The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux) - Page 221

innerSpaceman · 03-06-2007, 12:29 PM

Um, he's not going to prison. The appeal will run until Bush's term ends, at which time "Scooter" likely tops the list of last-minute presidential pardons.

And I don't know where in the world Alex is getting that Libby lied about something not illegal. He lied about the outting of a CIA operative, clearly an illegal act.

Alex · 03-06-2007, 12:34 PM

No, there is no agreement that outing Plame was illegal.

However, there is general agreement that Libby's actions were not illegal. He lied about conversations that were not illegal (this is why he is only charged with lying about them).

innerSpaceman · 03-06-2007, 04:15 PM

Whose agreement do you need, Alex? Libby's conversations with reporters wherein he identified Valerie Plame as a covert CIA operative are illegal, and no one's agreement is necessary.

I have no idea why he wasn't charged with that ... except that when there's contradictory evidence, it's probably easier for a jury to find deception than to find which side is telling the truth.

In one sense, it's lousy that the cover-up is what's charged and convicted on, rather than the underlying crime. In another sense, however, government cover-ups are criminal acts in and of themselves that society has an interest in curbing via criminal prosecution. And though there seems to be no particular deterrent factor in the take-down always being for the cover-up rather than the crime, less cover-ups would be a good thing.

If only to leave nothing but the underlying crime for feckless prosecutors to go after.

Alex · 03-06-2007, 05:04 PM

Then why hasn't he been charged with a crime for holding those conversations? Fitzgerald went out of his way to explicitly say that he had made no determination as to whether revealing Plame's name was in itself illegal.

So first I'd like his agreement. ABC, NBC, CNN, Fox News, PBS and 28 other news organizations filed amicus briefs saying that in their legal opinion leaking Plame's name was not itself a crime. While not legally important, considering how much time they spent covering, it is interesting that they do not think there was an underlying crime. And remember that when Bob Novak called the CIA to verify that Plame worked there that they did in fact confirm it (meaning that if it was a crime then the CIA just committed it too).

No branch of the criminal justice system has determined that an underlying crime was committed. That is what Fitzgerald was drafted to do and he hasn't done that. The CIA said they thought it was a crime, they referred it to DoJ which punted for conflict reasons to a special presecutor.

Since Fitzgerald knows who first leaked the information (Dick Armitrage) to a reporter, it seems like there is an obvious candidate for an indictment if Fitzgerald could support the argument that simply saying her name was a crime.

There may very well have been an underlying criminal act and there certainly was an underlying despicable act (which is not the same thing) but as to the former there is not general agreement. Except among those who have already decided that there was. If a crime was committed then I hope those guilty get charged.

By I stand by my original point. If this is all that is going to come out of the whole affair (and it looks like that will be the case) then it was a whole lot of hassle for not much benefit other than nailing someone on technicalities.

innerSpaceman · 03-06-2007, 06:44 PM

You mean like getting Al Capone for income tax evasion? Was that just a pussy move they shouldn't have taken if they couldn't jail him for murder? Or was it an acceptable "technicality" to prevent further murders committed by Capone?

I'm not equating the Plame namedropping with murder ... just positing the effacacy of going for a "technicality" conviction when none other is plausible.

But I agree it's all for nothing ... Libby will undoubtedly be pardoned.

Alex · 03-06-2007, 06:57 PM

I'll agree with that as soon as someone with authority to do so says that a crime (other than Libby lying about an otherwise legal conversation; this is why Armitrage hasn't been charged for doing the same thing as Libby, he didn't lie about doing it) I'll agree with that.

mousepod · 03-06-2007, 07:09 PM

This made me laugh:

Alex · 03-06-2007, 07:14 PM

wendybeth · 03-06-2007, 08:53 PM

I'm sure that's about all that will make it into the Conservipedia.

SacTown Chronic · 03-09-2007, 07:55 AM

It's true, Scooter was found not guilty of being innocent on 80% of the charges.

(and I love that the screenshot says suspended Boston Globe columnist Ron Borges has found a mate)

03-06-2007, 12:29 PM	#2201
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Um, he's not going to prison. The appeal will run until Bush's term ends, at which time "Scooter" likely tops the list of last-minute presidential pardons. And I don't know where in the world Alex is getting that Libby lied about something not illegal. He lied about the outting of a CIA operative, clearly an illegal act.
	Submit to Quotes

03-06-2007, 12:34 PM	#2202
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	No, there is no agreement that outing Plame was illegal. However, there is general agreement that Libby's actions were not illegal. He lied about conversations that were not illegal (this is why he is only charged with lying about them).
	Submit to Quotes

03-06-2007, 04:15 PM	#2203
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Whose agreement do you need, Alex? Libby's conversations with reporters wherein he identified Valerie Plame as a covert CIA operative are illegal, and no one's agreement is necessary. I have no idea why he wasn't charged with that ... except that when there's contradictory evidence, it's probably easier for a jury to find deception than to find which side is telling the truth. In one sense, it's lousy that the cover-up is what's charged and convicted on, rather than the underlying crime. In another sense, however, government cover-ups are criminal acts in and of themselves that society has an interest in curbing via criminal prosecution. And though there seems to be no particular deterrent factor in the take-down always being for the cover-up rather than the crime, less cover-ups would be a good thing. If only to leave nothing but the underlying crime for feckless prosecutors to go after.
	Submit to Quotes

03-06-2007, 05:04 PM	#2204
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Then why hasn't he been charged with a crime for holding those conversations? Fitzgerald went out of his way to explicitly say that he had made no determination as to whether revealing Plame's name was in itself illegal. So first I'd like his agreement. ABC, NBC, CNN, Fox News, PBS and 28 other news organizations filed amicus briefs saying that in their legal opinion leaking Plame's name was not itself a crime. While not legally important, considering how much time they spent covering, it is interesting that they do not think there was an underlying crime. And remember that when Bob Novak called the CIA to verify that Plame worked there that they did in fact confirm it (meaning that if it was a crime then the CIA just committed it too). No branch of the criminal justice system has determined that an underlying crime was committed. That is what Fitzgerald was drafted to do and he hasn't done that. The CIA said they thought it was a crime, they referred it to DoJ which punted for conflict reasons to a special presecutor. Since Fitzgerald knows who first leaked the information (Dick Armitrage) to a reporter, it seems like there is an obvious candidate for an indictment if Fitzgerald could support the argument that simply saying her name was a crime. There may very well have been an underlying criminal act and there certainly was an underlying despicable act (which is not the same thing) but as to the former there is not general agreement. Except among those who have already decided that there was. If a crime was committed then I hope those guilty get charged. By I stand by my original point. If this is all that is going to come out of the whole affair (and it looks like that will be the case) then it was a whole lot of hassle for not much benefit other than nailing someone on technicalities.
	Submit to Quotes

03-06-2007, 06:44 PM	#2205
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	You mean like getting Al Capone for income tax evasion? Was that just a pussy move they shouldn't have taken if they couldn't jail him for murder? Or was it an acceptable "technicality" to prevent further murders committed by Capone? I'm not equating the Plame namedropping with murder ... just positing the effacacy of going for a "technicality" conviction when none other is plausible. But I agree it's all for nothing ... Libby will undoubtedly be pardoned.
	Submit to Quotes

03-06-2007, 06:57 PM	#2206
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	I'll agree with that as soon as someone with authority to do so says that a crime (other than Libby lying about an otherwise legal conversation; this is why Armitrage hasn't been charged for doing the same thing as Libby, he didn't lie about doing it) I'll agree with that.
	Submit to Quotes

03-06-2007, 07:09 PM	#2207
mousepod You broke your Ramadar! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,635	This made me laugh: __________________ "Give the public everything you can give them, keep the place as clean as you can keep it, keep it friendly" - Walt Disney
	Submit to Quotes

03-06-2007, 07:14 PM	#2208
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	20%
	Submit to Quotes

03-06-2007, 08:53 PM	#2209
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	I'm sure that's about all that will make it into the Conservipedia. __________________
	Submit to Quotes

03-09-2007, 07:55 AM	#2210
SacTown Chronic the myth of the dream Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,217	It's true, Scooter was found not guilty of being innocent on 80% of the charges. (and I love that the screenshot says suspended Boston Globe columnist Ron Borges has found a mate)
	Submit to Quotes