<p>Scooter Libby has just received 30 month jail sentence. Wonder what thank you gift Rove and the vice president will send him.</p>
<p>A pardon. Gift wrapped.</p>
<p>I sure hope so. (But I’m hoping Ding-Dong will give one to Paris, too.)</p>
<p>maybe a list of jailhouse “do’s and don’ts” from Paris (until the pardon comes along right around the end of W’s regime).</p>
<p>I hope the pardon comes sooner than that, like 22 days from now.</p>
<p>Martha Stewart got ten months (five in prison and five on house arrest) for obstruction of justice and lying to the government. She personally profited from what she did. Libby has not personally profited and there was no underlying crime, unlike in Stewart’s case. Libby got screwed because he was associated with President Bush.</p>
<p>Compare Libby with Sandy Berger who got a slap on the wrist for stealing classified documents to protect the Clinton administration from embarassment for doing nothing about terrorism. Libby got screwed.</p>
<p>Libby got screwed because he lied to federal prosecutors who could not do their job (pursue the underlying crime) because of his deceptions.</p>
<p>I do hope Ding-Dong pardons him soon, though, maybe on the day of Paris’ release.</p>
<p>
That’s a good talking point but not true. The essentials of the case were known before Fitzgerald was even appointed. The fact that they even appointed a special prosecutor was indicative of the witch hunt that was to unfold.</p>
<p>Right. The President was seeking a witch-hunt to go after the Veep’s righthand man. I got some more fish stories if you’d like to hear…</p>
<p>No, since no crime had been committed or charged, they figured that the worst that would happen is that Armitage would look a bit foolish. Fitzgerald, backed by the Dems and the media thought that he had the mandate for a witch hunt.</p>
<p>But wait, I thought lying under oath was a serious offense even if there was no underlying crime (like consensual sex)–oh, but that’s right, different rules apply to Democrats.</p>
<p>
Sure looks that way? Bill Clinton served no time in prison. Libby got 30 months. Clinton’s impeachment was a political consequence not one involving a small cell and a job in the prison laundry. Libby lost his job, Clinton kept his. Libby will never get his reputation back, Clinton makes millions and wants to return to the WhiteHouse.</p>
<p>libby will do just fine, believe me. he has some smary friends and will get a swell job…unlike most felons, he will be taken care of</p>
<p>if oliver north can find a way back, o will libby (who needs a grown up name)</p>
<p>and as for his “reputation”, eh, so long as he says he found religion in prison and God forgave him, he will do just fine</p>
<p>as for different rules, are you kidding? the republicans changed the rules to protect each other</p>
<p>Is FF seriously suggesting that Armitage was the only person who leaked Valerie Plame’s CIA employment? It’s very well documented that numerous people in the Bush administration, including Libby, outed Plame to the media.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You do understand that Clinton was acquitted and Libby convicted, I hope? </p>
<p>Clinton’s lie didn’t technically meet the definition of perjury, because while he lied, the lie was not material. You may not agree with that, but that’s what the law stated, and why he was acquitted. Call it a technicality if you want, but that–and not his party–is the reason he wasn’t sent to make license plates.</p>
<p>Libby was convicted because he lied AND his lie was material. Under the law, his lie obstructed justice. Being a powerful Republican does not mean he can obstruct justice at will.</p>
<p>I believe that during sentencing a critical bit of information was the prosecutor’s specific statement that Libby’s conduct prevented him from doing his job. </p>
<p>The only defense here apparently is that others did this and that so gee whiz, why me.</p>
<p>What is lost in this seems to be the same clowns that keep hammering us that there is a terrorist under every carpet (the commies have moved to another hiding place) are the very people who felt nothing wrong in “outing” an active and covert operative to potential harm of the entire intelligence network of this nation 'cause someone didn’t agree with their WMD dog and pony show.</p>
<p>the one thing i can agree with is that if Libby goes to jail, bush, rove and cheney should be thrown under the jail.</p>
<p>
I hope you know that Clinton was impeached by the House and he was not removed by the Senate. </p>
<p>
You are wrong. Lying about prior sexual relationships with female employees is material IN THE CONTEXT of a suit for gender discrimination. It is relevant because evidence of a pattern or practice may have been admitted as part of Paula Jone’s claim against Clinton. </p>
<p>
Libby wasn’t a powerful Republican. He was an employee providing advice to the VP. He wasn’t elected and could do nothing independently. Clinton was the most powerful man in America. Clinton walked; LIbby got screwed because he wasn’t as powerful as Pres. Clinton.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you’re confused about what an impeachment is. You seem to think it’s analogous with a conviction and that the Senate’s role is limited to deciding punishment.</p>
<p>An impeachment by the House is like an indictment. Their role is similiar to that of a grand jury. They don’t decide guilt or innocence.</p>
<p>The Senate does. They conduct the trial. Clinton was acquitted.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re seriously suggesting you know the law better than the lawyers in the Senate who acquitted Clinton? Where’s your JD from?</p>
<p>Conyat, you are saying that Clinton was “acquitted”. The fact is that unlike Libby, he was treated with kid gloves and never charged in criminal court. Had there been a level playing field to equate with how Libby was treated, Clinton would have had an indictment waiting for him the minute GWB took the oath of office and Clinton was no longer the president. Certainly the level of proof for perjury and obstruction of justice is different than “high crimes and misdemeanors” which was the bar that the Senate used to make their finding. I agree that his crime did not reach that bar, but certainly the crime of perjury and obstruction of justice was committed. If Libby goes to jail, so should Clinton - and certainly Sandy Berger.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Senate said it when they acquitted him. Found him not guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice. I don’t know how much plainer I can make it. There was a trial and he was acquitted on all charges. </p>
<p>I think people really need to read up on impeachment so they’ll understand it better and their Civics teachers can stop silently weeping into handkerchiefs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He was already impeached (the equivalent of an indictment), tried, and found not guilty. How many times do you think a person found not guilty can be tried over and over again on the same charges? Do you think you just get to do it over and over again until you magically get the verdict you want?</p>
<p>You know as well as I (but refuse to admit) that the Senate evaluated based on whether what he did met the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors. If the judgement was simply “did he commit perjury and obstruct justice” no senator could have acquitted Clinton with good conscience.</p>