Libby won't do prison time

[dollfus46]

President Bush commuted Scooter Libby's 30 month prison time today. According to MSNBC the judge wanted LIbby to report to prison pending his appeal, which is crap. Bush only commuted the prison time. The fine of $250,000 stands and he'll lose his law license to boot. So he's still getting punished.

[selmore]

I can't wait to hear what Hillary is going to say.
Remember that her brother made tons of money getting Bill to sign all of those pardons

[dollfus46]

selmore, i forgot about that - yep, Hillary will jump on the same bandwagon as Pelosi and Reid earlier today.

Well, not only that but Bush left some punishment in place. $250,000 fine is not small taters. He's paying a higher price for lying to a grand jury than Billy boy. Hillary wouldn't dare open her mouth without opening that can of worms, I wouldn't think. Libby will be disbarred just as Bil was too. Course Bill had no use for his law degree anymore. He was an Ex-president. That's a ticket to great wealth.
What's the deal with the judge making Libby sit in jail while his appeal plays out. That's kinda crappe' isn't it?:confused:

[dollfus46]

selmore, i forgot about that - yep, Hillary will jump on the same bandwagon as Pelosi and Reid earlier today.

Oh, have they said something? I haven't heard. I figured Hateful Harry would be a jackass about it. Now THERE'S the pot calling the kettle black. :smt118

[politically incorrect]

All of you apparently don't know Hillary Clinton very well. Audacity is her middle name. With Bill, who pardoned Marc Rich after he made a huge donation to the Clinton Presidential Library and the Democratic National Committee, standing right behind her, she claims this is a symbol of an administration which puts "cronyism" before justice.

This is the first thing Bush has done that I have agreed with in quite some time. The Dems were going to howl no matter what. At least he finally did something to appeal to the people who actually put him in office.:smt023

[dollfus46]

I know that many 'friends' raised money for Libby's legal fees. Can any of that money be used to pay his fine? And, I would imagine he won't have trouble finding a job even without his law degree. Friends will take care of that. Who knows, he may end up at Haliburton as a consultant!

Kudos, QM. I'd bet a gold guinea you hit it on the head. If not at Haliburton, at some other cushy job Chaney/Bush will make sure he gets, for taking the fall. The whole thing was our politicians at their best......both sides.:oops:

[dollfus46]

All of you apparently don't know Hillary Clinton very well. Audacity is her middle name. With Bill, who pardoned Marc Rich after he made a huge donation to the Clinton Presidential Library and the Democratic National Committee, standing right behind her, she claims this is a symbol of an administration which puts "cronyism" before justice. !
NOOOOOOOO she didn't.........did she?:faintthud She must have to carry her cajones around in a wheelbarrow. Surely she's forgotten about White Water, Travelgate and insider trading. Then the Hotel White House thingy where rooms were for sale for donations, and, as you said, the Marc Rich buy out. I'm sure it will come back to her and she'll apologize for the remark.:smt118

[dollfus46]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/02/AR2007070202060.html?referrer=email

The Washington Post is reporting this morning that President Bush pretty much made this decision alone. He did not allow Libby's friends to lobby on his behalf. And, it is not known whether Cheney's input was allowed in the end. Bush did not consult with the Justice Department either.

I kinda liked the remark he made about him having the power to do it, like if you don't like it .............(insert your's or Mac's favorite quote here):clap::smt118

[ComputerDude]

I kinda liked the remark he made about him having the power to do it, like if you don't like it .............(insert your's or Mac's favorite quote here):clap::smt118
BUSH -- HE'S ABOVE THE LAW!!!!

At least he thinks he is.

[Buggy]

So Judith Miller goes to jail for 85 days for protecting Libby, and Libby, who was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice, doesn't go to jail at all. Bill Clinton was impeached for less.

Bush in 2004: "If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of." I guess he kept his promise.

[dollfus46]

So Judith Miller goes to jail for 85 days for protecting Libby, and Libby, who was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice, doesn't go to jail at all. Bill Clinton was impeached for less.

Bush in 2004: "If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of." I guess he kept his promise.

Yeah, ain't that a kick in the head? :smt017

[dollfus46]

So Judith Miller goes to jail for 85 days for protecting Libby, and Libby, who was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice, doesn't go to jail at all. Bill Clinton was impeached for less.


:eusa_doh: Aarrrrrrrrgh!

[dollfus46]

Fact is, the President has the right and power to pardon anyone he/she chooses. No one ever, ever likes the ones he pardons. Hey, they are turning criminals loose. If they weren't found guilty they don't need a pardon to begin with. We may as well live with it and quit whining or change the law.

[chaz]

BUSH -- HE'S ABOVE THE LAW!!!!

At least he thinks he is.

Constitution = highest law. Presidential pardon is a right given in the constitution. Above it or in line?

[SueScribe]

Presidents Are Like A Box of Cherry Chocolates . .

When Bill Clinton left office he had a job approval rating of 64%. Moreover, he departed on a grace note: He was, and is, politically bullet-proof.

Thus, contemporary historians have rewarded him with the Medal Of Ballsy Valor, for his service in the Grand Old Party Wars of 1992-2000.

In the former president’s cumbersome book, "My Life", he describes his combat experiences as having been treated like "an infidel", who the far-right component of the GOP had determined to drive from "the temple".

A detailed and insightful historical perspective of the Clinton presidency and his impeachment proceedings, with solid references, may be found at:

http://www.historyplace.com/index.html

And, if you suffer no arthritic pain from holding a thick, heavy book, you may visit Amazon Dot Com and run a book search under My Life. It’s probably 50% off at this point.

However, this thread is about I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and the current President(s) of the United States, the benefactor(s) of Mr. Libby’s partial, not-quite-yet-finished, executive absolution for crimes a duly-empaneled jury of his non-peers determined he had committed, i.e.:

1. Obstruction of Justice - 2 counts
2. Perjury - 3 counts

The lack of an "underlying crime", so touted and insisted upon by the far-right corner of the Republican Party, is a feeble attempt to explain-away what is surely the most brass-balled Executive Branch in American history, one which ignores the rule of law, makes laws up as it goes along, and, generally, exists in an altered state of this Republic that is far removed from reasoned reality.

Mr. Libby is a criminal. He has unindicted co-conspirators who happen to be in a position to wave a wand over his conduct and make it something other than what it was and is - legally - Criminal conduct.

I can go through the entire scenario with which we should all be familiar by now, even if we have spent time wondering if Anna Nicole’s body was going to be buried in Texas or the Bahamas, or which pretty young mother was missing in which state, or even how the Hilton Trust Baby was holding up in the hoosegow, but - it’s really quite simple:

Mr. Libby did the bidding of his bosses and tried to defame the reputation of the most vocal, and learned, critic of the dubiously-hatched invasion of Iraq, account some yellow cake invoice (not the kind you eat) of Saddam Hussein’s, vis-a-vis Niger.

In the White House’s haste to silence Joe Wilson, it turns out that a CIA operative’s identity was exposed, and the Agency quickly asked for an investigation into that fact.

And so, along comes Patrick "Eliot Ness" Fitzgerald of Chicago, whose singular desire and love in life appears to be the practice of law and application of equitable justice. He sets about his task and Scooter, et al., are compelled to testify.

Scooter lies under oath and lies to an FBI agent investigating the aforesaid tossing of the covert CIA operative under the political bus.

Scooter gets caught.

Scooter goes to trial, jury hears the evidence, verdicts come in, and judge imposes sentence under federal guidelines.

Appeal is taken. Scooter out on bail pending his motion to remain free pending appeal. Motion denied. President(s) issue a commutation. Full pardon waits in the December `08 wings.

And, we seem to have come full circle: George Bush once again looks like a man-on-the-spot, one who is caught in the glare of the World’s headlights with no clue as to what to do next, much as he appeared the first time he strolled up to the podium as President, oh so many light years ago.

Before we commence a blow-by-blow comparison of Bill Clinton’s lying under oath to Mr. Libby’s, etc. etc. ad infinitum, consider the following:

Ref: http://www.historyplace.com/index.html

Excerpts from William Jefferson Clinton’s written responses to Special Prosecutor Starr’s Requests for Admissions:
. . .

5. Do you admit or deny that you took an oath in which you swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in a deposition conducted as part of a judicial proceeding in the case of *Jones v. Clinton on January 17, 1998?

[*the "underlying crime" ?]

A: I took an oath to tell the truth on January 17, 1998, before my deposition in the Jones v. Clinton case. While I do not recall the precise wording of that oath, as I previously stated in my grand jury testimony on August 17, 1998, in taking the oath "I believed then that I had to answer the questions truthfully." (App. at 458.)

6. Do you admit or deny that you look an oath in which you swore or affirmed to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, before a grand jury impaneled as part of a judicial proceeding before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia Circuit on August 17, 1998?

A: As the August 17, 1998, videotape reflects, I was asked "Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give in this matter will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?," and I answered, "I do."
. . .

The history of Mr. Clinton’s impeachment proceedings are on the site I linked. Enjoy.

In parting, here is another, particularly poignant gem from Ken Starr’s voluminous Requests For Admissions:

41. . . . [D]o you admit or deny that you gave the following gifts to Monica Lewinsky at any time in the past?


a. A lithograph
b. A hatpin
c. A large "Black Dog" canvas bag
d. A large "Rockettes" blanket
e. A pin of the New York skyline
f. A box of cherry chocolates
g. A pair of novelty sunglasses
h. A stuffed animal from the "Black Dog"
I. A marble bear's head
j. A London pin
k. A shamrock pin
l. An Annie Lennox compact disc
m. Davidoff cigars


------------------------------------------------------

A box of cherry chocolates and an Annie Lennox compact disc. *sigh*

And, naturally, a box of cigars.

*sigh*

Such naive times we lived in then, eh? Those were the good ol’ days.


SUE

[chaz]

Mr. Libby did the bidding of his bosses and tried to defame the reputation of the most vocal, and learned, critic of the dubiously-hatched invasion of Iraq, account some yellow cake invoice (not the kind you eat) of Saddam Hussein’s, vis-a-vis Niger.



Richard Armitage did this, not Libby.

[dollfus46]

Constitution = highest law. Presidential pardon is a right given in the constitution. Above it or in line?
:clap::clap: Hooah!!(thanks to the guy who stars in The Scent of a Woman)

[dollfus46]

Constitution = highest law. Presidential pardon is a right given in the constitution. Above it or in line?

heh heh heh as I was about to say in agreeing: That should be worth about +5

[dollfus46]

Richard Armitage did this, not Libby.

I think the lack of effort to indict Armitage for "outing" some desk clerk at the FBI, is proof enough for me it was all a political attempt to get Chaney. It failed. The Special council had egg on his face for spending millions in a failed lynching, so he hung it (like that pun?) on Libby for "lying to a grand jury" for answers he could not remember. Now, who remembers the name of the sorry prosecutor? Nobody. He's slithered back under his rock. Though our justice system is supposed to be the best, we've known for years and years, that justice is not always done. We also know the power of prosecutors that was so vividly displayed before our eyes in the form of one Mike Nyfong, who for pure political reasons, tried his best to convict innocent men. I think our President corrected a great injustice. I'd like to see the Special Council answer as many questions about his intentions as Libby had to answer.

[dollfus46]

Presidents Are Like A Box of Cherry Chocolates . .

When Bill Clinton left office he had a job approval rating of 64%. Moreover, he departed on a grace note: He was, and is, politically bullet-proof.

Thus, contemporary historians have rewarded him with the Medal Of Ballsy Valor, for his service in the Grand Old Party Wars of 1992-2000.

In the former president’s cumbersome book, "My Life", he describes his combat experiences as having been treated like "an infidel", who the far-right component of the GOP had determined to drive from "the temple".

A detailed and insightful historical perspective of the Clinton presidency and his impeachment proceedings, with solid references, may be found at:

http://www.historyplace.com/index.html

And, if you suffer no arthritic pain from holding a thick, heavy book, you may visit Amazon Dot Com and run a book search under My Life. It’s probably 50% off at this point.

However, this thread is about I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and the current President(s) of the United States, the benefactor(s) of Mr. Libby’s partial, not-quite-yet-finished, executive absolution for crimes a duly-empaneled jury of his non-peers determined he had committed, i.e.:

1. Obstruction of Justice - 2 counts
2. Perjury - 3 counts

The lack of an "underlying crime", so touted and insisted upon by the far-right corner of the Republican Party, is a feeble attempt to explain-away what is surely the most brass-balled Executive Branch in American history, one which ignores the rule of law, makes laws up as it goes along, and, generally, exists in an altered state of this Republic that is far removed from reasoned reality.

Mr. Libby is a criminal. He has unindicted co-conspirators who happen to be in a position to wave a wand over his conduct and make it something other than what it was and is - legally - Criminal conduct.

I can go through the entire scenario with which we should all be familiar by now, even if we have spent time wondering if Anna Nicole’s body was going to be buried in Texas or the Bahamas, or which pretty young mother was missing in which state, or even how the Hilton Trust Baby was holding up in the hoosegow, but - it’s really quite simple:

Mr. Libby did the bidding of his bosses and tried to defame the reputation of the most vocal, and learned, critic of the dubiously-hatched invasion of Iraq, account some yellow cake invoice (not the kind you eat) of Saddam Hussein’s, vis-a-vis Niger.

In the White House’s haste to silence Joe Wilson, it turns out that a CIA operative’s identity was exposed, and the Agency quickly asked for an investigation into that fact.

And so, along comes Patrick "Eliot Ness" Fitzgerald of Chicago, whose singular desire and love in life appears to be the practice of law and application of equitable justice. He sets about his task and Scooter, et al., are compelled to testify.

Scooter lies under oath and lies to an FBI agent investigating the aforesaid tossing of the covert CIA operative under the political bus.

Scooter gets caught.

Scooter goes to trial, jury hears the evidence, verdicts come in, and judge imposes sentence under federal guidelines.

Appeal is taken. Scooter out on bail pending his motion to remain free pending appeal. Motion denied. President(s) issue a commutation. Full pardon waits in the December `08 wings.

And, we seem to have come full circle: George Bush once again looks like a man-on-the-spot, one who is caught in the glare of the World’s headlights with no clue as to what to do next, much as he appeared the first time he strolled up to the podium as President, oh so many light years ago.

Before we commence a blow-by-blow comparison of Bill Clinton’s lying under oath to Mr. Libby’s, etc. etc. ad infinitum, consider the following:

Ref: http://www.historyplace.com/index.html

Excerpts from William Jefferson Clinton’s written responses to Special Prosecutor Starr’s Requests for Admissions:
. . .

5. Do you admit or deny that you took an oath in which you swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in a deposition conducted as part of a judicial proceeding in the case of *Jones v. Clinton on January 17, 1998?

[*the "underlying crime" ?]

A: I took an oath to tell the truth on January 17, 1998, before my deposition in the Jones v. Clinton case. While I do not recall the precise wording of that oath, as I previously stated in my grand jury testimony on August 17, 1998, in taking the oath "I believed then that I had to answer the questions truthfully." (App. at 458.)

6. Do you admit or deny that you look an oath in which you swore or affirmed to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, before a grand jury impaneled as part of a judicial proceeding before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia Circuit on August 17, 1998?

A: As the August 17, 1998, videotape reflects, I was asked "Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give in this matter will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?," and I answered, "I do."
. . .

The history of Mr. Clinton’s impeachment proceedings are on the site I linked. Enjoy.

In parting, here is another, particularly poignant gem from Ken Starr’s voluminous Requests For Admissions:

41. . . . [D]o you admit or deny that you gave the following gifts to Monica Lewinsky at any time in the past?


a. A lithograph
b. A hatpin
c. A large "Black Dog" canvas bag
d. A large "Rockettes" blanket
e. A pin of the New York skyline
f. A box of cherry chocolates
g. A pair of novelty sunglasses
h. A stuffed animal from the "Black Dog"
I. A marble bear's head
j. A London pin
k. A shamrock pin
l. An Annie Lennox compact disc
m. Davidoff cigars


------------------------------------------------------

A box of cherry chocolates and an Annie Lennox compact disc. *sigh*

And, naturally, a box of cigars.

*sigh*

Such naive times we lived in then, eh? Those were the good ol’ days.


SUE

Nice piece, Sue. Well written. What's your point?:smt118

[politically incorrect]

So Judith Miller goes to jail for 85 days for protecting Libby, and Libby, who was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice, doesn't go to jail at all. Bill Clinton was impeached for less.

Bush in 2004: "If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of." I guess he kept his promise.

First off, Clinton was impeached not for less, but the exact same thing - perjury and obstruction of justice. He never even went on trial in a criminal court, or served any jail time. So why should Libby?

Second, it was not Libby who leaked the name of the non-covert CIA agent married to the partisan liar who wrote the false story on Iraq intelligence. (It has been proven that Joseph Wilson misrepresented the facts in his now-famous op-ed piece slamming the Bush Administration.)

Third, apparently no laws were broken in the leaking of the name, since the special prosecutor never charged anyone with a crime.

[politically incorrect]

The lack of an "underlying crime", so touted and insisted upon by the far-right corner of the Republican Party, is a feeble attempt to explain-away what is surely the most brass-balled Executive Branch in American history, one which ignores the rule of law, makes laws up as it goes along, and, generally, exists in an altered state of this Republic that is far removed from reasoned reality.



Actually, the most the Bush Administration could hope for is to be the second most brass-balled Executive Branch in history. The number one spot is currently held by the Clintonistas, who lie with the best of them, destroy their enemies with an efficiency unseen since Nixon, and inspire such fawning loyalty among their lapdogs in the major media that they can say and do most anything with no lasting repurcussions.

If Bush and company are so devious and manipulative, how come he is at 30 percent in the polls? I guess all of that dark power just can't sway the press the way Slick Willy did.

[Buggy]

Second, it was not Libby who leaked the name of the non-covert CIA agent married to the partisan liar who wrote the false story on Iraq intelligence. (It has been proven that Joseph Wilson misrepresented the facts in his now-famous op-ed piece slamming the Bush Administration.)Where do you people get this stuff about Plame not being a covert agent? She was. And do you have a source about Wilson's NYTimes story being false? Because that's the first time I've heard that.

Anyway, the facts are that Richard Armitage, Karl Rove, and Lewis Libby all told reporters about Plame at around the same time. Apparently Libby was the only one who lied about it and said that he'd heard about Plame from Tim Russert a month after he actually learned about Plame from Cheney. I don't know why no one has gotten in any trouble over the leak itself, especially given the suspicious circumstances. If someone really did coordinate an effort to out Plame just to "get even" with Joe Wilson then that might even be considered treason.

[SueScribe]

Nice piece, Sue. Well written. What's your point?:smt118

df, given the content of your responses to the "responses" to my piece, I'll forebear for the time being, any attempt or effort to explain my "point."

Happy 4th, darlin' :clap:

[SueScribe]

Where do you people get this stuff about Plame not being a covert agent? She was. And do you have a source about Wilson's NYTimes story being false? Because that's the first time I've heard that.

Anyway, the facts are . . .

Shhhhh-hhhh, sweetness.:smt056 Save yourself. Relax, while I tell you a wonderful story:

Once upon a time there was a land beyond the :rainbow: , where there was a wise king who ruled over a kingdom of loyal and faithful subjects . . . Wait. That's not quite the story. Let's see:

Once upon a time, there was a land far away, but very close, where a peculiar people lived, along with their beloved Master Oz, and they were surrounded by the violent waters of oblivion . . and the Land Was Called an . . . :ip:. That's it. Everyone lived happily on an island. .

That's it. Shhhhhh-hhhhh, sweetness. :smt056 It'll be okay.

[SueScribe]

First off, Clinton . . . never even went on trial in a criminal court, or served any jail time. So why should Libby?

Oh, I simply cannot help myself sometimes. Simply cannot.

Just this once, just these few words, and I'm going to go over to the White Trash Cooking Thread and fuhgit-about-it.

*sigh*

The "underlying crime" in Mr. Clinton's case, i.e. banging women and parsing words about it while under oath in a CIVIL - not CRIMINAL - matter, and there is a decided legal difference, was - SETTLED out of court. Jail time is commonly not an issue in a personal injury lawsuit, i.e. Jones v. Clinton.

The House of Representatives, of course, moved for Impeachment. Please see my references regarding same above. But, your idea about jail time in a personal injury suit is intriguing . . .

----------------------

Judge: Have the parties reached a settlement?

Lawyer #1: Yes, your Honor.

Lawyer #2: Yes, your Honor.

Judge: And are the disputed issues addressed fully in the Joint Settlement Agreement?

Lawyer #2 - Yes, your Honor.

Laywer #1 - The one exception is that my client, under paragraph 33, will commence serving his jail time for showing his wee-wee to Ms. Jones on the 11th, Judge, not the 29th.

-----------------------------

Mr. Libbey, on the other hand, did not lie under oath about his wee-wee. He wasn't before a Federal Grand Jury because he stood accused of obstructing something other than justice - in the purist sense of that word.

The issue at the heart of prosecutor Pat Fitzgerald's case did not involve gift lists that included a box of cherry chocolates.

The damage done to this nation by a philandering pu**y-hound who lied about his exploits is a no-brainer comparison when held up to the light of the damage done by the deceitful manipulation and unrestrained power of the current occupants of the White House. (I say "occupants" in no way critical or meant to disrespect Mrs. Bush or the dogs, or the staff.)

The "occupants" of whom I speak are George Walker Bush and Richard (?) Cheney, on whose hands is the blood and treasure and reputation and cohesiveness of this country, and history will in fact document the damage.

In my view, we are witnessess to a passage in this country that will forever be considered our most Dangerous Hours. When you consider the hours the country has endured in retrospect, it is a chilling thought.

Happy 4th of July.

Sue

[EricStratton]

Oh, I simply cannot help myself sometimes. Simply cannot.

Just this once, just these few words, and I'm going to go over to the White Trash Cooking Thread and fuhgit-about-it.

*sigh*

The "underlying crime" in Mr. Clinton's case, i.e. banging women and parsing words about it while under oath in a CIVIL - not CRIMINAL - matter, and there is a decided legal difference, was - SETTLED out of court. Jail time is commonly not an issue in a personal injury lawsuit, i.e. Jones v. Clinton.

The House of Representatives, of course, moved for Impeachment. Please see my references regarding same above. But, your idea about jail time in a personal injury suit is intriguing . . .

----------------------

Judge: Have the parties reached a settlement?

Lawyer #1: Yes, your Honor.

Lawyer #2: Yes, your Honor.

Judge: And are the disputed issues addressed fully in the Joint Settlement Agreement?

Lawyer #2 - Yes, your Honor.

Laywer #1 - The one exception is that my client, under paragraph 33, will commence serving his jail time for showing his wee-wee to Ms. Jones on the 11th, Judge, not the 29th.

-----------------------------

Mr. Libbey, on the other hand, did not lie under oath about his wee-wee. He wasn't before a Federal Grand Jury because he stood accused of obstructing something other than justice - in the purist sense of that word.

The issue at the heart of prosecutor Pat Fitzgerald's case did not involve gift lists that included a box of cherry chocolates.

The damage done to this nation by a philandering pu**y-hound who lied about his exploits is a no-brainer comparison when held up to the light of the damage done by the deceitful manipulation and unrestrained power of the current occupants of the White House. (I say "occupants" in no way critical or meant to disrespect Mrs. Bush or the dogs, or the staff.)

The "occupants" of whom I speak are George Walker Bush and Richard (?) Cheney, on whose hands is the blood and treasure and reputation and cohesiveness of this country, and history will in fact document the damage.

In my view, we are witnessess to a passage in this country that will forever be considered our most Dangerous Hours. When you consider the hours the country has endured in retrospect, it is a chilling thought.

Happy 4th of July.

Sue

When I read your posts, I see pretty sparklers and roman candles in my mind's eye.....You make a young boy wise! God bless you.

[dollfus46]

The "underlying crime" in Mr. Clinton's case, i.e. banging women and parsing words about it while under oath in a CIVIL - not CRIMINAL - matter, and there is a decided legal difference, was - SETTLED out of court. Jail time is commonly not an issue in a personal injury lawsuit, i.e. Jones v. Clinton.

Sue

Parsing words. I like it. I always called that type of verbal thrust and parry as "playing pussy at the rat hole."(To the nation)"I did not have sexshul relations with that woman; Miss Lewinski."
Just goes to show you how easy it is to get confused about which sordid sexual event involving Clinton we are talking about.
Of course I can easily see how we got OFF TOPIC here but the bottom line is still, Bush can legally pardon any criminal he wants to for any reason or no reason. Clinton did it and not a peep from the Bush haters, Democrats, liberals (pick any that apply).
As long as we're OFF TOPIC, "banging women" seems to be relegated to a natural, innocent act. "Of course he's going to lie about it. Wouldn't you?" Anybody remember who Bob Packwood is? N.O.W. was screaming and demanding his resignation for merely chasing a grown woman around the office. Ya think N.O.W. was out front screaming and demanding Clinton resign or be impeached for actually having sexshul relations with a young intern? Not a peep. Couldn't get a N.O.W. member anywhere near a mike. It's all about who commits the sin and we should all be ashamed and demand more from our leaders. Wrong is wrong.

[aaron]

Judge says Libby must serve time despite commutation.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Judiciary_Committee_plans_Libby_Plame_hearings_070 4.html

[chaz]

Judge says Libby must serve time despite commutation.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Judiciary_Committee_plans_Libby_Plame_hearings_070 4.html

Is the judge trying to give cause to a full pardon?

[dollfus46]

Is the judge trying to give cause to a full pardon?

That'd be my guess. Sounds political to me. Wants to force Bush to piss more people off. It'll be interesting how this plays out. Most of what the Dems do, all the saber rattling, the non-binding votes, etc. is all predicated on trying to take the Republicans down in 08. Leheay is sounding like Hateful Harry these days. I'm telling you, this next election is going to get really nasty. I'm trying to remember.....what was their goal the first 100 hours? How'd that come out?

[SueScribe]

When I read your posts, I see pretty sparklers and roman candles in my mind's eye.....You make a young boy wise! God bless you.

And when I read things like this, from a young boy looking to be wise or caring enough to try, it makes my day and many hours before and after, promising and full of hope. (Hear that honey dripping? :oops:)

Thanks, darlin'.

Sue

[dollfus46]

And when I read things like this, from a young boy looking to be wise or caring enough to try, it makes my day and many hours before and after, promising and full of hope. (Hear that honey dripping? :oops:)

Thanks, darlin'.

Sue
:repuke: Oh this is getting deep. Heh heh heh.

[dollfus46]

Libby paid his $250,000 fine plus a $400 processing fee this afternoon. The fine was paid from his own personal funds and not from money raised for his legal defense. The question still exists as to whether he will have the 2 year probationary period.

What's the deal with him having to go to prison? Just political posturing by the judge?

[SueScribe]

Libby paid his $250,000 fine plus a $400 processing fee this afternoon. The fine was paid from his own personal funds and not from money raised for his legal defense.

You really think so?

----------------------------------------------------------

Twenty-nine "people of means and influence, ambassadors and honorables . . . raised millions to pay for the legal expenses of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby."

This, according to the Washington Post July 3 article, "Scooter Libby’s Pals, Trusting In Providence", written by a couple of staff writers, one of whom is named "Libby" Copeland. (Nice touch.)

The article provides glimpses into the Magnificent Twenty-Nine Who Serve The Scooter Legal Defense & Other Fund Trust, L L.C., and, more revealing, their group-think.

Instance: An Associated Press reporter broke the news of Scooter’s commutation to Richard Carlson, a "former ambassador to the Seychelles" (wherever-the-H that is). Carlson’s wife, standing nearby when the news came, "burst into tears".

Instance: Mel Sembler, "former Ambassador to Italy and developer" (and Chairman of The Libby Defense Fund), was overcome with emotion when he heard the news, saying, "I was most pleased with my President."
I’ll bet he was soft-spoken and teary-eyed when he said that, kinda like, "I was most pleased with my widdie-biddie girl’s first pageant performance, yea-aas I was!" *tickle-tickle-tickle"
One is left to wonder, "What exactly does Mel `develop’?

Others among the Magnificent Twenty Nine:

Ed Meese, Jack Kemp, Spencer Abraham, Fred Thompson (have you SEEN Fred’s wife??? What happened to the first one, one wonders?), and speaking of, there are two women on the Scooter Legal Trust Board: James Carville’s wife and . . . . "Nina Rosenwald, chairwoman of the Middle East Media Research Institute."

Wyoming’s former favorite (now crazy-as-a-loose-lipped-loon) son, Alan Simpson, "kicked in about $2,000." Simpson "was glad [about the commutation], but still mad at what Libby had to go through."

That wasn’t enough said for Al Simpson, of late nothing is, and to illustrate his anger further, he said, "The preening and pandering that went on, as if they caught a giant fish. Throwing out a net the size of Manhattan and catching one minnow. They were going to catch somebody, and they got Scooter."

Somebody owes it to Al to tell him who "they" were/are, and upon whose request "they" acted.

Republican operatives country-wide had palpitations when they read Al’s quote, knowing full well that there is nothing that can be done to silence him, nothing legal that is. Political love means never having to say, "SHUT THE F**K UP!"

FIVE MILLION DOLLARS and counting. That’s what Mel and Dick, Fred, Mary, Ed, et al., including the chairwoman of the Middle East Research Institute, have thus far raised for Scooter’s "legal expenses." They intend to continue raising funds. Appeal and all that.

HOWEVER - As to your point about the fine, Ms. Mother:

The Post staff reporters’ article supports your position that Scooter paid the quarter-million dollars. It didn't say it came out of his "personal funds", however.

Mr. Ambassador/Developer Sembler simply assured the Post reporters:

"[The $250,000 fine] will not come out of the trust." Um-humm. Okay, then.

Al Simpson confirmed the Ambassador/Developer’s assertion:

"[Libby is] still responsible for the probation and the fine, and his life has been in shatters." Okay, that's simple enough. Scotter had to take the check to the Clerk's Office.


. . . . . . *chirp-chirp* . . . . *tweedle-tweedle* . . . . . *pppzzz-clic* . .

. . . ah, the sounds of La-La land . . . so soothing . . .

. . . Scooter paid his own fine . . . well . . . of course he did . . . .

*chirp-chrip-tweedle-pzzzz* . . . *tweedle-tweedle* . . .*billip-billip*. .


The question still exists as to whether he will have the 2 year probationary period.

:kekeke: Yep. So true. :kekeke: And, let's not forget about shattered lives, Scooter's being only one among those. Too bad about Miz Plame and her CIA Golden Olden Retirement Pin.

[SueScribe]

AH! Dimmit, I forgot the reference:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/03/AR2007070300 (http://www.washsingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/03/AR2007070300)

[SueScribe]

What's the deal with him having to go to prison? Just political posturing by the judge?

No, actually, I think it has something to do with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Maybe some portion(s) of the United States Code, criminal parts thereof . . .which say something along the line of a convict having to become a convict first before said convict can reach "probationary status." This ain't an exact quote, but it's in the ballpark.

[ComputerDude]

Bush admits someone in his administration leaked CIA name, but wants to move on from it.
Guess his word that he would fire anybody who did it was only valid for 24 hours after he said it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19728346/

[dollfus46]

No, actually, I think it has something to do with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Maybe some portion(s) of the United States Code, criminal parts thereof . . .which say something along the line of a convict having to become a convict first before said convict can reach "probationary status." This ain't an exact quote, but it's in the ballpark.

I understand that, but this guy is not a flight risk. Why should he have to sit in prison while his appeals play out? Suppose his conviction is overturned and he's found innocent? He's spent time in jail for something he's innocent of? If he's a flight risk I'd lock his tush up too. I'd think the judge has the option. Just seems mean spirited to me.

[dollfus46]

Bush admits someone in his administration leaked CIA name, but wants to move on from it.
Guess his word that he would fire anybody who did it was only valid for 24 hours after he said it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19728346/

Were you watching his news conference? I heard him say that and it snapped my head back. I thought some other dude had already admitted to it? Was he lying to take the heat off of Libby? Bush gave no indication he knew where the leak came from though, that I can remember. Only someone in his administration would know about Ms. Plame. Could be anyone. I'm just thinking aloud now.