Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, July 06, 2007
Rich Galen :: Townhall.com Columnist
Dems: Selective Outrage
by Rich Galen
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Let me make this point, again: I do not believe I have ever been in the same place at the same time as Scooter Libby. I don't think we've ever talked by phone, nor to I think we have ever exchanged e-mails.

I have, however, donated to Scooter Libby's defense fund if only because of the quality of people who have been involved in that effort including neighbor, ally and friend Mary Matalin and former US Ambassador to Australia and Italy, Mel Sembler among many others.

Thank goodness this all happened in a week which was perfectly bisected by Independence Day.

In Washington, what with the House and Senate taking one of the 73 week-long recesses it schedules each year (without regard to whether Republicans or Democrats are in charge), and the mid-week holiday, it seems like half of the Washington area workforce took off Monday and Tuesday; the other half took off Thursday and Friday.

The rest took the whole week.

On Monday President Bush used the power granted to him by Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution and commuted the sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby so that he has to serve no jail time.

It was six months late. If President Bush just would have listened to me, this would have long since been over. I wrote in January of this year when Libby's trial started that he should Pardon Scooter Libby on the day the trial started.

The President didn't pardon Libby, but listening to the wailing and keening by Democrats and their donor-base - The National Press Corps - you would have thought President Bush had not just commuted Libby's sentence but had pardoned him and presented him with the Medal of Freedom.

Although this has been lost by the Left, the President, by commuting and not pardoning, left in place the conviction, the fine, and the "supervised release" which was to have followed the prison term.

That means Scooter Libby remains a convicted felon who cannot practice law and cannot hold any position of trust in the US government meaning he cannot get a security clearance.

That is a big deal here in Your Nation's Capital.

Once Democrats sat down on the curb, fanned themselves, and got over the vapors, they realized that the President had not pardoned Libby, but then got themselves amped up again over whether or not he would pardon Libby at the end of his term because the President would not rule it out on Monday.

Didn't say he would. Didn't say he wouldn't. Didn't think he needed to tell the press corps what he might or might not do 18-or-so months down the road.

Every time I mentioned the name "Marc Rich" on TV this week, Democrats' eyes got real wide, they began quaking like Salem witches, and then formed those little white flecks in the corners of their mouths.

"You Republicans," they seethed, "blame Clinton for everything."

Via Matt Drudge, here's what Bill Clinton, the Patron-Saint-of-Doin'-What-Comes-Naturally, wrote in a NY Times op-ed piece published in February 2001:

"The exercise of executive clemency is inherently controversial. The reason the framers of our Constitution vested this broad power in the Executive Branch was to assure that the president would have the freedom to do what he deemed to be the right thing, regardless of how unpopular a decision might be."

When I reminded my Democratic friends of Clinton's position on "executive clemency" they moved their lips around a good bit like Nero Wolfe and then said, "Well, this is different."

They're right: Clinton pardoned Marc Rich who had fled the country to avoid prosecution. He was pardoned without ever presenting himself stand before the US justice system. President Bush, by commuting a portion of the sentence, left intact the jury's decision.

In his explanation of why he pardoned Marc Rich, President Clinton - in effect - named himself both the decider of fact and the arbiter of punishment.

I suspect the Libby commutation will be over as a matter of public discussion after the Sunday shows have their shot at it.

In the meantime, when your friends on the Left come up to you on Monday in full Selective Outrage mode, don't try to reason with them.

Just smile and nod. It will drive them nuts.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Rich Galen has been a press secretary to Dan Quayle and Newt Gingrich. Rich Galen currently works as a journalist and writes at Mullings.com

Be the first to read Rich Galen's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Liberal Ethics, What an Oxymoron?
So The Liberals are offended by President Bush commuting the sentence of Scooter Libby. What was Libby’s crime? That he couldn’t recall a conversation verbatim? Richard Armitage admitted to outing Valerie Plame. Joseph Wilson introduced his wife to people as a CIA agent. Should Joseph Wilson go to jail? Valerie Plame WAS NOT a covert agent at the time! So what is this all about? Is Joseph Wilson running out of money AGAIN? Why doesn’t The Lazy Bum (Wilson) get A JOB? By the way, how much time did Sandy Burglar serve for his crime? How much time did Bill Clinton serve for his crime(s)? How many people did Bill Clinton pardon IN ONE DAY?! John Murtha was caught on videotape discussing how big a bribe he would take! How much jail-time has John ‘Cut and Run Coward’ Murtha served? Marc Foley was booted from The GOP for making sexual overtures to teenage House pages. Gerry Studds was GIVEN A STANDING OVATION IN THE US CAPITOL BUILDING for admitting to a SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP with a teenage House page. Congressman William Jefferson is under indictment for being caught with $90,000 of bribe money in his freezer. It will be interesting to see how much time he serves. In Ann Coulter’s latest book, ‘Godless, The Church of Liberalism’, Ann expresses serious doubt as to whether Liberals can differentiate between Right and Wrong. Based on the aforementioned evidence, I have to agree with her.
THEY CAN’T!

Moral relativism condemns the Dems…

The hyper-naturalists didn’t invent moral relativism. That thinking is a universal principle among men and is literally as old as sin…


‘[Y]ou are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things. And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God? [Romans 2:1-3]


The apostle’s words are divine commentary on these words of Jesus Christ. One of the most misquoted statements in the Bible followed by more forgotten words…


“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? [Matthew 7:1-3]


Why are men so quick to condemn themselves by condemning others? They do not understand divine justice...

When they are quick to apply the rule of law to those who break the law, they agree that lawbreakers are guilty and warrant the just penalty that the law demands. Now, before God they agree that the law is good and therefore should be applied to all men. In doing so they condemn themselves in that when they break the law they will not submit to its justice nor apply its justice among themselves. Their guilt remains and they store up wrath against the day of wrath.


What, principled consistency?
Too much to expect, by far.

They all are crooks
In the past I use to believe the Dems were more crooked then the Repubs. This sure was shown with the Clintons. However the Republican Congress and the Bush Presidency led to many moves that made the Dems look good.

Now the last Illegal Amnesty Bill show that both sides are corrupt and do not care what is right for Americans, and what we really need are term limits in all branches of government and a clean sweep. Pointing fingers at which side is worse is useless, it is time to vote them out starting in the next primary.

Marc Rich v. Scooter Libby
Here's a little logic for the morally challenged: Marc Rich didn't have anything on Bill Clinton. Clinton's pardon of Rich may have been outrageous -- but it wasn't a transparent cover-up.

Scooter Libby, on the other hand, lied to protect his bosses: George Bush and Dick Cheney. By commuting his sentence now -- and not pardoning him -- Bush ensures that Libby cannot be compelled to testify before Congress and the White House can continue to refuse to comment on the case.

The Big Question now is: will Bush ultimately pardon Libby? Hmmmm. That's sure a tough one. Gee -- what would a God-fearing, upright, solid citizen like George Bush do in a situation like this?

Libby's pardon is already in the bank. You can count on it -- the same way Libby is counting on his friends in high places.

Bman
It must count! Why else would MOONBATS join TOWNHALL and try to DISCREDIT CONSERVATIVES!?

Republicans are corrupt
They have just proved their souls are just as corrupt and their arguments as disingenuous as any democrat.

In 2001 they whine and cry over Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich. Then in 2007 they use the fact that Clinton was perfectly justified in pardoning him to justify Bush's commutation and eventual pardon of Libby.

So now I guess they will claim they really did not mean it when they said Clinton should not pardon Rich? Or do they mean its bad when someone they dislike is pardoned, but its ok to pardon anyone as long as THEY approve? This is just stupid and inconsistent.

Anyway, like it or not, Libby was convicted in a court of law and sentenced under current sentencing guidelines. By commuting his sentence because Bush says it was an unreasonable sentencing guideline, Bush has now called into question the whole guideline.

The net effect is that thousands of prisoners convicted of similar crimes that got similar or longer sentences than Libby now have the ability to go back to court and challenge their sentence.

After all, Bush did not say Libby was commuted because he was innocent. He said he commuted the sentence because it was unreasonable.

Stupid republicans.

georgetwin
libs plague us because part of the daily talking points they recieve from move on are instructions to annoy conservs. There is no logic or intelligence to their posts but like fleas on a dog they need to be scratched but are a minor inconvenience. A minor irritant but they never bring anything to the conversation

My crooks are good.
Only your crooks are bad. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

Swish of the Tail
An accurate essay well written, and some posters also provide interesting and enlightening information. Then again, some posters are off the wall as usual.

Scooter Libby should never have been prosecuted for his failed memory. Anytime someone disagrees with the Dems, he's classified a liar. And Libby doesn't have anything on the Bush Administration, so get off the soapbox of the big lie.

I read elsewhere that the Democrats have initiated 300 investigations in their first 100 days as the majority party in Congress. 300! And not a one directed at the Democrats who deserve them. Again, when you disagree with the Democrats, they investigate you. When you do something they don't like, they investigate you. However, when they do something wrong [Ted the Swimmer comes to mind; as does Murtha's activities, Barney's tomcat house, Nancy's junkets, Hasting's corruption, Reid's insanity, etc.], they rarely investigate anything. 'Just part of the political game, those rascals.'

What good have the Democrats done in the first 100 days? About what I expected. Other than the 300 investigations and several unconstitutional and subversive junkets [aka not good], nothing substantive.

The eternal question is why people vote for these clowns? And I guess, that'll always be a question because many people WILL vote for them in a daze of misinformation, ideological brainwashing, and stubbornness.

Andy Jackson, as President, was called a jacka*s*s. He liked it, and directed that the symbol of his new Democrat Party be a donkey. Apparently, the term 'jacka*s*s still applies to the party faithful.

Wildwest, it is the conservatives who ..
.. devoid of logic and babble nothing but talking points most of the time.

This topic is a good example. Try to find one conservative comment that doesn't echo the double speak and political talking points of the white house on this topic.

None have anything new to add.

Heck if you're going down that road
Why stop at Clinton?

Why don't we start complaining about Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon?

How about Bush's pardons of those involved in Iran Contra.

We don't accept this BS, but my brother did it from a six year old, why the heck would we accept it from a President?

Hey Slacker:
You quipped:
"This topic is a good example. Try to find one conservative comment that doesn't echo the double speak and political talking points of the white house on this topic"

The reason we are all on the same page is beause you only need to remember one version of the truth. There is no need to parse "it depends on what you meaning of "is is"" words or apply different rules depending on the situation.



Before You Pop Off, Think ...
It could be you. I wrote this to my paper:

Editor:
Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is cut of the same cloth as Nifong, the DA in the Duke case. They pick a target they know the left-leaning major media will conduct a feeding frenzy on and exploit that rabidness. In the Duke case it was fine young men, (albeit a little rowdy as many of us were at that age), who were depicted in most press as "privileged, rich white boys." In the Libby case it was the Bush administration, and if you don't believe there's a media bias there, you're delusional.
All it takes is a look at all elemental facts of this case to see what went on: Joe Wilson's claim that Iraq never attempted to purchase yellowcake uranium in Africa is untrue; accounts from some of Nigeria's own officials say there had been talks. That Valerie Plame was a CIA undercover operative is untrue; she was an analyst and had not been an operative for 6 or 7 years, well past the time to be called such and fall under the "outing" rule according even to the woman who wrote the rule. Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald knew this and he also knew Richard Armitage, a Clinton holdover at the State Department, was the one who leaked her name regardless of whether she was covert or not. Therefore, if it was not a crime for Armitage to leak her name, what crime was he prosecuting? He was fishing for a victim.
Think of your own situation and what might happen if a Nifong or Fitzgerald decided he was going to jail you, regardless of what his reasons might be. If he was zealous enough you'd go to jail, and that's what upsets me about loose cannon prosecutors with no accountability operating in my country's justice system.
To make my point, let's assume any one of you is the target of one of these predators. Suppose you're deposed for a case brought on facts of a year or so ago and you make certain statements about whom you met months or a year or so ago on a specific date, where you ate (if you did), what you talked about and what, specifically, he said and what you said. Then you're dismissed from the deposition. You get on with your life.
Five or six months later you're subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury. You're asked very specific questions about that same meeting; what you ate, where, what the conversation included and again, what he said and what you said. Remember, now, this is a grand jury and very specific questions are asked. (It's not like a double play in baseball where for the second baseman it's a vicinity call and not a foot on the bag call.) Suppose you gave answers comparable to what you said in the deposition. Fine. You're dismissed and get on with a very busy life.
Now let's assume you're called back to the grand jury 3 to 6 months later and asked to relate the same facts precisely. (Because Chris Mathews and everybody else had faulty memories a la Shrillary Clinton.) Remember now, you're being questioned by a skilled prosecutor with an agenda either to get reelected, to advance a political agenda, or to make a name for himself. By now it's been a year or two and you mix up some facts, timelines, names, places, who was in attendance, whatever, because this is NOT all you've had on your mind since your first testimony. To your chagrin you are indicted and possibly will lose your good name, reputation, and position, not to mention the bazillions in legal fees. All in a case where there was no crime on which to base an investigation, where the prosecutor knew that, but where you could go to prison for nothing more than a faulty memory.
As a concerned citizen and grandfather I fear for our freedoms on this July 4th when I see garbage like this occur aided and abetted by the mainstream media.

the flash proves my point
He dives deep into the dumpster to pull out yet another nugget of nonsensical double speak...

"The reason we are all on the same page is beause you only need to remember one version of the truth..."

There are no facts in dispute here. The facts are

1) Libby was convicted by a jury. There are plenty of people who are convicted by juries who claim they are innocent. But no one, not even idiot republicans argue that just because they say they are innocent we should let them off with lighter sentences or let them go free after the conviction.
2) Libby has a right to appeal his conviction. He was doing so. The system was working just fine.
3) Libby was sentenced under sentencing guidelines. Republicans support these guidelines for the crime of which he was convicted. I have not heard one republican argue that the sentencing guidelines should be revised.
4) Bush did not commute Libby's sentence because he thought Libby was innocent. He did so because he things the sentencing guidelines for the crime are unreasonable. Yet Bush is not pushing for these supposedly unreasonable guidelines to be revised.
5) Republicans argue that Clinton pardoned people that should not have been pardoned. While this may be true it is not a reason for Bush to commute or pardon Libby. Any kid over the age of six knows that it doesn't fly to say I should be able to do this bad thing because my friend's parents let my friend do it. At least not with any parent with a brain.

Thanks, flash for proving yet again how illogical the corrupt double speaking republicans are and how incompetent they are when it comes to analyzing real facts.

dogjudge
I don't think Bush has used the excuse of ,"well someone else has done it too...". It is the presidents privilege to grant pardons, or in this case to commute a sentence, and he doesn't have to answer or be held accountable to anyone for it. I for one don't care if the President is George Bush, (either of them), Bill Clinton, Gerald Ford, or Woodrow Wilson.

It is not so much that Bush used what is rightfully his to use, it is the fact that so many people feel that they have been denied their pound of flesh. With the smell of blood in the air a pack of hounds will bay loudest when the prey is snatched away.

slacker
it all goes to your perspective. I have heard lawyers argue there was no basis in law to put libby on trial let alone convict him. I am not a lawyer but if a fellow lawyer(s) claim the case was bogus what makes his argument less valid. My understanding of the law is that it is not the law that is on trial merely the ability to convince jurors of the validity of your case. What exactly are you claiming to dispute this argument and prove that the pardon was not justified

tnmccoy: How right you are!

"Scooter Libby should never have been prosecuted for his failed memory."

And, about a "crime" that NEVER HAPPENED!!!

Now, until Sandy Bergler is doing 50-life in the big house, the dumbocrats don't have a let to stand on!!!!






billiott
1) It was the Bush administration, not the dems that appointed Fitzgerald and gave him his mission. If Bush felt he was overzealous and a bad choice he could have fired him and taken the heat for that. It would have saved Libby far earlier.

2) Libby had a fair trial. The jury found him guilty of the crime Fitzgerald charged him with. The fact that you and many others who were NOT on the jury disagree with the jury result does NOT mean the jury was wrong.

3) Libby could and was appealing the conviction. The system was working just as intended. If the jury was wrong the appeal would overturn the conviction.

4) The fact that you believe that Plame's past experience as an undercover agent could be made public because she was no longer doing that job could does not mean it was either legal to do so or a good idea. Anyone with a brain can think of many reasons for not exposing a person's past as an agent. For one thing it will compromise anyone known to be associated with that person in the past who is STILL working undercover. CIA rules should apply here not your personal uninformed opinion.

5) There is no relationship between Nifong and Fitzgerald. The fact is, Nifong convicted no one and brought no one to trial. Nifong's jihad against the Duke boys collapsed. Fitzgerald GOT a conviction.

I could go on and on with the real facts, but most conservatives are impervious to factual analyis and reason. But you prove my point just like all the other conservative babblers on this topic.

leroy
Once the Bush commutation happened, all of this became a dead issue for me.

It actually annoys me to hear that the Democrats want to have hearings on the issue.

What the heck do they think they're going to accomplish with that?

I may not agree with what Bush did, but he absolutely is within his rights to do it.

dogjudge -- it's about the coverup
Sure Bush is within his rights to commute Libby's sentence (or, more precisely, he has the POWER to commute). But when a president uses that power to commute the sentence (not pardon, mind you, which would open Libby up to questioning from Congress) of someone who clearly lied to protect the president and vice president -- then it starts to look a lot like a coverup -- not a legitimate use of the power to commute.

Libby wasn't convicted of forgetting certain details. He was convicted of lying to a grand jury. Did Clinton commit perjury? Yeah, he did. He was impeached for it. The only reason he beat the impeachment rap is because impeachment -- unlike a criminal prosecution -- is a political matter. No one bailed Clinton out. He beat the rap.

Libby was convicted by a jury and setenced by a judge. You can scream all day long that Clinton committed perjury, Marc Rich shouldn't have been pardoned, Sandy Berger should be in jail. You're right about it all. So what? None of those things have anything to do with Bush commuting Libby's sentence with the express purpose of rewarding him for lying to the grand jury and keeping his mouth shut about what he knew.

The pardon is just waiting for Bush's last days in the White House. If you don't believe that, you're dumber than you sound.

It's really interesting how this column gets thirty or so comments, while the latest racist rant from Ann Coulter gets about 300. It seems not even the alleged "conservatives" in this country can come up with a rationale for the Libby coverup.

selective outrage
Mr. Galen,
You absolutely,positively must read this week's article by Clarence Page in the Chi. Tribune.
Not unlike this fellow Slacker(good name for a libral isn't it?)
They simply keep proving the point the "libralism is a mental disorder
Sam Russo

slacker
I read TH most days and I especially read the posts. I cannot for the life of me remember you or any libs getting this worked up over Sandy Burglar. You see this is the selective outrage the column is about. We always bring up Clinton etcetera because you all gave him a free pass and like to act as if he was completely clean and was attacked for no good reason. Talk about hypocrisy. When lefties start throwing around the word hypocrisy they should remember it is their speciality. You may be right on this case and letting Libby off is hypocritical (though I don't think so) but unless you're going to be consistent and decry each and every instance of it rather than losing your mind when it involves the Bush administration you have zero credibility. Nada.

To the Slackers of the world
I'm glad you're angry. I don't care. If I can do anything to pi$$ you off further, please let me know.

bobbit
was it yesterday that forrest was trying to recruit you as his/her new best friend. Just curious how that was resolved

raywood ashe - slacker
How you can continue to tell one bald face lie--
one right after another and not get a red face is
beyond me.
What do you teach your children for heavens sake?
You get your education from liberal news(msn) and
take it as a fact.
You are making your selves look like complete assses.

Raywood Ashe
Please go back and look at some of my other posts.

Do I think that Libby was guilty? Yes.
Do I think that he should have served his time? Yes.

I've never said anything about Bush/Libby and Clinton/Rich.

Once Bush commuted his sentence, the issue is over.

Do I think that Libby was covering for Cheney? Yes.

Is there anything that can be done about that now? NO.

Now, why are the Democrats going to hold hearings? They can't do a darn thing about the situation. Better to use the time doing productive things.

Get a grip
I hope you all realize that if a Dem wins the presidency, everyone on this site will switch their arguments and argue the other side of the coin. Those that defended Clinton slam Bush for doing the same things and vice-versa. In a debate competition you have to argue for both sides of the issue. This is the same, just over a longer period of time. So debate away and don't take other's comments or yourself too seriously cuz in the future you'll be using the same debate points the "idiot" you hate is using against you now. And some of you will still be absolutely sure that you are the only intellectually honest person in the fight.

I've proved my point
Even the conservatives bow to my logic.

Sandy Burger was not pardoned or commuted by anyone, so its just stupid to bring him up in this context.

Bush is perfectly within his legal rights to pardon anyone he pleases. Just stupid for him to do it, but its obvious to all that he has never been the brightest bulb in the chandolier.

Now that I have proved my points, I am done with this topic.

slacker
what did you prove and what is this fantasy you refer to as logic?

I agree with wildwest
Slacker--what in the Sam Hill are you talking about? You proved nothing.

I would like to know exactly what proof you have of a cover up. I do not want conspiracy theories; I want actual proof.

Also, David Boies, the attorney for Al Gore in the Gore v Bush case (Florida recount) even said that there cannot be obstruction of justice when no crime was committed.


Geez, dogjudge, I'm impressed!
I do apologize. I didn't think you had it in you. I stand corrected, and kudos to you!!!!!






dogjudge
"Now, why are the Democrats going to hold hearings? They can't do a darn thing about the situation."

Surely it's not just for the publicity...


They can't do a darn thing about it ...
because Bush has successfully covered up his inovlvement in the leak of a CIA agent's name to the press in order to get revenge on a critic of the administration.

Maybe to most of the posters on townhall, leaking the name of a CIA agent is "nothing." To me, that's treason. The fact that Fitzgerald was unable to prove a technical violation of the law doesn't mean a thing.

You don't leak the names of CIA agents to the press. Just don't do it -- ever. Libby lied to protect his bosses -- who know damn well that even if they couldn't be convicted of a crime they at least did something wrong when they leaked Valerie Plame's identity.

So why should the Democrats hold hearings? Maybe they can shed a little more light on the subject than Bush has been willing to do. Believe it or not, a lot of people in this country think it's wrong to out a CIA agent for revenge. Now that we know Rove isn't going to be convicted of a crime, he should be hauled in front of Congress to answer a few questions about his involvment in the whole affair. Bush won't answer any questions. Libby can take the Fifth.

I say let the hearings begin.

raywood ashe
does that mean joe wilson will also get indicted. His line at cocktails parties inbcluded his marriage to a cia agent. But let the dims have the show boat hearings. The country will see them for exactly what they are absolutely pointless, will have no bearing on anything but will detracxt them from wasting money on their socialist agenda.

raywood ashe 2
why should the dims stop with scooter libby. Why not go for the whole enchilada. Impeach both bush and cheney and get red nancy as president. Oh wait there has to more than the wild imaginings of the dims to make the case

Question for raywood
Armitage was the one who leaked the information about Plame. Fitzgerald knew about that early on in the investigation.

If you truly believe what was done was treason, where is your anger that Armitage was not charged. Because Plame was not covert and everybody knew she worked for the CIA, you are overreacting to the Plame "outting."

Fitzgerald concluded that no crime had taken place in the "outting" of Plame. Explain how there could be obstruction of justice if no crime happened.

Does anyone know...
what Libby's lie was? I've seen it explained that he may have mixed up names and dates, but never heard what the actual "lie" was.

Also I've seen some of the jurors interviewed, saying that they felt sorry for Libby because they thought that Vice President Cheney was behind the leak, but since Cheney wasn't on trial, they had to find someone else guilty instead. It left me with the impression that the verdict was politically motivated.

CharlieS: Absolutely right!

Okay, here we go.... AGAIN....

First of all, anyone who has every driven by Langley, (Geo. Washington Mem. Parkway, for example) has ACTUALLY SEEN ga-zillions of cars parked in the CIA parking lot.

NOT all of these people who WORK FOR THE CIA are covert! Just because they work for the CIA, doesn't mean they're covert!

In fact, not even a covert agent's co-workers or family know if he/she is covert!!!!!

The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 protects those agents who actually were covert for only five years after they've returned from overseas assignments. This, according to Victoria Toensing who co-authored the law, and I suspect is pretty much an authority on the IIPA.

Therefore, whether or NOT Plame was ever a covert agent, she was no longer covered by IIPA, so she was NOT OUTED!

And, note that no one was convicted of "outing" Plame.

Libby was "convicted" of "not remembering" some facts...about a crime that was never committed...which was a travisty of justice.

This whole thing was a sham from the beginning.... beginning with Joe Wilson.








Pay me a Million, maybe
If I had all day, and someone paid me a million dollars, I would read all the posts, comment, lies, and stupid replies on this article, arrange them in order by stupidity, and pass judgment on the biggest pile of crap I have read recently.

Than goodness I must clean the lint out of my navel, and that is more important than the above listed job.

In the meantime, since the prosecutor already knew who (Armitage) had leaked the information, it’s impossible to say Scooter obstructed Justice. Justice means convict the guilty, acquit the innocent, and since they already knew who had committed the so called crime, there was no more Justice being looked for in that case, so he could not commit the so-called crimes that you are so excited about.

And by the way, you dimwits who keep complaining about real people mentioning Clinton and his sales of pardons (Rich gave hundred of thousands to Clinton) and do not mention Ford, Roosevelt, Hoover and others, is because those others are not going public with their opinion.

This trial was never
about Libby. It was about trying to get at Cheney, Rove, Bush for alleged misdeeds. What dishonesty. The prosecutor knew when he started his investigation that Libby wasn't the leaker. And efties just couldn't be honest about their real target. They settled for an injustice because after all, Libby was a memeber of those haorrible, evil people in the White House. Hate kills!

Slacker
I noticed that someone calling himself Slacker was preaching to us about how evil Republicans are. I'm sorry, but I don't put a lot of faith in anyone who is content to call himself a Slacker. And, it sure doesn't surprise me that he is a Democrat. Case closed.

Chopper John, would you like to
make the Libs even more pi$$ed off?

Let's see.
The amnesty bill was defeated just a few
days ago.

Scooter Libby had his sentence commuted by
President Bush and I'm sure he will grant
a full pardon once Libby gets to clear his
good name.

Yesterday, Friday, July 6, 2007, a federal
appeals court dismissed a case challenging
the National Security Agency's program to
wiretap the international communications
of some Americans and some non-Americans
without a warrant, reversing a trial
judge's order that the program be shut
down.

Justice is finally being served at the demise of the hypocritical and socialist Libs.

Bush MAY have done Libby a disservice...
There is a slight possibility that Libby could have won an appeal based upon when Fitzgerald knew about Armitage and when Libby's inconsistent statements were made. If Fitzgerald knew about Armitage BEFORE Libby "perjured" himself, then,in fact, Fitzgerald's continuance of the investigation was a fishing expedition. The appeals court might have thrown it out. Although Libby could still pursue the appeal, it's doubtful.

I love the USA and it's constitution
I have great fears that the schools and teachers of those who are ranting and raving about Scooter Libby, have not taught anything about elementary logic. I pasted some of the more inane comments just to emphasize my point.

Now, as I have mentioned in the few posts I've made, I have lived through the great depression, WWII, Korea (served during the Korean War), the French war in Vietnam, our own involvement in Vietnam, the Bosnia debacle (Clinton's undeclared war), the first Saddam and 2nd Saddam wars; our current war on terror; and we haven't seen the worst of it yet.

So now we have a major constitutional crisis; Scooter Libby was allowed to stay out of prison while he tries to get some form of reasonable justice. I know many judges have allowed a "non-risk of flight" to remain free during the appeal phase. In this case the judge showed a total lack of fair judgement. Go to JAIL now!

So President Bush commutes the jail time; if the appeal is successful, Scooter would have served time that was NOT warranted.

Of course too many, the real problem is that some of the opposition believe that President Bush is more evil than Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etal. It is, obviously, his GOAL to destroy our God given rights and to REDUCE this country TO A THIRD WORLD STAUS; ANSWERABLE TO Hugo. Those of you who can't see this must be blind.

He, President Bush, plans to get all this done in the next 18 months so that he can turn the task over to Dick Cheney when he leaves office(oops, Dick also leaves in 18 months; oh, I know Karl Rove will be the next evil dictator, well maybe that won't happen either for obvous reasons, he will also be in jail and gone by the wayside! Therefore the obvious answer is "you gwessed it; Scooter Libby.).

That's why he commuted his sentence! Why didn't you know, Bush plans to suspend the next election and appoint Scooter as dictator.

The clevernes and audicity of Bush; don't call him dumb, he knows what is doing. Scooter will prevent anyone trying to accuse President Bush of war crimes.

His alliance with Hugo will benefit his oil cronies; that's all he has EVER cared about.

Don't you see? It all adds up.

Now, it would not surprise me if some of you people (who really need to visit a shrink) believe what I just wrote. Let me repeat; President Bush plans to suspend the 2008 election; enough said?

I will stand by President Bush as our legally elected president and while I may disagree with some of his positions, I know he is an honorable man (but, yes, a man; not a perfect being such as God is) and that those of you who act like a pack of wolves, attacking anything in sight, might be happier if you would contemplate what this world would be like if Al Bore or the "sailor" were holding that office. I believe that God did have a hand in this; but, you make up your own mind.

Please remember; we are all faulty in our judgements and we need to see the positive accomplishments made by President Bush. Yes, he does deserve that title; the people elected him twice. Let's try to help by building on the positive. Critcize him fairly, but the hatred and anger exhibited by so many bodes evil for this great nation. I LOVE AMERICA AND I DO NOT CONDONE THE ACTIONS OF THOSE WHO SEEM TO HAVE NOTHING POSITIVE TO SAY ABOUT EITHER THIS COUNTRY OR THE PRESIDENT.

I will mention that I thought that there were many reasonable comments in this group; keep it up! Let's elevate the discourse. We don't need to keep calling each other names or use inflammatory language. Name calling and vitriol should be beneath well educated citizens of this unique nation; there has never been a greater nation, with more freedom and opportunity than these United States of America.

The folloning quotes are just a sample of what I find very distasteful.

"Raywood Ashe writes: Friday, July, 06, 2007 12:44 PM
Marc Rich v. Scooter Libby
Here's a little logic for the morally challenged: Marc Rich didn't have anything on Bill Clinton. Clinton's pardon of Rich may have been outrageous -- but it wasn't a transparent cover-up.

Scooter Libby, on the other hand, lied to protect his bosses: George Bush and Dick Cheney. By commuting his sentence now -- and not pardoning him -- Bush ensures that Libby cannot be compelled to testify before Congress and the White House can continue to refuse to comment on the case.

The Big Question now is: will Bush ultimately pardon Libby? Hmmmm. That's sure a tough one. Gee -- what would a God-fearing, upright, solid citizen like George Bush do in a situation like this?

Libby's pardon is already in the bank. You can count on it -- the same way Libby is counting on his friends in high places."

incognito writes: Friday, July, 06, 2007 11:48 AM
Republicans Are The Moral Majority
You people are just full of it, aren't you? YOU are the ones who claim moral superiority, you are the ones who said this administratin would be different, did you forget?
-----------------------------
Posted on Wed, Jul. 04, 2007
Bush abuses executive power by protecting Scooter Libby

The Kansas City Star
President Bush is not the first president to abuse the power of executive clemency. But he has done so in spectacular fashion this week, protecting a criminal whose misdeeds were committed in Bush’s own administration from serving even a single day in prison."

Raywood Ashe writes: Friday, July, 06, 2007 8:16 PM
They can't do a darn thing about it ...
because Bush has successfully covered up his inovlvement in the leak of a CIA agent's name to the press in order to get revenge on a critic of the administration.

Maybe to most of the posters on townhall, leaking the name of a CIA agent is "nothing." To me, that's treason. The fact that Fitzgerald was unable to prove a technical violation of the law doesn't mean a thing.

You don't leak the names of CIA agents to the press. Just don't do it -- ever. Libby lied to protect his bosses -- who know damn well that even if they couldn't be convicted of a crime they at least did something wrong when they leaked Valerie Plame's identity.

So why should the Democrats hold hearings? Maybe they can shed a little more light on the subject than Bush has been willing to do. Believe it or not, a lot of people in this country think it's wrong to out a CIA agent for revenge. Now that we know Rove isn't going to be convicted of a crime, he should be hauled in front of Congress to answer a few questions about his involvment in the whole affair. Bush won't answer any questions. Libby can take the Fifth.

I say let the hearings begin."





















In 2001 they whine and cry over Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich. Then in 2007 they use the fact that Clinton was perfectly justified in pardoning him to justify Bush's commutation and eventual pardon of Libby.

Libby has shown no real remorse for his actions. And his White House service is no argument for leniency. Just the opposite, as the judge who sentenced him pointed out. High officials, the judge said, have a “special obligation” to obey the law.
2) Libby has a right to appeal his conviction. He was doing so. The system was working just fine.
In the meantime, since the prosecutor already knew who (Armitage) had leaked the information, it’s impossible to say Scooter obstructed Justice. Justice means convict the guilty, acquit the innocent, and since they already knew who had committed the so called crime, there was no more Justice being looked for in that case, so he could not commit the so-called crimes that you are so excited about.

Slacker writes
"I could go on and on with the real facts, but most conservatives are impervious to factual analyis and reason. But you prove my point just like all the other conservative babblers on this topic."

The facts I presented are as I've been able to find them. But the case is over. And Fitzgerald accomplished his goal of making a name for himself. The law is just like Hollywood anymore, "any publicity is good publicity," therefore his pursuit of Libby is no different from Nifong's zeal, both in baseless cases.
So, whether my facts clash with your facts was not the point. I've been there and the point you missed in your blinding rage at anything Bush was how it could happen and how you might feel if it happened to you. The first part brought back memories and got me to that point and the rest is how it's possible. It's almost happened to me twice. Once somebody from behind me in school threw something and although everyone back there was a very good friend, they tried to get me to admit it. I wouldn't because I didn't do it and we all got the paddle. They were PO'd for awhile but got over it, but I don't know if I really ever did. The other was a new deputy in town when I was just out of the AF, sitting in the passenger seat of a car in which someone he thought was HIS girl was under the wheel. He dragged me out, cuffed me in front of my friends, and hauled me off to jail for drunken driving. It got thrown out but I was in a panic the night I spent in jail. My point to you is: when it does happen to you it feels like the Earth is on your chest and you're going to smother to death, and the rage is all-consuming because you can do nothing about it. It'll keep you awake nights.
Your comment about juries? Hells bells, man, a prejudiced jury let O.J. go. Do you have the faintest idea a jury of a Republican's peers can be found in DC? (Where I used to live, BTW.)
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.