Bush Commutes Libby's Sentence 1574
An anonymous reader notes that President Bush has decided to commute Scooter Libby's sentence after numerous appeals failed. Libby was convicted in March of obstruction of justice in connection with the Valerie Plame affair. The President's action spares Libby from 30 months behind bars."
Re:Huh? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Huh? (Score:2, Informative)
Wrong. The constitutions says no pardons for impeachment.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
It also makes a mockery of Bush's promise to punish the guilty. Letting a guy obstruct justice is not "finding the leak" as he promissed.
Various details of note: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I give up (Score:3, Informative)
And your hero JFK was in favor of foreign intervention to spread democracy:
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
This much we pledge--and more.
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
1. There could have been more than one leaker.
2. Plame was indeed covert. Read this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti
Re:so what did Libby do again? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
I guess as far as (A) goes, there's a small chance he wasn't lying if he didn't ask Cheney (or Cheney lied to Bush) but (B) is just another promise that he's failed to keep.
Plame was covert (Score:3, Informative)
Plame was covert (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:so what did Libby do again? (Score:3, Informative)
- During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was under cover.
- Her employment status with the CIA was classified information prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958.
- At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14,2003, Ms. Wilsonâ(TM)s CIA employment status was covert.
- This was classified information.
However convenient it would be for Libby and Bush if your claim were true, it just isn't.Re:Huh? (Score:3, Informative)
Among those whom Mr. Clinton pardoned or had sentences commuted:
Melvin J. Reynolds - Democratic Congressman from Illinois - bank fraud and obstruction of justice
Dorothy Rivers - lead official in Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, plead guilty to theft of 1.2 million dollars in federal grant money
Carlos Anibal Vignali - convicted of cocaine trafficking
John H. Bustamante - wire fraud
Not saying that commuting Libby's sentence is OK, even though Plame was no longer a covert agent (her cover had been blown much earlier), but even so. This crap happens all the time. I wonder if it is a good idea to have presidential pardons at all - perhaps it should require a majority vote by congress, or perhaps something similar from the Supreme Court.
Of course, that would only make it more political. Blah. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, I suppose.
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:For shame (Score:5, Informative)
Murder related to the smuggling of aliens. (8 U.S.C. 1342)
Destruction of aircraft, motor vehicles, or related facilities resulting in death. (18 U.S.C. 32-34)
Murder committed during a drug-related drive-by shooting. (18 U.S.C. 36)
Murder committed at an airport serving international civil aviation. (18 U.S.C. 37)
Retaliatory murder of a member of the immediate family of law enforcement officials. (18 U.S.C. 115(b)(3)[by cross-reference to 18 U.S.C. 1111] )
Civil rights offenses resulting in death. (18 U.S.C. 241, 242, 245, 247)
Murder of a member of Congress, an important executive official, or a Supreme Court Justice. (18 U.S.C. 351 [by cross-reference to 18 U.S.C. 1111] )
Death resulting from offenses involving transportation of explosives, destruction of government property, or destruction of property related to foreign or interstate commerce. (18 U.S.C. 844(d), (f), (i))
Murder committed by the use of a firearm during a crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime. (18 U.S.C 930)
Murder committed in a Federal Government facility. (18 U.S.C. 924(i))
Genocide. (18 U.S.C. 1091)
First-degree murder. (18 U.S.C. 1111)
Murder of a Federal judge or law enforcement official. (18 U.S.C. 1114)
Murder of a foreign official. (18 U.S.C. 1116)
Murder by a Federal prisoner. (18 U.S.C. 1118)
Murder of a U.S. national in a foreign country. (18 U.S.C. 1119)
Murder by an escaped Federal prisoner already sentenced to life imprisonment. (18 U.S.C. 1120)
Murder of a State or local law enforcement official or other person aiding in a Federal investigation; murder of a State correctional officer. (18 U.S.C. 1121)
Murder during a kidnaping. (18 U.S.C. 1201)
Murder during a hostage-taking. (18 U.S.C. 1203)
Murder of a court officer or juror. (18 U.S.C. 1503)
Murder with the intent of preventing testimony by a witness, victim, or informant. (18 U.S.C. 1512)
Retaliatory murder of a witness, victim or informant. (18 U.S.C. 1513)
Mailing of injurious articles with intent to kill or resulting in death. (18 U.S.C. 1716)
Assassination or kidnaping resulting in the death of the President or Vice President. (18 U.S.C. 1751 [by cross-reference to 18 U.S.C. 1111])
Murder for hire. (18 U.S.C. 1958)
Murder involved in a racketeering offense. (18 U.S.C. 1959)
Willful wrecking of a train resulting in death. (18 U.S.C. 1992)
Bank-robbery-related murder or kidnaping. (18 U.S.C. 2113)
Murder related to a carjacking. (18 U.S.C. 2119)
Murder related to rape or child molestation. (18 U.S.C. 2245)
Murder related to sexual exploitation of children. (18 U.S.C. 2251)
Murder committed during an offense against maritime navigation. (18 U.S.C. 2280)
Murder committed during an offense against a maritime fixed platform. (18 U.S.C. 2281)
Terrorist murder of a U.S. national in another country. (18 U.S.C. 2332)
Murder by the use of a weapon of mass destruction. (18 U.S.C. 2332a)
Murder involving torture. (18 U.S.C. 2340)
Murder related to a continuing criminal enterprise or related murder of a Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer. (21 U.S.C. 848(e))
Death resulting from aircraft hijacking. (49 U.S.C. 1472-1473)
Espionage (18 U.S.C. 794)
Treason. (18 U.S.C. 2381)
Trafficking in large quantities of drugs (18 U.S.C. 3591(b))
Attempting, authorizing or advising the killing of any officer, juror,or witness in cases involving a Continuing Criminal Enterprise, regardless of whether such killing actually occurs. (18 U.S.C. 3591(b)(2))
Quoth Keith Olbermann just now... (Score:5, Informative)
Tomorrow night on Countdown (8pm ET), Olbermann will call on Bush & Cheney to resign.
Re:Huh? (Score:1, Informative)
Commutation Instructions (Score:2, Informative)
4. Completion of court challenges
Requests for commutation of a prison sentence generally are not accepted unless and until a person has begun serving that sentence. In addition, commutation requests are generally not accepted from a person who is currently challenging his or her conviction or sentence through appeal or other court proceeding. Accordingly, you should not complete and submit this petition until you have concluded all judicial challenges to your conviction and sentence and you have begun serving your sentence. You should also be aware that, in evaluating the merits of a commutation petition, clemency authorities take into consideration the amount of time the petitioner has already served and the availability of other remedies to secure the relief sought (such as parole or judicial action).
It also says, in section 10 (Exclusive Presidential authority)
Note that not only has the President gone against tradition and explained his reasoning, but also that Mr. Scooter hasn't finished his appeals and hasn't served any time.
Marc Rich... (Score:5, Informative)
Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
k.
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Informative)
I know there's also the two witness thing you left out (next paragraph, I think?) to qualify for Article Three treason, but that's that the espionage act is for anyway.
Re:Huh? (Score:1, Informative)
The author of the Washington Post article doesn't fully grasp the legal nuances of the case. She says, basically, that yes, the CIA has spoken, and "confirmed" that Plame was covert.
The problem with this is that, *for legal purposes*, what the CIA thinks is not relevant. The question is whether Plame would qualify as covert *as defined by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.* When revising this bill in the 1970s, the (Democratic) Congress defined "covert" VERY narrowly, and for good reason: They didn't WANT the CIA to be given the last word over whether or not government whistleblowers should be prosecuted.
Partisans on both sides like to pretend this is a black-and-white issue. It's not. Ultimately, a judge would have to decide whether Plame fit the IIPA definition. And Libby's defense would have a lot of powerful arguments to use against that -- showing, for example, how easy it was for anyone interested in finding Plame's occupation to do so. Not that they would prevail -- I'm just saying, it's more than "right-wing spin."
- Alaska Jack
Re:Huh? (Score:1, Informative)
Here is what the language of the act SAYS!
(4) The term "covert agent" means
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States;
Note the part that says she has to serve outside the US within the last 5 years? Well - guess what - the release occurred after that 5 year window.
SO - I stand by the "SPIN" I'm accused of, i.e. NO SPIN but FACT.
The act I'm referencing is here:
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/laws/iipa.html [fas.org]
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
"The CIA report said that Plame had worked overseas in the previous five years and that the agency had been taking "affirmative measures" to conceal her CIA employment."
Seem pretty clear to me. Unless you know better than the CIA...?
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Oh well. To further clarify, the pardon basically gives back any rights that were lost as a result of the conviction. It looks like courts have ruled that it carries with it an assumption of guilt and the record continues to exist, but no confession needs to be made. What's interesting about the whole situation is how many decisions on the topic were rendered relatively recently after the initial precedents were set a long time ago. It looks like Iran-Contra served to clarify a few things. Older decisions said basically that the crime magically went away, but that has gone by the wayside and now you're guilty in the eyes of the law, but just not punishable.
The next interesting question is, if you're technically guilty but not really because you were pardoned, what implications does it have in issues where your status as a criminal might not have legal implications but definitely has practical ones (e.g. getting a security clearance)? Not surprisingly, it looks like there are a lot of interesting legal opinions on this one. It looks like the prevailing wisdom is, "You got caught being bad and everybody knows it. Suck it up."
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
What do "the Democrats" have to do with it (outside of commenting to the media)?
The last paragraph in the article mentions the judge in Libby's case:
A White House official notified the trial judge, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton, of the decision. Walton, a Bush appointee who served in the White House under the president's father, had cited the ''overwhelming'' evidence against Libby when he handed down his sentence. A courthouse spokesman said Walton would not comment.
Only people who have never been charged serve time (Score:4, Informative)
God bless America...
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
You could say that, but you'd be wrong. Walton, the judge who ordered immediate prison, was appointed to the bench by Bush himself during his first term. If memory serves, two of the three appeals court judges were also Republican appointees, one considered the most conservative judge sitting on that circuit.
Re:A Great Compromise by a Great President (Score:4, Informative)
(wait for the meme!)
Worst President Ever!
No seriously. According to this [pollster.com], his approval rating trend is at 28.9%. Typically, you've got a +/- 5 point margin on these polls, if he pulls an especially low poll, it puts him damn close to Truman's record for the all time lowest approval rating ever achieved by a U.S. president of 22%. It'll become more likely for this to happen if he sinks any lower.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Informative)
Ford pardoned Nixon for one reason only, to move the country forward. And it did that nicely. We had the potential of having a viciously divided country way back then but it didn't happen until Clinton was in the tail end of office and Bush took over. I'm not even going to get into why I think that is, but Ford pardoned Nixon to move the country past the point it was at. Simple as that.
Re:Good News, Everybody! (Score:5, Informative)
As for the fine, that's nothing Scooter Libby's defense fund won't easily take care of. And he'll likely have no trouble getting work because of those self-same contributors to his defense fund. As for the felony conviction, we'll see--he could still get pardoned eventually!
So I don't see anything fair about this, especially coming from a President who has used these same powers so little up until now, and still finds the time to rail against "activist judges". Well now you know what an "activist President" looks like.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Huh? (Score:2, Informative)
Uh, Scooter didn't out anyone. Scooter was charged with perjury. He was the only one charged in the Plame scandal. In other words, Scooter was charged for lying about a crime that did not happen when a covert operative, who was not covert, was outed.
She was outed by Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage, not Scooter Libby.
Re:Driven to it? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Huh? (Score:2, Informative)
Every sensible government official by now has learned that "I do not recall" is the only statement you should ever make under oath--why Libby thought he should say _anything_ other than that is completely beyond me.
And just for the record, Richard Armitage has not only admitted he was the "leaker", but he also told Fitzgerald about it _before_ Libby was even given a chance to lie to investigators. Fitzgerald told him to keep quiet about it.
So, what grand crime did Libby actually impede the investigation of?
If disclosing Plame's identity (and the fairly well-known CIA front "Brewster Jennings" she worked for) was a crime, why hasn't Armitage been prosecuted?
Yeah, the rule of law demands they pay for pardons (Score:2, Informative)
I mean, heaven forbid someone commutes the sentence of someone who got incidentally caught up in a vindictive prosecution that had absolutely nothing to do with the non-crime of leaking Plame's name.
Of course, if you think leaking Plame's name was a crime, why don't you ask Fitzgerald why on God's good Earth Armitage has never been charged? Hell, why don't you ask Plame's husband why he LIED about what he found happened in Niger - that Saddam Hussein had indeed sent one of his WMD experts there to try and buy yellowcake.
And yes, the person Saddam sent was the Iraqi ambassador the the Vatican. BFD. Some of his earlier jobs include representing Iraq on the IAEA in the 1980s, and actually HEADING the Iraqi organization that dealt with UNSCOM after the 1991 war.
Yep, that's right - the guy Saddam sent to Niger was in charge of all Iraqi efforts dealing with UNSCOM and WMDs after the 1991 conflict. Do your really think someone like that gets sent to Niger for any reason other to buy yellowcake? (Hint: research Niger's "economy"...)
And Wilson noted that in his brief. Then he went out in public and LIED about his conclusions. All this after his wife nominated him for the job.
You can see how one might think Plame set the Bush administration up. Especially given her history of contributing to the Dems. And given that CIA had just approved a book from a TRUE covert operative that was highly critical of Bush just before an election, you can see how Bush administration political hacks would be EXTREMELY pissed at CIA.
Plame went swimming in the political shark tank and got bit.
And if leaking her name was a crime, Armitage would have been charged.
Please, start smoking your crack on a planet with a blue sky.
Re:Our Government Working as Intended (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Huh? (Score:2, Informative)
Really? And here I thought it was Richard Armitage who had given the name, something that had been known from very early on and yet he was never charged with the release of her name... why? Because it wasn't illegal.
So... what lies are you claiming that Libby is engaging in to protect the POTUS and VPOTUS?
Re:so what did Libby do again? (Score:2, Informative)
Make a guess about how much information was lost. Make a guess as to how many other agents have been forced out of their own positions or related positions. We don't even know if any agents were killed in the aftermath of the debacle because of the need for secrecy.
In his press conference of October 28, 2005, Special Counsel Fitzgerald explained in considerable detail the necessity of "secrecy" about his Grand Jury investigation that began in the fall of 2003--"when it was clear that Valerie Wilson's cover had been blown"--and the background and consequences of the indictment of Lewis Libby as it pertains to Valerie E. Wilson.
Who or what source do you get your information from? You may want to get a second source to verify the truth of that source in the future.
On March 16, 2007, at the hearings about the disclosure of information to the public, Chairman Henry Waxman read a statement about Plame's CIA career that had been cleared by CIA director Gen. Michael V. Hayden and the CIA itself:
Subsequent reports in various news accounts focused on the following parts of her testimony:
What official source still claims that Ms. Plame was an overt agent and had not been covert for the five years prior?
Re:Huh? (stop calling it a pardon) (Score:1, Informative)
In point of fact, Bill Clinton was impeached and disbarred for the same crime. He did not spend any time in jail, nor was he given probation or removed from office. In retrospect the situations seems to have worked itself out. It's also interesting to note that in both cases the perjury conviction resulted from trying to cover up an activity that was not even criminal. (unless there's some law against "smoking a Monica")
The Clinton situation opened the door to a near decriminalizing of perjury. The outrage over this Looks like another helping of the "good intentions" double standard. Either way the conviction still stands.
Move along. Nothing to see here.
You're very Wrong. Plame was covert. It's provable (Score:5, Informative)
The portion of the act grabbed onto by many right-wing radio talk show hosts in the past few years has been the extra-US service portion. It states that in order to qualify as covert, an agent has to have served outside the US in the 5 years previous to the outing.
Well, news flash, Plame did serve overseas in the 5 years prior to her outing. She traveled overseas at the specific behest of the CIA many, many times during the 5 years prior to her outing. Sometimes she even traveled under an assumed name.
"The employment history indicates that while she was assigned to CPD, Plame, "engaged in temporary duty travel overseas on official business." The report says, "she traveled at least seven times to more than ten times." When overseas Plame traveled undercover, "sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias -- but always using cover -- whether official or non-official (NOC) -- with no ostensible relationship to the CIA."
Plame was not only covert at the time of her outing, by working overseas for the CIA whilst under cover, she was most definitely covert under the terms of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
Re:Prison rape is NOT funny (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Huh? (stop calling it a pardon) (Score:5, Informative)
In point of fact, Bill Clinton was not convicted of the same crime. The reason being that he technically did not perjure himself. Yes, there was a "lie of omission", but that is not perjury. So really there's no decriminalization due to Clinton since there wasn't an actual crime.
(The bar association has ethics rules that DO ban "lies of omission". Hence Clinton's disbarrment)
Many out outraged over this because the people campaigning for and cheering Libby's pardon were the same people who were claiming perjury and obstruction of justice were serious enough to impeach Clinton, when he hadn't been charged with either crime. Now that a "loyal Bushie" has been convicted of these crimes, it's no big deal.
Re:Huh? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Well... (Score:4, Informative)
Fact: Valerie Plame's identity and her "secret agent" status was leaked to several members of the media, who publshed this information.
Fact: Outting an undercover CIA agent is a federal crime - a breach of national security because it can seriously hamper the CIA's ability to operate abroad. This crime did, indisputably, take place. The reporters's didn't all suddenly get this information through divine revelation - it was given to them. This is the reason the special prosecutor investigation was initiated in the first place - to find out who leaked Plame's identity to the media.
All evidence collected thus far strongly points to the leak coming from inside the White House. Presumptive motive: to discredit Plame's husband, Wilson, who was publicly discrediting the false intelligence the Administration was using to push for the war in Iraq.
Prosecutor Fitzgerald was unable to pull together enough evidence to definitively charge any one person with revealing Plame's identity. This does not constitute the absence of a crime. The fact that her cover was blown to the media is the crime. The possibility that her career was destroyed as political retribution against her husband makes it a rather petty crime.
Libby was indicted and convicted of lying to a grand jury and obstructing the prosecutor's case. These are crimes - the President himself agreed to this in his statement this evening. He did not dispute the conviction itself. The President didn't go so far as to pardon Libby outright, because it is clear that Libby was guilty of these crimes. For the President to pardon Libby outright would, at this point, be tantamount to announcing that his administration was guilty of the original crime, except that no one would have to face any punishment for it.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
(IANA Constitutional scholar)
There's nothing in the Constitution that says a president can not pardon himself. The only thing he can not do is use a pardon to avoid impeachment. (See Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution)
AFAIK, a pardon can be worded as "I pardon [name] for any crime he has committed between [date] and [date]"
As for your pardons-with-no-names example, that's not kosher. The President has to specify who he is giving the pardon to. In addition, those "blank" pardons would be useless after the end of Ryan's term, since he's no longer President. While President, he can issue pardons on a case-by-case basis so the "blank" ones are unnecessary. In clandestine situations, there's no reason that a pardon could not be classified.
No. The President's pardon powers are absolute. Abuses like the Libby case and the Mark Rich case may fuel efforts for a Constitutional amendment limiting pardons, or allowing them to be overturned. I'd imagine an amendment that lets a massive super-majority of Congress (like 75%) override a pardon might not be a bad idea.
Article 2 Section 3 (Score:4, Informative)
There is no constitutional requirement for the state of the union to be a speech.
From Article 2 Section 3
Sounds to me like the president has the power to convene Congress for the purpose of giving a speech. George Washington thought so too; the timing & manner of delivering the State of the Union dates back to the Washington administration.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Plame was covert under the terms of the IIPA, which is no surprise, considering the terms are actually broader than the CIA's own terms for covert status.
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Informative)
Presidents do not regularly pardon people who were involved in obstruction of justice regarding crimes they themselves might have been involved in. Name one time that ever happened before. Bzzzzt. Shut the fuck up, you unpatriotic bastard.
Second, of course it's obvious this president has hardly ever pardoned anyone. The facts of this case don't remotely justify the commutation of the sentence. So the political bias is more than extremely obvious.
And of course, who did Clinton get the most shit for pardoning? Mark Rich. His lawyer? Scooter Libby.
So, let's get this straight - is Scooter Libby a scumbag lawyer or a scumbag defendant? Either way he deserves to rot.
Re:What I want to know is ... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Huh? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Why did Bush reduce the jail term to ZERO? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Huh? (stop calling it a pardon) (Score:4, Informative)
That's what the documents show (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Keep in mind that we helped him get the chemical weapons [counterpunch.org] in the first place and then provided intelligence to him when he tested his chemical weapons on the Kurds. Also keep in mind that these weapons have a short shelf life. The stuff we finally found had already degraded into useless bombs [findarticles.com].
Every president before him tried diplomacy, and every president before him was summarily ignored. While it's not our job to be the world police I think it would be far more regrettable in the long run to stand by and do nothing. I think the war could have been better executed, but to some extent we have been hindered by the lack of support from the international community.
This isn't entirely true. We helped keep Saddam in power. The Reagan administration helped Saddam with WMD and intelligence [gwu.edu]. Not only that but we lied about our intelligence in the lead up to war. It's interesting that the very reasons Bush Sr. gave for not marching into Baghdad have come to pass [globalpolicy.org].
This war was never about getting rid of a Tyrant. He was our guy until he over reached and the Saudis, our allies who supply oil and terrorists, freaked out over the invasion of Kuwait and insisted we do something about him.
Hell, we even gave Saddam the green light to invade Kuwait [informatio...house.info]. So why should the international community help us clean up a mess of our own making [globalpolicy.org]?
Re:For shame (Score:3, Informative)
Not to justify this action by W, but Clinton never served time for his crimes or for his pardons (many of which were linked to significant campaign donations).
Re:Huh? (stop calling it a pardon) (Score:3, Informative)
That's blatantly misleading. Clinton lied about a matter that was completely tangential to a civil lawsuit. In this case, you are correct that the underlying matter was not criminal.
In the Libby case, he lied to cover up the release of the name of a covert CIA agent. That is a crime. In fact, if the release had been done by another CIA agent, and the person receiving the information had been a foreign national, the crime would have been treason and the perpetrator could be facing the death penalty. To try to spin Libby's role as somehow not related to a criminal act just because no one was convicted (at least I assume that's your reasoning) ignores the point of why 'obstruction of justice' is a crime.
Further, it's important to understand the reason behind why each crime was committed. Clinton felt he was being asked a question that was neither relavent or appropriate. He lied to protect himself and his family from embarrassment, and his lie didn't significantly effect the outcome of the case. It's important to remember that while he was disbarred, he was also found NOT GUILTY of obstruction of justice, and even several republicans voted not guilty on that charge.
Libby, on the other hand, lied to cover up people who were releasing national secrets in order to smear a political rival. His lies specifically prevented the prosecutor from being able to bring charges against those who were directly involved in the cover up. There is strong evidence that the vice president was involved and some evidence that the president himself was involved. Beyond being felonies, these crimes are -legitimate- grounds for impeachment, and Libby's lies prevented the prosecutor from being able to prove his case.
Finally, before you make the argument, Valerie Plame was a covert operative. The head of the CIA says she was, and I tend to assume that he has more knowledge of the situation then a bunch of rightwing blowhards with a political motivation to have her not be covert.
Re:Huh? (stop accusing Clinton of Perjury) (Score:3, Informative)
No. Clinton was not ever accused of Perjury in any court. The Perjury charge was soundly defeated in Senate, even with a majority of Republicans seated. The Obstruction of Justice charge also failed to get a majority in the Republican Senate. The only thing Clinton was accused of in court was Contempt of Court for failing to testify truthfully. Clinton cut a deal for that charge, which would have been tough to prove, since the lawyers questioning Clinton under oath never asked him straight up questions about what they knew he had done.
For example "Mr Clinton, did you ejaculate on Monica Lewinsky's dress?" "Did Monica Lewinsky touch your penis with her mouth?" "Did you touch Monica Lewinsky's vagina with a cigar?"
They knew all these things had happened, because of Linda Tripp's blabbing (not completely sure Tripp knew about the cigar). They could have asked those questions directly and established the facts of Lewinsky's and Clinton's relationship for the civil court. They did not do these things. Instead, they asked highly circular and vague questions that barely, if at all, touched on the situation. "Were you ever alone with Monica Lewinsky? "No" (I was on the phone with Yasser Arafat while she sucked my dick).
The lawyers asked these questions in this odd fashion because they weren't interested in establishing the truth of the matter. As was later ruled by the judge in the case, Clinton's canoodling with Monica had no bearing on the Paula Jones case. Clinton didn't supervise Monica officially, and never did anything official that affected Lewinsky's White House responsibilities. The lawyers were already in substantial possession of the details of what Clinton and Lewinsky did, but did not seek to confirm those detail in a straightforward fashion.
The lawyers asked vague questions because they were hoping to trap the President into Lying Under Oath to avoid revealing politically and personally embarrassing details. If they had asked direct, yes or no questions about the specific behavior they already knew about, Clinton would have realized they had a source, and not tried to weasel his way out of admitting his infidelities. He would have 'fessed up and avoided a big chunk of trouble, although when the lawyers for Jones illegally leaked details of his testimony Clinton would have suffered serious political damage.
But, Clinton was a pretty good lawyer himself, and knew how to parse the truth. Using a dictionary definition, he did not have "sex" with Lewinsky. As far as the touching with intent to arouse, etc., I think a pretty strong defense could have been made that time and personal feelings of shame had clouded Clinton's memory regarding the specific 'blow-by-blow' activities with Lewinsky*. There is no guarantee a charge of Lying Under Oath would have succeeded. I myself doubt it. But there is no question that the process of beating the charge would have been a humiliating one for Bill, and I completely understand his decision to pay a fine and surrender his law license to put it behind him.
Not like he needs to try cases anymore to make a living.
Scooter Libby was tried and convicted of Perjury and Obstruction of Justice. He was accused by a Republican Prosecutor, convicted by a highly sympathetic jury and sentenced by a Republican Judge. No one attempted to entrap or deceive him to get the conviction. The crimes Libby committed had direct bearing and relation to his duties and responsibilities as a Cabinet Officer. Libby continues to cover up the criminality of his superiors, and has just had his sentence commuted to enable him to keep covering up that criminality.
Clinton screwed up. Libby is a convicted criminal. George Bush Jr and Dick Cheney are criminals.
*Scooter Libby tried a similar defense, with less time for forgetting and an amazing ability to remember false details that never happened.
Re:It's still treason... (Score:3, Informative)