Uh... Might want to check your Koolaid for strychnine.

Might also want to hang your hat on more-reliable news sources. Oh wait, I forgot where I was posting...

Talk about paranoid--let's talk about the Dems love for Conspiracy Theories. JFK, 9/11, AIDS, Global Warming, you name it, the Dems have a conspiracy theory for it.

repeat after me. blindrat is a racist piece of shit.

Entertaining article and I think he makes a good point but I take issue with one thing he says:

"Truth cannot co-exist with bias..."

Ummm... bull$*17.

Bias has no impact on truth. Bias can lead to focus on some truths preferrably over others, bias can lead to accepting lies AS truth but in no way does bias immediately invalidate truth.

Is math "less true" because teachers and mathematicians have a bias to eucladian geometry?

Is creationism less true because believers are bias towards it?

Is Evolution less true because athiests are bias towards it?

Truth is truth is true and nothing invalidates it. Especially not bias. That just muddies the water a little.

OH, and of course I think the article author is completely too absorbed with "THE Media (tm)".

As John Derbyshire pointed out.
http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire052203.asp

Look at Britian where newspapers are open about the bias they spout.

Aren't we all supposed to want to be like Europe? Let's face it, you can't pull bias from a reporter as long as reporters are human. Which means we either need to invent news robots (see Philip K Dick's "If There Were No Benny Cemoli"). Or just have news organizations produce two reports of every event, one from each bias. Then we might be able to get to the truth of each matter.

Citizen Keith is a loose marble on a warped floor.

Perhaps Thompson meant *reporting* the truth.

I think OK actually does a pretty fair job with disclosing personal commentary, one element of many Thompson missed, along with the homage to Murrow in his sign-off.

At least he spelled Murrow correctly.

I think it muddies the water a lot. Especially for younger people who don't have a large enough frame of reference to tell what is truth and what is spin. Sure, the truth exists independently of bias, but what's the point of truth if bias has swept public opinion away from it?

Sure, the truth exists independently of bias, but what's the point of truth if bias has swept public opinion away from it?

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

Very true John-O.

But you only get this when you have bias masqurading as truth. If everyone was at least up front about bias (http://newsprism.com/) then I doubt people will be as confused.

Seems to me we need to get a "truth-in-advertising" for the media.

What I've noticed over the years is a trend towards the talking heads like Limbaugh and O'Reilly, picking up the same talking points addressed somewhat uncritically by mainstream media and riffing on them to a point of absurdity. These folks seem to be allowed significantly more latitude regarding libel than established news organizations, perhaps because they're entertainers and not qualified journalists.

Regardless of political affiliation, a bona fide newspaper would be sued relentlessly for the libelous material aired by these entertainers. That includes Hollywood elite types too --as annoying as the Penns, Baldwins, Sellecks are, they certainly have a right to express their opinions, but they're just that. personal opinions. We must be skeptical collecting information regarding the facts from sources such as these.

Reporting the news, especially hard news, should be as empirical as possible ["just the facts, ma'm"], even though ultimately the writer will likely have his or her own personal bias. That's a fundamental principle of journalism, which seems to be something lacking in so much of our mainstream coverage nowadays, especially on tv.

Don't confuse the OpEd pages for the tone or methodologies used for the news coverage in the rest of the paper, as well as the news judgment used to print/air specific news pieces as representative of all the news available to report.

I try to read as much from a variety of news sources as possible, to get feel for a more complete view of the topic at hand. With the consolidation and homogenization of news media in this country, that's increasingly more difficult to do. But as a citizen who wants to know how the policies of our government may impact our lives, I feel that is important enough to do. Sometimes I uncover something that's counter to my own predictions, but with support from otherwise competing news sources, allows me to determine the "truthfulness" of each story.

I'm all for "truth-in-advertising", but I doubt that that will ever happen. Everybody seems to think that THEY represent the "middle-of-the-road" opinion. Many far-lefties don't see themselves as "far-left" and likewise for the far-righties. People like Ann Coulter and Keith Olbermann are perfect examples; they don't see themselves as the biased talking heads that they are, each one just thinks that they're "right"!

7/5/2007 1:59:05 PM
Drug Rehab

I don't know John-O... I can't remember Ann Coulter ever CLAIMING to be "middle-of-the-road" nor Rush Limbaugh (Bill O does claim he is) nor some news outlets like National Review.

You can even find some liberal admissions (The New Republic) but they seem fewer and far between.

John-O, you hit the nail on the head. I am tired of the "extremes" of both parties and am craving news...not "journalism", but straight on REPORTING. It would be nice not to have to "search" for it all over the dam Internet, but I think the days of straight forward news reporting are long gone.

When you the so-called ICONS of mainstream media are pushing propaganda or unsubstantiated news, it gets really dangerous. For years Dan Rather was consider a beacon of the straight news. Anyone who cared to research his affiliations would find out that he leaned hard left... but a talented newscaster would't let you peak into his biases during his presentation (take note KeithO) But 'memogate' managed to derail Rathers career and stain his legacy.

The BBC did a self-evalution recently and found that more than 90% of their newspeople were liberal. Hard to expect a fair-and-balanced news report from such a skewed staff... no?

The transcripts are not up yet, but I was somewhat stunned to hear Turley bring up Clinton's pardons, implying that that was way worse than Bush's Libby commute. Seem to take the sails out of Olbermann's special comment. Wonder if Mr. Turley will be invited back.

I am tired of the "extremes" of both parties and am craving news...not "journalism", but straight on REPORTING.

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

I'm not sure that's even possible. Every story reporters pick up will have for more information and detail than can be put in on a newspaper.

So they have to make a decision, which facts and information to include in the report. Hence we are back to where we started.

Here is something refreshing. Slate Online Magazine has a left-leaning bias, but one of their leading contributors wrote this column as a reaction to the libby sentence commutation. Although I am biased towards his conclusion, he presents it in a manner that even a loon could appreciate it.

http://www.slate.com/id/2169718/

I think it's biased to compare Keith Olbermann with Bill O'Reilly.

I don't watch O'Reilly but did he endorse the " Gov. Clinton Death List"? "Wag the Dog" scenarios about the Clinton administration in Bosnia and Sudan? The conspiracy theory about Clinton's Sec of Commerce Ron Brown's death? The wild stuff about the deaths of Vince Foster or James McDougal? Juanita Broderick's claims?

Short of going as far as Rosie O'Donnell and claiming direct responsibility for 9/11, Olbermann has never met a conspiracy theory about the Bushes that he hasn't embraced.

I don't think that's true for O'Reilly and I certainly know O'Reilly aired Clnton defenders including the retinue of Lanny Davis, Paul Begala, and James Carville, etc, back in the Lewinsky days.

Heck! I don't listen to Limbaugh either, did he embrace all the conspiracies mentioned above either?

"...but I think the days of straight forward news reporting are long gone..."

After I wrote that Grim, I thought, did it ever exist? What did we do before the internets!?!

Benson, thanks for the Slate link, it was a good OpEd. Although not a Loon, I do appreciate it.

Turley's Clinton comments really diminished the "Special Comment" a great deal for me. Olbermann seem especially silly being so "outraged" over the Libby commute. Perhaps that was his "last straw" over this entire administration, but it just felt really over blown...like a ratings stunt.

I guess I keep hoping Olbermann would be a little more like Moyers, but he is so like Limbaugh & O'Reilly its depressing. But the left side of the blogesphere is eating it up. Nearly 600 comments on the Newshole, the youtube video at nearly 70,000 views.

Here is something refreshing. Slate Online Magazine has a left-leaning bias, but one of their leading contributors wrote this column as a reaction to the libby sentence commutation. Although I am biased towards his conclusion, he presents it in a manner that even a loon could appreciate it.

http://www.slate.com/id/2169718/

Posted by: benson at July 5, 2007 4:09 PM

Thoughtful piece! Thanks so much for this link, benson!

The writers may be as liberal as Oscar Wilde, but it's the editorial team and publishers [see Fox News, especially], who have the power to determine what runs/airs. The percentage of hardcore liberals in this population tends to be significantly less than 90 percent.

A professional journalist lives and dies by reputation, built on credibility, based on reporting the facts as unvarnished as possible.

The Rather f-up unfortunately overshadowed the truth in his original story, it certainly coulda-shoulda been better presented, defended and maybe afterwards Rather would've kept his job in mainstream news.

His team producing a facsimile of the memo didn't take away from the fact the content existed in the original. As they should, they had interviews with real-live witnesses supporting that.

But picking battles, defending the facsimile memo as the original document, obviously didn't help anything, certainly muddied the water for the point of the story at-hand.

Poor choice on Dan's part [although I tend to think he had bad info on the authenticity of the doc from one his producers], did indeed tarnish an otherwise respectable career.

News people do make mistakes, and professional organizations allow for corrections; but the appearance of personal bias on a provocative story overshadowed the guts of the story. I wonder why more news organizations don't use a similar method as they did with Rather to determine a news persons' worthiness to be on-air.

I'm curious of the whereabouts of the producer who presented Dan the facsimile memo as the original, who Rather believed enough to defend it's authenticity early on.

Regardless, Rather's name was on the byline, and as we all know he went down with the team. Now, we've got Katie Couric in his place.

Yep, that sure was a fair trade. Thanks for supporting journalistic integrity, CBS.

I guess I keep hoping Olbermann would be a little more like Moyers, but he is so like Limbaugh & O'Reilly

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

Sorry STC, I can't help but make the joke:

"You mean you'd rather Olbermann cover up his bias instead of being upfront and honest about it?"

lol Seriously though, you don't have to look far to find conservatives that are unhappy with Moyers (though I think we'd all rather deal with a room full of him than 1 olbermann)

The Rather f-up unfortunately overshadowed the truth in his original story, it certainly coulda-shoulda been better presented, defended and maybe afterwards Rather would've kept his job in mainstream news.

His team producing a facsimile of the memo didn't take away from the fact the content existed in the original. As they should, they had interviews with real-live witnesses supporting that.

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

Another attempt at "fake but true"?

The memo story was wrong, period.

The fact that so many keep saying "but..." when talking about it just goes to prove how dangerous bias disguised as truth is.

Another interesting take (short) from The Moderate Voice: (the comments in response are pretty good as well):

http://themoderatevoice.com/entertainment/13894/keith-olbermanns-outrage/

funny Grim, I was hoping to slip the Moyers thing by...Although Olbermann has tried to cover his bias for a while, I think that horse has long left the barn.

Uh huh... you're right.
I guess those witnesses were just actors then.

The problem with KeithO and to a lesser degree Dan Rather is that they are convinced that the republicans are evil. And to that extension I agree there is some corruption on both sides. But in their zeal to present this angle they tend to exaggerate and actually distort facts which represent their views. Why? Why not let the facts come out? Surely if they are so evil there is not a need to falsify documents. Once exposed, their credibility is lost with the level-headed democrat or republican. I do not believe 50% of what Limbaugh proclaims, but Keith's one sided comedies are even less reliable. He has been marginalized by his frothing mouth which more often than not- spews hate and lies.

You mean only the witnesses that supported what the memo said... as compared to the ones that came forward disputing it? I like how there is a meaningful conversation about unbiased media and people like "Tom" throw out the "Its true" line. Take a journalism course. If you muddy a story with fake facts or lies... the general rule of thumb is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Once you have one fact that is proven false, your whole story lacks merit. Thats why Michael Moore has been downgraded from 'documentarian' to 'editorialist' He only presents one side.

You mean only the witnesses that supported what the memo said... as compared to the ones that came forward disputing it?

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

Not to mention the plethora of military documentation with disputed it. Or that the memos were fake. The copies were just copies of a fake. Hard evidence is always preferred to witness.

---Heck! I don't listen to Limbaugh either, did he embrace all the conspiracies mentioned above either?

Yup. I went one by one and I can say I have heard him either obliquely endorse or give airtime to all of them, and I'm not a religious listener by any stretch--I just poke in from time to time to see what the paranoid rednecks are being fed. It's often tongue in cheek, but with Limbaugh the joke is generally the meaning, ginning up scorn for anything he can plausibly call leftist. He definitely went pretty far on the Foster thing. I remember that. But as a political entertainer, you have to feed your base. Olbermann is the exact same thing on the left, only far, far less successfull. And yet he is the maniacally evil center of the universe here. Go figure.

None of that, of course, changes the fact that the Libby commutation is highly irregular on a number of counts, and a pretty clear case of political subversion of the regular justice system. Libby was convicted of a crime, and the only reason he doesn't have to serve the same sentence as everyone else convicted for that crime is that GWB/Cheney don't want him to. Why don't they want him to? Well the answers range form that he is a good friend, to that they are afraid he can spill some beans they don't want spilt.

All of the prosecuters and judges who ruled on the case were Repulican appointees, most of them Bush appointees. The investigation wasn't political, and the sentence isn't excessive, as Bush claims, but standard. And you can tell me what the remainder of the sentence-- the 250,000 fine-- means to a man who received 5,000,000 in donations for his defense. Looks to me like he turned a nice profit on the whole deal. But the bald fact of the matter is that if you are a good "friend" to this administration, nothing you do will result in any negative consequence. That is a message that I think they are intentionally sending.

I don't think you guys even dispute any of that, you just want to say you don't care, that that's business as ususal, or not that much worse than Clinton. Which is sad. But not altogether untrue. Clinton was scummy too. Just a lot less of a miserable failure.

Dear unidentified commenter,

There are many things wrong with the Rather story, too many to warrant an essay here; and frankly, the story itself is an old one, back in Texas, before W. quit drinkin' and snortin' and wrecking cars, and decided to run for governor.

If it was meant to have an impact on the 2004 election, then whoever runs a story like this better get it absolutely airtight.

If it was truly meant to air before the election, then it's a bias of news judgment in airing it more so than the content of the story itself.

btw, I'm always studying the media, and have a few notches from accredited j-schools too, so stop that line of BS please, assuming you know how.

Thanks for the update on Moore.

His team producing a facsimile of the memo didn't take away from the fact the content existed in the original. As they should, they had interviews with real-live witnesses supporting that.

Posted by: at July 5, 2007 4:53 PM

First of all what "originals" are you talking about? If CBS has the unfaked orginals of the Killian memos it would be big news indeed.

Also, I'm interested in the witnesses you refer to here. The ones I'm aware of all stated that they had been misquoted in the piece. Do you have particular info or a link about others?

None of that, of course, changes the fact that the Libby commutation is highly irregular on a number of counts, and a pretty clear case of political subversion of the regular justice system. Libby was convicted of a crime, and the only reason he doesn't have to serve the same sentence as everyone else convicted for that crime is that GWB/Cheney don't want him to.

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

No, as even another liberal commentator pointed out, Libby's sentencing wasn't "usual" in anyway.
http://www.slate.com/id/2169718/

And as Byron York pointed out (which i keep quoting but nobody seems to be reading:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2RjNDYzNGIwNDNiOGUwOTMyODZhZDJmYzZhNDhkMGU=)
"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."

Repeat after me:
This is not unusual.
Bush has done nothing wrong.
(legally speaking - morally we can debate)

Tom- You lost all credibility with your "But its true" line. Media outlet after media outlet questioned the memo they used to substantiate their 'witnesses'. Rather and company repeatedly asserted it was authentic, even after it was discovered that internal experts had disputed that.

Agenda- yes. Poorly reported -yes. Malicious, we don't kow. But bringing up an old story with just witnesses from one side just before an election would have held no water. With a 'found memo'- wow.

Unfortunately for you, this biased story being exposed ended up giving Bush wings which he rode to re-election.

Who is throwing bullshit... You defending CBS when the deliberately misreported a story in an effort to sway an election? Or me who is just telling you the facts.

I don't think you guys even dispute any of that, you just want to say you don't care, that that's business as ususal, or not that much worse than Clinton. Which is sad. But not altogether untrue. Clinton was scummy too. Just a lot less of a miserable failure.

Posted by: Erie Bob Olberloon at July 5, 2007 5:25 PM

Good to see you, Erie Bob, but if you'll read back, especially in the July 2 thread, you will see your 'undisputed' ....disputed.

moron paranoid shameless BUSHWIPES!

Posted by: Average American Patriot at July 5, 2007 2:23 PM

Nice to see AAP aka Anal Addicted Pervert is alive and well today. Carry-on basement dweller.

Nice to see AAP...

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

I want to lobby to change his name. No average american patriot (heck, no average PERSON) I've ever met or seen is as stark raving mad as he is.

Anyone gotten him a rabies shot?

Remember last year when Bush declared that was going to start celebrating his July 6th birthday on July 4th? It was a wonderful attempt to further cement the deep association made by his tiny but stalwart base that our nation is one with the person of the president. He didn't continue with this travesty tis year, as far as I have heard (although I imagine that royalking, cee, and others here had their "Happy Birthday, my leige" hats on yesterday as they waved their flags and grilled their burgers and hot dogs.

Why did Bush drop this bit of imperial theater? Did he remember that the ancient Celtic kings, who enjoyed the same concept of personification with their lands and people, were sacrificed by their subjects when harvests or wars went bad?

Another case of modern Republicans failing to accept the responsibility of the powers they claim.

Truth and Consequences: Special Comments on the Bush Administration's War on American Values (Hardcover)
by Keith Olbermann (Author)
List Price: $25.95
Price: $17.13 (Amazon.com)
Release Date: December 26, 2007

With a forthcoming book of his special comments focusing ONLY on the Bush administration, I think we can safely say "his bias abounds." Funny how he said he would hold the Dems to the same critical microscope (I think he did one special comment on the Dem congress).

Now that he has to "fill" a book with special comments focusing on the BUSH administration, expect more special comments specifically related to Bush. To me another reason why Mr. Olbermann's "outrage" is suspect and nothing more than a ratings rant motivated by future book sales. "Journalism" at its' finest.

I want to lobby to change his name. No average american patriot (heck, no average PERSON) I've ever met or seen is as stark raving mad as he is.

Anyone gotten him a rabies shot?

Posted by: Challenger Grim at July 5, 2007 5:55 PM

Actually, we love us some AAP.

He's the site anti-mascot and is held with particular affection.

Wow. I read that 150 word piece on Slate on why it was right for Bush to commute Libby's sentence. What a shallow crock!

I love this:

"Walton gave Libby 30 months and a $250,000 fine, then further twisted the knife by denying Libby's routine request to delay the sentence while his lawyers appealed it."

That's bullpucky. In order to delay the sentence, a board has to review the merits of the appeal, which they did, and unanimously rejected it. That guy writing the article acts like the judge himself imposed it. And the board was 100% Republican I believe.

"The voluminous pleas for leniency from Libby's A-list friends seem to have annoyed Walton, who erred on the side of severity not in spite of Libby's high position in government but because of it. Walton wanted to make an example of him"

Yeah, it's all one renegade judge "erring on the side of severity." He just came up with that sentence out of thin air to make an overzealous example. Too bad there are no FEDERAL SENTENCING GUIDELINES that the judge is supposed to follow. They would never call for a crazy sentence like that. Nothing like 30-37 months. What was that? There are? No. Really?!

Of course, if this was a "send a message" sentencing, Libby's convinctions had statutory maximums of 5 years for each of the two counts of purgury, and 10 years for the obstruction of justice charge. There are people in prison right now for much longer terms than Libby's for lesser convictions.

"Yes, it was inconsistent with his past indifference in such matters, particularly when he was governor of Texas. One can only hope that, having behaved decently once, he'll acquire the habit. In the meantime, bully for him."

Right. Bush may suddenly discovered the virtue of mercy for his political allies! Bully for him. Pretty convenient too, that he found it just in time to keep Scooter from talking AND found it in such a way that the appeal stays alive, so that "no comment or disclosure on ongoing cases" is still in effect. This is behaving decently. What a joke.

Sir LOB, aren't you going to look like a fool when Bush actually steps down in Jan '09 and Thompson takes the oath?

New book! WEeeeeeeeeee!
Think it will be written in all caps to reflect his over-the-top anger?

"Sir LOB, aren't you going to look like a fool when Bush actually steps down in Jan '09 and Thompson takes the oath?"

I'd say if that happens pretty much every single American will look like a fool.

Bobbo- you should read some of his past articles. He is a lefty. Imagine that, a liberal that can actually think straight and agree with a nonconforming viewpoint. Looney Bob!

ALL CAPS...good one Benson!

It should also give us camera direction, so we know which way to turn our heads as we read.

Yeah, it's all one renegade judge "erring on the side of severity." He just came up with that sentence out of thin air to make an overzealous example. Too bad there are no FEDERAL SENTENCING GUIDELINES that the judge is supposed to follow. They would never call for a crazy sentence like that. Nothing like 30-37 months. What was that? There are? No. Really?!

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

Ummm... sentencing guidelines are more like a rule of thumb than a "must apply". You're thinking of mandatory sentences. See, it IS up to the judges discretion how much of the guidelines to apply (a min-max scenario). Otherwise we wouldn't have sentencing by judges.

If we assume that Libby was guilty, just lying about a conversation with reporters deserved the max sentence? C'mon! You're honestly advocating that "it's just talk" is that much worse than "it's just sex"?

Liberals: "Where double standards are a way of life" ?

STC-bravo! Turn read left page- pivot - read right page.

I'd say if that happens pretty much every single American will look like a fool.

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

?
...Ok, I missed something there.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
STC-bravo! Turn read left page- pivot - read right page.
================================

That's how I read now! lol ;-)

"Bobbo- you should read some of his past articles. He is a lefty."

Oh nooooooo, realllllly?!!!?! OMG, then I better change my opinions to conform to his. God knows if you can find one obscure web journalist who professes to be a lefty, but agrees with Bush, then you know it's right. I could give a rat's ass if this guy is some commie dork. He is making a stupid argument. Leftists make stupid arguments. Righties makes stupid arguments. Dumb is dumb. And that one is DUMB.

Anyone who wants to look at the unvarnished facts will see that Mr. Libby has been given simply preferential treatment for being a good foot soldier and telling the right lies. And there is a reason there is no pardon right now, but may be later.

You folks can't be serious. I wouldn't be such a jackass as to take up for Clinton pardoning Rich, even in a matter that had no bearing on national security, even if I had liked Clinton at that point. But you clowns can't get out of your own way praising Bush's leniency to the heavens. I know things are going badly for your utopian will-to-power visions of the world as playdough, but have some self respect. This is just bald faced quid pro quo garbage.

"If we assume that Libby was guilty, just lying about a conversation with reporters deserved the max sentence? C'mon! You're honestly advocating that "it's just talk" is that much worse than "it's just sex"?"

When the conversation is about the identity of U.S. spies, then yes, lying about a conversation is a shitload worse than lying about a BJ. And we aren't assuming Libby is guilty, he was CONVICTED. Your attempted moral relativism would make a lot more sense if you compared apples to apples.

Dear unidentified commenter:

This will be my last comment regarding Rathergate [applause], promise, at least today.

As I think I mentioned previously, the Rather story was a mess. I was not defending CBS, am not John Kerry, and I'm not convinced you're "just telling the facts" although I do appreciate your candor.

Sorry to lose all credibility in your eyes [how will I sleep tonight?], but I believe the story is true, saw evidence years before 2004, and even if i could produce the image of the original, it doesn't rightly matter in this forum; but I guess I didn't make myself clear: I don't think the original memo exists today, or did during Rather's report. Military records for W. had long been scrubbed. There's barely enough there to prove W. was or wasn't anywhere near the military, including the Champaign Reserves, back in those days now.

Burkett is a provocative witness, on both sides of the political fence, and probably no longer on Rather's Christmas card list.

Rather continues to dispute the findings of the internal investigation.

Repetition of critiques from competing news services alone aren't convincing to me, especially in an age of consolidated ownership.

I do however agree that there's more than a few holes, at very least in the production, in Rather's piece, and especially since th story itslef had been on the vine for decades, he should've had his shit straight. He didn't. I think we can agree on that much.

In retrospect, the story is more an ironic episode if only a possible insult to the military [assuming you consider the core story true] than anything dealing with government policies.

Potentially-embarrassing to the president? Sure. Rocking the very foundations of our country? Not really.

Now, if I wore glasses... I'd whip em off to make my visual point. Cue outro.

You folks can't be serious...I know things are going badly for your utopian will-to-power visions of the world as playdough...

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

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the EXACT point where EBO stop actually talking to people and instead begins to rant and rave against a mental chariaticure [sp?] strawman of his own making.

"Ummm... sentencing guidelines are more like a rule of thumb than a "must apply". You're thinking of mandatory sentences. See, it IS up to the judges discretion how much of the guidelines to apply (a min-max scenario). Otherwise we wouldn't have sentencing by judges."

The guy is making the point that the sentence was outside-of-the-box harsh. It wasn't. It was on the low end of the guidelines. The guidlines define the norm. You are saying that since it was possible for the judge to go lower, it was unusual for him not to do so. Which is flat out retarded.

Signing off for another few months, I am, Erie Bob.

You are saying that since it was possible for the judge to go lower, it was unusual for him not to do so. Which is flat out retarded.

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

Considering other and similar cases (which the slate author brought up), yes, it was unusual.

Here's a hint, people will not agree with your logic if they disagree from the start with the basic premise. So stop with statements like "Which is flat out retarded." which does nothing for the debate and just attempts to browbeat anyone that disagrees with you.

"Ummm... sentencing guidelines are more like a rule of thumb than a "must apply". You're thinking of mandatory sentences. See, it IS up to the judges discretion how much of the guidelines to apply (a min-max scenario). Otherwise we wouldn't have sentencing by judges."

The guy is making the point that the sentence was outside-of-the-box harsh. It wasn't. It was on the low end of the guidelines. The guidlines define the norm. You are saying that since it was possible for the judge to go lower, it was unusual for him not to do so. Which is flat out retarded.

Signing off for another few months, I am, Erie Bob.

Posted by: Erie Bob Olberloon at July 5, 2007 6:32 PM

Well, I hope you feel better now, EBO.

We're always here for you when you get piqued about some issue or another and need to find some "wingers" to whack at till your fever lowers.

We're givers here at OW. It's not in us to take.

Drive carefully...

I just came across an article written by a soldier in Iraq critisizing press coverage of it. Considering our discussion here, I thought it seemed appropiate. And my uncle (who's over there right now, and works with the press) has always said what this guy does.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzQ3ODUyNGZmNTAxODJkYjMxOWU2MTRlN2UxY2ZiNmU=
Quote:
After spending some time with the mainstream media, it’s not hard to understand why the coverage coming from Iraq is, as Staff Sergeant Rodriguez from the 4-9 cavalry out of Texas put it, “Completely wrong . . . in my opinion.”

Suprised to see Eerie Bob here today... you'd think he'd pick his moments if he's only gonna come every two months. Maybe the day after the dems took back the congress? Instead you come here complaining about executive overreaching the week of the LEGAL commutation? You lefties have seen better days. This week aint full of any of them. Scooter is free and will remain free.

PS. Another day to NOT come back is during the hearings when Reid, Pelosi and Kennedy step on the soapbox and do their usual bitching. And you wonder why congress's approval ratings are under this president's ratings? You just don't get it. There are bigger fish to fry!

Grimmer- Unfortunately I understand why the media seems biased against the war. Local news is full of shootings, fires, deadly crashes, murders, etc. Unfortunately violence sells the news. Therefore national news loves to sensationalize the bombings, shootings and beheadings. Truthfully I'd get sick of seeing news about schools being opened around the clock. Sad but true about human nature.

703- That was me obviously talking to myself.

Where is rudy ramirez when you need someone of substance to talk to?

Suprised to see Eerie Bob here today... you'd think he'd pick his moments if he's only gonna come every two months. Maybe the day after the dems took back the congress? Instead you come here complaining about executive overreaching the week of the LEGAL commutation? You lefties have seen better days. This week aint full of any of them. Scooter is free and will remain free.

Posted by: benson at July 5, 2007 6:57 PM

Actually, now that you mention it, I'm pretty sure EBO DID come here after the Dems regained Congress.

It's fairly vivid in my mind because I remember being entertained at his bemusement that Olbermann critics were still here criticising Olbermann and that the majority were staying optimistic about the country, it's citizens and its leadership on both sides of the aisle... instead of being in sack cloth and ashes or lying in morgues as the result of self-inflicted injuries :D

Grim,

I haven't done a plug for A Soldier's Perspective for awhile so I recommend it to you. It has been a little quiet at the site since CJ Grisham, owner and usually the administrator, has taken a much needed hiatus. The earliest archives are fascinating because they are much more personal; the site has evolved as you'll notice. CJ guested here a couple of months ago (upon my request). I wanted people to hear from an active duty soldier and his view does not coincide with the Olbyloons here. CJ is pretty close with all of the milbloggers, from what I gather.

Additionally, I will research this but I was wondering if Bush only has the power to wipe out the sentence versus reduce it. Someone stated that one of the conservative newspapers (I guess op ed) suggested that if the sentence were reduced to 15 months, that would have been acceptable.

Thanks,
Sharon

Thanks again for the link Grim, terrific piece.
To anon 7:03: I don't think the piece is about news reporting violence, it is about how the war is covered.

excerpt from: Live from Baghdad
The press's war. By Matt Sanchez

Setting a Guinness record for distance to commute to work, Time magazine's Iraq "expert" Joe Klein has managed to get his opinion and analysis to audiences worldwide since 2003. With no military experience (which seems to be a prerequisite for reporting from Iraq), perched above is keyboard in Westchester, N.Y., Klein has been a persistent back-seat driver in the "rush to war". Finally, after four years of his articles have influenced millions of readers and news outlets throughout the world, Joe Klein has made it into Iraq just in time to declare the effort hopeless.

As I read much of the Western press I wonder, who side are these guys on? Of course, the answer is that they're supposed to remain neutral, but this neutrality is a luxury afforded the media by a standard that only one side will meet. When Time magazine interviewed a bombmaker claiming to be responsible for "rising American casualties," they forgot to ask the "sophisticated and tenacious enemy" the tough questions like, "What's your exit strategy?" or "How broken is the insurgency?" "Could you define victory?" or even the most basic, "Why are you doing this?" The fact that the press demands accountability from one side and offers servility to the other is a very cunning strategy to win an asymmetrical war. That is, it's as if the press were conducting a war of its own.

? Matt Sanchez is a U.S. serviceman in Iraq.

I'm not so sure, STC. Maybe I'm alone on this one, but my take on Olbermann is this: He's an angry, insecure man by nature. He is fiercely partisan and opposing ideology drives him mad. His "outrage" for Bush and all things Republican stems from pure partisan anger, not from any sort of desire to dominate the cable news war (for example, I don't think he resents not being #1 himself, I think he resents the fact that someone diametrically opposed to his way of thinking is #1!). More than anything, his rantings are CATHARTIC for him. I mean, really- if he didn't have his Countdown forum to bloviate, couldn't you just picture him as that stereotypical old guy yelling furiously at the TV when the president (or Bill-O) comes on??

In short, he does it because he can't help himself!

Sharon,

I think you're referring to the Washington Time's stance that Bush should not have commuted Libby's sentence.

You know how we monolithic rightwingers merely venture that Clinton was worse in any dispute...

I'm not sure what you're asking re-- can the president "wipe out" a sentence rather than reduce it.

I canceled my Time magazine because of the water drip tortue of Jo Klein bias. Always disguised as intellectual.. he grabs his themes right from the blue blogs, and rewrites the text. Hardly investigative or impartial.

Countdown forum to bloviate, couldn't you just picture him as that stereotypical old guy yelling furiously at the TV when the president (or Bill-O) comes on??

In short, he does it because he can't help himself!

Posted by: at July 5, 2007 7:23 PM

Actually, I yell at the television when O'Reilly comes on. (Though I hardly ever watch him.)

He's acted like an idiot every time I've seen him and as Andrew Sullivan characterized it "he argues like an ignorant drunk".

Bush could have reduced the sentence- its part of his executive privilege, but it still would have pissed off the lefties. So why show reason if you won't be judged by people with reason?

Cecelia,

My question was not very clear. Bush wiped out the portion of the sentence to be served. Does the president have the authority to reduce jail time or does he just have to eliminate it altogether in a commutation?

It is within his power to reduce it to any amount of time. Nevermind...

Clinton was scummy too. Just a lot less of a miserable failure.

Posted by: Erie Bob Olberloon at July 5, 2007 5:25 PM

Bush is trying, a hell of a lot more than I can say for clinton. Remember, clinton the the bombin of The Cole was a "police" matter. Coward.

Cecelia,

My question was not very clear. Bush wiped out the portion of the sentence to be served. Does the president have the authority to reduce jail time or does he just have to eliminate it altogether in a commutation?

Posted by: Sharon at July 5, 2007 7:33 PM

I'd have to google it, but I'll venture that yes, a president can commute a sentence to any degree of less severe.

Sharon
Presidential Judicial powers

Among the president's constitutional powers is that of appointing important public officials. Presidential nomination of federal judges, including members of the Supreme Court, is subject to confirmation by the Senate. Another significant power is that of granting a full or conditional pardon to anyone convicted of breaking a federal law — except in a case of impeachment. The pardoning power has come to embrace the power to shorten prison terms and reduce sentences.

Thanks, Benson. It seemed clear he could.

Ah, back to the topic at-hand:

The key here is that it's inappropriate for the president to pardon or commute a sentence in a case in where he [the president] is a party to the same underlying crime.

That in itself amounts to obstruction of justice and has potential grounds for impeachment.

I wish Nixon were alive to share his thoughts about his Friday Night Massacre.

The key here is that it's inappropriate for the president to pardon or commute a sentence in a case in where he [the president] is a party to the same underlying crime.

Where was that fact established in the Libby case?

Libby was the adviser for the VP and P.
That was established years before the trial.

The key here is that it's inappropriate for the president to pardon or commute a sentence in a case in where he [the president] is a party to the same underlying crime.

That in itself amounts to obstruction of justice and has potential grounds for impeachment.

I wish Nixon were alive to share his thoughts about his Friday Night Massacre.

Posted by: tom! at July 5, 2007 7:48 PM

I like the term "inappropriate" and all.... but the underlying crime is perjury.

Libby was the adviser for the VP and P.
That was established years before the trial.

Posted by: tom! at July 5, 2007 7:54 PM

So if an administration official lies under oath this means a President is automatically "a party" to that?

FYI. Clinton's presidency was considered a success( even by Bill OReilly) and is near the middle top of all presidents.
Bush is either near the bottom or dead last as a president.

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

I feel I can't say it any better than Derb did.
http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire061103.asp

"What the Clintons left behind them is nothing to do with policy, foreign or domestic. It is the "red-blue" split, the gulf between citizens who, having been very thoroughly exposed to New Class values, detest them, and those who don't. The Clintons did not add anything to the country; nor, in spite of their best efforts, did they subtract much from it. What they mainly did was polarize it. If you compare the nation at the end of the Clinton years with what it was at the beginning, there are two things that stand out: We were richer, and we were more bitterly divided. The first was nothing the Clintons did, only a consequence of the defeat of big-government liberalism in 1994 followed by an explosion of private-sector activity as the Internet revolution arrived. The second was theirs, their true and lasting legacy."

Not one.

That's the definition of the hypocrisy.

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

Ummm.... no, the definition of hypocrisy would be if one of those 25 senators voiced favor, supported it etc etc.

Silence means nothing.

I think I'll go with that one.

Posted by: GOP hypocrites at July 5, 2007 7:57 PM

So outside of the fact that Libby isn't an elected official and CAN NOT be impeached.... (so it's assinine making that comparision....) via Bush's commuting his sentence, Libby gets EXACTLY what Clinton ended up with-- his law license revoked (actually I think Clinton just get a suspension...) and legal bills...

So I'm wondering how someone else is hypocritical considering you're the one arguing that he should receive jail time whereas Clinton didn't....

From your very right wing national review.
We know Grim Challenger, you aren't capable of being anything but partisan.

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

Right, and you're the picture definition of unbiased.

Never mind, THAT up there----^ is the definition of hypocracy.

And no, actually, it doesn't irk me because it's too soon to determine exactly "how" a presidency as gone. Only history and time will tell us for sure, maybe my ghost can come by and check what the books say.

"...He's an angry, insecure man by nature. He is fiercely partisan and opposing ideology drives him mad. His "outrage" for Bush and all things Republican stems from pure partisan anger, not from any sort of desire to dominate the cable news war..."
Posted by: at July 5, 2007 7:23 PM

I think your view is very realistic, anon 7:23. But from reading past interviews (and from his hour with the Dan Patrick Show), I get the sense he is very into his own celebrity/fan adoration (plus making lots of $$$). Also, when you are going to be releasing a book titled, "Truth and Consequences: Special Comments on the Bush Administration's War on American Values," 6 months from now, I think you walk a fine line between doing "special comments" that you really believe in verses the fact that they will "pad" the book, which equals future sales/more "celebrity" exposure.

BTW tom!: the topic of this thread is the media critique of Keith Olbermann and "journalism as carnival barkers"

But Cecelia thinks ( or implies) that Bush had nothing to do with the Libby case.
Right !

Posted by: at July 5, 2007 8:02 PM

You tell me what Bush did have to do with Libby's conviction of perjury?

I've long believed that at least half of Olbermann's anger stemmed from the fact that he's a superior son-of-a-bitch who believes he's better than anyone and ought to have the ratings to prove it, thus, he's styled himself as the anti-O'Reilly. If Fox were a liberal news organization, I think he'd be spitting out anti-liberal vitrol. I DO think he's a liberal at heart, but I think a good deal of what he spews is very staged and phony, just like him. Even sadder than seeing someone lose their credibility is seeing someone due it for the most cynical of reasons, namely, trying to prop up their flagging ratings and to make a "name" for themselves. Olbermann is guilty of both counts.

Moderate republicans are starting to see the light.
No such light bulb going off with teh wingnuts at this site .

-----

Enlightened creatures are always drawn to the light, and bats to the darkness. Darn, I suspect I will be asked to provide proof of that statement, and my provider blocks Wikipedia.

So if an administration official lies under oath this means a President is automatically "a party" to that?
Posted by: Cecelia at July 5, 2007 7:58 PM

No.

Just the ones who lied about the activity in the VPs and Ps offices, were found guilty by a jury, and granted commutation by the P.

That. to me, is the nut of this story, regardless who the P and VP are.

Maybe it's just possible that all of these Republican Senators are a bunch of cynical, hypocritical cowards who simply don't have the guts to speak with what little conscience they have on this issue.

But that's not a possibility in the right wingers at this site's minds.

Posted by: at July 5, 2007 8:07 PM

Libby can't be impeached.... he was forced to resign.... that was losing his job, as impeachment would have been for Clinton.... he didn't do jail time... Clinton didn't do jail time....

I think there's enough hypocrisy to go all around...

So if an administration official lies under oath this means a President is automatically "a party" to that?
Posted by: Cecelia at July 5, 2007 7:58 PM

No.

Just the ones who lied about the activity in the VPs and Ps offices, were found guilty by a judge and jury, and granted commutation by the P.

That, to me, is the nut of this story, regardless who the P and VP are and their party affiliations.

Why do you think Libby perjured himself?
Because he wanted to go to jail?

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

OR

He seriously had trouble remembering the exact details of a conversation held a year or more ago maybe?

And I'm still waiting for someone to reply to my question about the inconsistency of the charges he was convicted of vs the one he wasn't.

Clinton didn't do jail time....
-----
We do need to over-haul our system of jurisprudence when it cannot send a man convicted of nothing to jail. As it is, only those convicted of crime can be sent to prison. A nation cannot endure with such a system.

Turely brings up the Clinton pardon as examples of "grossly abused pardon authority" and Olbermann completely ignores those comments.

excerpts from the Countdown Transcript from July 3, 2007:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19618673/

OLBERMANN: And to that point, nobody questions the president's constitutional power of clemency in either a pardon situation or a commutation situation, but when you start commuting the sentences of your own employees, is the mere appearance of a quid pro quo enough to say that this is beyond even a president's ranks?

TURLEY: Well, it is. All this business of saying he does have an unchallengeable right, that doesn't mean anything. Just because you have this authority doesn't mean you can't abuse it. You're subject to the view of history and the view of citizens.

And for example, Bill Clinton grossly abused pardon authority when he gave a pardon to his own brother and used the power of his office to benefit his family. And pardoned Marc Rich, that nobody on Earth thought deserved a pardon.
.....
OBERMANN: Constitutionally, did not the founders foresee this possibility of this? Your own administration's employee gets the sentence commuted while the administration is still in progress?

TURLEY: Well you know, the framers did talk about the abuse of inherent authority by a president. They were very concerned about the president. They threw over a king and every privilege, every power given to a president was subject to this concern.

But they believed that Congress would check the president and ultimately, there is the power of impeachment. But there have been abuses in history. I am a bit surprised that Bush did not learn from Bill Clinton. You know, Bill Clinton took what was remaining unbesmirched in his term and ruined it in the last few days with his abuse of this power and now I think that the legacy of this presidency has been damaged in the same way.

OLBERMANN: Constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley, as always, Jon, great, thanks for your time.

yesindeedy.
Bush will be considered a brilliant president and his Iraq war a wonderful success in Grimm's dreams.
Dream on, Grimsley.

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

I'm sorry, I thought liberals were "the people of nuance". I guess I was wrong.

After all, according to them you either believe Bush was responsible for the black plague or you give him a blowjob every night.

NO possibility of a middle ground.

Glad to see so many liberals were lying (as expected).

No.

Just the ones who lied about the activity in the VPs and Ps offices, were found guilty by a jury, and granted commutation by the P.

That. to me, is the nut of this story, regardless who the P and VP are.

Posted by: tom! at July 5, 2007 8:16 PM

In other words... just Scooter Libby... :D

Since there was no "underlying crime" was found in the activity of the VP and P's office, you're going to have to do better than arguing that you suspect that there was ...it was therefore an "inappropriate" (that term will do when you can't go with "illegal" huh...) pardon argument...

Below is endorsed by Matt Sanchez whom Grim referenced above. (Marine reservist blogging from Iraq. http://www.matt-sanchez.com/)

Surging to Defeat
Senator Lugar ignores what’s happening in Iraq.

By J .D. Johannes

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTlhYzcxMGExNjdmMzgxZDgzZTk4NGUyZjBmYWU2OTE

STC,

That was me, I forgot to enter my info. You may be right- I've never listened to him do sports, so maybe you have a larger perspective of him than I do. I can only go by what I see on a nightly basis on Countdown, and on some of the items I've read. (though insecure people do tend to crave celebrity...)

GRIM STILL THINKS BUSH WILL BE VINDICATED!
( JOKE OF THE DAY)

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

Attention everyone: reader comprehension sorely lacking on this site.

I never said he'd be vindicated, I said I'm not going to make any judgments because making judgments about history before it's even history is...
well...
incredibly stupid.

Oooo.... he managed to report polls.

Yeah... because I'm sure all presidents' places in history is based entirely on polls. Because, half the country apparently hated Lincoln and look how his historical position turned out.

Oh, wait a minute....

Clinton didn't do jail time....
-----
We do need to over-haul our system of jurisprudence when it cannot send a man convicted of nothing to jail. As it is, only those convicted of crime can be sent to prison. A nation cannot endure with such a system.

Posted by: Clucker at July 5, 2007 8:21 PM

Actually Starr turned that charge over to congress as part of his grounds for impeachment of Clinton.

Since that wasn't an option for Fitzgerald, (he could only risk taking the charge to court) and since Clinton later admitted that he intentionally "misled" the jury, I think you're avoiding some concepts here...

Why don't you go to Sanchez' blog and tell him that? I'll check later to see if you have the guts to take on someone who is truly in the know. He has e-mail address posted.

according to them you either believe Bush was responsible for the black plague or you give him a blowjob every night.
-----
Sorry, Herr Grimm, but I am confused. Who is being acted upon? The people who do not believe Bush caused the Black Plague or Bush himeself (who caused the Black Plague)?

as longtime ow readers will know, i have struggled with the question of how much to contribute here at ow. my conflict stems from the obvious fact that on one hand, i know it is a waste of time to engage robots, but on the other, I am addicted to arguing people who I suspect cannot possibly mean what they say.

I have determined an appropriate formula within which to meter my involvement here at ow. Henceforth, if I post here I will be all of the following:

A. At a bar or restaurant
B. At least a little drunk
C. Waiting for someone

I usually use this time for people watching, but when no one interesting is present, I will use the time to interact with you, the faithfull readers of ow. This is all possible thanks to the magic of the dell axim X51v coupled with my sprint bluetooth phone with whatever the tradename is for their mobile internet service.

The underlying crime or malfeasance, which is admittedly a potential crime (hence the need for investigation) is not perjury or obstruction of justice, but most likely forgery. The ultimate question in this case, which is so far off the radar screen at this point that no one even seems to remember it, concerns the origin of forged documents that aimed to create the impression that Saddam tried to purchase nuclear materials in Nigeria.

Who forged these documents? Clearly, Joseph Wilson was of the opinion that BushCheney was somehow involved in the forgery or of the promulgation of these forged documents to foreign intelligence agencies, through which they were laundered into U.S. intelligence. Cf state of the union address, mushroom cloud, etc.

The actions taken against Joseph Wilson's wife are supposed as a part of an attempt on the part of Cheney's office to punish Wilson for raising the question about these documents and their use. All we know, legally speaking, is that Scooter Libby told some lies about how Plame's identity came to reporters as a CIA operative. We can ask why Scooter wanted to lie about this, or we can just assume he had a very consistent bad memory. Republibots have clearly chosen the latter, as is their birthright and birth privlege.

It is, however, the right and privledge of actual human beings to at least be curious as to why Scooter might have lied, beyond the most convienient answer. That answer is that he has a memory that is at the same time very faulty and very consistent, in exactly the ways that would best help support the administration claim that BushCheney would never have anything to do with cooking intelligence.

Facing actual jail time (icky!!!) may potentially have cause the excellent public servant Scooter (Mark Rich's lawyer) to think about cutting some kind of deal with someone who could help him avoid it. That would be standard in a case where a convict in a lesser case could be flipped to achieve a conviction on a higher charge. But fortunately, he is now not facing jail time (great!) and he still can appeal his conviction on obstructing justice and purgery (double great!) so no one can comment on any of this until Bush issues his full pardon and the case is closed (triple great!) On the last day of his administration!!!! After elections!!! Yea!!!!!

Because when Bush wins, America wins. So suck on that you liberal clowns!!!

Time to drink and people watch. Toodaloo.

Since Victor Rita's crimes seems, in context, to be less serious than Lewis Libby's crimes, I view Rita's 33-month sentence as a possible benchmark for Libby's sentence. Moreover, I have heard that Judge Walton has a reputation as a tough sentencing judge, and so Victor Rita's 33 month sentence might even be viewed as just a floor for considering Libby's fate.

Posted by: at July 5, 2007 8:28 PM

Actually, the Rita argument has been debunked. Rita had a prior conviction for perjury in a gun related case and this could have effected the severity of his sentence.

Someone did reply. A jury. A jury of Libby's peers.
Verdict: GUILTY.
The highest ranking government offical ever convicted of a crime.
Is it any surprise it occurred in the party of the culture of corruption?

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

Not an answer, so here's the question again.

Libby's statement about his conversation with Matthew Cooper to the FBI - not guilty.
Libby's statement about his conversation with Matthew Cooper to the grand jury - guilty.

And you know what, HE DIDN'T CHANGE HIS STATEMENT.

So apparently, according to the jury, libby didn't lie to the FBI but he did lie to the grand jury because...?

The fact that this doesn't raise ANY red flags for any of you just proves how blinded you are by your own hatred.

I would appreciate a citation please for this:

"Libby was the adviser for the VP and P.
That was established years before the trial.

Posted by: tom! at July 5, 2007 7:54 PM

I have always thought that Scooter Libby was VP Cheney's Chief of Staff. I have never heard or read anything that characterized Libby as an 'adviser ' to GWB.

Grammie

...public servant Scooter (Mark Rich's lawyer)

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

Erie, did you also point out how fitzgerald was the PROSECUTOR in the mark rich trial?

Don't those two facts raise SOME questions about this whole ordeal?

Grammie,

You ever find it funny (or sad or...) how some of the liberals around here will blow the most minor facet of the Bush administration way out of proportion but when I bring up 2 very relevant and legitimate points that casts some doubt on this entire show trial, they don't even seem to answer it?

Facing actual jail time (icky!!!) may potentially have cause the excellent public servant Scooter (Mark Rich's lawyer) to think about cutting some kind of deal with someone who could help him avoid it. That would be standard in a case where a convict in a lesser case could be flipped to achieve a conviction on a higher charge. But fortunately, he is now not facing jail time (great!) and he still can appeal his conviction on obstructing justice and purgery (double great!) so no one can comment on any of this until Bush issues his full pardon and the case is closed (triple great!) On the last day of his administration!!!! After elections!!! Yea!!!!!

Because when Bush wins, America wins. So suck on that you liberal clowns!!!

Time to drink and people watch. Toodaloo.

Posted by: Erie bob oberloon at July 5, 2007 8:37 PM

Frankly, I think your argument here is just one more example of your inherent bias against Scooter Libby. Had he NOT been serving in this administration you would at least have accorded him the commonsense of spilling his guts before hand, therefore sparing himself the ordeal of a trial, and facilatating his becoming the darling of you and the media...

Oh, well...

In other words... just Scooter Libby... :D

Since there was no "underlying crime" was found in the activity of the VP and P's office, you're going to have to do better than arguing that you suspect that there was ...it was therefore an "inappropriate" (that term will do when you can't go with "illegal" huh...) pardon argument...
Posted by: Cecelia at July 5, 2007 8:23 PM

Good points. I don't think it's absolutely illegal, but it is indeed inappropriate. Libby was found lying about decisions made in direct concert with the P and VP, so there is a relationship there that will now gain even more scrutiny.

Lot's of 'ifs': If Libby scores immunity from congress, and that circus places him the hot seat to reveal something incriminating the p, that places p in a dangerous legal position. Now, it would appear there was an effort to obstruct justice on p's part. Bad news, blood in the water.

The lead prosecuting attorney Fitzgerald tends to be methodically conservative [in the universal sense] when building his cases, but I don't think we'll see that kind of reserve from many other attorneys in the halls.

Of course, if Libby wiggles free without revealing anything, then it's smooth sailing for p., at least from this scenario.

Have to admit, whatever the outcome, this is more fascinating than anything on Reality TV. Could CSPAN actually start selling ads later this year because of it? :)

Almost every republican running for office is FOR letting Libby walk( of course)

Can't wait until the GOP nominee has to defend their position in a debate with the democratic nominee.
He will be hammered for it.

The "pardon" and you know it will be a full pardon is the gift that will keep on giving right up to a Democrat retakes the White House.

Bush keeps digging bigger and bigger holes, and the GOP candidates keep jumping in !
Posted by: Why do you care what my name is at July 5, 2007 8:46 PM

Yeah...

Oh hey, and did you know that the JURY ITSELF also said that Libby should be pardoned?

Man how are they going to justify that? Don't they know that their will was absolute and... wait...

(let us now pray that a light bulb manages to go off)

Good points. I don't think it's absolutely illegal, but it is indeed inappropriate. Libby was found lying about decisions made in direct concert with the P and VP, so there is a relationship there that will now gain even more scrutiny.

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

WAITWAITWAITWAITWAIT

Let's take a moment and examine what EXACTLY the charges were that libby was convicted of.

The cooper counts:
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 following are among the portions of Libby’s testimony about his conversation with Cooper that were false)

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.

The Russert Counts:

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.

------

(The second Russert Count, the perjury count, alleges that Libby lied to the grand jury about his conversation with Russert when he said the following)

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.

WHY THAT DIABOLICAL BASTARD! Why I bet Lex Luthor wishes he were the criminal mastermind Libby is.

Seriously, look at what Libby actually said and the charges against it.

And you're trying to tell me that the above is really THAT bad? A hundred times worse than Clinton's perjury? (I'm still trying to figure out how the above would hinder ANY investigation by a competent person)

"The actions taken against Joseph Wilson's wife are supposed as a part of an attempt on the part of Cheney's office to punish Wilson for raising the question about these documents and their use. All we know, legally speaking, is that Scooter Libby told some lies about how Plame's identity came to reporters as a CIA operative. We can ask why Scooter wanted to lie about this, or we can just assume he had a very consistent bad memory. Republibots have clearly chosen the latter, as is their birthright and birth privlege."

Well, laying aside that Wilson claimed to have actually eyeballed the forged documents and then had to admit later that he had not, perhaps one "could" you could consider is that Wilson also evolked the authority of the VP in sending him to Niger and the VP's office was scrambling to disprove that.

But by the way, was Fitzgerald investigating whether a covert agent had been illegally outted or was he investigating non-criminal political tactic charges by ErieBob? Afterall, it's not a crime to tell folks that Plame worked for the CIA. That's what the VP's office thought and it looks like they were right.

The jury knew, as does most of America that Libby was the fall guy. That he was covering for Cheney and probably Bush.
Most people know this, except of course the Grim Challenger !

Posted by: at July 5, 2007 8:54 PM

You said it! That settles it!

The jury knew, as does most of America that Libby was the fall guy. That he was covering for Cheney and probably Bush.
Most people know this, except of course the Grim Challenger !

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

Riiiiiight, did you learn all about that from the May 12th indictment of Karl Rove?

Plus, that WASN'T my point. You talked about how "silly" it was going to be for republicans to "support" Libby's pardon or whatever.

I was merely pointing out that
1) If they're going to look silly, then so will the jury.
2) Of course, if the jury is the be all and end all of this (as people like you keep saying) then it's the democrats raising such a fuss (and thus going AGAINST the jury) that will look silly.

Lot's of 'ifs': If Libby scores immunity from congress, and that circus places him the hot seat to reveal something incriminating the p, that places p in a dangerous legal position. Now, it would appear there was an effort to obstruct justice on p's part. Bad news, blood in the water.

Posted by: tom! at July 5, 2007 8:49 PM

Immunity from what?

All we know, legally speaking, is that Scooter Libby told some lies about how Plame's identity came to reporters as a CIA operative.

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

And now a word from Lex Luthor:

WRONG

Thank you Lex.

The cooper charge:
This is what libby claimed-
"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."

This is what "really" happened according to the court's ruling:
"Libby confirmed for Cooper, without qualification, that Libby had heard that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA."

So we have one account where libby says he's uncertain about plame's status vs another where he says he HEARD about plame's status. He's not even lying about plame's status, at best he's lying about his KNOWLEDGE of plame's status.

The Russert count goes:
"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."

Russert basically says, that Libby was well aware of of plame working for the CIA.

So again, the entire charge isn't that he "lied" about information, it's that he "lied" about when he knew what.

Of course, considering the time between the actual event and the testimony, I'd be more surprised if Libby knew the details of his knowledge acquirement exactly. I mean, can you tell me EXACTLY when where and how you learned of Paris Hilton being arrested?

Grim, glad to see you back.

I outgrew the funny reaction years ago and 'sad' is starting to be way too mild.

I was at the thread July 3 for quite a while working on my 'masterpiece' :) , which was to elucidate a Christofer Hitchens' comment.

Your original point was right on target. I also enjoyed the commentary. But, it didn't take long for the left wing seagulls to fly in.

The way to identify them is that left wing seagulls fly in making a lot of noise, crap all over the place and fly out, still making a lot of noise. :)

Grammie

The entire libby debacle can be summed up as...
The counts overlap each other and rely heavily on the memories of three people — Libby, Cooper, and Russert — about two conversations.

And yes, for the above, all the liberals are ready and willing to hang the poor guy.

Party of compassion and justice my @$$

No it wasn't a crime, but outting a CIA agent when I'm sure you're all for top notch national security, is a bit conflicting on your part, don't you think?

Or DON'T you think ?

Posted by: at July 5, 2007 9:04 PM

Good thing you or I don't have to make these decisions....there are actual guidelines for what constitutes that crime...formulated by experts....

Unfortunately for you, when they do not apply to those cases most amenable to your druthers, all you are left with is the stupid remarks you just uttered.

"Grim, glad to see you back."

I'm not staying for long Grammie. It just disgusts me that more people see the [justified] commutation of Scooter Libby as a worse travesty than the [wrong] trial that convicted him because of memory conflicts.

Or that none of them see the can of worms this opens and the greater danger it represents to our liberties than anything George Bush has done the entire time he's been in office.

Nope! Better to let us all be convicted and sent to jail on a whim. Just because your boss is unpopular.

Cecelia is condoning outting and blowing a CIA agent's cover.

It just boggles the mind how far these republicans will go to defend the indefensible.

Posted by: at July 5, 2007 9:06 PM

Could there at all be any inherent assumptions that YOU are making in this statement about Scooter Libby or the VP?

"justification"

You know, this just goes to prove that these morons don't even READ what they're responding to.

Wait? Are these even people? Maybe they're robots with preprogrammed responses.

Seriously, can any REASONABLE PERSON (which disqualifies mystery guy twice over) see anything that "justifies" libby's action in my post?

It is sad Grammie how the seagulls drown out and crap all over the more reasonable liberals too.

And I hope you go apologize to a seagull today. (I'll probably see you more on newsbusters anyway)

Leaking the name of a CIA agent is tantamount to putting a gun to that agent's head. It compromises her safety, the safety of her loved ones, not to mention those in her network and other operatives she may deal with.

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

What's that Lex Luthor? You have something to say?

WRONG!

Ah, and you are correct.

It's wrong to reveal the name of a COVERT CIA employee. C-O-V-E-R-T There is a big difference between the two.

Leaking the name of a CIA agent is tantamount to putting a gun to that agent's head. It compromises her safety, the safety of her loved ones, not to mention those in her network and other operatives she may deal with.

But Cecelia is still trying to justify it.
May she rot in hell.

Posted by: at July 5, 2007 9:16 PM

Evidently, in your day job as fire and brimstone evangelist, you've not had time to study up on anything about this case.

Take a Sabbatical, read up, and get back to us...

You can have Sanchez and I'll raise you hundreds of other soldiers wondering what the hell they are doing in Iraq, and see no success whatsoever.

Posted by: at July 5, 2007 8:39 PM

Bonifide chicken shit coward that won't use a name, shocker!

"Take a Sabbatical, read up, and get back to us..."

Actually cecelia, I am curious.

First it was established that Plame was NOT covert. Then things started coming out saying "well.... maybe she is" (NRO issued a correction)

What's been the latest word you've heard about her cover/not status?

The day I see Limbaugh or Hannity anchoring news coverage of debates or elections will be the day I accept any analogy between their antics and Mr. Olbermann's antics.

The former are bloviating gas bags who give one-sided opinions on radio commentary shows.

The latter is a bloviating gas bag who gives one-sided and tendentious "news" on a, ostensibly, cable new show.

Applying a single standard to both leads to worthless conclusions.

For someone who considers themselves such an intelligent person, do you think you could be missing something with Cheney's guilt in this whole affair?
Nothing you 'd let on of course.

Posted by: at July 5, 2007 9:21 PM

Well, surely since you're so insightful as to know how I consider myself, it would of no difficulty for you to explain Cheney's "guilt" and what sort of guilt you mean, rather than merely alluding it to.

Grim and Grammie are part of those sick fucks at newsbusters.
Perfect !

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

Liberals post there too you know.

See Grammie? The "seagulls" are willing to crap over even their own.

I'd never want to fight along side them in a war. The friendly fire casualties would probably outnumber the enemy kills.

Actually cecelia, I am curious.

First it was established that Plame was NOT covert. Then things started coming out saying "well.... maybe she is" (NRO issued a correction)

What's been the latest word you've heard about her cover/not status?

Posted by: Challenger Grim at July 5, 2007 9:25 PM

Last word I've heard is there's a difference between being covert and in being under cover.

The CIA said Valerie Plame was a COVERT CIA agent, but Grim knows more than them.

That's what you get for burying your head and ass in the right wing blogs.

Grim disagrees with the CIA.
This is getting funnier all the time.

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

Hey moron, Plame's status hasn't been confirmed yet.

Of course, if she WAS covert. Then it's Armitage that should go to jail for that, not Libby.

So can I trust you to join the "put Armitage on trial" committee? I'll be heading up the calls and Grammie will be baking the cookies.

"Last word I've heard is there's a difference between being covert and in being under cover."

So she's been confirmed as under cover or we still don't know?

(hey no name, if she is under cover, that means you were out and out wrong. why we should convict you of perjury!)

Grim disagrees with the CIA.
This is getting funnier all the time.

-----

It is thoroughly enjoyable, isn't it? The thrashing and the flailing. And, it appears this has only started. The commutation may prove to be far more interesting than the trial. I don't think Ms. Hawkins' boy knows what he unleashed.

"The CIA said Valerie Plame was a COVERT CIA agent, but Grim knows more than them."

The problem for some folks is that, as Fitzgerald stated, he had no evidence that Libby knew of Plame's status when he talked to Judy Miller about Plame.

Moreover, Miller NEVER wrote about Plame.

Novak wrote about Plame after being told by Armitage.

Who admitted he told Novak but also stated that he didn't know whether she was a covert agent or her status was classified.

The problem, again, for the lynchmob is that they cannot prove that anyone who told about Plame knew her status.

And I do find this recent and newly-discovered concern by our leftwing friends about classified information being leaked hilarious.

*sigh* I try to raise legitimate questions and instead, just personal insults are hurled.

I'm out guys, I've got better things to do than hang around here and deal with you affronts to civil society.

You people are no better than the "wingnuts" you disparage.

I will say farewell to the gentlemen liberals that were around here (Sir LOB and Mike - I've since lost any notions I had of Clucker being a decent fellow). You, fine sirs, were an honor and fun to debate with.

I'm so sorry you have to deal with these other trash that sully what it means to be "liberal". May you always overcome the stereotype they enforce.

It is thoroughly enjoyable, isn't it? The thrashing and the flailing. And, it appears this has only started. The commutation may prove to be far more interesting than the trial. I don't think Ms. Hawkins' boy knows what he unleashed.

Posted by: Clucker at July 5, 2007 9:33 PM

I'm pretty sure you know that "Miss Hawkin's boy" would not be at all concerned with what is unleashed on the internets... and that you just wanted to use the term "Miss Hawkin's boy", however, why do you think Fitzgerald brought no charges against anyone based upon an infraction against the IIPA?

Now it is time to disparage Grim et al since he has now announced his departure. Isn't that the coward protocol?

et al (delete)

Liberals are banned as fast as you can say hypocritical web site.
They let a few token liberals to stay just so the pack of wolves can beat up on them.

That statement of yours shows how far from reality you really are.

Posted by: at July 5, 2007 9:33 PM

That is an out and out lie!

Take a Sabbatical, read up, and get back to us...
Posted by: Cecelia at July 5, 2007 9:22 PM

No, there was no CIA agent's name leaked for punishment against her husband.

I get it now.
It's all been a Suzanne Pleshette dream from the Bob Newhart Show.

And you are expected to taken seriously ?

Posted by: at July 5, 2007 9:31 PM

On second thought... a Sabbatical as long as The New Millenium.... wouldn't help your ability to get a coherent argument.

"however, why do you think Fitzgerald brought no charges against anyone based upon an infraction against the IIPA?"

Or for releasing classified information either.

If Libby leaked classified information (regardless of whether Plame was a covert agent or not), he could be prosecuted for violating several laws re the handling of classified information.

But in order to prosecute someone for leaking classified information, the person must have known that information was classified.

For example, Libby admitted to the FBI and Grand Jury that he told Miller about Plame. Miller never printed that information.

Why didn't Fitz. prosecute him for releasing classified information?

Answer: Because, as he said, he had no evidence that Libby knew Plame's status when he told Miller.

Angels, Clucker may be going off the deep end.

In another thread he said:

"Harpy Trio (in bitter denial) and He of Many Names"

This sounds serious.

I think we should meet at the pool in our skimpy bikinis and discuss it. :)

I suggest our agenda should be whether he needs an exorcism or just a time out with a lot of double martinis and a few sessions with Bambi. :)

Grammie

Why are the lefties upset about Libby and not Armitage?

Libby told Judy Miller and Tim Russert about Plame.

But neither one published that information. It was still a "secret."

But Armitage told Novak. And he published that information.

Libby, then, didn't "out" Plame since none of the people he told about her revealed that information.

But Armitage did "out" Plame.

But he didn't either because when he told Novak about her, he didn't know what her status was.

As the post above noted, Fitzgerald admitted that he had no evidence that Libby knew Plame's status.

In order to say that he "outed" Plame, you have to prove that he knew what her status was.

And even Fitzgerald, after 3 years of investigation, can't prove that.

So, saying Libby "outed" Plame is factually incorrect based on what he know.

I've since lost any notions I had of Clucker being a decent fellow).

Posted by: Challenger Grim at July 5, 2007 9:45 PM

Oh, my goodness, yes! Clucker is a logic-deficient poseur who couldn't launch an effective defense for toliet paper in dysentery ward. When challenged on his assumption strewn diatribes he always dissolves in to charges that he's being pressured to convert to Bush supporter rather than being asked to defend his positions.

I suggest our agenda should be whether he needs an exorcism or just a time out with a lot of double martinis and a few sessions with Bambi. :)

Grammie

Posted by: Janet Hawkins at July 5, 2007 10:03 PM

I'll pour, Grammmie. Shaken or stirred?

What were saying about a decision of some sort?...

Average American Asshole,

I glanced through your post, and maybe I missed it, but I did not see where Fitzgerald mentions the name of the person who actually told Novak about Joe Wilson's wife. It's Richard Armitage, remember? So Fitzgerald, like all left wing dingbats, was never interested in the person who leaked to Novak. I think that qualifies the special prosecutor as an honorary Olbyloon.

So it is still true that not a dingbat in the country cares a whit about the outing of Valerie Plame, and that includes Plame and Joe Wilson. Not once have I heard the Wilson's say anything remotely close to "Goddam that Armitage!"

My theory that lefists are never mad at the person who did the bad thing, but, instead, are always mad at someone else(who happens to be conservative, Christian, or Republican) is validated once again.

Paranoid dumbfuck dingbats!

AAP,

I hate to break this to you, but prosecutors, (even Federal ones) do not determine the covert status of CIA employees (even when they are defending themselves in the media as to why they have no convictions on the central reason for their investigation).

The reason Fitzgerald didn't bring a criminal charge of outting a covert agent is because he didn't think it could stick under the IIPA.

Whatever the decision, I'll drink to that whether shaken or stirred. :)

And that is my absolut opinion! :)

Grammie

AAP,
Fitzgerald has to speak on the record to the court. That is evidence.

Just give me some Captain Morgan with Coca-Cola and a slice of lime please.

AAP,

Libby didn't "out" Plame.

Plame was "outed" by the Novak piece.

And Libby had nothing to do with the Novak piece.

Libby told Judy Miller. He admitted that. And Tim Russert. He disputes that. And he was found to have committed perjury about this.

But neither Miller nor Russert publicized that information that they got from Libby.

In order to "out" an agent, our enemy must be told about that agent.

The only person who told our enemy about Plame was Novak.

And Libby NEVER TALKED TO NOVAK ABOUT PLAME.

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:6MZFoJF0DxgJ:www.coldheartedtruth.com/index.php/main/2007/06/04/fitzgerald_plame_libby_covert+covert+undercover+definition&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=24&gl=us&client=firefox-a

"There is some more information coming out on the whole Fitzgerald court filings claiming that Plame was "covert" at the time that her name was leaked. One of the most interesting parts is that originally Fitzgerald had stated that Plame's personel files from the CIA would determine if she was indeed covert, but yet there nothing disclosed from those files in his filings to back up his assertion. In other words, there was no dates, no places, no nothing. Furthermore, Fitzgerald cannot at this time even say that the CIA itself has established her status as Covert under the IIPA, as the CIA was stating as of March of 2007 that the issue was very complicated and taking longer than expected to sort out.

Herein lies the rub and why it seems extremely unprofessional that Fitzgerald is throwing this whole "opinion" out at the last minute. Most legal pundits, including those closest to the case suggested that Fitzgerald would have a hard time proving the "covert" status because of the complexities and specifics of the statute. The reality is that there are a miriad of possible meanings. Fitzgerald is using the most liberal meaning (without providing specific proof) to come to his conclusion.

If you recall (and most likely you don't) there was sworn testimoney given by several people familiar with the law. Victoria Toensing is an attorney who helped draft the Intelligence Identities Protection act submitted a brief that Valarie Plame was "not" a covert agent under the definition. For starters, there is CIA records from 1997 that state that they believed that Plames status as an undercover agent had been compromised. Secondly, Toensing had testified that "serving abroad" was not the same thing as traveling abroad (which is the standard that Fitzgerald is apparently using). A covert agent would be someone who is working undercover in a compromising situation, such as a spy. Using an alias on their airline and hotel reservations when they travel abroad does not qualify.

Now certainly everyone is entiled to their own opinion on the matter. But ultimately this is a murky legal definition that needed to be settled in court. Fitzgerald should have had the courage of his convictions and either prosecuted someone for the crime, or at least requested an actual legal opinion from the judge on the matter.

But what makes the issue even more alarming for me was that it was Fitzgerald who argued that the status of Valarie Plame was irrelevant to the original trial and that the jury should limit themselves to making a decision only on the perjury. Of course, had he wanted to make it an issue, he would have needed to prove it in court. But now that the jury has come back, he wants the judge to consider his opinion that Plame was "covert" without ever really asking anyone to settle the matter legally. Seems rather cowardly if you ask me."

If there is something to contradict the general points here, I would be interested.

And #339.....h/t to ICN for the link....

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/changing_channels/2007/07/fox-news-wins-a.html

Fox News wins again
MSNBC's Keith Olbermann may be getting all the hype, but Fox News is still getting the viewers. With the Nielsen numbers just in for the year's second quarter, Fox average 1.46 million viewers during prime time -- more than CNN (756,000) and MSNBC (462,000) combined. You can even reasonably argue that Fox News' competitors are no longer the other news channels, but basic cable's entertainment networks -- Fox News was the fourth-most-watched basic cable net in prime time during the quarter. CNN was 25th.

AAP:
"Are you admitting that Plame was covert?
I ask because there are some RW'ers that don't seem to understand this basic fact."

I admit that Fitzgerald said that he was told by the CIA that she was covert.

That's in the court documents/record.

Question for you: Do you admit that Libby had nothing to do with outing Plame?

Remember, Plame's name/outing was published by Novak.

Libby had nothing to do with Novak's piece. Libby never talked to Novak about Plame.

Since Libby wasn't the source for Novak, it's clear that he didn't out Plame.

Do you agree with that?

Sharon,

Please cosider Fitgerald's explanation regarding Libby's "obstruction of justice" charge: he likened Libby's lies to "throwing sand in the umpire's eyes". The truth is being blocked from the people's case, protecting the guilty.

Victoria Toensing? a Republican shill who is contradicted by just about every other credible expert.

Hey; what's with the "Ann Coulter Naked" link on the OW sidebar?

Does the Coulter creature have something to prove? are the stitches out and all healed up?

But yet "Name" doesn't have a problem with Olbermann's biases at all or his obsession with Hollywood stars or the like. Another hypocrite for Olbermann!

Patsy, what evidence is there that Plame was covert under the controlling statue.

Certainly Fitzgerald's Press Conferences or editorials or statements by whoever don't substitute for the rule of law.

My impression is that Fitspatrick talked a GREAT GAME in the locker room but never showed up on the field.

Fitsgerald knew just days into his appointment who leaked her name and employment by the CIA because Armitage CONFESSED TO IT.

That was a bonanza for any prosecutor. He knew the WHO, WHEN and WHERE right off the bat.

The only question remaining for Fitsgerald was what was Plame's status and did Armitage know it and deliberately divulge that to Novak.

In the two plus years of the investigation Fitspatrick brought many people to testify to the Grand Jury. Armitage (and Colin Powell who Armitage informed first what he had done) were never called upon to testify.

Fitspatrick and others have proclaimed that Plame was covert in press conferences, OpEds etc but I have never heard of any legal assertion, filing or testimony to back that claim up.

I am not a lawyer or a prosecutor but it seems to me that any prosecutor worth his salt who was handed a case that was essentially complete (he had the who, when and where handed to him on a silver platter) and only had to determine the fact of Plame's status should have had a far different witness group. Neither Armitage nor Powell were subpoenaed. And as as far I know no one from the CIA was subpoenaed to testify to her status.

Instead we have this circus.

I am not a lawyer but I truly believe that justice was not served and is just one more casualty that we can ill afford as a nation being torn apart.

Grammie

"Instead we have this circus."

It was indeed a circus.

That doesn't, in my opinion, clear Libby from perjury. I think he did committ perjury and needed to be penalized.

But as you stated, Fitzgerald learned very early who the source of the Novak piece was. He then set about luring in everyone else to see if he could find a crime.

Pretty shady on his part.

There is zero evidence - none - that any of the leakers knew Plame's status. In my opinion, they talked to reporters about her without knowing what her exact status was.

Sloppy? Yes. Irresponsible? Yes. Criminal? No.

Fascinating point tonight on Olbermann about the possibility, raised by the trial judge, that there might be no probation because there was no jail time. The point may be largely academic, but I gather that our DOJ is heavily divided on this particular issue at the moment and at least somewhat at odds with the White House. If there is, in fact, no probation, then the jury's verdict is, in essence, nullified, and an essential element of Bush's "apology," in the more classic sense, evaporates. Of course, I suspect even the most ardent Bushite never believed a word of that apology. The usual obfuscation ....

Interestingly, I have pulled up a few mental notes and even gone over a few files. I have spoken with a few friends, and none of us can recall probation being granted without some incarceration time. We can all think of instances when the incarceration is merely the day of surrender, but still one day is "served". Is that one day some sort of condition precedent?

That is far from dispositive, of course, and, I haven't done a West Law search. Again, I think the issue may be academic, but wouldn't it be great fun if Bush had botched this rather simple matter as he has botched so much else?

I suspect the fun continues tomorrow as the general public outrage seems to be growing. That, too, is a surprise. I would have never thought this issue would have stayed in our corporate conversation even this long. I am glad it has.

" the stifling of dissent"

Yep, poor old Joe Wilson has never been heard from since that Novak piece was published.

Whatever happened to that guy?

The right wingers keep forgetting the larger issue :
The punishment and stifling of anyone who dared criticize the Iraq war by Bush and Cheney.
-----
Thank you for reminding us, Why. It is a point we ought to never forget and must carry with us into the voting booth each time we are the "deciders". If we never forget it, we will never be cursed by such an Administration, again.

Where on earth do people come up with this nonsense that dissent has been stifled in this country?

Only a lefty can talk and talk and talk and talk about how he can't express his opposition to the government.

I guess the argument is that one can express dissent but other people can't dissent from that dissent?

The Left can criticize the Administration. But if the Administration responds to the smears - and Joe Wilson was smearing people - somehow that's "stifling dissent".

So, if the left gains power in this country (God help us), they will never fight back (rhetorically) against criticism from the Right?

Because responding to dissent is stifling it?

That makes no sense at all.

Funny how if one criticizes Fitzgerald the Left condemns that criticism.

"How dare you criticize this noble public servant!!"

Are you folks trying to stifle dissent here?

I thought dissenting from government officials was noble and good and patriotic?

AAP,

I thought you got my point that it was an opinion piece, but it did include some interesting information. I don't think anyone knows whether Plame falls under the statutory definition of covert (which Toensing helped to draft). If you read her testimony (which I did) Plame didn't even know. Fitzgerald has what authority to claim she was covert? If Armitage leaked the name, where is the connection to Cheney/Bush?

Grammie,

Remember when I asked how Armitage got Plame's name? I found this. I didn't know that teh civil suit included Armitage so it will be interesting to see how this pans out, if allowed to proceed.

Ex-CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson and former Amabassador Joseph C. Wilson, IV file an amended complaint in their civil lawsuit seeking damages for blowing Plame's cover and violating their privacy and constitutional rights. Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage is named as a new defendant, but in his individual capacity only. This is based on Armitage's new admissions that he told Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward and reporter Robert Novak about Plame’s idnentity after reading a secret State Department memo,..."

http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/plame/wilsonlibby91306acmp17.html

A real great relationship between Armitage and Bush (see below)

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:lh2zBtopkrMJ:thinkprogress.org/2006/10/20/armitage-iraq-withdrawal/+armitage+bush+iraq+war&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us&client=firefox-a

President Bush and other administration officials have been smearing anyone who suggests we begin to withdraw troops from Iraq as “defeatist” and “cut-and-runners.”

Now Richard L. Armitage — who served as deputy secretary of state from 2001-2005 — is advocating a phased withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. From the New Jersey Express-Times:

“We notify the Iraqis that we’re going to be drawing down a reasonable but careful percentage of our troops over a reasonable interval of months — just for example, 5 percent of troops every three months,” Armitage told a crowd of 850 at DeSales University.

“This will show seriousness of purpose, I think. It will give our population some hope and enthusiasm that this is not a never-ending affair. And also it will put the heat on the Iraqis, because ladies and gentlemen, we can’t win this militarily. By the way, we can’t lose this militarily.”

Armitage’s remarks acknowledge the failure of the administration’s “as Iraqis stand up, we’ll stand down” strategy.

AAP:
"He was at the beginning of the chain of phone calls, the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter. And then he lied about it afterwards, under oath and repeatedly."

Well, unlike you I'm not willing to just blindly accept what a government official says.

I like to express my dissent from members of the Bushco Administration.

Ahem.

More seriously, there are two critical points:

(1) Fitzgerald has stated (I don't have the link handy but I'll find it) that he had no evidence that Libby knew of Plame's status when he talked to Miller and Cooper.

None.

He (Libby) knew she worked for the CIA but wasn't aware of what her status was.

This is according to Fitzgerald; someone we have total trust in.

(2) It's a fact, again, that Plame's name was revealed by Novak. Novak's sources were Armitage and Rove.

Libby did not talk to Novak. He did talk to other reporters (I believe a total of three: Miller, Cooper, Russert) where he mentioned Plame's name.

The fact that Libby talked to several reporters about Plame (among other issues) does not mean that HE was the source for the publication of Plame's name.

Because he wasn't.

Logically - and legally - no one can say that Libby outed Plame.

If you want to attack Armitage and Rove, go to it.

But on this issue, Libby is clear.

Why,

That is what I ask myself, Why, why do I keep repeating myself?

*Yet Sharon and the other war supporters are still holding onto that life preserver, wishin and hoping this is all just a dream.

I am not going to proclaim that the troops are doing nothing of value and that all of their missions are doomed. If withdrawal occurs (which I have said numerous times I believe is already secretly in the works), then so be it. Don't misrepresent me. I am not using this issue as an opportunity to spew hatred and bitterness.

It was the media's darkest hour.
-----
Indeed, it was. I canceled my subscription to the Washington Post for supporting Bush and his war, and I wrote several of the media personalities complaining about their subservient attitude and demeanor. They were all scared. Raise a minor objection to any aspect of the Invasion and Occupation, and there was Cheney, in particular, branding you a "unAmerican". Russert and Matthews were shameful. Now, they have all come around, become more objective. To some degree, I am sure we have Olbermann to thank. He is no journalist, a poor commentator and, largely, a singularly uninteresting personality. But, he did have courage when others lacked it. Courage is sometimes contagious.

And, what is it with this villification of Fitzgerald? Some of the ugliest personal attacks by the Republicans on this site I have ever read, yet he is a good, button-down collar guy, appointed US Attorney by a Republican, confirmed by a divided or Republican Senate, appointed Special Prosecutor by the Bush DOJ. No better prosecutor against the mob and the terrorists. He is every Republican mother's dream, every Republican maiden's dreamboat. I suppose doing one's job well and living an exemplary life pales to slavish loyalty to Bush. It is a poor, living commentary on how some free people subject themselves to the whim and will of others, others who seem so unworthy.

Anonyloon,

Armitage used to work under Colin Powell at the State Dept. but is long gone. George W. Bush is not on his XMAS card list.

But why are you, anonyloon, nor any other Olbyloon, interested at all in Armitage? You never talk about him, unless we bring him up first. Very strange! If he is part of the conspiracy you should be talking about him even more than about Scooter, becaue Armitage completely got away with it. For him, it's been the perfect crime.

"Tell me you don't remember 5 years ago during this runup to war when anyone who dared offer a critcal point of view for attacking a country that didn't attack us was villified and ostricized.

And that's stifling dissent?

When liberals call supporters of the war chickenhawks, is that stifling dissent?

When liberals call supporters of the Iraq war callous and uncaring, is that stifling dissent?

When liberals call opponents of affirmative action racists, is that stifling dissent?

When liberals call opponents of gay marriage homophobes, is that stifling dissent?

When liberals call opponents of abortion sexists, is that stifling dissent?

When liberal demonize their opponents, is that stifling dissent?

The answer to each question is NO!

No one's views are stifled because the other side calls them names.

People in politics - fairly or not - on ALL SIDES call people names.

You guys on the Left like to dish it out but if someone fights back, you complain about your views being suppressed.

Baloney.

But, he did have courage when others lacked it.
(clucking for Olby)

What a joke! Olby the Courageous.

"When these traitors can start attacking their own people "

Oh, you're calling us traitors!!

You're stifling dissent!! How dare you suppress our speech!!

I see, when the Left does it, it's okay. But if the Left is the recipient of the charge, that's suppressing dissent.

Animal Farm, volume II.

Dropped off for a while, now I realize as a newbie to this site, that I just need to login later in the day.

Thanks for the great posts.

Hasta luego.

A hearing is scheduled next week on Libby's commutation, a recent development. Where is the hearing on the impeachable offenses that you claim were committed by Bush throughout his administration? Which party has sunk to rock bottom by allowing a war criminal to evade investigation because "the votes are not there"? Why put the country through turmoil? Just let the "war criminal" continue to "shred the Constitution", keep us in an "illegal war" and "abuse his power" to avoid putting the country through "turmoil."

OhBoy is one of the bottom feeders that can't come to realize that everything he has stood for, everything he has supported has turned out to be false and one big steaming pile of horse dung.

Ahh, but you can't answer my points, can you?

Liberal/leftists - people like you - call people racists, sexists, homophobes, chickenhawks, fascists, selfish, greedy, traitors (this is your specialty) et cetera et cetera.

But that vilification is okay. Those words don't suppress the speech of others.

But if the tables are turned, you complain about your views being stiffled. About suppression of your First Amendment rights.

Nope, that doesn't make any sense. It's a cop out. A dodge.

And when I point out this inconsistency, you can't answer me.

Can you?

C'mon, show us your stuff.

Absolutely. I have for some time.
Party over country is your motto.
Defending the indefensible is your game

But you don't even have the guts - even on a blog - to post your own name to it!!

Wow, big man with the big keyboard.

And the little small hands. With the little small mind.

I'm impressed.

Big talk from a little no name.

Explain your comment. If the country is behind impeachment, those who are up for re-election will have no choice but to get behind it. ARen;t they already jumping ship to protect their interests?

Didn't you read my earlier comment? I guess I'll have to waste my time documenting everything I have said about the war, the mistakes made, the way Rumsfeld should have been fired, ... . I don't think it does the troops a bit of good to disparage their efforts when they are still there.

Defending the indefensible is your game.

Posted by: Why do you care what my name is at July 6, 2007 12:51 AM

This spew brought to us by someone who defends the biggest liar on TV. Thanks Bob!

"I don't think it does the troops a bit of good to disparage their efforts when they are still there."

Are you trying to stifle people's opinions?

How dare you question my right to disparage the troops!!

Why do............

It would save you so much time if you were to shorten your moniker to "Fuck You". That's what you mean. But a person who calls themself the equivalent of "Fuck You" probably should seek psychiatric help.

Yep, poor old Joe Wilson has never been heard from since that Novak piece was published.

Whatever happened to that guy?

Posted by: Ohboy at July 6, 2007 12:00 AM

News flash! Wilson was never heard of before the "piece" was published.....

I don't think it does the troops a bit of good to disparage their efforts when they are still there.
-----
There's the slander, again. You're good at it, Sharon, a Class "A" slanderer. Subtle in you accusations, off-the-cough with your smears. But, you are correct. It does no good to disparage the effort of the troops. In fact, it does harm. Of course, no one has done that. No one is doing that. What everyone I know who is opposed to the Occupation is doing is highlighting the bungling ineptitude of Bush, as well they should. Nice try, not sly. As your Boy has slipped, you have, too. But, it is not a character flaw. You are trying to defend the indefensible. Few, if any, can do that. As much as I dislike your Cheneyesque/Rovian tactics, I have to commend your effort.

I sincerely bid you, Gute Nacht.

Just keep dropping those "f" bombs while you can, after all, Chimpy will probably take that right away from you next, unless you have R next to your name.

"Each and every day it just gets worse for you, ..."
Everything is just a game to you. Hahahahaha. I am just so clever; it's great to be me! I bet you'll be dancing right along with all of the jihadists when the last copter leaves.

I hope you don't ump little kids' games. You should be kept at a safe distance.

"Did I hurt your little feelings, Oh Boy oh Boy."

Good grief, man absolutely not. I don't know you from Adam.

Why would I care about the views of someone I don't even know?

I only care about the views of people I respect. And to be frank, you're not in that category (I'm sure the feeling is mutual).

Again, you can't answer my point.

When folks on your side (not all, of course) call people on my side racists for opposing affirmative action, is that stifling speech?

When you call me a traitor, are you stifling my speech?

According to you and the posters here, dissent was stifled because opponents of the war were called names.

Well, I'm sorry that you (that is, some of you; some on your side deserved it) were called names. But calling people names is NOT stifling dissent.

You folks claim that Bush has stifled dissent.

I'd like to know what view you would like to express that has been prevented by the evil Republicans.

Just one example. What do you want to say that you can't because this Administration prevents you from expressing it?

Just saw Rico's post, and I had to comment. Indulge me.

Rico:

How clever you are. You can cuss. Did it take much education and training. I bet your Mother is very proud of you. Do you know any other foul words? Can you use them in complete sentences?

Clucker,

Bush is not my boy. My boy is 8 years' old.

One thing I can say is this. I am so glad I don't go to sleep and wake up with the equivalency, (or anything that remotely resembles) the amount of hate that the liberals have for Cheney and Rove. Get some help, please!

RK,

That hate channels to people on this board who don't agree 100% with them. They don't even recognize when there is common ground. It is incredible how they get off on bad news. I think I've wasted enough time here for now.

"I am so glad I don't go to sleep and wake up with the equivalency, (or anything that remotely resembles) the amount of hate that the liberals have for Cheney and Rove. "

Really. It's amazing sometimes.

If they had 1/10 of 1% of this directed at the radical Islamists, we'd be better off.

But to them, the Islamists are nothing really. Just a bunch of poor desperate Muslims driven mad by American and Israeli policies.

To them, the real enemy is Bush. And Cheney.

And if Giuliani wins. Rudy.

Their understanding of history is one where progressive voices for freedom and justice have been stifled by reactionary conservatives. The true enemy to America - the real America where justice and fairness rules - is Republicans.

And that enemy, for them, is far more dangerous than some poor Muslims.

Amazing.

"Two women walked in with shirts that had peace symbols on it. They were escorted out of the building within minutes of arriving.It was all over the news, you may have read about it."

That's it?

The Secret Service removed two people from the audience?

And that stifled their views?

They couldn't wear the shirts outside of the arena? Or express their views in a different venue?

Look, I think the Secret Service acted improperly. They shouldn't have removed the people.

But if that's the best you can do, that's pretty lame.

To the good Catholic Clucker from another thread:

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.
Posted by: Sharon at July 5, 2007 8:26 AM

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).
Posted by: Sharon at July 5, 2007 8:32 AM

"Notice Ohboy put out a challenge and was slapped down like a mule."

The Secret Service - for reasons not stated here - asked two people wearing peace symbols to leave is stifling dissent?

Because prior to Bush, things like this weren't done?

As I said, I think the SS acted wrongly. I'd like more details as to why the people were removed.

But no one's dissent was stifled. They just weren't able to express those views in that venue.

The Supreme Court has always held that speech can be limited as to place and time.

So, these two people had to express their views outside of the arena.

How is that stifling dissent?

Don't be silly no name.

"Why should they have to?
Why did the republican handlers consider a PEACE shirt to be offensive?
That is the question you should have asked, but obviously you're too lame and "

And the fact that they couldn't wear it INSIDE but only OUTSIDE is stifling dissent?

The issue on the table, NO NAME, is what views are being stifled in this country?

Not whether it was appropriate to do.

As I said, I think it was wrong - but hardly suppression of speech - to ask the people to leave.

The fact that one can't express every view everywhere at all time is not stifling dissent.

This is like arguing with children sometimes.

"Arguing a point when they are 100% wrong , is what these Olbyhaters do best."

Not having the guts to sign a name on a post is something the Olbyapologists do in order to conflate their numbers.

You're posting to your same posts.

Give a name and argue out in the open.

C'mon. Try it.

Put a name on your posts. Argue logically and fairly.

Can you do that?

Let's go.

Nobodyloon,

You are such a wretched soul without a name.

When you have to defend that, you have totally gone over to the dark side, and not what this country is about.

How did I defend that?

I say twice that I think it was wrong.

I also said, coward who doens't signe their posts, that it hardly represents stifling of dissent.

Hillary Clinton, to pick an example, selects people to attend her appearances. If you don't pass her list, she won't let you in.

Other elected officials do this at rallies. The monitor who can come in.

That's NOT stifling dissent.

Last post from me because you're too immature or scared to sign your posts.

"Oh brother. You really do have nothing. and I'm wasting my time with simpletons like this.
My bad."

Sorry. I apologize.

You're just a child. Or someone with childlike mentality.

Someone who uses the term "My bad" is an adolescent.

Go to bed son.

Sorry to take up your time from your video games.

Obviously i can't speak for all liberal-thinking folks as eloquently as OhBoy and other qualified folks here, but it's not hate for Cheney and Rove I feel, but love for my country.

I want my country back. That, along with a few odd things like habeas corpus, my brother and friends in Iraq and Afghanistan alive and with their limbs intact, maybe some affordable health insurance, some real job growth, and some sense of civility in our government. Oh yeah, conserving the environment might be nice too, whether or not we can agree to subscribe to that global-warming issue.

Sure, we may bitch and moan at each other here, call each other ugly things. Not nice, but a risk to accept in a vehicle such as this; but to witnessing our elected officials choosing party over country time and time again is distressing.

I can't claim to have agreed completely with any administration I've witnessed in action while I've been alive, but there's usually at least something positive to tip the hat too.

I'm still waiting for that to happen with this one.

In the meantime, I'll say a prayer for my friends in harm's way, for some "boogerfaces" I met today, and get some sleep.

Ohboy,

Why stirred things up by going to one of his choice websites and found the issue of t-shirts. I'm out.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjRhNzBjYTI0MmRjYTc1OWIxYzk4YTBkZDQ4MGQ0N2Q=
Victor David Hanson (twice as eloquent and a dozen times more of a man than Olbermann) actually gives a sly nod to the news-caster wannabe.

"Can’t we subpoena the president, the vice president, or at least impeach somebody to express our furor? Isn’t there a word in the English lexicon worse than “the worst” for some blathering news reader to rant about George Bush each night on television?"

His last 2 paragraphs are especially powerful.

President Bush commuted the perjury sentence of Scooter Libby, who couldn’t remember exactly from whom he first heard a fact that, it turned out, was completely inconsequential in an episode where no crime was ever committed.

Of course this is the end of the country as we know it.

I guess that you aren't really here, son. Libby, using perjury, obstructed the investigation of the leak of the identity of a covert CIA agent; moreover, he DID leak the name of Valarie Plame.

The reporter that he leaked it to was too ethical to do Bush's dirty work, however...

That is an out and out lie!
Posted by: Cecelia at July 5, 2007 9:49 PM
As usual, Cecelia knows nothing what she is talking about.
I was banned in 2 days.A few other friends of mine were banned within a week. As soon as they know you have some common sense at Newsbusters, all of a sudden your password doesn't work or other expulsion techniques.

Since you were dead wrong, I guess it's now time for you to come back with some arrogant smarmy nitpicking to cover your tracks about being wrong.

Posted by: at July 5, 2007 11:26 PM

I thought you were claiming that this site (not Newsbusters) routinely bans liberals.

Please accept my apology.

Mmm, nice, smarmy apology Cecelia.

I was banned in 2 days.A few other friends of mine were banned within a week. As soon as they know you have some common sense at Newsbusters, all of a sudden your password doesn't work or other expulsion techniques.

Since you were dead wrong, I guess it's now time for you to come back with some arrogant smarmy nitpicking to cover your tracks about being wrong.

Posted by: at July 5, 2007 11:26 PM

I'm quite sure you were banned for a good reason........

"Please accept my apology."

Don't apologize Cecelia. The left is known for compulsive lying all the time.
http://www.geekswithguns.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=631

Ever notice how often they talk about themselves? They're just making stuff up because backed up facts are beyond their means.

On the perjury subject, Judge Napolitano said yesterday that Billary committed the EXACT same offense during the Travelgate scandal that Libby committed. BJ swept it under the dirty carpet. Shocker.....

Olbyloon Ed 101a
Subject: CIA Leak
Todays student: blindbat

Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was the source who revealed the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame to syndicated columnist Robert Novak ...

www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/30/leak.armitage/index.html - 52k

Neocon Ed 101a
Subject: CIA Leak
Todays student: royalking

Former vice-presidential chief of staff Scooter Libby was the source who revealed the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame to New York Times reporter Judith Miller...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/30/cia.leak/index.html

Miller had the ethics not to disclose what she had been told. Later, of course, Novak turned traitor...

"Miller had the ethics not to disclose what she had been told..."

Wasn't there charges brought against Libby about his Judith Miller testimony?

Oh they were dropped.

And, what is it with this villification of Fitzgerald? Some of the ugliest personal attacks by the Republicans on this site I have ever read, yet he is a good, button-down collar guy, appointed US Attorney by a Republican, confirmed by a divided or Republican Senate, appointed Special Prosecutor by the Bush DOJ. No better prosecutor against the mob and the terrorists. He is every Republican mother's dream, every Republican maiden's dreamboat. I suppose doing one's job well and living an exemplary life pales to slavish loyalty to Bush. It is a poor, living commentary on how some free people subject themselves to the whim and will of others, others who seem so unworthy.

Posted by: Clucker at July 6, 2007 12:31 AM

I guess I've missed the heinous personal attacks on Fitzgerald, though goodness knows on a blogsite someone might say anything.

So far all I've read are obvious and logical arguments that counter the silly notion that Fitzgerald is some objective bystander or innate expert on CIA undercover status, whose every word should be greeted as if coming from Moses.

THAT is NOT hideous criticism but commonsense that you'd certainly exercise if this were another court case and you were listening to arguments on both sides. Prosecutors (like Defense attorneys) have cases to make and will argue them from to their best advantage. Fitzgerald wanted to convict Libby of perjury, he's going to frameup what Libby did in the strongest terms possible. It's up to us to weigh those terms.

More commonsense-- Fitzgerald wants to make a years long investigation as credible as possible. He's going to give PR statements detailing the IMMENSE validiity and importance of selecting a special prosecutor in the first place, the importance of the investigaion and its possibilities of certain discoveries (most of which never panned out),etc.

The other thing I've seen that could be interpreted as ...ahem...severe...criticism... by sensitive types as yourself.... is the argument that Fitzgerald is ambitious and it was certainly in his interest to walk away with something ( He managed that... a DC jury... surprise...surprise... convicted Scooter Libby of perjury-- an ancillary charge to what was the primary purpose of the investigation... but he got a conviction.) and to tie it as tightly as possible to the original focus of the investigation.

News flash--- It is NOT heinous criticism to point any of this out.

For heinous criticism I refer you, Clucker, to the treatment of one Kenneth Starr-- who was routinely excoriated in the press.

Memorable are the Maureen Dowd columns likening him to an uptight Puritan who harbored repressed fantasies of little girls.

Memorial too are the Clintonites who nightly visited the talk shows and made charge after charge of wrongdoing on the part of Starr and predictions that he would be investigated and disbarred--- all duly reported by a credulous media and abetted by the office of Janet Reno, who sweetly refused to deny that Starr had indeed acted illegally and would be throughly investigated by the DOJ after his investigation was finished.

That all these accusations and charges disappeared like the morning dew when Starr's report was finished was no surprise to anyone who followed the cycle of preposterous claims of paid Clinton prevaricators purveying their pab per the public airwaves ---ppppfff... :D

Last but not least are the memorable sentiments of one Keith Olbermann, then host of MSNBC The Big Show. He made the on-air comparision of Ken Starr's appearance to that of..... Heinrich. Himmler.

Oh yeah.

Sorry you're shocked....shocked... (as Casablanca's Captain Renault said) about the treatment here of Fitzgerald, Clucker.

It's evident you not only have EXTREMELY sensitive sensibilities....you have very convenient ones as well...

"Please accept my apology."

Don't apologize Cecelia. The left is known for compulsive lying all the time.
http://www.geekswithguns.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=631

Ever notice how often they talk about themselves? They're just making stuff up because backed up facts are beyond their means.

Posted by: I'm not really here at July 6, 2007 11:22 AM

I don't guage my actions upon the worst behavior of others, INRH.

I appreciate your attempt at support here, but I do want to correct your impression that the left is composed of compulsive liars.

It is not.

Not here,

Yeah, the charges were dropped and Novak, who admitted disclosing the name, was never tried at all. Just because someone has never been tried, doesn't mean that he isn't guilty...

You DO recall the Whitehouse stonewalling the investigation, doncha son? Odd behavior for a president that promised that those responsible would be punished...

But, as I stated yesterday, there is nothing Bush could do to lose your support, including overt treason...

Mmm, nice, smarmy apology Cecelia.

Posted by: at July 6, 2007 11:20 AM

Well, thanks! :D

"But, as I stated yesterday..."

Sure sure little liar. Keep making things up, perhaps someone with a weaker mind will believe you.

The "thought" process of liberal "minds"-
"I'm always right! Therefore any fact which contradicts me is undoubtedly wrong!"

Not here,

Yeah, the charges were dropped and Novak, who admitted disclosing the name, was never tried at all. Just because someone has never been tried, doesn't mean that he isn't guilty...

You DO recall the Whitehouse stonewalling the investigation, doncha son? Odd behavior for a president that promised that those responsible would be punished...

But, as I stated yesterday, there is nothing Bush could do to lose your support, including overt treason...

Posted by: blindrat at July 6, 2007 11:57 AM

Novak cooperated with Fitzgerald by corroborating that his source had been Armitage.

Judy Miller did not cooperate, she protected her source and went to jail.

If Novak had not cooperated with Fitzgerald he would have been guilty only to the extent that Miller was guilty of not cooperating with an investigation by not revealing a source.

Are you saying Novak was guilty of something else or guilty in some special way that Judy Miller and Matt Cooper were not?

Well put Cecelia... the only reason the lewinski investigation went on for sooo long was that Kenneth Star was stonewalled repeatedly by the ENTIRE clinton staff. And the staff was only encouraged by the supportive media that painted Star as an overzealous prosecutor. He ruinbed their marriage as part of a vast right-wing conspiracy. He was crucified by the democrats AND the press.

Fitzgerald is a hero and patriot for bringing down the lackey of an elected but unpopular president. Free Libby!

Stonewalling? Have any examples of stonewalling?

Cecelia,

Novak was guilty of treason because he printed the information. The others kept it to themselves.

Benson, don't you know that the cardinal sin of liberalism is disagreeing with them?

But of course, they are the side of "peace love and tolerance".

Just yet another lie...

Not here,

Yeah, the charges were dropped and Novak, who admitted disclosing the name, was never tried at all. Just because someone has never been tried, doesn't mean that he isn't guilty...

You DO recall the Whitehouse stonewalling the investigation, doncha son? Odd behavior for a president that promised that those responsible would be punished...

But, as I stated yesterday, there is nothing Bush could do to lose your support, including overt treason...

Posted by: blindrat at July 6, 2007 11:57 AM

benson, I'm very glad that Fitzgerald wasn't treated as Starr had been.

I'm glad and relieved too that there wasn't a retinue of Bush staffers and former staffers out running him down on the cable news shows each night.

Benson, don't you know that the cardinal sin of liberalism is disagreeing with them?

But of course, they are the side of "peace love and tolerance".

Just yet another lie...

Posted by: I'm not really here at July 6, 2007 12:20 PM

Consider that when you start making all your ideological opponents into cartoon characters, you may need a vacation from blogsites for awhile, INRH.

"I'm glad and relieved too that there wasn't a retinue of Bush staffers and former staffers out running him down on the cable news shows each night."

But of course, it is the Bush administration that's repressing free speech and is the tyrant.

I think their problem is that Bush is too much like them in spirit but not in name and they can't stand it. Burn the heretic anyone?

Cecelia,

Novak was guilty of treason because he printed the information. The others kept it to themselves.

Posted by: blindrat at July 6, 2007 12:19 PM

He's not guilty of treason if there was no treason committed, Blindrat.

You can't simultaneously argue-- Scooter is guilty because he was convicted in a court of law but Novak is guilty because my opinion says so...

If outting Plame complied with the standards in the IIAP, you'd have seen Fitzgerald bring numerous indictments.

http://dlazechk.dl.funpic.org/ch910402.jpg

Cecelia,

You are being insincere. Plame was a covert agent (shown in court, not denied by CIA) and her identity was disclosed. A crime was committed. Do you deny this simple fact?...

blindrat- did you know its not a crime if scooter didn't know she was covert? yes or no? I can move on from here.

benson,

I'm trying to decipher your sentence. Are you implying that Libby didn't know that Plame was a covert agent?

Actually its not a crime for anyone if the person did not know she was covert. Its part of the statute. They must also know that the agent is covert. That is actually considered the main reason ONLY perjury was pursued. Fitzgerald COULD NOT determine whether Libby and Armitage knew her status when they dropped her name.

blindbat, nice try, your cnn link is a little outdated. What a difference a year makes. A good example of how cnn runs with any story, though. You can hate Scooter all you want, but, you can't pin the leak on him when Dick Armatage confessed to it.

It's pretty obvious that Armitage was the initial blown cover, and that this was inadvertant. It's also pretty clear that VP's office used the opportunity created by the formal blown cover to spread Plame's identity around as much as possible in an effort to help discredit JW, who was the subject of much of their attention.

12 people unanimously agreed that Scooter deliberately lied to a GJ, and it seems if this is the case, his interest was not to avoid legal fallout over the initial outing-- which he presumably knew was not the fault of VP-- but to obscure the extent to which JW was being actively rundown by VP. The jury seems aware of something like this.

That is to say VP's goal thoughout was to avoid political fallout (presuming they don't believe they can be tied to a crime of forgery or promulgating a known forgery at the heart of the case.)

So no underlying crime in the outing, just ugly politics which induced Scooter to commit the crime of perjury. Nonetheless, perjury is perjury. It wasn't a political witchhunt, it was mostly presided over by Republicans. Scooter took a more or less deliberate legal fall for political reasons, probably knowing he really didn't risk anything with a pardon waiting in the wings. The statement of the jury as well as his commutation (as opposed to pardon) fits pretty well with this whole model. At every step, the admin has taken the course of action that keeps this story furthest from full disclosure. It actually helps them politically to always have a legal case pending on this matter.

But the leftist charge that someone in VP wanted to get JW so bad they were willing to commit treason just to chase his wife out of a job is way overblown and simply inoperative given Armitage. There is no sense of proportion there.

VP definitely wanted to discredit Wilson as best they could, and the story obviously worries them somehow the closer it gets to the Nigerian forgeries and how they get into Italian and Brittish and then U.S. intel despite being so obviously bogus (they didn't even have the right names on them.) And how they get into SOTU over objections from Intel. But the simple story of spy burning is too stupid.

"At first I thought that commuting Libby's sentence was a reasonable compromise—keeping him from serving prison time, but letting the jury verdict stand. But now I don't think it makes any sense. There's an incoherence at the heart of the administration's case. It says that Libby's sentence was excessive. But technically, it's not. It's only excessive if you think it was a politicized prosecution and never should have happened in the first place. But if you believe that, then Libby deserves an outright pardon. The administration's middle ground can't hold," - Rich Lowry, NRO.
Yes, but the prosecution obviously wasn't politicized. It was initiated by a Republican Justice Department, it was prosecuted by a Republican appointed prosecutor, and the appeal failed in front of Republican judicial appointees. The jury obviously wasn't rigged. They liked Libby. But the perjury was so obvious, so blatant and so pathetic they had no choice but to convict. There is no coherent defense of this commutation; and no defense of a pardon. There's just elite privilege and rank, shameless abuse of presidential power. People in Libby's privileged circle simply don't believe the criminal law should apply to their friends. And the president has used his constitutional authority (and unconstitutional powers) to hide his own crimes and wartime deceptions.
More broadly, it's a mistake, I think, to try and find a coherent, principled reason for this commutation. I once gave Bush and Cheney this kind of credit and have learned my lesson. This was a brazen political act designed to prevent Libby from telling Fitzgerald more. Bush's loyalty, via Cheney, was already promised long ago. Just read Libby's letter to Judy Miller. This was fixed at the highest levels, regardless of the justice system. In retrospect, it's extremely clear.

blindbat, read this over and over, maybe it will sink in. I won't make a big deal over the fact you were wrong, again......p.s. this was taken from msnbc, your hero's network. Good enough?

Armitage acknowledged that he had passed along to Novak information contained in a classified State Department memo: that Wilson's wife worked on weapons-of-mass-destruction issues at the CIA. (The memo made no reference to her undercover status.) Armitage had met with Novak in his State Department office on July 8, 2003—just days before Novak published his first piece identifying Plame. Powell, Armitage and Taft, the only three officials at the State Department who knew the story, never breathed a word of it publicly and Armitage's role remained secret.

Armitage, a well-known gossip who loves to dish and receive juicy tidbits about Washington characters, apparently hadn't thought through the possible implications of telling Novak about Plame's identity. "I'm afraid I may be the guy that caused this whole thing," he later told Carl Ford Jr., State's intelligence chief. Ford says Armitage admitted to him that he had "slipped up" and told Novak more than he should have. "He was basically beside himself that he was the guy that f---ed up.

Cecelia,

You are being insincere. Plame was a covert agent (shown in court, not denied by CIA) and her identity was disclosed. A crime was committed. Do you deny this simple fact?...

Posted by: blindrat at July 6, 2007 12:38 PM

Yes, I deny it.

There are laws that guide this sort of thing, Blindrat.

Under the IIPA, it has to proved that Plame met certain criteria-- exp-- that she had worked out of the country under her covert status in the past five years.

Exp-- that those outted her did so with an understanding of her status, etc.

Your argument is essentially similar to saying... This newspaper printed information/charges about so-and-so that are not true. Therefore this newspaper is guilty of libel.

I hope you understand that, like libel, there is more to getting a guilty verdict to the charge of outting a covert agent, that simply this.

rk,

Pull your head out, son. There was more than one attempt at a leak. Read the article next time; don't just scan it for your name...

Armitage, a well-known gossip who loves to dish and receive juicy tidbits about Washington characters, apparently hadn't thought through the possible implications of telling Novak about Plame's identity. "I'm afraid I may be the guy that caused this whole thing," he later told Carl Ford Jr., State's intelligence chief. Ford says Armitage admitted to him that he had "slipped up" and told Novak more than he should have. "He was basically beside himself that he was the guy that f---ed up.

Posted by: royalking at July 6, 2007 1:09 PM

Well, neither Armitage or Colin Powell were beside themselves enough to have informed the President of what Armitage had done or that he acknowledged it to investigators.

"Pull your head out, son. There was more than one attempt at a leak. Read the article next time; don't just scan it for your name..."

He's right you know, have you heard about Libby's latest crime spree?
http://www.imao.us/archives/008057.html

Cecelia,

I agree with most of what you said; however, just because there wasn't an indictment, doesn't mean that a crime wasn't committed...

I think there's the convenient notion out there that the Administration should have done nothing to defend themselves against what Wilson claimed in his NYT op-ed.

If Wilson called on the authority of the VP office in saying that he sent to Niger, well, they should have just let that stand.

If Wilson and his wife said she did not play a role in his being selected by the CIA to go, the Administration should just let that stand.

If everyone else, including Fitzgerald and the head of the CIA who has contradicted himself on whether Plame was undercover or covert, is confused if Plame status is cut-and-dried under the IIPA, well, Scooter and the VP shouldn't have been...

If Scooter did everything in power to keep the VP's name out of the investigation, it's not because of the political fallout and presuppositions illustrated by endless charges making the rounds here and else.... it's because he had something to hide.

I'm okay, with anyone dearing clucking onto any and all the above and being utterly convinced that Plame was intentionally outted and put into danger.

What I'm not okay with is the mindset that somehow that is all inarguable, undebatable, indisputable and therefore on the order of calling the earth flat to counter otherwise.

Fitzgerald wishes he had such a sewn-up case...

However, the fact that THAT very stance is taken and that THAT very argument is made while labeling others robots and brainwashed partisans is nothing new round these parts...

Cecelia,

I agree with most of what you said; however, just because there wasn't an indictment, doesn't mean that a crime wasn't committed...

Posted by: blindrat at July 6, 2007 1:22 PM

That is certainly true. So please allow that the converse is also as true--- because you think a crime was committed doesn't mean it was...

Cecelia 1:28 Nice attempt to put reason into the argument.

The problem is that you took 'implied conspiracy' out of the equation, which is the basis for most of blindbat's theories on this administration.

He expressed that Bush had prior knowledge of 9/11 yesterday. Isn't that a non-startingpoint for most rational conversations.

Cecelia,

I will allow for the possibility; however, probability doesn't allow for it...

Cecelia,

I will allow for the possibility; however, probability doesn't allow for it...

Posted by: blindrat at July 6, 2007 1:43 PM

Well, in an argument that says Libby could NOT be inncent because he was convicted... but that Novak is not innocent merely because he wasn't charged or convicted.....that you'd even knowledge the "possibility" of innocence is as fair and open-minded as we're likely to see you, Blindrat.

Perhaps we're under a blue moon this July.

Pull your head out, son. There was more than one attempt at a leak. Read the article next time; don't just scan it for your name...

Posted by: blindrat at July 6, 2007 1:13 PM

What the heck does "more than one attempt" suppose to mean? You have some serious issues with your thought process. Maybe you should go back to work and get your mind off of Plame for a while.

He expressed that Bush had prior knowledge of 9/11 yesterday. Isn't that a non-startingpoint for most rational conversations.

Posted by: benson at July 6, 2007 1:43 PM

I wasn't aware that he had. Yes, that would certainly bring things to a screeching halt in my book.

But that sort of rhetoric is exactly what the left-wing radicals want to hear. They lap it up like kittens to a bowl of milk.

I won't argue against the notion that it is entirely possible that the administration has nothing to hide, that Scooter was only convicted of perjury because the jury was stupid and the system rigged against him, and/or that Bush is commuting his sentence because he really believes that Scooter is guilty of perjury in a free and fair trial, but that the prison sentence is just much too harsh.

It's possible. Actually I guess you can't believe all of those things, but some mix of them, or all of them but not at the same time, or in the same argument. But in general you can believe all those things if you really want to believe them. But you pretty much have to want to believe it. It isn't the simplest or likeliest explanation.

On a brighter note:

Do you favor or oppose the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush?

Favor Oppose Undecided
All Adults 45% 46% 9%
Voters 46% 44% 10%
Do you favor or oppose the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney?

Favor Oppose Undecided
All Adults 54% 40% 6%
Voters 50% 44% 6%

" You have some serious issues with your thought process."
-RK

Blindrat has issues with his thought process? Hello, Paging Dr. Kettle, Dr. Kettle, Will you please call Dr. Black?

Anon....

The fact there is even a poll asking about whether to impeach someone or not says more about our current, pathetic political environment then it does anthing else.

It would be like conducting public opinion polls about those in the local paper's police blotter on whether the DA should bring charges or not.

Either there is sufficient evidence to move against Bush and or Cheney, or there isn't.....The democratic leadership should be scheduling impeachment chrages according to the evidence thrown about by Olbermann and the rest of the radical 10%.....let's have at it then.

.....Or perhaps a political calculation just as cynical as the war resolutions is the real issue here as would be reflected by the use of such a poll?

I think it is obvious what I believe.

Get rid of the criminals....impeach Bush and Cheney!

Bring the troops home NOW......cut the funds!

Oh and to make sure we all know what left field blindrat is coming in from....

"cee,

"Treason is an act of disloyalty against the USA by a citizen of that nation. Bush has committed the following treasons:
[...]

"2. Kept the intelligence of an imminent attack from the general public while using the same information to pull Ashcroft off of commercial flights."

Posted by: blindrat at July 5, 2007 12:07 PM

###
Like I said, I really want this and other radical claims in the democrat's "where as's" and "therefores's" that would comprise the lovely document presented to the House for approval.....

Get rid of the criminals....impeach Bush and Cheney!

Bring the troops home NOW......cut the funds!

It's possible. Actually I guess you can't believe all of those things, but some mix of them, or all of them but not at the same time, or in the same argument. But in general you can believe all those things if you really want to believe them. But you pretty much have to want to believe it. It isn't the simplest or likeliest explanation.

On a brighter note:

Do you favor or oppose the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush?

Favor Oppose Undecided
All Adults 45% 46% 9%
Voters 46% 44% 10%
Do you favor or oppose the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney?

Favor Oppose Undecided
All Adults 54% 40% 6%
Voters 50% 44% 6%

Posted by: at July 6, 2007 4:03 PM

Actually, most of what you venture IS the simpliest explanation.

As for impeachment, I don't favor it, but I won't be jumping out of tall buildings if the Democrats tried to bring it on.

Bring it on.

The Democrats are at war with one another on this impeachment issue. They keep insisting they don't have the votes for it, even tough they control both the House & Senate, and clearly, the majority of the American public supports it, especially for VP Cheney. But you see, Pelosi is telling them it's "off the table". Let's just say that from what I've seen on the leftist websites, they are ready to hang Pelosi for her unwillingness to proceed on this. Gee, if Bush/Cheney are so guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors they why doesn't Pelosi want this too? It's clearly the will of the American people and her own party stalwarts? Maybe she's a member of the Bush/Cheney fan club?

Sort of like war breaking out on the Elbe when the Americans and Russians first met up in 1945, I gather? Dream on. There is no war over the impeachment issue. It is seldom discussed.

If I were you, Brandon, I would be far more concerned about the Republicans up for re-election to the House and Senate who are "cutting and running" from Ms. Hawkins' Boy as fast and as furious as possible.

No need for concern, clunker boy. F. Thompson is here to save us all! He's tied with Billary and he's not even running, yet......

The sun is setting Ye of Many Names. Go put on your robe and hood and light your torch. But, be careful. Those sheets go up in flames easily. Take Fred with you. He'd probably pick up a few votes now that literacy tests are now longer a condition for voting. That is, if you can break him away from Margaret Carlson, or divorce court, or his abortion rights fund raisers, or his Pro-Life rallies, or the Scooter Legal Defense Slush Fund or the Nixon Defense Team Reunion. Or any of his assorted causes. He has more conflicts than a nun made pregnant by a Baptist preacher after a drunken orgy in Vatican City. I'd say Thompson is even less of a threat than the Rudy you and your other "voices" so once worshipped. If I were a Repubican, I'd go with a Lynn Cheney - Mary Cheney ticket. But, hey, stick with Thompson. I'd like an easy and cheap victory.

Would you pick me a bottle of Fume Blanc on your way back from the cross burning, please? I have an ACLU Action Team meeting at the house tonight, and I may be a bit short. You know where the Thunderbird is? Four rows up and two to the left.

The sun is setting Ye of Many Names. Go put on your robe and hood and light your torch. But, be careful. Those sheets go up in flames easily. Take Fred with you. He'd probably pick up a few votes now that literacy tests are now longer a condition for voting. That is, if you can break him away from Margaret Carlson, or divorce court, or his abortion rights fund raisers, or his Pro-Life rallies, or the Scooter Legal Defense Slush Fund or the Nixon Defense Team Reunion. Or any of his assorted causes. He has more conflicts than a nun made pregnant by a Baptist preacher after a drunken orgy in Vatican City. I'd say Thompson is even less of a threat than the Rudy you and your other "voices" so once worshipped. If I were a Repubican, I'd go with a Lynn Cheney - Mary Cheney ticket. But, hey, stick with Thompson. I'd like an easy and cheap victory.

Would you pick me a bottle of Fume Blanc on your way back from the cross burning, please? I have an ACLU Action Team meeting at the house tonight, and I may be a bit short. You know where the Thunderbird is? Four rows up and two to the left.

Bad news for you, Ye of Many Names. A NEWSWEEK poll shows 59% of all Americans believe the nation is ready for a Black president. Your efforts seem to be failing. Maybe you should focus your efforts a bit, say the suburban areas around Yazoo City.

Bad news for you, Ye of Many Names. A NEWSWEEK poll shows 59% of all Americans believe the nation is ready for a Black president. Your efforts seem to be failing. Maybe you should focus your efforts a bit, say the suburban areas around Yazoo City.

Bad news for you, Ye of Many Names. A NEWSWEEK poll shows 59% of all Americans believe the nation is ready for a Black president. Your efforts seem to be failing. Maybe you should focus your efforts a bit, say the suburban areas around Yazoo City.

Bad news for you, Ye of Many Names. A NEWSWEEK poll shows 59% of all Americans believe the nation is ready for a Black president. Your efforts seem to be failing. Maybe you should focus your efforts a bit, say the suburban areas around Yazoo City.

Bad news for you, Ye of Many Names. A NEWSWEEK poll shows 59% of all Americans believe the nation is ready for a Black president. Your efforts seem to be failing. Maybe you should focus your efforts a bit, say the suburban areas around Yazoo City.

Bad news for you, Ye of Many Names. A NEWSWEEK poll shows 59% of all Americans believe the nation is ready for a Black president. Your efforts seem to be failing. Maybe you should focus your efforts a bit, say the suburban areas around Yazoo City.

clunker, one major problem for your black democrat, his own people aren't going to vote for him.

"his OWN people"

Ye of Many Names, you are an unabashed racist, aren't you? Just amazing .... I though you all died off in the late '60's. I guess you all just became RW Republicans and moved to the edge of majic forests.

Jeff, have you finally figured out that you made a fool out of yourself...AGAIN...for about the thousanth time....when you accused me of being 'clucker' about a week ago?

No, probably not!...As has been said many times before on this blog, you probably aren't smart enough to recognize your own stupidity.

According to RK, saving the earth is a liberal loon thing to do.
I wouldn't ever find people as ignorant as he if I didn't know about this site.

Posted by: at July 7, 2007 10:42 PM

The loons are desperate, again, putting words in my mouth aka making shit up!

A liberal lawyer hard at work, aka, red diaper doper baby.....

July 7, 2007 -- He hoped to peruse their briefs - and then some.

A Legal Aid Society lawyer was charged in Manhattan yesterday with sneaking a camcorder disguised as a clock into the offices of his young female colleagues so he could videotape them as they changed in and out of their business suits.

From 2004 until last October, attorney Peter Barta, 32, switched the motion-activated device in and out of at least five women's offices in the Legal Aid's TriBeCa suite, and succeeded in capturing nude images of at least one of them, prosecutors said.

Ye Of Many Names. Once, again, profound ignorance.

Legal Aid Society lawyers are not necessarily liberal. Legal Aid and ACLU are vastly, vastly different. Often, Legal Aid Society lawyers, like ADA's just don't have other employment options.

Clearly, as the O'Reilly case clearly showed us, sexual deviance crosses many philosophical and political bounds.

Now, if the lawyer in questions were a serial divorcer, we would know he were a Republican, likely a Republican presidential candidate, perhaps one from Tennessee or New York.

Just because he is a pervert means little.

Left-wing lawyer hid peep camera in female lawyers' offices:

clunker oh desperate, slanderous, hypocritical fool, here is the headline of the previous article. You're spinning your wheels, still.....