Put politics aside for one minute...?

Question

Do you honestly believe that Libby deserves jail time?

Richard Armitage who could hardly be called a pro bush Supporter gave Plames name to Novak.

This should be enough for most people to go oh ok..why is he not being tried?

answer politics. Democrats wanted a bigger fish to fry and that was in the whitehouse. Now heres whats developing, Democrats want to make a big deal out of nothing. The law that was suposedly broken wasnt really even broken, the person who wrote the law even believed that it was a stretch to try someone in this particular instance. Then in true political fashion, instead of being able to get someone for the "Crime" you get them for something else. This was Libby's fall he couldnt recall a meeting that had at the time happend months ago. There were notes of it that a reporter had so bam got him for Perjury. Perjury of what ..lying about something to do with a NON crime? Even the prosecuter doesnt have anything to charge someone for the "crime" so there,,

will never be a charge in the plame affair. why? because there was no crime.

Ill be watching and responding to what folks say. Please refrain from stupid comments, use well thought out arguments if you disagree with me. AND PLEASE READ MY ENTIRE POST. thanks

...sheesh come on folks. I DID FREEKING ASK NICELY FOR YOU TO READ MY ENTIRE POST, there are a couple of you totally ignoring, once again that we do know who leaked plames name. He even admited to it. His name is Richard Armitage. Read what i said about him.

From everything that i read about why libby perjured himself is that he didnt contridict himself but there was a contradiction between what he said and what some reporter had taken notes on. Even if Libby recalled what he said 100%, their would still be NO CHARGES.. thats what most are not following. By the way i didnt mean to imply that he was just saying he "didnt recall something" i mean that he said he recalled it one way and the reporters notes had it another

Answer 1

You are absolutely right that there will never be a charge for a crime about outing a CIA agent, because there absolutely never was any violation to begin with. Armitage, who apparently for political reasons kept quiet for 2 years that he was the source of the leak,wasn't guilty of outing a CIA for two reasons, first and foremost, Plame was not covert (that's a requirement for the violation), and it has to be an intentional leak, which it clearly wasn't.

As for Libby, we truly have to be careful when talking about a NON-crime. True, there wasn't any crime to begin with, so there shouldn't have been an investigation. Even so, it is still possible to perjure oneself and cover-up. And you are right, this is what it all came down to. Was it Libby's imperfect memory, or was he trying to cover up for a non-crime? The jury decided the latter.

Now, will Fitzgerald ever be brought up on criminal charges, or ethics violations, since it is apparent that he knew that Armitage was the source of the leak, very early on, but pursued the investigation anyway? I'm afraid the answer the answer will be "no" because President Bush doesn't have the kahunas to have Gonzales pursue that one.

Answer 2

Does he deserve jail time? Probably, but the "deserve" has little to do with it. I don't think (for instance) that minor possession of a controlled substance should carry jail time (not because I use--I don't--I just think it fills up the jails for victimless crimes and costs too much), but that doesn't change the fact that people in jail were found guilty and sentenced according to the LAW.

Now, before someone trots out the "that's what Clinton did and he didn't go to jail" argument, let me remind you: Clinton was Impeached according to the law, and found guilty--but not removed from office--so some of the senators who thought he was guilty didn't think he should be removed. In other words, the law was followed--fair or not (remember all the talk about "rule of law" coming from the conservatives then?) Libby was found guilty by a court of law, NOT the senate, and sentenced by law. Some people in court today will go home after conviction of the same crime that someone else is in jail for--that's not fair, but it's true.

Libby was found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice (Clinton was for perjury--but not obstruction) and his appeal flopped. So why is it OK for the President to decide that the rules do not apply to his cronies? If Clinton was wrong for pardoning people who had political ties to him (and he was), then Bush is wrong to do it now (yes, I know it wasn't a full pardon--but the principle is the same). "He did it first" is an argument for an elementary school playground. This administration claimed they were going to restore "honor and integrity" to the White House. Is this how that is done?

Answer 3

I go with the Republican prosecutor, we really need to make it clear that it is illegal - criminal - for any person to obstruct a criminal investigation, to lie to a grand jury. Libby would not have been convicted if he merely didn't recall, he had to have contradicted himself pretty clearly. And if he had testified truthfully we might have found out who violated the law by releasing the name of a covert CIA operative. I don't know how old you are, but "I can't recall" was a stock answer in the Iran/Contra investigation; no one could remember anything about anything. It makes our entire government look really crooked and really dishonest when that kind of behavior goes unpunished. Especially in an administration that was going to restore honor and integrity to the government.

EDIT: It is my contention that, even if you don't believe the CIA when they say that Plame was a covert operative, that makes no difference; if you believe she was accidentally outed therefore nothing criminal occurred, that makes no difference. If Libby perjured himself there should be a punishment, and that punishment should not be altered just because the president is his pal. Period. We are supposed to be functioning under the rule of law.

Answer 4

Had politics been put aside, they would never have outed Plame.

Frankly, while perjury IS a crime, Scooter was the fall guy for the people who committed treason by publicizing the identity of a CIA operative.

But you are right that they went after the wrong guy.

Answer 5

this is not too previous due yet. this continues to be a unfastened united states with unfastened elections. If the human beings insurrection and vote in small government people who promise to restoration this crap and actual restoration it then we've of challenge. If taxes and regulations have been dramatically decreased and spending substitute into dramatically decreased (particular, which skill ending loads of courses, banning earmarks, and beef barrel spending), if lobbyists have been banned, and our united states went backwards approximately seventy 5 years then we will pay off what we already owe and supply up racking up debt like this. The wars does not have been so high priced if we did no longer have lots entitlement spending and wasteful spending. The Republicans have been so spineless while it got here to shrinking government. you won't be able to combat 2 warfare fronts without sacrifices someplace. We could no longer strengthen taxes because of the fact the government substitute into going into recession and that they've been no longer able to cut back spending on any courses in any respect because of the fact they have been no longer able to stand up to the liberals who could no longer have their social spending cut back in any respect. It substitute into in basic terms a multitude. the two events suck.

Answer 6

The truth is that any action by the liberals, whether it be unlawful, unjust, or even unconstitutional, is OK as long as they succeed at hurting a republican or the republican party.

What is really scary is that liberals have never, and probably never will go after terrorists with such determination, wreckless abandon, or rabid aggressiveness. Why would they? They wouldn't ever do anything that could help America, could they?

Answer 7

He was found guilty of lying under oath. Sound familiar, libs? He doesn't deserve jail time. The fine and disbarment are enough.

Answer 8

Had politics been put aside, there would never have been a prosecution in the 1st place.

Answer 9

sounds similar to Clinton's impeachment, and he didn't have to pay a $250K fine and get 2 years probation like Libby.

Answer 10

Good post, I agree.