who stole classified documents that were critical to the 9/11 commission.

Pelosi was going to drain the swamp but she forgot there were a lot of liberal rats running around in it and the fact that William Jefferson was caught on tape accepting a $90k bribe from an undercover FBI man and the fact this money in marked bills was found in his freezer was re-elected and given a victory celebration when he arrived back in Congress.

Stupid liberals in Detroit and New Orleans vote back into office the most incompetent and criminal individuals back into office. I was in Detroit twice the end of last year and I am flying back next Monday. That city can only be described as a shithole. There were cars sitting on blocks, gutted out on the sidewalk in the shadows of downtown. There are no markings on the streets. You need four wheel drive because the streets are so bad.

The idiots of New Orleans blame George Bush for Katrina while giving Blanco, Nagin and Landreuax a pass. Then they as so stupid they say George Bush blew up the levees.

These same ignorant bastards actually believe George Bush blew up the Trade Centers or could have prevented it.

Liberals are monkeys.

Says benson:

"The news keeps getting better. First Scooter is freed and then... the democrats just promised hearings on the issue.

Are you dems sick of chasing your tails yet? It is quite amusing. Hearings to analyze Bush's executive right to commute a sentence? Toady is beautiful!"

END QUOTE

You mean swinging off Olby's nut sack like monkeys on a monkey bar or ornaments on a Christmas tree.

I just read GW is looking at a full pardon. GW sure knows how to kick a liberal in the nuts.

This man, George Bush, that liberals say is stupid beat men that liberals claim were smarter, Gore and Kerry, has put Sadam and his two sons and others stinking up the soil, some how has avoided being convicted of breaking any law let alone any proof, has prevented another attack on our soil in six years, who has saw the best economy at record levels grow under his watch, employment at record highs somehow, just somehow always comes out on top.

They ripped Ron Reagan, the rest is history. Most presidential historians gave Raeagan credit for the booming economy of the 90's for his investement in technology and give willie a "C minus" for having the sense to keep his hands off it. George Bush would have had the same record but liberals have allowed terrorist to win. What will be said 20 years from now is that George Bush had us on the verge of winning the war on terrorism but having to fight liberals as well as terrorist prevented us from achieving our goals over partisan bickering and their pure hatred for George Bush on apersonal level.

Asks truth:

"Benson, are you happy with this administration in general?"

END QUOTE

I am. I was laid off in 2004. I took a year off to rum a small business I ran on the side. I voted for George Bush when I was laid off. I had the good sense to know I lost my job because my co-workers were lazy as shit with productivity levels running below 40%. I did not lose my job because of GW. It's liberals liek yo that want to blame others.

I heard all this shit from liberals that the employment levels were a lie and the pay scales were way down. When I decided to look for a job I decided I would accept a position for $10k less than my pay at my last job over a year in the past. I found three jobs on Monster.com. I had an inteview set up within two days. I went to the interview the next week, was offered the job that same day and here's the kicker, they offered me $11k more than my last pay plus a hefty signing bonus.

Yeah, liberals are right about the economy. They are nothing more than a bunch of liars and traitors. When Reid or Pelosi tells me how the American people should feel or how bad it really is in the US I just see a couple of liars.

There's not a single non-military person that should have a damned thing to say about living in the US. You are better off than you ever were under Clinton. You are damned sure safer and have more moeny in your pocket.

I filled up my Expedition the other day, $75. I laughed on the way home that liberal idiots making shitty salaries must really hurt filling up their tanks.

Friggin losers. I hope gas goes to $10/gallon.

Ugh, so much idocy going on today. Look, read Byron York's piece which does a good job of breaking down the history of pardons.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2RjNDYzNGIwNDNiOGUwOTMyODZhZDJmYzZhNDhkMGU=

My favorite part is the end:
One of the men pardoned by the first President Bush in 1992 was Clair George, the former chief of the CIA’s clandestine operations who was found guilty of two counts of lying to Congress. In recent months, George has been watching the Libby case and wondering what was going on. “I think he should be pardoned,” George told National Review in early June. “I don’t quite know what it was that he lied about. But I’m not quite sure in my own trial what I lied about.”

Like Libby’s defenders, George believes his Iran-contra prosecution was politically motivated. And George was grateful not only for the first President Bush’s pardon but for his statement of support. So now, don’t look for George to join the outraged voices protesting the Libby commutation. “I’m a registered Democrat, an opponent of the war, and I’m not a happy camper under this administration,” George says. “But this is ridiculous.”

The words of Bush's father seems so prophetic here:
"The prosecutions of the individuals I am pardoning represent what I believe is a profoundly troubling development in the political and legal climate of our country: the criminalization of policy differences. These differences should be addressed in the political arena, without the Damocles sword of criminality hanging over the heads of some of the combatants. The proper target is the president, not his subordinates; the proper forum is the voting booth, not the courtroom. . . . It is my hope that the action I am taking today will begin to restore these disputes to the battleground where they properly belong."

Now really, is there any D or R out there who thinks it would be a good thing for political leanings to become criminal? How would you like to go to jail over a trumped up charge just because of which letter was by your name?

Hey 'lunchbreak Laura':

Every time I read one of your hateful posts calling other Americans every name in the bookt simply because they have different views than you do, it further confirms that I am on the 'right' side of the issues.

You CLAIM to be as red blooded American as they come, but the one thing that defines America the best is freedom of expression, diversity of opiniuon, and toleration of the views of others.

As the song goes..."I wouldn't wanna be like you"!

Now go punch back in and start making widgets again before your factory gets moved to Mexico, or your job gets moved to China!

Truthy- the democrats have won back congress because the general population had lost faith in Bush's administration. Yet the congress has done nothing (outside of a minimum wage bump). The entire government is a sham nowadays. You have Bush and Cheney vs. Pelosi, Reid and Schumer. Its not pretty. But you Bush bashers are wasting your time. He can't run in 2008 so why don't you do something constructive. Instead you insist day-in-day-out on Bush bashing. Hardly constructive.

Posted by: benson at July 3, 2007 1:15 PM

I fully agree that the big-money club in Washington results in little being done for the good of the nation despite which party holds what power. Multiple parties across the political spectrum - from anarchists and communists all the way over to Nazis and Republicans - are what we need to really make democracy work. Its really the only way to get realistic, meaningful political discourse to happen.

But demanding impeachment is not "Bush-Bashing", its demanding accountability from our leadership, and protecting or system of government from further demolition. He may be a lame duck, but who knows when Ann Coulter may be successful in getting Justices Kennedy or Ginsberg killed? A third Bush appointee on the court would ensure a Bush regime for years to come.

It would be Gonzales, and nobody would do anything about it.

Your grounds for impeachment are hardly sound. Hearings will prove that Bush is well isolated from illegal acts. Wire taps, gonzales firings, etc. You'll see that they will only shake out to be smaller than whitewater and travelgate.

hmmm.... interesting tidbit i came across.

In the trial of Mark Rich, Fitgerald was the prosecutor and Libby was the defense attorney.

Anyone else suspecting perhaps a bit of a personal vendetta may be involved here?

"I don't see anyone denying the Clinton pardons."

I dont see anyone (on the left) denouncing them either.

"I also remember when Clinton did it it was all over the news with republicans pointing out that it was inexcusable or worse."

Because they were "pay for pardons" pardons. Which is not the case in Libbys commutation (which is not a pardon). And explain to me the pardons of FALN terrorists, against the wishes of both the DoJ AND the convicted! They got those pardons, even though they never asked for them, and some of them didnt even want a pardon!

"Now its more of the "two wrongs make a right"."

No, its more a case of you comparing apples and oranges.

bottom line here-

most poeple could give a rat's fanny about Scooter Libby, whenther he is free or goes to jail for the rest of his life. In fact, most people dont even know why he was convicted in the first place. The ecomomy and the stock market, which has been really solid over the Bush years is something that these stupid Dems. will not ever, ever give him credit for. Yeah Scooter is more important to my life than my job, morons.

Boy, do I feel sorry for the guy who has to watch Olbermann tonight for our benefit here at OW. Some alcohol may be in order!

Posted by: cee at July 3, 2007 10:23 AM

Here, here! Though I do hope it J$. No one recaps like him.

My favs from the last review:

3. Ding! (I don't know why I love that)
2. Chickens have lips
1. Olbybarrassment

no worries, Doc-the over/under line on KO's total viewers for tonight is about 12(like every night).

Your grounds for impeachment are hardly sound. Hearings will prove that Bush is well isolated from illegal acts. Wire taps, gonzales firings, etc. You'll see that they will only shake out to be smaller than whitewater and travelgate.

Posted by: benson at July 3, 2007 1:56 PM

"I have reauthorized this program 14 times since 9/11"

So a brazen public admission of guilt is being "well-isolated from illegal acts"?

At least we agree on one point: Bring on thise hearings!

...and how bad does it have to be on your side that you include in your arguments as your standards of political morality "He's well-isolated from illegal acts"?

Here's another bench-mark for you: When you get to the point of having to make statements like that, they are probably not true.

Doc regarding the show 'recaps': "Though I do hope it's J$. No one recaps like him."

Translation: 'No one smears someone you want to see smeared like him'.

I've noticed one consistant common denominator from Bush defenders regarding his acts of immorality, excessive partisanship, or lack of ethics:

It's ALWAYS about legality....ethics or morality never seem to enter into their thinking. As long as something is techincally LEGAL....it's perfectly OK with them!

"It's ALWAYS about legality....ethics or morality never seem to enter into their thinking."

Mike, do you even read anything conservatives say or write?
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDk4ZWM0N2RiZWZkZjE4NzFmMWEyYzM4ODYzMTQ3Mzc=

Since this entire monkey trial BEGAN I've heard nothing but moral arguments from conservatives and that pardoning libby is the "right" thing to do.

I am not surprised by the howling from the left. Their hypocrisy has no bounds. The presidential pardon and commutation of sentences is used by every president. And since Dullbermann brought Clinton into the conversation, let's look at Clinton's pardons (not commutations).
Joseph A. Yasak N. D. Ill. 1988 Knowingly making under oath a false declaration regarding a material fact before a Grand Jury, 18 U.S.C. § 1623
Jack L. Williams D. Dist. Col. 1998 Making false statements to federal agents (two counts), 18 U.S.C. § 1001

Jack Kenneth Watson D. Oregon 1985 Making false statements of material facts to the United States Forest Service, 18 U.S.C. § 1001

John Fife Symington, III D. Ariz. 1996 indictment; 1997 superseding indictment False statements to federally insured financial institutions, wire fraud, attempted extortion, and false statements in bankruptcy proceeding, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1014, 1343, 1951, 152, 2(a) and 2(b)

Gerald Glen Rust E. D. Tex. 1991 False declarations before grand jury, 18 U.S.C. § 1623

Jerri Ann Rust E. D. Tex. 1991 False declarations before grand jury, 18 U.S.C. § 1623

Robert William Palmer E. D. Ark. 1995 Conspiracy to make false statements, 18 U.S.C. § 371

Verla Jean Allen W. D. Ark. 1990 False statements to agency of United States, 15 U.S.C. § 714m(a)

Pardons of people that made false statements and other crimes close. But that is nothing compared to the pardons given for drug offenses. The word "cocaine" appears in Clinton's list of pardons over 50 times. Not that the left cares. Bush is eeeeeeevil.

But Challenger how in blazes can a "moral argument" be made for pardoning someone who lied under oath and obstructed justice (just before a critical election, no less). The FACT that Libby did in fact lie under oath is not even being questioned. You or I would not have been pardoned (or have our sentence commuted)for the same offense...so why should Scooter Libby?

As for "have I ever read anything conservatives say or write'? Of course I have. I used to be a conservative and I still admire 'conservative' Patrick Buchanon as much as anyone.

This irrepairably corrupt, incompetent, and hopelessly partisan current batch of so called 'conservatives' is what spoiled it for me.

"The FACT that Libby did in fact lie under oath is not even being questioned. You or I would not have been pardoned (or have our sentence commuted)for the same offense...so why should Scooter Libby?"

Actually, you or I wouldn't have even been brought to trial. This entire ordeal is a show trial and yes many are questioning the "lie under oath" claim. Most conservatives I've run across agree that this was just an honest mistake (unless you really believe that people can recall exact conversations from years back with perfect accuracy). The entire trial was a "he said-she said" joke and the "lie" that they got him on was who libby had heard the news from. Wow! Big freakin' crap! Fitzgerald CLAIMS that libby's testimony "hindered" the investigation but after seeing the testimony he's being punished for, I'm having trouble figuring out how that could have hindered anyone midly competant.

And see my earlier post about these 2 having cross paths before. None of this has been about "justice". If it was, Libby wouldn't have been tried for having a faulty memory. (like oh say... 90% of the human race?)

Seriously, YOU want the system to be able to send you to jail because you remembered an event differently from someone else? Or that you confused a middle-age newspaper columnist with a middle-age tv commentator?

I find it ironic that for all the liberals cry of "justice" and fairness, they seem more than willing to hang someone when justice and fairness would demand that they not even BOTHER with a trial.

This case did more to undermine the freedom of this country than anything else in the last 7 years and I'm NOT talking about the pardon.

MIke- you seem to think that immorality is a staple of the republicans only. Pulease. Your party has been swallowed up in scandal for twenty years. Thats why I hate dems. They act like they have moral authority, yet power corrupts on both sides. Cut and paste this... hearings will not lead to impeachment. Fitzgerald tried.... now he has nothing.

And anyone that thinks that the NEW hearings on the Libby pardon isn't just pure politics, is an idiot. Its just another opportunity for a Pelosi, Hillary, and Reid soundbite to be run on the mainstream news. And the result- nothing! There is nothing illegal or unprecedented by Bush's actions. But this do nothing congress loves to drag their feet.

You democrats who have whined for 6 years have brought nothing to the table... SURPRISED??????

The problem (IMO benson) is that liberals more and more seem to be consumed with the idea that their ideological opponents must be from Satan himself for disagreeing with them. Nowadays it seems harder and harder to convince people that someone can believe differently and still be a decent person.

Sadly it looks like the infection is spreading to conservative side.

Mike,

Duh! This is an anti-fan site. You know, like the way people root against the Yankees or the Patriots.

You're the one who confused it generous open forum for a political soapbox.

Most of us could care less about political parties, presidential races, healtcare, the economy or the war. Through whatever breaks and means our position in life is such those things don't affect us.

But we do hate that swarmy, smug, pompous Keith Olbermann. And we hate the fact he is going to fuck up football on NBC like he did MSNBC. So we come here to rejoice in his failings and then move along with our day.

Life is good!

From ICN 7-03-07
MSNBC's release on its Q2 2007 results:

MSNBC completed yet another quarter with spectacular ratings increases. For the third consecutive quarter, the network pushed past the competition to achieve more growth than any other cable news network.

"Countdown with Keith Olbermann" (8:00 - 9:00 p.m. ET) continues its amazing growth surge, up +72% in total viewers (710,000 v. 412,000) and +54% in the adult demo (241,000 v. 156,000) while CNN dropped -2% in total viewers (594,000 v. 605,000) and Fox News Channel grew +7% in total viewers (2,220,000 v. 2,077,000). "Countdown" maintained its position in second place at 8:00 p.m, with a 20% advantage in total viewers over CNN.

Here's a concept that might be hard for some of you to understand. It was wrong for President Clinton to lie under oath, even if he was lying about something that people quite often lie about. It was wrong for Mr. Libby to lie under oath. President Clinton certainly suffered the consequences and so should Mr. Libby.
It was wrong for Mr. Clinton to pardon people for purely political reasons. It is wrong for Mr. Bush to do the same. Don't defend Mr. Bush for doing so while you're criticizing Mr. Clinton. At least there was no reason to think that Clinton's pardons were protecting him; there is some reason to think that Mr. Libby might have talked about Mr. Cheney but for the pardon. And I think his attorneys would have put up a more aggressive defense, including calling Mr. Cheney to the stand, had they not known this was coming down the pipe.
Both the prosecutor and the CIA say that Ms. Plame was a covert agent; I'll take their opinion over those who post on this site.
Neighbors and relatives of the Wilsons were astonished when this disclosure was made, so I truly don't think Mr. Wilson was whispering to people at cocktail parties about his wife's status.
It seems quite clear that both Mr. Cheney (via Mr. Libby)and Mr. Armitage revealed her status. It was not just Mr. Armitage.

The problem (IMO benson) is that liberals more and more seem to be consumed with the idea that their ideological opponents must be from Satan himself for disagreeing with them. Nowadays it seems harder and harder to convince people that someone can believe differently and still be a decent person.

Sadly it looks like the infection is spreading to conservative side.

Posted by: Challenger Grim at July 3, 2007 4:12 PM

How do you classify those of us who advocate following procedure, and the rule of law as opposed to the arbitrary rule of men? We don't want President Pelosi to have the unconstitutional powers that Bush has carved out for himself (but appears to be in danger of losing them to his own hubris) any more than we want George Bush, Jeb Bush, and Neil Bush to have them. Its just not American.

You drowning-rat righties appear to just want your own side to win, our venerable system be damned.

I call bullshit on the ratings data.

Olbermann's ratings "surge" coupled with his special comment tonight will bring a whole lot of MSM love. Brace yourselves folks...

"How do you classify those of us who advocate following procedure, and the rule of law as opposed to the arbitrary rule of men?"

That you're apparently more interested with the letter of the law than the spirit. Or to put it another way, you're hung up on the "arbitrary rule of men" (laws which have been made by congress et al) rather than appeal to the metaphysical "high law" which every other civilization in history has at least paid lip service to.

"You drowning-rat righties appear to just want your own side to win, our venerable system be damned. "

I'll say again, nothing damned our "venerable system" more than this joke of a trial. Now think REAL hard about what you're saying with advocating the rule of law. I mean go out somewhere and start looking up ALL the laws (federal and state) which apply in your area and I'll gaurantee you that you'll find some you've broken (99% of the time without realizing it). Yet do you really think it "violates the rule of law" that a lot of these laws are not enforced or ever applied to some people (both the silly and serious ones).

This entire trial proved one thing: If you want to throw someone in jail, just dig around and you'll be able to convict them on SOMETHING no matter how unfair or unjust.

And yet THAT doesn't concern you?

Yes, I'm conservative, so yeah I 'design' government with the idea of my enemies running it (keep it small and limited to prevent extensive damage).

"It was wrong for President Clinton to lie under oath, even if he was lying about something that people quite often lie about. It was wrong for Mr. Libby to lie under oath."

The only problem with that is Libby didn't lie. He lost a popularity contest with Russert.

"Both the prosecutor and the CIA say that Ms. Plame was a covert agent; I'll take their opinion over those who post on this site."

I'd take their opinion too if it was backed up with action.
Outing a COVERT agent is a crime is it not Bing?
Why then didn't the prosecutor (who claims she was covert) actually PROSECUTE anyone for comitting the above listed crime?

If "you liberals" are so hell bent on righting the wrong of Plame, why then aren't you screaming louder and longer for the prosecution of Richard Armitage? If we're all concerned about the "rule of law" etc etc, why the heck is he walking around scot free then?

CG- They don't want justice... they want rove or cheney's head on a platter?

I've noticed one consistant common denominator from Bush defenders regarding his acts of immorality, excessive partisanship, or lack of ethics:

It's ALWAYS about legality....ethics or morality never seem to enter into their thinking. As long as something is techincally LEGAL....it's perfectly OK with them!

Posted by: Mike at July 3, 2007 3:09 PM

Your argument so far has been completely predicated on the legal grounds you've just knocked as being less compelling than the abstract notion of right and wrong.

You've made an argument based the claim of some utter impartiality of a prosecutor to the extent that you unquestioning accept the argument of the prosecutorial side of the equation in the a way that you would not for the defense side.

You've argued that the will and authority of a jury is unassailable (wonder why we bother with an appeal system...) and you've repeatedly referenced sentencing guideline solely from the aspect of their being legal parameters to jail sentences while completely ignoring the non-codified aspect of sentencing based upon the disgression of a judge.

So... it's not too surprising that when you do delve into an area of supra-legal concern-- the appearance of impropriety--- that in a case where no charges were brought on the original "crime", where witnesses called by the Prosecution misspoke and mis-remembered during the trial and where the act of perjury was based on a conflict between the story of a journalist (Tim Russert) and the story of an Administration official (Scooter Libby).... that ANY concern you exprerss about ETHICS as opposed to the utter Letter of the Law is completely one-sided too....

Just On Tucker: Liberal leaning columnist Tim Nowan just took the dems to task for whining about the communtation of the Libby sentence. He stated the sentence is excessive. Additionally he is concerned that many liberals still maintain that clinton never lied under oath. Imagine that... a thoughtful democrat.

> I call bullshit on the ratings data.

As you should. For four reasons.

1. When a network crows about how fast it is "growing" that means it ain't winning. It's still losing, but by a little less. A-Mess-NBC is still in a losing position. And there's a reason why they're crowing about quarterly numbers, and not monthly ones.

B.: Note that they trumpet that Countdown is in 2nd place in "total viewers" (again quarterly numbers, not monthly). What's this? Herr Olbermann has been cackling about the only important ratings are those in the coveted, "key demo". But all of a sudden they don't mention how The Hour of Spin is doing in the key demo. Hmmmm.

III: Remember that A-Mess-NBC uses the inflated "live plus" ratings system, a unique choice to them because it just so happens to pump their numbers up more than the ratings advertisers traditionally use.

4.: Something's missing. Why no mention of Headline News? Aren't they a cable new channel? How does Olby compare to Nancy Grace? I can assure you THOSE numbers were deliberately left out for a very good reason.

"the only problem is that Libby didn't lie. He lost a popularity contest with Russart."

Incredible! You make such a statement as if it were fact. A JURY found differently. The jury didn't find him guilty of a "faulty memory"....they found him guilty of lying because they believed he deliberately lied.

A REPUBLICAN appointed US attorney felt he had "sand thrown in his face" that effectively kept him from getting to the bottom of the Plame affair in 2004....JUST BEFORE THE CRITICAL 2004 ELECTION.

YOU may think hindering a critical investigation into possible political corruption JUST BEFORE A CRITICAL ELECTION is OK, but I don't!

This entire secretive administration, along with the legally proven help of Scooter Libby, has been knowingly 'throwing sand in the face' of the American people AND Congress for over 6 years now. As a direct result, 4000 Americans are dead in an and ill advised and unnecesary war with a resulting occupation that may well haunt our nation forever, the country is deeper in debt and more divided than it has ever been (in my 55 year lifetime, anyway).

This is a major difference in the arguments from both sides. The right wants to look at every issue regarding the leadup to the war, the war itself, and this administration's power grabbing as if they were all isolated incidents. However, it is all part of a very deliberate pattern of deception, incompetence, partanship, and secrecy that has taken us to the sorry state we find ourselves in today.

I continue to find it incredible that so many right wing republicans continue to find the all of this so forgivable.

And I continue to find it incredible that so many left wing dems continue to find everything this administration does as a conspiracy or malicious.

That you're apparently more interested with the letter of the law than the spirit. Or to put it another way, you're hung up on the "arbitrary rule of men" (laws which have been made by congress et al) rather than appeal to the metaphysical "high law" which every other civilization in history has at least paid lip service to.

Wrong! Please refer to your 7th grade civics book. Laws made by congress then signed or vetoed by the executive, then intepreted and assesed by the judiciary IS the procedure I was talking about. "Rule by men", as used y the framers of the constitution referred to the arbitrary exercise of unwarranted portions of these various powers by individual entities of government. Bush has intruded into the purviews of the other braches of government many times, and the pervasive corruption engendered by a vast right-wing conspiracy in the interest of a military/industrial oligarchy for the past decades has made it entirely likely that the ship of state will be unable to right itself.

This should concern you, because it is entirely likely that the Democrats will sieze the executive branch in 2008, and probably enhance their standings in the legislative branch. I guarantee you that it will still concern me then.

...to continue: if we progressives and Democrats can force the Democratic leadership to do the right thing now (i.e. smack down an out-of-control executive) we will all have to worry less about them exercizing dictatorship if and when they are able to use the remaining shreds of our system (elections) to oust the Republican meatheads.

What's your solution? Support the peaceful remedy provided by the constitution now, or engage in guerilla insurgency against a Pelosi junta later?

A REPUBLICAN appointed US attorney felt he had "sand thrown in his face" that effectively kept him from getting to the bottom of the Plame affair in 2004....JUST BEFORE THE CRITICAL 2004 ELECTION.

Posted by: Mike at July 3, 2007 5:16 PM

You do understand that this is the argument of a Prosecutor prosecuting a case, don't you?

It's not something down from Mt. Sinai just because it's Scooter Libby, any more than it would be if it were Ken Starr.

The jury did rule against Libby, but juries aren't infallable either.... Judges and sentencing certainly arent.....that's why you shouldn't make an argument predicated upon strict adherence to sentencing guidelines (the letter of the law) while claiming your opponents look only to codified law in judging what is right and wrong.

Based on YOUR own words here, your opponents do have an argument that Libby's behavior did not merit the severe treatment he received as to length of term, jail time during appeal process, etc.

"The jury did rule against Libby, but juries aren't infallable either.... "

No, apparently only your moron boy-god messaih princeling president is infallible.

Mind slaves.

I'll return later to address what I can, but first I have this rebuttal to mike:

"Incredible! You make such a statement as if it were fact. A JURY found differently. The jury didn't find him guilty of a "faulty memory"....they found him guilty of lying because they believed he deliberately lied."

*sigh* do some research.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDY1MGY0Mjk1OGVjNmM2YzIxNjdiYjBhZmZiOTM4NmU=

York: What convinced jurors to convict Libby, apparently, was the credibility of a single prosecution witness, NBC’s Tim Russert.

The JUROR'S OWN WORDS:
"There was a tremendous amount of sympathy for Mr. Libby on the jury"
“I thought he[russert] was very credible. A lot of people thought he was very credible.”
-Denis Collins

The entire trial was over that Libby said 1 thing, Russert said another.

Libby was convicted, hence he "lost" the contest. The fact that you can't see that either means you haven't looked into this travesty enough or you are severly lacking in common sense. For now, I'll believe the former.

No, apparently only your moron boy-god messaih princeling president is infallible.

Mind slaves.

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at July 3, 2007 5:47 PM

I prefer Capitalist Pig Enemy of The Prole Mind Slave.

What's your solution? Support the peaceful remedy provided by the constitution now, or engage in guerilla insurgency against a Pelosi junta later?

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at July 3, 2007 5:33 PM

It depends.

What color are the uniforms?

"YOU may think hindering a critical investigation into possible political corruption JUST BEFORE A CRITICAL ELECTION is OK, but I don't!"

The problem with that statement is that you presume that libby KNEW that what he said was false beforehand. Is there even a SLIGHT chance in your mind that someone may be mistaken about the details of something that happened YEARS ago? Not to mention I have yet to hear any details on HOW exactly libby's testimony "hindered" investigations especially since there were some signs that Fitz knew who the leaker was before he even got to libby. If you're so concerned about this case than why aren't you crying about how Libby is distracting us from the REAL criminal- Richard Armitage? Shouldn't HE be serving jail time?

"...the country is deeper in debt and more divided than it has ever been (in my 55 year lifetime, anyway)."

WHOA! The country is even more divided now than it was during the civil war???? Or even the revolutionary war?

Seriously, reread what you just wrote then go stand in the corner and contemplate that if your BDS has led you to make such a patently false statement, maybe some other things MIGHT be a little mistaken?

Just came from "bung hole" tweaking the loons.

The women are writhing and twisting in unbearable menstrual agony brought on by the thought of a special comment from their idol.

The male loons are pumping and pounding, threatening and baiting anyone who dare to disagree. This is fun to watch.

Hopefully Shuster will be available to "fluff" Kieth just before the special comment and he will pop tonite also.

No, I would never watch, I will wait for the recap thank you very much.

It depends.

What color are the uniforms?

Posted by: Cecelia at July 3, 2007 5:58 PM

:D Haha! lol!

"Wrong! Please refer to your 7th grade civics book. ..."

Sorry Sir Loin, you are mistaken.

You refer to laws based upon their origin: republic vs dictator. Democracy vs monarchy... etc

I refer to the letter vs the spirit of the law.

Congress can pass and the president can sign into a law requiring every citizen to eat Irish babies but that doesn't make it right.

You claim to want to limit powers now to "protect" people from power-hungry politicans. Fine, then support the freedom of Libby. His entire show trial was nothing more than political excess and he went to jail just because his recollection conflicted with another person's. Do you REALLY want to support a system where you can be punished just for having a faulty memory? Think about it...

It depends.

What color are the uniforms?

Posted by: Cecelia at July 3, 2007 5:58 PM

The scary thing is, I think that your statement is more truthful than you would care to admit.

Incredible! You make such a statement as if it were fact.

Posted by: "mike" at July 3, 2007 5:16 PM

Like you don't do this in every single one of your posts? Need I say the "H" word?

"The problem with that statement is you presume Libby knew what he said was false beforehand."

Ye, I make that presumption because that is exactly the presumption the jury made. The classic definition of a 'lie' is to "know what he said was false beforehand." If the jury had believed it was simply a case of a faulty memory, as you are arguing, they would not have convicted....nor would it have been a 'lie'.

Right, Mike. And the jury's strong "sympathy for Libby" cited a few posts above by one of his unconditional defenders here only reinforces the conclusion that the case against him was very strong.

The scary thing is, I think that your statement is more truthful than you would care to admit.

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at July 3, 2007 6:14 PM

Okay... okay... I'll try to take your reference to a "Pelosi Junta" more seriously...

"Ye, I make that presumption because that is exactly the presumption the jury made."

Then we come to the crux of the problem. I don't believe he did lie, as do 90% other conservatives.

But then again, when pulling a jury from the most heavily democrat region in the country, do you honestly think there's ANY chance the jury might have considered an alternative?

Of course the jury second-guessed even itself:
“It was said a number of times, ‘What are we doing with this guy here? Where’s Rove? Where are these other guys?’ I’m not saying we didn’t think Mr. Libby was guilty of the things we found him guilty of. It seemed like he was, as [Libby attorney Ted] Wells put it, he was the fall guy.” -Denis Collins

It's ALWAYS about legality....ethics or morality never seem to enter into their thinking. As long as something is techincally LEGAL....it's perfectly OK with them!

Posted by: Mike at July 3, 2007 3:09 PM

Benson some distance above happily argued that Bush is "well-isolated from illegal acts"; pretty much illustrating your point perfectly.

Okay... okay... I'll try to take your reference to a "Pelosi Junta" more seriously...

Posted by: Cecelia at July 3, 2007 6:23 PM

Well you should. Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and Washington would have.

Well you should. Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and Washington would have.

================================

Sir Beef, you do know that each of those which were president, pardoned more people than Bush 2 has right? Hamilton himself said:
“The criminal code of every country partakes so much of necessary severity, that without an easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel.” -Federalist 74

Of course the jury second-guessed even itself:
“It was said a number of times, ‘What are we doing with this guy here? Where’s Rove? Where are these other guys?’ I’m not saying we didn’t think Mr. Libby was guilty of the things we found him guilty of. It seemed like he was, as [Libby attorney Ted] Wells put it, he was the fall guy.” -Denis Collins

Posted by: Challenger Grim at July 3, 2007 6:24 PM

Wow. Can you even read? If so, you should read the stuff you cut and paste to ensure that it doesn't burn your argument to the ground before we can even get to it. ...or maybe you are just trying to bore us out of your face by defeating yourself for us. very clever.

"The problem with that statement is you presume Libby knew what he said was false beforehand."

Ye, I make that presumption because that is exactly the presumption the jury made. The classic definition of a 'lie' is to "know what he said was false beforehand." If the jury had believed it was simply a case of a faulty memory, as you are arguing, they would not have convicted....nor would it have been a 'lie'.

Posted by: Mike at July 3, 2007 6:18 PM

Beside the logical fallacy of begging the question (assuming certain conclusions are true), there's another one called circular reasoning (supporting the premise-- that you believe the jury was correct--- with your premise--- that is the way the jury ruled and they are correct)

Wow. Can you even read?

================================

*sigh* Yes Sir Beef, I said the jury was second guessing itself. On the one hand they say "we think he's guilty" on the other they say: "What are we doing with this guy here?"

Still, even I shed that one argument you still have about two dozen more to reply to.

Okay... okay... I'll try to take your reference to a "Pelosi Junta" more seriously...

Posted by: Cecelia at July 3, 2007 6:23 PM

Well you should. Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and Washington would have.

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at July 3, 2007 6:32 PM

As dire as things are to you, Sir Loin.... No, Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison would not have taken the threat of a Pelosi Junta seriously either... :D

"What are we doing with this guy here?"

Fitzgerald's answer has been "Scooter obstructed the ability of The People to gather the evidence needed to bring Rove et. al. to the bench." That's why there's a crime called "obstruction of justice"

The jury apparently agreed.

A nice addition to J$ recap:

American Thinker Blog:
NBC News Tag Line: 'We're Just Making it Up' by Christopher Alleva

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/07/nbc_news_tag_line_were_just_ma.html

Undeterred, Olbermann made this Freudian slip:

"I was going to ask you, history has proved time and time again that Americans don't like their president overruling the courts. The point David Shuster just made up-made, made, that just until now..."

Olbermann was visibly flustered by his inadvertent admission.

As dire as things are to you, Sir Loin.... No, Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison would not have taken the threat of a Pelosi Junta seriously either... :D

Posted by: Cecelia at July 3, 2007 6:46 PM

Emoticons notwithstanding, I think the constitution, the Federalist Papers, and Washington's farewell adress take exception with your flipancy.

Fitzgerald's answer has been "Scooter obstructed the ability of The People to gather the evidence needed to bring Rove et. al. to the bench." That's why there's a crime called "obstruction of justice"

The jury apparently agreed.

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at July 3, 2007 6:49 PM

duh

Fitzgerald's answer has been "Scooter obstructed the ability of The People to gather the evidence needed to bring Rove et. al. to the bench." That's why there's a crime called "obstruction of justice"

==================================

*sigh* ok, let's try this...
"Bring Rove et al to the bench"
FOR WHAT CRIME?

Being a bunch of R's?

The "bunghole" blog finally changed the "pardoned" to "commuted"---Good thing J$ got the original screen grab.

At least Variety mentioned HLN beating Olbermann:

In the hypercompetitive 8 p.m. hour, "The O'Reilly Factor" was up 7% to average 2.2 million viewers. Second-place "Countdown With Keith Olbermann" was up 72% in total viewers with 710,000, and "Paula Zahn Now" was down 2% to 594,000.

Headline News' "Nancy Grace" is also a factor at 8 p.m. She took second place to O'Reilly during the month of June with 691,000 viewers, while Olbermann drew 597,000 and Zahn 524,000.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117968015.html?categoryid=14&cs=1

Can you imagine the blog outrage (not to mention the TV Newser) feature if Fox News had made such a mistake on the Pardon versus Commute? It would be plastered on blogs all over the 'net. But let Olbermann make a mistake and we never hear about it on TVN or certain other websites. I guess they just can't admit that Olbermann and his dweeb staff are ever wrong.

All I know is this:

After Dopey has his 'krazy koment' tonight, and after MSDNC crowed about ratings.

Two things are a sure thing Wed. morning.

Bush & Cheney will still have their jobs.

O'Reilly will still be in first place.

Oh and in case Keith's man crush ALGORE has been talking smack.

The sun will come up.

I just need to reillustrate the fcat that Bush is isolated from illegal acts. He is not malicious and surely not stupid. Thats why hearings and special prosecutors have turned up zilch so far.

Juxtapose that to Clinton's circumventing prosecution. To name a few.
-Clinton himself lies under oath during a sexual discrimination suit.
-A witness refuses to testify and is sent to jail, Then McDougal is pardoned.
-During travelgate important memos and documents mysteriously disappear and then reappear months later. Apparently altered.
-And of course, During 9/11 investigation one of his minions, Sandy Berger steals documents regarding his administration.

That is how a president bungles, lies, and cheats. Spare me your indignation on the Libby cummutation.

So apparently to Grim, the only people who are guilty of any crimes are the ones who are successfully prosecuted and serving time.

================================

Wait? What? I'm SPECIFICALLY pointing out (especially in the quote you posted) that if there was a crime of which a person was guilty, why then aren't we calling for that person to be tried and convicted. Explain to me why Libby deserves to be jailed when Armitage is getting off scot free.

Maybe Fitzgerald KNEW who did what but couldn't prove it in court.

=================================

...ok, have you studied the case at all? I mean AT ALL?

Fitzgerald had MANY times the witness to convict Armitage than he did Libby.

How about instead of offering maybes you get the FACTS (which contradict your "theory").

He wouldn't be convicted of losing a popularity contest.

==================================

Seriously child, shut up about something which you know nothing and go learn something about logic, metaphors and analogies.

Emoticons notwithstanding, I think the constitution, the Federalist Papers, and Washington's farewell adress take exception with your flipancy.

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at July 3, 2007 6:51 PM

"Emotions notwithstanding"? No, emtions are certainly withstanding here....

Hyperbole about a "Pelosi Junta" isn't made any less emotional or reasonable simply because you reference George Washington and the Constitution...

Oh crap, how could I have forgotten about this...

Sir Beef, Mike, (any others)

How do you reply to the fact that ONE OF THE JURORS said that Libby should be pardoned?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17506701/
“I would like him to get” a pardon from Bush, Redington said. “It kind of bothers me that there was this whole big crime being investigated and he got caught up in the investigation as opposed to in the actual crime that was supposedly committed.”

of course I'm still wondering:
What IS the ACTUAL CRIME which Libby supposedly took the fall for?

duh

Posted by: Cecelia at July 3, 2007 6:51 PM

don't tell me; tell Grim

Oh yeah, and why isn't anyone bringing up the defense's response to this case? As York pointed out with their arguments:

Time after time during jury selection, Libby’s lawyers tried to elicit their feelings on their memory and whether it is as reliable as they sometimes believe. “Have you ever had a situation where you and a good friend had a disagreement about something that happened in the past, and you thought it happened one way and your friend thought it happened another way?” Wells asked one juror, repeating a question asked of all.

“Yes,” the man answered.

“And did both of you hold your recollections in good faith?”

“Yes.”

“And both of you were confident in your recollection?”

“Yes.”

“And it turned out that one of you was right and one was wrong?”

“Yes.”

The message was clear, if unspoken: The defense wants to convince jurors that Libby might remember something one way, and Tim Russert might remember it another. Nobody is lying.

...

Day One of the trial will feature the judge’s instructions to the jurors. Those instructions were drafted in consultation with both prosecution and defense, and as part of that, the Libby team submitted perhaps the most succinct statement of its view of the case, in the form of suggested instructions. “Mr. Libby denies that he intended to or did obstruct justice, make intentionally false statements to the FBI, or make intentionally false statements to the grand jury,” Libby’s team argued. He told the truth to the FBI and the grand jury, Libby said, and if what he said wasn’t correct, it was because his memory failed, because he had no notes of the conversations about which he was questioned and wasn’t allowed to refresh his recollection by talking to others. “He contends that any conversations he had about Ambassador Wilson’s wife during June and July 2003 were so brief, and the information he received so incidental to the issues he was dealing with, that he honestly did not recall them when he was questioned about them.”

So of course, for the above, Libby must burn at the stake right?

I can't remember who said what in reference to me, but this is what I have to say. I brought up Clinton's pardons not to show that he was worse than Bush, but that they both had the power to pardon/commute. I may personally disagree with decisions but it doesn't change the underlying fact. The framers had to have known that the power could be abused (I am not stating that it was or was not) but empowered the President.

Next. I never said that the jury was on Libby's side but only that public statements from two indicated that the jurors would not be upset with a pardon (which did not even occur). I think it was Truth who said that Collins statement that he wouldn't be upset with a pardon did not indicate that he didn't want Libby to do jail time. He obviously is not upset about the outcome here and isn't that the point?

I found it interesting that I think Grim discovered that Fitzgerald and Libby were opposing attorneys in the Marc Rich case.

Sir LOB,

There are people on this site who continually make excuses as to why impeachment proceedings should not be instituted. Cee is the most vehement supporter of leading the charge. I agree. Bring it on. Get it out in the open. See whose hands are clean. Maybe that is why you won't see it happen. Hold all of our reps accountable, one way or the other.

don't tell me; tell Grim

===============================

Shut up Beef, I never denied that the jury disagreed, I said that they (and the prosecutor) were wrong.

A jury of twelve could convict you of devouring the souls of orphans and flossing your teeth with kittens but I still wouldn't believe it.

of course I'm still wondering:
What IS the ACTUAL CRIME which Libby supposedly took the fall for?

Posted by: Challenger Grim at July 3, 2007 8:42 PM

Well, he was found guilty of obstruction of justice - lying under oath. That's really all that's relevant in regard to his case - remember? In Clinton's case, it wasn't the blowjob, it was his lie.

"How do you reply to the fact that ONE OF THE JURORS said that Libby should be pardoned?"

Irrelevant. The jury does a job under instructions from the judge, and then they are through.

Any more embarrassing elementary questions?

There are people on this site who continually make excuses as to why impeachment proceedings should not be instituted. Cee is the most vehement supporter of leading the charge. I agree. Bring it on. Get it out in the open. See whose hands are clean. Maybe that is why you won't see it happen. Hold all of our reps accountable, one way or the other.

Posted by: Sharon at July 3, 2007 8:47 PM

That's all I'm saying. We can all believe vastly different things, but we have to play by the rules or it just wont work.

It just kills me that so many of my countrymen would sell out our republic just to make ridiculous excuses for their fetish/leader to let him keep his criminal secrets.

Well, he was found guilty of obstruction of justice - lying under oath. That's really all that's relevant in regard to his case - remember? In Clinton's case, it wasn't the blowjob, it was his lie.

=================================

I asked because motive is an important part of criminal proceedings. There's also common sense:

"Fitzgerald’s entire prosecution is based on a couple of conversations in which Libby is said to have said things like, “Yeah, I’ve heard that, too,” when reporters brought up the fact that Valerie Plame Wilson worked for the CIA and had a role in sending her husband to Niger. From that tiny seed grew the entire case. Now it’s time to test Fitzgerald’s case."

Now think for a moment, what POSSIBLE "justice" could libby obstruct with the above? Was inspector closteou [sp?] on the case?

...to let him keep his criminal secrets.

hmmm.... bias much?

I'd now love to see a show trial for post-POTUS W (since there's no way he's going to be removed from office beforehand) just to see how Sir LOB might react when the jury finds him completely innocent.

Will he be as "confident" in them then?

Or is the just only right when they come up with the answer you want?

Shut up Beef, I never denied that the jury disagreed, I said that they (and the prosecutor) were wrong.

A jury of twelve could convict you of devouring the souls of orphans and flossing your teeth with kittens but I still wouldn't believe it.

Posted by: Challenger Grim at July 3, 2007 8:49 PM

They were wrong? aout what? the verdict; the sentence; both?

You might find it interesting to know that there is actually a mechanism in our justice system to correct mistaken verdicts/sentences - it called an "appeal". Our founders thought that this procedure just might work better than trotting out the King, Ceasar, or Holy Auger to turn their thimbs up or down in any particular case.

Why no appeals for Libby? Bush actually SAID he was guilty; he just thought the sentence was too harsh. This entire case results from the administration's efforts to sheild themselves and their raft of misdeeds from the light of day.

Actually, Sir LOB, i hope you NEVER have to get up on a witness stand, because if any other witness contradicts you, you can be tried and jailed for "perjury" and "obstruction of justice".

At least, by your logic in supporting this case.

But of course, Bush and Co are the 'threat' to America.

Will he be as "confident" in them then?

Or is the just only right when they come up with the answer you want?

Posted by: Challenger Grim at July 3, 2007 9:03 PM

Who knows? Why not ask Bush why he fears such a test?

it called an "appeal". Our founders thought that this procedure just might work better than trotting out the King, Ceasar, or Holy Auger to turn their thimbs up or down in any particular case.

Why no appeals for Libby?

==================================

So close Sir LOB....

Bush just commuted Libby's sentencing so Libby COULD then continue to appeal his case (as he's been doing and I've heard of no sign that he's going to stop).

LIBBY IS APPEALING. Which if Bush had full pardoned him, he couldn't do.

Now think about that. Let the facts simmer...

"Actually, Sir LOB, i hope you NEVER have to get up on a witness stand, because if any other witness contradicts you, you can be tried and jailed for "perjury" and "obstruction of justice"."

I wont worry - you'll be there to say "they were wrong" and get the entire case tossed out.

Who knows? Why not ask Bush why he fears such a test?

========================

Fear? LOL Seriously Sir LOB, where do you come up with this stuff. No i mean it, where do you come up with this?

I mean, if Bush is so afraid... how did a special prosecutor ever get appointed in the first place?

I wont worry - you'll be there to say "they were wrong" and get the entire case tossed out.

===============================

See? i'm just showing the same to Libby.

LIBBY IS APPEALING. Which if Bush had full pardoned him, he couldn't do.

Now think about that. Let the facts simmer...

Posted by: Challenger Grim at July 3, 2007 9:09 PM

touche. Yes, he is. lets see which of his statements under oath trip him up this time

Sir LOB,

There are no qualifications set forth in the Constitution for the President to grant a pardon/commutation.

"Genarlow Wilson, sentenced to 10 years in prison for receiving consensual oral sex in 2003 from a 15-year-old girl when he was 17, remains an inmate today as the state fights to keep him locked up despite a judge's order that he be freed." http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/stories/2007/06/11/0611wilson.html

He also has to register as a sex offender under the law at the time he was convicted. The law is now changed and was not made retroactive. A jury convicted him because he committed the crime. The jury feels the sentence is excessive. But the law is the law, right?

JESUS!

Are you guys watching the Hottest Hottie Model Contest on FOX?

There are no qualifications set forth in the Constitution for the President to grant a pardon/commutation.

==================================

Now Sharon, I will admit that Sir LOB might be a little mixed up here.

The Justice department does help compile and line up pardons etc etc.

However their efforts are nothing more than advice, not law. The president may listen to them if he wants, but he's not beholden to their recommendations.

I know about the guidelines, but I don't know when they were developed and if they are periodically revised. Technically, I guess the President could pardon everyone. LOB views what Bush has done as an abuse of power. That could be said of every pardon, as Cecelia pointed out.

LOB views what Bush has done as an abuse of power. That could be said of every pardon, as Cecelia pointed out.

=================================

You're absolutely right Sharon. That would mean that Washington, Adams and Jefferson were all abusing their powers too. And they actually pardoned MORE people than Bush has done so far.

Brilliant Special Comment.. Keith is a leader.

Brilliant Special Comment.. Keith is a leader.

Posted by: Bill O'lielly at July 3, 2007 9:54 PM

I'm starting to believe O'Lielly's claim to be a former MSNBC employee...

You miserable Democrats...
It looks like your hero Keith has had a bad case of diarrhea. How sweet it is. Call me mainstream media. I would like to vote APPROVE again for this president.

You'll see that special comment this Sunday on ABCs Americas Funniest Home Videos. Six people here were laughing our asses off. 4 republicans and 2 democrats in chorus, "is this guiy for real?"

Where is my new thread Johnny Dollar?

"is this guiy for real?"

==================================

You know Benson, I'm beginning to wonder if maybe he's not. Maybe Keith is actually smarter than we give him credit for and is trying to carve out his own niche in the market.

I mean, SOMEBODY has to be buying those tabloids at the supermarket right?

maybe it's all just a business decision....

touche. Yes, he is. lets see which of his statements under oath trip him up this time

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at July 3, 2007 9:14 PM

With any luck, Libby won't contradict Tim Russert's memory about the contents of a phone call--- where the crime of outting a CIA covert agent wasn't committed....and where the person who did leak her name was already known by Fitzgerald to not have been Rove or Libby...

Yes, it's certainly the Crime of the New Century...

The special comment tonight is quintesential proof that Countdown has 'jumped the shark'. What will the loons do during primetime next month? Watch Nancy Grace?

Hey, Johnny!

How about we refer to the Plame matter as being The Crime of the New Age Century... :D

Its good to see that KeithO showed restraint. Actually, it was the crime of this century AND last century. Bush topped those villans like Bin Laden and Hitler with one semi-pardon. Ouch!

I don't know Benson... I think Bush's pardon is even more heinous than when Pilate convicted a guy named Jesus.

Ok, sarcasm over. Sorry I just had to join in the laugh.

Best you can do AnonPatriot? He aint in jail... much to your and KOs dismay. Now that is SWEEEEEET!

I mean, if Bush is so afraid... how did a special prosecutor ever get appointed in the first place?

Posted by: Challenger Grim at July 3, 2007 9:12 PM

You mean apart from the fact that the CIA demanded it?

SO CG- Just imagine in a few years people will ask people- "where were you when Bush pardonned Libby" Such a big moment in history.

And the people would respond... "Who is scooter Libby"

These asshole liberals really think they have an issue to run on in 2008. The 5% that care would never vote republican anyways. Choke on it lefties. I hear scooter played 18 holes of golf today!

You mean apart from the fact that the CIA demanded it?

=================================

As I recall, the president isn't required to do anything the CIA asks of him.

Besides, you're telling me he could come up with no plausible delaying or stonewalling tactic that would have kept the Special Prosecutor at bay for years?

Not only that but if he's the dangerous, looming threat that you claim he is... why did he even listen to the CIA then? He's ignoring Congress and the American People (as you claim) but he's going to do what the CIA tells him?

Challenger Grim wrote:
"You know Benson, I'm beginning to wonder if maybe he's not. Maybe Keith is actually smarter than we give him credit for and is trying to carve out his own niche in the market.

I mean, SOMEBODY has to be buying those tabloids at the supermarket right?

maybe it's all just a business decision...."

A business decision? Gosh, do you think? Apparently Olbermann hasn't been feeling the love lately and had to pull out the special comment. Desperate?

The blue discussion forums are going crazy right now. He hasn't seen this much attention in a long time and he'll probably spend the entire night reading them. Maybe he'll have the teenager read them to him while he's looking in the mirror.

And to whoever said brace yourself for more MSM articles, I'm sure you're right on target. The man is a press hog.

It's all about Olbermann.

A.C.C.S.

Look dude you want to take the Bill Clinton model dildo out of your.........

Listen up jackass, Bush wiped out the prison sentence and AT THIS POINT thats all he did.

Get it?

AT THIS POINT that's all he did.

Come Thursday or Friday, Bush can wipe out the whole thing.

And you have to have your Mom copy and paste some crap a judge said?

You know what? WHO CARES?

The rest of the world is not like your basement.

Go put the dildo back in your........and go get the fries. Their done.

By the way, A.C.C.S.. Where are those Karl Rove indicments?

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

Now folks, I'm sure you've seen Keith was a little more off his game than abnormal.

It's because Prom season in the N.Y. Metro area just ended and Keith didn't get any invites.

So cut the moron some slack this week, it's an emotional time for him.

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

A.C.C.S.

You know you have to stop sniffing the toliet seat your shift manager sits on boy.

Do you really think this is gona be the big thing come 08'?

It's not even number 1 on CNN's website!!

Are you really that f'n stupid?

I guess.

Remember moron, Bush ain't running in 08'.

Oh but I forgot, you think most of America is as brain dead as you.

No, we came up from our basements a long time ago.

What kind of moron thinks that apx. 16 months from now all of America is going to go running to the polls with Scooter Libby on their minds?

Oh I forgot it's A.C.C.S.!!!!!!!

Did someone say, 'White House is crisis'?

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

Posted by: puck at July 3, 2007 10:40 PM

What's happened to you?

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

Posted by: puck at July 3, 2007 10:40 PM

What's happened to you?

They showed their true colors with this event.

Posted by: at July 4, 2007 1:01 AM

My colors are Red, White and Blue and I am proud to show them. The whole Scooter Libby "trial" was nothing but a witch hunt running out of control headed straight for VP Cheney. Wilson was what, again? He's so important of a figure, I forgot what he was......

Tonights secular progressive special spew was a total joke. I bet Bush is shakin' in his boots! The Orange One has pitched his tent securely in the Rosie O camp. He probably thinks fire can't melt steel, too........

I'm starting to believe O'Lielly's claim to be a former MSNBC employee...

Posted by: Cecelia at July 3, 2007 9:58 PM

Parking attendant, maybe. Janitor, more likely.....

mean, if Bush is so afraid... how did a special prosecutor ever get appointed in the first place?

Posted by: Challenger Grim at July 3, 2007 9:12 PM

You mean apart from the fact that the CIA demanded it?

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at July 3, 2007 10:14 PM

The CIA referred the matter to the Justice Department.

Bush commuted the sentence to prevent Libby from singing. That is the only part of this that is really important. The $250,000 fine remained in place because Libby will keep the lid on for that sum (and probably collect it from his friends).

We all know what he was going to sing about, the Cheney plan to discredit and exact revenge on the Wilsons, because he was unable to refute the truth of the claim that he had hyped the nuclear threat. It would not be surprising if the 16 words in the President's State of the Union were put back by Cheney after having been removed by the CIA.

Posted by: the realist at July 4, 2007 1:40 AM

How would "singing" about Cheney have helped Libby since he had already been tried, convicted, and sentenced?

Bush commuted the sentence to prevent Libby from singing. That is the only part of this that is really important. The $250,000 fine remained in place because Libby will keep the lid on for that sum (and probably collect it from his friends).

We all know what he was going to sing about, the Cheney plan to discredit and exact revenge on the Wilsons, because he was unable to refute the truth of the claim that he had hyped the nuclear threat. It would not be surprising if the 16 words in the President's State of the Union were put back by Cheney after having been removed by the CIA.

Posted by: the realist at July 4, 2007 1:40 AM

How would "singing" about Cheney have helped Libby since he had already been tried, convicted, and sentenced?

You're a little confused, Cecelia.
It wouldn't have helped Libby.But the thought of Libby sitting in that cell day after day and getting pissed, pissed enough to tell the truth about why he obstructed and lied about this investigation is something Bush and Cheney did not want to have to deal with.

I know this may come as a shock to you, but Libby covered for the higher ups.And then the higher ups rewarded him by setting him free.

Posted by: The realist at July 4, 2007 1:56 AM

Wouldn't it have made more sense for Libby to have traded information on Cheney for immunity and avoided a trial to start with...

Logic and liberals don't mix Ceceila. I thought you would have figured that out by now.

AAP,

Hitchens v. Hitchens

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/newscomment.html?in_page_id=1787&in_article_id=459427

Thus Libby was convicted not just of perjury but of intentionally lying in order to obstruct the investigation. And what George Bush did yesterday was intended to make sure he got away with it.

I know this may come as a shock to you, but Libby covered for the higher ups.And then the higher ups rewarded him by setting him free.

==================================

Right....
"And no one could deny that Libby, who will still have to pay a $250,000 fine, who will likely be disbarred, and who lost his high position in government, has paid a heavy price."

Oh yeah, that's getting off "free" and won't make him angry at all.
You're partially right, Libby was sacrificed. But it was to satiate the left's bloodlust, not to protect anyone.

Besides, I've still yet to see how even his "type" of lie could "cover" for anyone in the first place.

Oh, and this entire thing also makes no sense because the WH wouldn't need to "leak" anything since he was discredited on merits alone.

http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200407121105.asp

"Wilson spent a total of eight days in Niger "drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people," as he put it. On the basis of this "investigation" he confidently concluded that there was no way Saddam sought uranium from Africa. Oddly, Wilson didn't bother to write a report saying this. Instead he gave an oral briefing to a CIA official.

We now know for certain that Wilson was wrong and that Bush's statement was entirely accurate. "

Time to break it down...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Wrong. Armitage made his admission in early October 2003, nearly three months before Fitzgerald was appointed. So it should be clear that Fitzgerald wasn't appointed just to find out who leaked to Novak. In fact, this means that -- even with Armitage's confession in hand -- there was so much evidence of wrongdoing that a longtime GOP loyalist like John Ashcroft felt he had no choice but to recuse himself and allow the appointment of a special counsel.

================================

So much evidence???? No possibility that maybe the media and public pressure drove him to appoint the special counsel? Sorry, you base an entire assumption about motives with no facts to support.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Maybe not, but it turns out that every other Bush administration who leaked did so with information they got as a result of Libby's actions. Ari Fleischer testified during Scooter's trial that Libby told him over lunch about Plame working for the CIA, and Karl Rove reportedly told a similar story to the grand jury that indicted Libby. Meanwhile, Armitage and Bushite press flack Dan Bartlett both found out through a State Department memo that was produced in response to questions that Libby had asked a top department official about Wilson's trip to Niger. If Libby (and his boss, Dick Cheney) had been content to reply to Wilson's criticisms on their merits rather than by rattling cages in search of fodder for personal attacks, none of the other officials would ever have been able to leak about Plame.

================================

Yeah... the jury admitted that they found fleischer's testimony. Plus there's just one small problem with your scenario...

Bob Woodward, Robert Novak, Walter Pincus, David Sanger, Glenn Kessler, and Evan Thomas were covering events in Washington during that intense period in mid-2003 when the Bush administration came under attack from former ambassador Joseph Wilson over its case for war in Iraq. Each interviewed Libby, then Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff. And each heard nothing from Libby about Valerie Plame Wilson.

Together, their testimony raised questions about one of the fundamental theories underlying the CIA-leak case. If Libby’s disclosure of Mrs. Wilson’s identity to Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper was part of a White House conspiracy to out Joseph Wilson’s wife, why didn’t Libby take the opportunities he had to out her to Woodward, Novak, Pincus, et al? Did Cheney, who is portrayed in some scenarios as the mastermind of the leak, tell Libby to disclose Mrs. Wilson’s identity to Matt Cooper and not to Bob Woodward? To Judith Miller and not to Robert Novak?

All seems like a pretty flimsy conspiracy doesn't it?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Although three reporters did testify, they were preceded on the stand by six different government officials who each testified to having conversations with Libby about Joe Wilson's wife before the date when Libby first claimed to have heard it from a reporter. It was these officials' testimony, more than that of the reporters, that convicted Libby.

================================

No, actually problems and holes were found in EVERY testimony, government or reporter. Only Tim Russert's testimony was found to be solid and convincing (the jury's own words) so his testimony alone held up the weaker others. Are you just reciting the prosecution's case with NO consideration of the defense's reply? (guilty until proven innocent eh?)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It's never mentioned in the mainstream media, but Scooter didn't just "forget" telling reporters about Joe Wilson's wife working for the CIA, and deny it when he really had told them.

No, Libby's "faulty memory" caused him not only to deny where he had learned about Plame -- a note produced in the trial showed Vice President Cheney had told him she worked in the Counterproliferation Department of the CIA (where the majority of employees are covert) -- but to invent stories saying he HAD leaked to reporters when he hadn't. He claimed to have been the first to tell Matt Cooper about Wilson's wife, thereby covering up the fact that Karl Rove had done so. And he shielded Fleischer by falsely claiming to have told the Post's Glenn Kessler as well, apparently trying to cover for the Post's October 12, 2003 report that a journalist for the Post (who turned out to be Walter Pincus) had been leaked to -- a news story that was found, with key passages underlined, in Libby's files.

================================

Man your story invention gave me such a headache...

During a conversation with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine on July 12, 2003, Libby told Cooper that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, but Libby did not know if this was true.

As defendant Libby well knew when he made it, this statement was false in that: Libby did not advise Cooper on or about July 12, 2003 that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did Libby advise him that Libby did not know whether this was true; rather, Libby confirmed for Cooper, without qualification, that Libby had heard that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA.

The evidence presented at trial to support this count was Cooper’s testimony. Cooper swore that during a phone conversation with Libby, he, Cooper, brought up the subject of Valerie Plame Wilson being involved in sending her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, to Niger to check out claims that Iraq had sought uranium there. “He [Libby] said words to the effect of, ‘Yeah, I’ve heard that, too,’“ Cooper testified.

“Did he at any time indicate that he heard it from reporters?” Fitzgerald asked.

“No,” said Cooper.

That is the entirety of the evidence to support the Cooper false-statement charge against Libby. Fitzgerald also presented Cooper’s notes from the conversation, but parts of them were so garbled — one line read, and this is an exact quote, “had somethine and about the wilson thing and not sure if it’s ever” — that no one was able to make any sense of them.

Oh, and these exerts from Libby's testimony on cooper that he was perjured for:

"I was very clear to say reporters are telling us that because in my mind I still didn’t know it as a fact. I thought I was — all I had was this information that was coming in from reporters…

I said, reporters are telling us that, I don’t know if it’s true. I was careful about that because among other things, I wanted to be clear I didn’t know Mr. Wilson. I don’t know — I think I said, I don’t know if he has a wife, but this is what we’re hearing…

I didn’t want the reporters to think it was true because I said it. I — all I had was that reporters are telling us that, and by that I wanted them to understand it wasn’t coming from me and that it might not be true….

Basically, we didn’t know anything about him [Joseph Wilson] until this stuff came out in June. And among the other things, I didn’t know he had a wife. That was one of the things I said to Mr. Cooper. I don’t know if he’s married. And so I wanted to be very clear about all this stuff that I didn’t, I didn’t know about him. And the only thing I had, I thought at the time, was what reporters are telling us."

Right... that's really inventing the claim that he leaked the stories to the reports to cover for someone.

Let's see... Russert charge:
"During a conversation with Tim Russert of NBC News on July 10 or 11, 2003, Russert asked Libby if Libby was aware that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA. Libby responded to Russert that he did not know that, and Russert replied that all the reporters knew it. Libby was surprised by this statement because, while speaking with Russert, Libby did not recall that he previously had learned about Wilson’s wife’s employment from the Vice President."

"And then he said, you know, did you know that this — excuse me, did you know that Ambassador Wilson’s wife works at the CIA? And I was a little taken aback by that. I remember being taken aback by it. And I said — he may have said a little more but that was — he said that. And I said, no, I don’t know that. And I said, no, I don’t know that intentionally because I didn’t want him to take anything I was saying as in any way confirming what he said, because at that point in time I did not recall that I had ever known, and I thought this is something that he was telling me that I was first learning. And so I said, no, I don’t know that because I want to be very careful not to confirm it for him, so that he didn’t take my statement as confirmation for him…

So then he said — I said — he said, sorry — he, Mr. Russert said to me, did you know that Ambassador Wilson’s wife, or his wife, works at the CIA? And I said, no, I don’t know that. And then he said, yeah — yes, all the reporters know it. And I said, again, I don’t know that. I just wanted to be clear that I wasn’t confirming anything for him on this. And you know, I was struck by what he was saying in that he thought it was an important fact, but I didn’t ask him anymore about it because I didn’t want to be digging in on him."

hmm.... still looking for that "invention" claim you made...

I like this summary of the entire trial:

"The obstruction of justice count, which carries a ten-year prison term, is a combination of the other counts. In a recent filing with the court, Fitzgerald argued that the obstruction count consists of three allegedly false statements by Libby. The first is when Libby testified that Russert told him that all the reporters knew Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA. The second is when Libby testified that he was surprised when Russert allegedly told him about Mrs. Wilson. And the third is when Libby testified that he told Cooper that reporters were telling him, Libby, that Mrs. Wilson worked for the CIA. The evidence for the obstruction count is the same for the earlier counts.

And that is the case against Libby. The counts overlap each other and rely heavily on the memories of three people — Libby, Cooper, and Russert — about two conversations."

Wow, that Libby is such a criminal mastermind. I bet Lex Luthor wishes he was that evil and brilliant.

No we don't know that.
As a matter of fact, the opposite is true.

Only in wingnutville do the imaginations trump the facts !

================================

My sources as follows (apparently I can't put 3 links into one post):
Senators Rebuke Joe Wilson Claims (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/6/1/100750.shtml)

Our Man in Niger
Exposed and discredited, Joe Wilson might consider going back. ()
(http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200407121105.asp)

And what I'm quite sure is the report itself:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter2-b.htm
"When the former ambassador spoke to Committee staff, his description of his findings differed from the DO intelligence report and his account of information provided to him by the CIA differed from the CIA officials' accounts in some respects."

Now I'll wait for your "facts". Though right now it looks like YOU are the one reality challenged.

Yes, and they think they're good Americans.
What a joke !

==================================

Sorry, but the joke is the alternate reality you inhabit. But that's ok, I'm sure someday you'll be able to quote a source or back up an assertion.

(and THIS isn't what you were referring to with body armor is it? http://newsbusters.org/node/13537)

Riiiiight.

I just posted newsbusters as a start (and yet you proceed to laugh at with no disproof.

Fine, here's another source.
http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=37128&ref=rellink

Title: "Lawmakers say body armor firm made false claims."

And yet... you claim "squander money in that deep abyss known as Iraq"... squander money on what? Supplies and logistics for soldiers? Those BASTARDS! Wait a second... I seem to recall an effort to get Congress to pull funding.

Hmmm... without funding, wouldn't we... oh I don't know, not have money to pay for armor? Seems to me they aren't getting the armor they need fast enough because politics is gumming up the machine.

Which of course, happens regardless of administration or party.

How about you just try being intelligent and consistent for once.

Facts are like kryptonite to assholes like The Grim Challenger.

Posted by: the realist at July 4, 2007 1:36 PM
Just because you post under a different name, again, doesn't mean your posts aren't obvious. When you have a 12 word vocab, it isn't hard to see.....

Plus I personally know families...

================================

Wow, and I know a cousin's friend's mechanic that saw the loch ness monster.

Sorry, I've seen too many stories of liberal liars so I'm not buying it.

No proof? No sale.

The realist, I am a bit late to the party. This doesn't address precisely your comment but it does address the overall question:

"The Truth, this is from Fitspatrick on the day, I think, the Indictment was filed. Taken from:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,173774,00.html

"We have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly or intentionally outed a covert agent. We have not charged that. And so I am not making that assertion," he said."

Fitspatrick can say anything out of court proceedings that he wants to for any reason, good or bad. It is the follow up that counts.

Fitzpatrick knew within days of being named Special Counsel that Under Secretary of State Richard Armitage (as did Secretary Colin Powell) leaked Plame's name and status as a CIA employee.

Lets look at the facts sequentially.

He was charged to find who leaked Plame's status as a CIA employee, a felony if she was covert.

To make that a serious crime she would have to be a covert agent within certain parameters and that the leaker knew that. So he was also charged to determine if that happened.

The culprit, Richard Armitage, first informed his boss, Secretary Colin Powell, and then volunteered to Fitzpatrick a confession before Fitspatrick's office was even up and running.

Neither Armitage nor Powell were ever subpoenaed to testify.

Fitspatrick ignored and did not address that he had the confession of the actual leaker, which was his initial charge to find.

Fitspatrick has never based a legal proceeding or filed a legal document based on the Statute prohibiting outing a covert agent.

Fitspatrick has never charged The Leaker with anything.

So Fitspatrick knows that a felony was committed by telling someone that Plame works for the CIA. He knows who committed it, the guy confessed. Where was the INVESTIGATION, much less an indictment or plea bargain based on this windfall?

So, should we start calling him 'James Nifong Fitspatrick'?

Grammie
Posted by: Janet Hawkins at July 4, 2007 3:12 PM "

Grammie

Realist says Bush commuted Libby's sentence in order to keep a "pissed" Libby silent.

I remind Realist of the fact that if LIbby was capable of turning on the Bush Adm by tellingn some dirt, he'd have done it and received immunity and spared himself the entire ordeal in the first place.

Realist then changes his scenario from Libby as pissed off jailbird, to Libby as someone who wouldn't talk because he's too intimidated of big bad Cheney and Bush.

Yet somehow the Adm still had to shut him up ( and shut him up AFTER he had not sought immunity but had already gone through this ordeal that has taken everything from him)with promises of a future pardon...

Makes you wonder why Libby even approached the judge with an argument that he should stay out of jail while launching an expensive appeal he knew would be unnecessary because he was going to be pardoned, etc...etc......

Here's some help, Realist. Since you've no doubt that Libby is in possession of information of Adm criminality, instead of launching into improable and contradictory scenarios, why not just argue that he holds back the info because he is a part of them, believes in them, is corrupt too in that he doesn't think what they've done is wrong, and so is completely loyal to them.

As far as such conjectures go, this is certainly a more plausible one.

However, I do understand that someone like yourself, who is so completely untroubled in putting forth conjecture as cold hard fact to start with, wouldn't put much stock in the value of plausibility in the first place...

The fact that you are still denying how Bush has failed our troops shows you are one ignorant wingnut.
So he uses a "government web site" to prove that the government is providing armor to our troops.
Did you take the tobacco companies word that cigarettes don't cause cancer?
Lordy Lordy !

================================

So of course "the realist" (and i use that term loosely) proceeds to put forth an argument which is immediately discredited by his own logic:

" a “secret Pentagon study"
"Army Times"
"run by the Department of Veterans Affairs."

Not to mention that little of what he posts has anything to do with the topic at hand and seem more like the rantings of a man maddened by fever.

Yes they maybe be related, but they are not yet RELEVANT.

Catch some comprehension, Cecelia. I said IF Libby was sitting in a cell, he'd be pissed.

There is nothing contradictory to what I said.
He covered for them, he got set free for his loyality.
Libby obstructed the investigation and lied.

I guess in your world, there was no criminality nor punishment for the Wilsons by Bush/Cheney.
It must be a very strange view with your Bush -colored glasses.

Posted by: the realist at July 4, 2007 3:49 PM

Well, it's not surprising that if you can't see the logical flaws in your scenarios, you'd find it unreasonable and myopic to issue any reminder that you're engaging in conjecture and have no prooff--- even when you're magnanimously offered a conjecture that more plausible than your own and allows you to keep your dearly cherish suspicions.

That state isn't the result of poor eyesight...it's blinkered.

should we start calling him 'James Nifong Fitspatrick'?

Grammie

-----

I am surprised you so dishonor yourself, Ms. Hawkins. You are better than such a remark. Patrick Fitzgerald is an extraordinary legal talent and a highly ethical gentleman. You may not have liked the fact that a Grand Jury indicted Scooter, a petit jury convicted him and a Judge sentenced him, but Fitzgerald did his job honorably and well. If only the President had done his job as honorably and well*, our system of jurisprudence might have worked.
-----
*A commutation without remorse is a particularly foul act. I could have and probably would have supported a pardon because a pardon requires an acceptance of guilt and remorse, and I do think that little is gained with Scooter, even a perjuring Scooter, behind bars. A commutation has a cowardly taint to it.

$300 billion, over 2,000 our troops dead, and nothing is getting accomplished. And you support that.

$billions of our money is missing in Iraq and Bush has never called for an investigation.

You got nothing !

================================

1) things are getting accomplished, read some positive news for once. (I myself get information straight from my uncle who's over there, doing the work the soldiers are protecting)
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWEwYzEyMmE4YjFjNDM5YjQ4NGNjODRjZWUwZWZjOTA=
You can also check out:
http://theotheriraq.com/

2) Billions missing? *gasp*

Oh wait a minute CONSERVATIVES - HAVE - BEEN - COMPLAINING - ABOUT - THAT - FOR - DECADES. Come "realist", join the dark side - read NRO and listen to Rush.

See, here's the problem with you. The government has had a knack for losing billions long before Bush, and it will continue to do so long after Bush. It doesn't matter who's in charge, Hilary, Kerry, Gore, Carter, Edwards... THE GOVERNMENT WILL CONTINUE TO LOSE MONEY. Why? It's not a person fault, IT IS A FLAW OF THE SYSTEM ITSELF. A flaw that conservatives (including myself) have been arguing for YEARS needed to be overhauled. It's not any one man's fault.

Get this through your head:
Bush is NOT responsible for everything that goes wrong in government or the rest of the world. BUSH IS NOT THE PRINCE OF DARKNESS - ORIGIN OF ALL EVIL.

Rove is.

lol j/k

See, I believe in putting blame where blame is due. Just because I don't label Bush the anti-christ, doesn't mean I'd give him a blowjob. From spending like a drunken democrat to the amnesty bull crap, Bush has done a fine enough job of angering a LOT of conservatives.

We just don't believe there's any reason to falsely accuse and blame him for things he's not responsible for. But hey, guilty until proven innocent right? =P

A commutation has a cowardly taint to it.

==================================

Well here's a thought clunker, maybe libby hasn't admitted to guilt because he REALLY doesn't believe himself to be guilty.

With the commutation, libby can continue through the appeals process and try to clear his name.

And I don't think fitz is as bad as nifong, but He did abuse his power in this instance. (and like I said, there's the information floating around that libby and fitzgerald squared off once before during the marc rich case - yet no one else seems to believe that a personal vendetta MIGHT taint this case?)

maybe libby hasn't admitted to guilt because he REALLY doesn't believe himself to be guilty.
-----
That may be the case, but the conviction has been had. The amenities of the justice system require acceptance and remorse as a condition to a pardon, but not a commutation, so I do think the point becomes rather clear. Again, I am not all that enamored of the system, but it is the system we have in place.

That may be the case, but the conviction has been had. The amenities of the justice system require acceptance and remorse as a condition to a pardon, but not a commutation, so I do think the point becomes rather clear. Again, I am not all that enamored of the system, but it is the system we have in place.

================================

Incorrect.

There is NO condition to a pardon except that it can't be granted in a case of impeachment.

Other than that, the ENTIRE system is beholden to the whim of the president.

Now the justice department makes RECOMMENDATIONS for presidential pardons but the president doesn't have to heed them nor does he violate any law if he does not.

You are correct, Mr. Grim. That shows how distorted things have become in our nation. I assume the President will follow both precedent and law (to the extent they differ). I forget this President is above both.

That shows how distorted things have become in our nation.

=================================

What? Since like... 1776? Because the above provisions I listed have been in placed from the beginning.

In fact, as I pointed out, Bush has pardoned LESS people (so far) than say...

Washington
Adams
Jefferson
etc

Oops, I had misread something.

John Adams actually held the record for LEAST pardons of any president.

That was somewhat broken by Clinton until the end of his term when he issued pardons as if there was a fire sale.

And what precedent are you talking about clunker? I can't put it any better than Byron York:

"The problem with much of the rhetoric is that it fails to take into account the full meaning and practice of the president’s clemency powers. Yes, there are pardons for ordinary criminal offenders, most of which are dictated by longstanding guidelines at the Justice Department. But there are also frankly political pardons, something the Founding Fathers envisioned when they gave the president the power to pardon, to commute sentences, and to offer mercy in other forms. A number of presidents in the past have faced problems similar to George W. Bush’s, and they weren’t hesitant to use the pardon power when they needed it. No one should be surprised that Bush has, too."

Clucker/The truth/The Realist are so boringly predictable.

Not a word of rebuttal. Not a scintilla of refutation of the points I made.

Just the same-o, same-o. You did, though, come up with an original ad hominem attack, I have 'dishonored' myself.

Now, why don't you refute my facts and then rebut my conclusion based on my 'false premises'.

Grammie

You made an ad hominem attack on Mr. Fitzgerald, Ms. Hawkins. Excuse my lack of understanding, but what "facts" am I suppose to rebut? I didn't see any "facts".

The "fact" is Scooter lied under oath. A jury so found. In our system that is guilt. Guilt goes punished (unless, apparently, Bush deems you to be like himself, above the law).

Are you peeved at Mr. Fitzgerald because he did his job and bought these "facts" to the attention of both the Grand Jury and the Petit Jury? If so, the "fact" that the Grand Jury and the Petit Jury found these "facts" to be establishable, in one instance, and established, in the other, tends to prove Mr. Fitzgerald correct.

I understand you don't like the "fact" that your boy's boy got caught with his hand in the cookie jar, but we all have to deal with such consequences. I voted for Clinton, and he proved to be less than trustworthy. That hurt, but I dealt with it. You voted for Bush, and he has proven himself to be incompetent. Deal with it. But, don't attack someone just because he correctly told us the emperor has no clothes.

Perhaps, as you suggest, I am predictably boring. I take it that simply means I have seen Bush naked, and it is an ugly sight. I can't go back and praise him for being some fantastic hunk. I leave that to you, and in that regard, you ought to ask yourself if you're not getting to be a bit of a bore. A teenage crush is lovely when you're a teenager. It is just silly when you'r emature.

clunker,,,,perfect name!

Bush has pardoned LESS people
-----
Indeed, which is your problem, Mr. Grim. Bush is a man without compassion. Yet, he is so moved by a short sentence for a convicted perjurer? There is a logical gap is there not? Bush was not moved to pardon or commute more than 100 people he executed in Texas. In fact, he even made jokes about execution, at least in Ms. Tucker's case. Even when DNA has established convicted felons did not commit the crime, Bush isn't moved. Even when a convicted felon is retarded, Bush isn't moved? But, he is moved for his assistant's assistant. That doesn't smell just a bit to you?

Can Bush pardon? Absolutely. A great principle in Anglo-American jurisprudence. Should he? A vastly different matter.

Even when DNA has established convicted felons did not commit the crime, Bush isn't moved.

-That is where habeas corpus comes into play. It is still available, believe it or not.

From what I recall, the judge could have sentenced Libby to probation but choose not to. So receiving probation is punishment under the law. Someone mentioned somewhere that even Paris Hilton went to jail; yes she did, after violating her probation.

Clucker, you still have not addressed any of the points that I raised.

So, let me bring them up one at a time for your refutation or rebuttal.

"Fitspatrick can say anything out of court proceedings that he wants to for any reason, good or bad. It is the follow up that counts."

Do you disagree that prosecutors (any prosecutors) statements to the press are not the equivalent of indictments and/or evidence presented to courts and/or juries?

Grammie

You made an ad hominem attack on Mr. Fitzgerald, Ms. Hawkins. Excuse my lack of understanding, but what "facts" am I suppose to rebut? I didn't see any "facts".

The "fact" is Scooter lied under oath. A jury so found. In our system that is guilt. Guilt goes punished (unless, apparently, Bush deems you to be like himself, above the law).

Posted by: Clucker at July 4, 2007 5:53 PM

Well, accept that this is what you're going to be stuck with, Grammie.

Any point you make about the investigation, the verdit, the actual charges, etc... in an attempt to make a point about the severity of the sentence (which of course is relevant to a commuted one...) is going to be met with "this is what the judge and jury decided and they are unassailable because they are a judge and a jury and this is what they decided...

Ring around the rosey....

Cecelia, you are so right.

Their battle cry does seem to be 'Damn the facts! Full speed ahead!'

Who knows? I may actually get an answer to the actual question asked.

Hope springs eternal. :)

Grammie

Of course, I agree with that, Ms. Hawkins. Who wouldn't? Even what the Prosecutor says in Court is not evidence. Everyone knows that.

How does that charge the essence of the conviction? Scooter lied under oath. He is a convicted, felony perjurer.

What point are you trying to make? I am mystified. That Scooter didn't leak? He didn't. He lied in a leak investigation. This is akin to Sharon robbing a bank and you telling the investigators or Court Sharon was at your house having a sherry at the time. You might well be an accessory, but you'd more likely be convicted of obtruction or perjury. The fact that the DA might say, "It's just like Ms. Hawkins pointed the gun at the teller.," doesn't constitute evidence of your robbing the bank, it elaborates upon the nature of the crime for which you are culpable. (Sorry for the reference, Sharon. You were handy.)

What is going on here is that since Monday's euphoria over Scooter getting away with his crime, you and the other Right Wingers have had to face a couple of realities:

Our system of jurisprudence is far from perfect. Innocent people are convicted (and sometimes executed). Guilty people some times go free.

The commutation may not be all that good a thing for your boy or your party. There may be some ugly political consequences to all of this.

Monday's light may be a bit weak on Wednesday.

And, get off your ceaseless haranguing about people not addressing your points. You never think people address your points unless they come to agree with you. I dare say, you and I probably agree on far more that we disagree on, but I am not going to go prostrate before your boy. If you want me to agree with you on that, just forget it and move on.
---
Now for my point: When are you, as the responsible and articulate Republican you are (and I am not being sarcastic), going to distance yourself from He Of Many Names' racists slams and slurs against Mexicans (on 29 June)? If I am willing to challenge Rev. Sharpton, why are you not willing to distance yourself from He of Many Names? Coming from you, there might be value.

Someone mentioned somewhere that even Paris Hilton went to jail; yes she did, after violating her probation.

Posted by: Sharon at July 4, 2007 6:08 PM

That was Colmes when debating with Dick Morris. Dick laughed in his face and said, "I can't beleive you just made that comparison."

See, Cecelia, I did get an answer to the first point I raised.

Clucker agrees that statements to the press are not a substitute for either investigations, indictments, sworn testimony, ciurt filings etc.

Now, on to the second point I raised.

"Fitzpatrick knew within days of being named Special Counsel that Under Secretary of State Richard Armitage (as did Secretary Colin Powell) leaked Plame's name and status as a CIA employee."

Grammie

Grammie,

I don't think he even got your first point:

"We have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly or intentionally outed a covert agent. We have not charged that. And so I am not making that assertion," he said."

That is the record Clucker! You agree that what he said off the record is irrelevant.

And, get off your ceaseless haranguing about people not addressing your points. You never think people address your points unless they come to agree with you. I dare say, you and I probably agree on far more that we disagree on, but I am not going to go prostrate before your boy. If you want me to agree with you on that, just forget it and move on.
---
Now for my point: When are you, as the responsible and articulate Republican you are (and I am not being sarcastic), going to distance yourself from He Of Many Names' racists slams and slurs against Mexicans (on 29 June)? If I am willing to challenge Rev. Sharpton, why are you not willing to distance yourself from He of Many Names? Coming from you, there might be value.

Posted by: Clucker at July 4, 2007 6:28 PM

Here we go again.... Clucker makes general statements about some malfeasance on the part of his political foes.... his political foes turn about and rebut his charges specifically....

Clucker then claims that this rebuttal of his original vague screed, including any expectation that he attempt to answer it, is is evidence of some irrational demand that he go and vote Republican.... and so is being treat unreasonably....

No, Cluck-tut...you aren't being coersed into lying at the feet of "our boy" when someone comes back at you with a rebuttal and expects you to answer it.

I'm not sure which is more threatening to you--- the thought that your assumptions can be logically rebutted or the thought that in attempting to counter the arguments of your opponents, you might have to examine them long enough to admit that they are plausible...

See, Cecelia, Ms. Hawkins didn't address my point, at all.
-----
As to your second point, Ms. Hawkins, it was taken into the first, or so I assumed. SCOOTER LIED UNDER OATH. What in the world does that have to do with Armitage? SCOOTER LIED UNDER OATH. He may have leaked the name, but trial did not proceed on that count. Trial proceeded on the fact that SCOOTER LIED UNDER OATH.

What is your point, Ms. Hawkins? Al Capone murdered or was criminally responsible for the murder of hundreds of people, but he was convicted for violations under (what is now) the IRC. The fact that he murdered or was criminally responsible for the murder of hundreds of people didn't mean that he did not violate the IRC. In fact, he did and he was so convicted. Few facts are irrefutable, but as it now stands, SCOOTER LIED UNDER OATH.

This type of thing happens all the time in our system of criminal justice. Why do you act surprised by it?

By the way: SCOOTER LIED UNDER OATH.

Are you going to address my point now?

Now for my point: When are you, as the responsible and articulate Republican you are (and I am not being sarcastic), going to distance yourself from He Of Many Names' racists slams and slurs against Mexicans (on 29 June)? If I am willing to challenge Rev. Sharpton, why are you not willing to distance yourself from He of Many Names? Coming from you, there might be value.

Posted by: Clucker at July 4, 2007 6:28 PM

Do you think you can be specific enough to actually mention a real name here so that I can figure out who you're talking about, or is my asking you to do that merely an unreasonable expectation and harangue that you sell your soul to the devil?

going to distance yourself from He Of Many Names' racists slams and slurs against Mexicans

Why is there a requirement for Grammie to distance herself from comments that she never endorsed?

you might have to examine them long enough to admit that they are plausible...
-----
Believe me, Cecelia, your points are not plausible. You and Ms. Hawkins make the same mistake every hotdog 1L does: You state a conclusion you desire were true, then you back up to prove it. Guess what? Under that methodology, it is always true, except to everyone other than you.

Don't get me wrong. I am not attacking either of your personally. In my view, the only person on this site worthy of personal attack is He of Many Names. I do think the two of you make some excellent points, and as I told Ms. Hawkins, I do agree with the two of you far more often than I disagree. I do admit, I am sometimes blind when it comes to Bush. I have yet to find any reason to admire him or respect him, even to agree with him. I think the two of you sometimes have just the opposite blind spot.

Clucker, I am trying to use the Socratic method because you appear to have problems addressing a point by point argument that is not in total agreement with your opinion.

So, I ask again for any refutation of the following:

"Fitzpatrick knew within days of being named Special Counsel that Under Secretary of State Richard Armitage (as did Secretary Colin Powell) leaked Plame's name and status as a CIA employee."

Grammie

By the way: SCOOTER LIED UNDER OATH.

================================

Hmmm.... interesting that Clunker says earlier:

"Even when DNA has established convicted felons did not commit the crime, Bush isn't moved."

Now think about it a minute.

Apparently Clunker does not entertain the idea that libby might been wrongly convicted even as he earlier brought up other wrongful convictions.

Clunker commits the very sin he condemns Bush for in the earlier statement. Conviction == GUILTY! No ifs, ands or buts.

Now I am curious. Libby is going through the appeals process right now. Say an appellate court vindicates Libby and overturns his conviction. What will be your thoughts on the matter then Mr Clunker?

Your words Clucker:

Our system of jurisprudence is far from perfect. Innocent people are convicted ,. . .

So you need to rephrase SCOOTER LIED UNDER OATH in that light.

Maybe Libby is one, maybe he isn't, but you need to follow your own philosophy.

I meant maybe he is one of the innocent ones

We had the same thoughts, Grim.

Why is there a requirement for Grammie to distance herself from comments that she never endorsed?

Posted by: Sharon at July 4, 2007 6:58 PM

-----

No requirement, just a practical reason. As a good Republican I would think Ms. Hawkins might be sensitive to the fact that by reason of attitudes and statements such as those of He of Many Names, the Republican party is quickly winning a reputation as being a bund of intolerant, Mexican-hating bigots. That is simplistic, and it is incorrect. The Republican party has such people in it, just as the Democratic party has such loathsome cretins in it, but I really do think that if I were a Republican, I would be wary of this. It is a stereotype I would think any Republican would want to quash, would be pleased to quash. On a practical level, as I said, I think Republicans are going to need to avail themselves of every opportunity to do this.

The irony is rich, of course, since your boy was the primary instigator of the failed Immigration Bill. In some ways, his "outreach" exceeded the Congressional Democrats. I think he is going to get no credit for it, however, and I think the Republican party is going to, unfairly, pay a very, very high price for this.

I guess you want Grammie to use the IRAC versus the CIRAC method?

Clucker, you are ranging far afield from anything I have ever said while still not addressing only the second point I raised about this specific question.

I am ONLY asking for your rebuttal or refutation of one very specific point that I raised about Special Counsel Fitspatrick and what he knew and when did he knew it.

Grammie

Believe me, Cecelia, your points are not plausible. You and Ms. Hawkins make the same mistake every hotdog 1L does: You state a conclusion you desire were true, then you back up to prove it. Guess what? Under that methodology, it is always true, except to everyone other than you.

Posted by: Clucker at July 4, 2007 7:00 PM

You're going to have to give me an example in order for me to see the particular argument so as to judge whether your conclusions are any more evidenced based than mine.

Clucker,

Grammie has already established her reputation on this site. She doesn't need to distance herself and as far as I can tell, she is not on the campaign trail but commenting on a website. GRammie, do you hear this? If you don't do as Clucker suggests, the failure of the Republicans to hold the WH rests on your shoulders!

Ok, one more effort here.

As liberals like to bring up so often, Clinton lied about a blowjob. Did he do any jailtime?

Libby "lied" about a CONVERSATION he had with a reporter. A lie that essentially said: "He brought up [subject] first - No you did."

Oh the horrors! We should lock him away for ever! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!

Juror Dennis Collins himself said: “There was a tremendous amount of sympathy for Mr. Libby on the jury.”

Now if we assume that Libby is guiltier than sin, don't you think that his sentence might just be a tad... too much?

Not only that but look at the charge he was acquitted on.
The charge that he lied to the FBI about the Cooper conversation.
He was convicted of lying to the grand jury about the Cooper conversation.

The only problem is... his story did NOT change in the two instances.

Now THINK about that a moment.

Libby's testimony about Cooper to the FBI was not a lie but that SAME testimony to the grand jury was.

...

At the very least you should realize that maybe not everything is perfectly square in this case.

At the very best, your common sense's bullshit meter should be going haywire.

The irony is rich, of course, since your boy was the primary instigator of the failed Immigration Bill. In some ways, his "outreach" exceeded the Congressional Democrats. I think he is going to get no credit for it, however, and I think the Republican party is going to, unfairly, pay a very, very high price for this.

Posted by: Clucker at July 4, 2007 7:09 PM

Well, then why the hell are you putting up a strawman about "he of many names" during an argument about Scooter Libby, and demanding that we issue disclaimers to a charge you label as unfair in the first place!

Ms. Hawkins, you really don't need to be condescending. I can probably run you through the Socratic method and discard you out with pulp. You see, the Socratic method requires expansive thought, and not a narrow focus on one issue. And, you are focused solely on explaining away your boy's boy's crime. That falls very short, indeed.

You are making a non-point. Are you implying because Armitage leaked, he was the only leaker? I don't think that is logical.

And doesn't that also imply that Obstruction of Justice and Perjury are not crimes? At least, they are not crimes worthy of investigation? I certainly hope that's not true, or we give over our streets and our institutions to the hooligans. There will never be another substantive conviction.

Let's be clear about another point: As it now stands: SCOOTER LIED UNDER OATH. A jury has found that. Scooter is, for now, a felon. Perhaps, an appellate court will reverse the jury's finding, in which case a crime will not have been committed. That would be rare because, and this is a key point you all seem to be missing: THE BURDEN IS SHIFTED TO SCOOTER NOW TO PROVE HE IS ***NOT*** GUILTY. That is the magic of a jury verdict, a trial court judgment. So, no one has to prove Scooter did anything. He has to prove he did not (by establishing that the jury's verdict was against the great weight of the evidence presented). In an academic setting, I could easily say, I have no obligation to prove anything. The proof is on you. And, so it is.

This is an aside.

What is a "hotdog 1L does" and what is it's significance?

Clucker?

Grammie

Oh, one more thing.

Also don't forget that some of the charges the trial STARTED with were dropped midway through (the "libby lied about judith miller conversation").

Now that obviously doesn't ipso facto mean the other charges were bogus, but it should give the honest person pause to wonder... maybe this was all trumped up? An effort to throw everything (no matter how minor) at the defendant and see what sticks?

And yet, still people consider Bush to be more of a threat to the American way of life than this travesty to a decent man.

Grammie,

A 1L is a first year law student. I think you get the hotdog part.

A jury has found that.

==============================

Another thing I forgot Clunker. So far every jury member that has spoken out has said they think President Bush SHOULD pardon Libby.

Which means.... Bush's efforts are just fulfilling the jury's wishes.

And as for Clunker's point about apallete courts.

Fitzgerald's case was a house of cards to begin with. I have every confidence that Libby will get the conviction over turned.

The question is, if he does, will anyone notice.

Mr. Grim:

I am sympathetic to Mr. Libby. I think he is probably a good and decent man. And, I am pleased he is not going to prison.

I don't understand why he is entitled to such special treatment, however, and I do not think I am alone in that. In fact, I think most Americans are as tired of the special treatment handed out by this Administration in so many instances but to so few people. It is difficult for me to divorce myself from that feeling, and to still reach the conclusion that it is best Scooter not go to prison. But, I have overcome that.

I also am really tired of having Republicans stuff the "law and order" crap down my throat when it really means law and order except for Jenna or Dick or Scooter or any number of other people.

Does that make sense to you?

Clucker,

Have you considered other issues? For example were you aware that the trial judge would not allow a memory expert that Libby wanted to call. If that is considered reversible error, a new trial could be granted and the burden is once again on the prosecution.

When the rubber hit the road it seems that Clucker ran out of thread PDQ.

Anytime you want to use the Socratic method with me I will respond as best I can.

Meanwhile, I am still waiting for an on point answer to ONLY the SECOND point I raised.

Grammie

Who has asked Clucker to prove that Libby was guilty?

Has anyone argued that perjury not be considered to be a crime rather than specifically addressing whether Libby did perjure himself? (And if we can harbor the notion that not everyone convicted of murder in Texas is guilty, surely we can do this in a discussion about Libby without the circular argument replies that the court ruling of perjury was good because it was ruled upon by a court...)

Has anyone harbored the notion that Libby's will undoubtably succeed?

And finally, how have so many cases been overturned on appeal?...

Clucker,

What evidence do you have that any "Republican" here would not exhibit the same kind of concern to any person whom they believe is being railroaded?

I don't understand why he is entitled to such special treatment, however, and I do not think I am alone in that.

===============================

Ummm...... maybe because
1) HE IS INNOCENT
2) The entire trial was trumped up and a joke from beginning to end.
3) That after all that, his sentence was also trumped up and unfair for the crime he was convicted of.

Oh yeah, but any effort to rectify that is "special treatment".

Or are you just saying that justice should not apply to the EEEEVIL republicans?

Think about this:
It's not special treatment. They just are NOT as bad as you think they are.

Oh, Clucker, there are still eight points to go.

There is some overlapping between the points I admit. But surely you can answer the second point I raised.

You can, can't you?

Grammie

strawman
-----------
Ms. Hawkins is shrill and strident in her demands that people answer her questions. And, if she is not satisfied with the answer, she has a tendency to conclude it was not answered.

I asked Ms. Hawkins a question. It has still not been answered. It is not a strawman at all.

I understand Ms. Hawkins' discomfort, and I don't really care if she answers or not.

For years on Good Friday, we prayed for the "perfidious Jews". As a Catholic, it made me very uncomfortable, and I worked to see the liturgy was changed. I think I was being a good Catholic.

I merely hope that Ms. Hawkins is an equally good Republican and does not share the views. Distancing oneself from He of Many Names is not important, since any thinking, caring human being is distant from him. Distancing oneself from the view is extremely important, in my estimation.

Grammie, I'd settle if clunker (or "realist" or mike or Sir LOB) can respond to me about why the jury found that Libby lied to the grand jury but did NOT lie to the FBI.

Even though his testimony did not change between the two.

I also am really tired of having Republicans stuff the "law and order" crap down my throat when it really means law and order except for Jenna or Dick or Scooter or any number of other people.

Does that make sense to you?

Posted by: Clucker at July 4, 2007 7:32 PM

It not only makes sense, it's typical of so many of the left.

Endless screeds ivoking all sorts of dire things and in the end the argument just boils down to calling opponents hypocrites...

Meanwhile, I am still waiting for an on point answer to ONLY the SECOND point I raised.
-----
The point, such as it was, was addressed and answered, fully, completely and satisfactorily at 1924. If you think it not much of a answer, perhaps it wasn't much of a point. To be fully honest, for the life of me I don't understand what you are saying and why you are harping on this. Is it that the prosecution ought not to have proceeded since (one of) the leaker(s) was already known? If that is it, and it is the only point I can take from your endless verbage, then the answer is given. The fact you don't agree with it does not make it non-responsive.

Moron in Chief should have let the legal process finish. As he promised.

==================================

How do you mean moron?

OH WAIT, Bush is letting the legal process finish.

See, if he pardoned Libby, then the appeals process would grind to a halt.

Instead he tells Libby "nah, you're not going to jail, but you're still guilty" hence Libby's appeals process continues.

Idiot.

Nah, I don't think Libby is guilty, and thankfully he'll have the chance to prove it. (though I wonder what rationale you'll come up with when his conviction is overturned to keep your little mind from exploding)

And the entire point is, IF Libby was guilty, his punishment does NOT fit the crime. I mean, Clinton perjured himself but he didn't do jail time.

Sandy Berger actually DESTROYED national security documents and he doesn't go to jail.

But because Libby got mixed up on a conversation with 2 reporters he should rot in jail?

Only sick and diseased mind too twisted by hatred could possibly think that sentence was in any way fair or appropriate.

Moron in Chief knows better the sentencing guidelines than the judge that presided over the whole trial?

=================================

Hey, it's within the president's power and perfectly legal for Bush. You don't like it - go take it up with the Constitution.

Clucker, what should one believe based on your post @ 7:41 PM and the entirety of your posts to me and others?

From my perspective from this thread it is that the only possible conclusion is that you can not defend your position and rely solely on any broad brush your imagination produces.

You said:

"The point, such as it was, was addressed and answered, fully, completely and satisfactorily at 1924."

Uh, WHAT?

Grammie

Bush is letting the legal process finish.
-----
But why?

#1 Because he respects the jury and he believes Scooter to be guilty?

#2 Because of some great respect for the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence?

#3 Because he believes that that if the process continues Scooter will still be able to invoke the 5th in the civil suit against him, before Congress and in any criminal proceedings involving others?

It's probably cynical, but I think it is #3, and I think it is dangerous legal ground. The minimal fine and the probation aside, Scooter effectively goes unpunished now, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. So, why not immunize Scooter, call him to testify in full before a Congressional committee? Then, we do get the facts (assuming Scooter won't lie again and be subjected to criminal contempt or perjury charges) or Scooter still refuses to testify and he does a bit of time for contempt of Congress.

Frankly, I hope it all ends soon, but if Bush intended finality, he failed. But failure and Bush are the closest of friends, so no surprise there.

Grammie,

Clucker has obfuscated so mush here that I think I lost the second point. Was this it?

**Fitzpatrick knew within days of being named Special Counsel that Under Secretary of State Richard Armitage (as did Secretary Colin Powell) leaked Plame's name and status as a CIA employee.

I am guessing that Clucker is stating someone leaked to Armitage but the investigation stalled because Libby couldn't remember his exact conversation with Tim Russert.

This is disheartening and illustrative all at the same time.

Clucker, you still haven't been responsive to ONLY the second point I raised.

Call me, or anyone else, what you will it does not hide the fact that you bugged out before the debate between us really began.

Grammie

AAP,

It is really not that difficult. If an appeals court denies Libby his appeal, then he still is convicted (I think Bush should not pardon at that point). If the appeals court overturns the convcition and/or orders a new trial, isn't justice served? Don't you think he, as a U.S. citizen, has a right to the court system that many want to give enemy combatants? A pardon would not erase guilt from the minds of the public. A successful appeal would, for most. If Bush pardons after a loss at the appeals level, I would not respect that decision.

I would not respect that decision because of the reason given for the commutation: excessive sentence. If he had pardoned Libby without that statement, I would have respected that also. But he didn't. He commuted the sentence because he said it was excessive and did give Libby a chance to appeal. Maybe Libby wanted to have that chance.

Clucker, what should one believe based on your post @ 7:41 PM and the entirety of your posts to me and others?

From my perspective from this thread it is that the only possible conclusion is that you can not defend your position and rely solely on any broad brush your imagination produces.

You said:

"The point, such as it was, was addressed and answered, fully, completely and satisfactorily at 1924."

Uh, WHAT?

Grammie

-----

Is this suppose to be some sort of gibberish?

I addressed your point as I understood your point. If I misunderstood, I am sorry. But, i haven't a clue what you are asking and saying, and I am finding this all most tiresome. Apparently, there is some protocol that applies to you about which I am uninformed. You ask questions and you answer them, then you harangue people for not giving you your answer?

Tell me, please, what is your damn point? I am obviously too stupid to understand, so show me the same quality of mercy your boy showed Scooter.

Unfortunately, your little game has so delayed addressing whatever question you have, if any, that the answer awaits another day. The fireworks start shortly, and I have a couple of very excited and anxious young ones in my charge. That's probably for more important, anyway.

Everyone: Enjoy the rest of the 4th.

Sharon, that was the second point.

Only eight more to go, if that is, Clucker responds to the second point raised.

Based on the responses so far hell may freeze over before anyone can get a legitimate answer from Clucker, et al.

Grammie

GUILTY OR INNOCENT?

...

I paraphrase/interpret another man's actions and suddenly I'm presuming that Libby is guilty.

...

You HONESTLY think that.

...

Are you REALLY this freakin' stupid? I mean, did you suffer a head injury? Taking strong medication? Are you retarded? I mean... I couldn't invent a parody of stupidity as unbelievable as that.

AAP,

What Libby got was an assurance that he won't serve jail time no matter what the outcome of his appeal.

You can't keep stating things such as "the controversy just added more fuel to the flames" because that fired burned that out long ago, according to you.

Donkey shows and porno? Where? Nuevo Laredo? Tijuana? Border towns? Guess who all the customers are? White men scooting back across the Border to get to the polls in time to vote in the Republican Primary?

Posted by: Clunker at July 4, 2007 3:15 PM

Who's the racist? Loathsome? Slanderous? That would be clunker. Sounds like you are "in the know" when it comes to donkey shows! I suggest you practice what you preach, clunker.....

It's probably cynical, but I think it is #3,

================================

Occum's razor, look it up.

That entire post breaks down to the joke:
"I'm always right! Therefore any facts which contradict me must be wrong!"

Not to mention your entire post is flawed because you only suppose 3 arguments when there could be many more. My opinion:

#4) Bush knows Libby is completely innocent but if he pardons him, then the tag of "guilty" will continue to follow Libby the rest of his life. By letting the process continue, Bush lets Libby obtain complete innocence and vindication.

Poor Clucker, he got confused.

That is so sad. So, let me repeat the second point I raised:

"Fitzpatrick knew within days of being named Special Counsel that Under Secretary of State Richard Armitage (as did Secretary Colin Powell) leaked Plame's name and status as a CIA employee."

Clucker, remember that I started this so you could refute and rebut me point by point.

You seem to have stopped after the first point and are going full steam ahead on your business as usual personal attacks.

Point No 2, remember. So far, for all your irrelaevent personal attacks, you have not addressed it at all.

Grammie

Don't you think he, as a U.S. citizen, has a right to the court system that many want to give enemy combatants?

================================

Unfortunately Sharon, no he doesn't.

See, in his mind Libby is both a republican and Bush staff member which qualifies him to be burned at the stake.

What's even scarier is how these people justify it.

Grim, glad to se you back.

Grammie

The fact that AAP even THINKS he's made a reasoned argument makes me weep for our school system.

So moron, what's your "thoughts" (and i use the term loosely) that even the jury ITSELF said that Bush should pardon Libby?

No. It was not right to step it now. It was WRONG.
My opinion, the controversy just added more fuel to the flames.

Posted by: below average patty at July 4, 2007 8:23 PM

The prosecutor forced President Bush to step in now in order to keep Scooter from going to jail. Didn't the bbc report on this event, your main source of spin?

Is that not undermining, making a travesty of the legal system?

================================

Making a travesty of the system that's been in place since the birth of the country?

Just go ahead and admit it: You think it was completely wrong of the founders to give anyone the power to pardon at all because juries and judges are always right.

That's been the sum of all your "arguments".

Grammie,

Clucker is out for the night. What I think he is saying is that Armitage is irrelevant to the Scooter Libby trial. Libby said this, Russert said that. The jury believed Russert. End of story until Bush stepped in. Now he is squawking. He doesn't want to see that Fitzgerald wasted so much effort on Libby for the Plame case when the person behind the leak to Novak confessed. Did Armitage ever say where he got Plame's name? Do you know? Fitzgerald threw sand in his own investigation maybe.

Clucker et al, STILL WAITING!

This has taken so much time and effort to get just a reference, much less a rebuttal or refutation, to ONLY the second point I raised that I fear I might not live long enough for any of you to step up and refute me, much less move on to the other eight points I raised.

Am I to take this that none of you can refute me?

Grammie

Sharon, I think that the CIA is part of The State Department.

Richard Armitage, as the Undersecretary of Defense to Colin Powell, would have unfettered access and knowledge to and of all their records and general knowledge.

If I remember correctly he excused himself that he was just being gossipy, as was his wont, and intended no harm.

I am sure that Libby finds that very comforting.

Grammie

clunker, I have asked before, I will ask again. Care to tell me what all these "other names" you think I'm posting under? What racial comments I've made for you to think anyone should "distance" themselves from me? Since you post under other names, I find it ironic and hilarious you think I do the same thing, which I don't. I have a reputation to uphold! lol........

BAsed upon what you just said, Armitage was the original leaker who was his own source. How could there have been other "leakers" if Novak exposed her name from Armitage? I don't get Clucker's reasoning, shocker.

Has Clucker and crew ever actually used "logical reasoning" in their arguments here?

Not that I have ever noticed, Chicken Blogger.

And i have been around the block a lot more than most.

Grammie

No wonder I couldn't understand that which you demanded, i.e. a rebuttal or refutation of your second "point". You didn't make a "point". All you did is string together a series of facts. No conclusion was drawn, no findings offered. No "point" was made. If you are going to require a rebuttal or refutation of a "point", the person rebutting or refuting ought to be given a "point". You certainly wasted a tremendous amount of time and blessed us all with a fountain of invective and a sea of condescension all because you didn't do what you were suppose to do. Thank all the Saints God gave Moses and not you the Ten Commandments. We'd all be confused in addition to being sinners.

If you will recall, the DOJ gave a cryptic and flawed delegation (no surprise from this group) to Mr. Fitzgerald and had to amend the delegation on 6 February 2004, to charge Mr. Fitzgerald not only with an investigation of the alleged unauthorized disclosure of the identity of a CIA employee, but also with the "authority to investigate and prosecute violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying ... disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course [thereof] with the intent to interfere [therewith], such as perjury, obstruction of justice ...."

When you recite:

**Fitzpatrick knew within days of being named Special Counsel that Under Secretary of State Richard Armitage (as did Secretary Colin Powell) leaked Plame's name and status as a CIA employee.

as a "point," you seem to assume, obviously erroneously, that the investigation and Mr. Fitzgerald's task was solely to identify the leaker. As the fact you restated indicates, that was already known, if not proven. But the task was far larger, and properly included:

Was there more than one (1) leaker?
Did a federal employee knowing of the leaked information, act upon that leak to confirm and to pass on?
Did a federal employee attempt to exploit the leaked information?
Did a federal employee lie about his knowledge of the leaked information, the source, the action taken when the leaked information became known?

As you can readily see, there may be thousands and thousands of issues which had to be properly raised and addressed by Mr. Fitzgerald in carrying out his duties.

Your "point" addresses only one very narrow issue, resolved early in the investigation. Had Scooter been convicted of being the original leaker, your point would be significant. As it is, given the context of the charge to Mr. Fitzgerald, your "point" goes no where.

If you "point" is Armitage or Powell ought to be charged, as well, I suppose that is what we call "prosecutorial discretion". In any event, no one except for Mr. Fitzgerald knows, and he is not required to inform us of that.

Don't worry about confusing mere facts with evidence or with conclusions/findings. Although I was truly puzzled by your odd posturing, I forgave you earlier in the evening. And, I do understand you are desparate to try to bolster the image of your failed boy and his boys. I am sure you feel frustration and embarassment, perhaps even betrayal and abandonment by the actions and omissions of your boy and his boys.

In fact, although I despise fireworks, it was wondrous watching the kids get so excited. That was far more important than your careless wording and the confusion it caused me.

Thank you for a provocative, even if poorly stated "point". I am sure that we all benefitted, as sure as I am that you, Sharon and Cecelia will deem my contribution fully inadequate. And, as a side benefit, next time you ask me to refute a "point" you have made, I'll simply look for some tired recitation of facts, and we will all progress much more quickly.

And now, good night, all. An early flight for a dreadful meeting, and by the Grace of God and ATC, home by evening.

clunker doesn't understand the logic of a fact making a point, anyone surprised? Nope.

Clucker, you are a trip.

In one paragraph you careen from you couldn't 'understand' the point, to I made 'no point', to I ONLY strung together a 'SERIES OF FACTS' (yep, facts sure are very devious and tricky), to accusing me of 'a fountain of invective and a sea of condescension (sic)', and at last to gratitude that "God gave Moses....The Ten Commandments".

First, although the thought absolutely never occurred to me that I was in the running to receive God's law on Mount Sinai that is a lovely compliment.

Second, why did it take you hours and pages of your thoughts to reach the conclusion that there was no point to address? I made my first post raising all the points and my conclusion based on them @3:29 PM on 07/04 and after seven hours and well over a dozen posts by you a thunder bolt suddenly struck you that your refusal/inability to answer was my fault in the way I posed the question.

Third, in the context of this question why is this not a valid point to raise that "Fitzpatrick knew within days of being named Special Counsel that Under Secretary of State Richard Armitage (as did Secretary Colin Powell) leaked Plame's name and status as a CIA employee.".

I acknowledged earlier that some of my points overlapped. If you will remember I started this point by point questioning because you skipped everything I said @ 3:29 PM to make this statement "I am surprised you so dishonor yourself, Ms. Hawkins."

Grammie

PS You accussd me of a "fountain of invective". Very imaginative language. Now, how about some examples of my "fountain of invective." Surely those invectives are cascading in great abundance to reach the level of a fountain.

Grammie

Second, why did it take you hours and pages of your thoughts to reach the conclusion that there was no point to address? I made my first post raising all the points and my conclusion based on them @3:29 PM on 07/04 and after seven hours and well over a dozen posts by you a thunder bolt suddenly struck you that your refusal/inability to answer was my fault in the way I posed the question.

-------------------------------------------------

Simply because I could not understand you. My fault for being dense, your fault for being inarticulate .... I am sure it is the former since you do see yourself as wise and special in every way. Nonetheless, when I finally figured out what you meant, the response was easy. I really dislike the little game you played, however. I guess you're the Holy Joe of the blogosphere, however. In the end, it's all about Ms. Hawkins, not the issue.
-----
How fitting you should chime in, Ye of Many Names. Why don't you bash some immigrants instead of trying to wedge your way into a meaningful discussion? No doubt, Ms. Hawkins will stand idly by nodding her head in approval.

Clucker,

This is not your classroom here. If Armitage was the original leaker (he was the source of the leaked information and did not receive it from another) and from his leak came the national leak, what else is there to investigate? The authority given to Fitzgerald revolves around that central question. That investigation was never going to lead to anyone else, if Armitage were focused upon. According to Armitage, he did not receive orders or information from anyone. If it were not known that Armitage was the original source, then a prolonged investigation with some of the questions you listed would have been proper. Let's see who is behind this leaking and if there were several leakers to lead to the final leaker. That was not the case and Fitzgerald knew that early on! What in the world could he have charged anyone with when Novak proclaimed to the world Plame's identity? Who could have exploited known information?

BTW, I am anxious for July 7, whenthe motus propio will be announced. The 1962 missal does not have "perfidious Jews." That has not been used since the late 1950's.

correction motu propio (perfidious had a different connotation at one time; On Good Friday, Catholics still pray for the conversion of Jews which is the reason behind that petition).

Clucker, YOU have accused me of dishonoring myself while fountains of invective flowed forth from my lofty perch of condescension. Now mind you, that was just tonight.

Previously you said this to me:

"As always JH a/k/a Grammie, mean and nasty.

Enjoy your weekend.

I'll do a Novena tomorrow evening and ask that you be filled with joy and charity.

Posted by Clucker at May 19, 2007 12:03 AM"

In light of that prideful little bit of sanctimony and your moral judgments here you have the unmitigated gall to now call me "the Holy Joe of the blogosphere,".

Get a grip, man.

There is no Eleventh Commandment demanding that everyone agree with you. This is a discussion board not your pulpit.

Grammie