NationStates Jolt Archive

This is the sentence fot Scooter Libby. Do you think it's fair? More time? Less time?

Fair. He lied about a substantive issue to a Federal Grand Jury to cover Shrubya's ass.

The anal rapeage will be epic.

So he didn't get done for releasing that agents name? Why not?

He'll be out in 15, anyway.

In the past, he'd be shot as it'd be treason but they are so soft these days on these people.

No, it isn't fair...

They should all go to jail.

At least somebody got punished for something.

In the past, he'd be shot as it'd be treason but they are so soft these days on these people.

Shot? Back in the day we'd get hung, drawn and quartered for this sort of thing, we'd have begged to be shot.

Life just gets softer and softer.

I think it's about fair to be honest, 30 months sounds less than 2 1/2 years, and that's enough for taking the hit for your superiors.

Shot? Back in the day we'd get hung, drawn and quartered for this sort of thing, we'd have begged to be shot.

Life just gets softer and softer.

I think it's about fair to be honest, 30 months sounds less that 2 1/2 years, and that's enough for taking the hit for your superiors.

Send him to Gitmo! :p

30 months for those crimes seems fair.

This is so hypocritical. What happened to the cherished freedom of speech that liberals are always whining about? Or doesn't it apply to Republicans?

...But, won't Bush just pardon him?....

Send him to Gitmo! :p

Good Idea!!

This is so hypocritical. What happened to the cherished freedom of speech that liberals are always whining about? Or doesn't it apply to Republicans?

Wow. What the hell are you talking about? What idiot would say it is ok to lie in front of a Grand Jury in the name of free speech?

This is so hypocritical. What happened to the cherished freedom of speech that liberals are always whining about? Or doesn't it apply to Republicans?

Umm...it is called lying under oath for a reason :rolleyes:

Wow! Two and a half years! Almost as much as murderers and rapists! But nowhere near as much as potheads! Wait...Does anyone else see something wrong with this picture?

Wow! Two and a half years! Almost as much as murderers and rapists! But nowhere near as much as potheads! Wait...Does anyone else see something wrong with this picture?

That its not in color...

That its not in color...

EXACTLY! My goddamn ink cartridge is empty, and they want fucking 40 dollars for one of those things!

What idiot would say it is ok to lie in front of a Grand Jury in the name of free speech?

The Democrats who defended Clinton at the impeachment proceedings. Ba-zing!

The Democrats who defended Clinton at the impeachment proceedings. Ba-zing!

Except for the fact that it was outside the scope of the original investigation...

The Democrats who defended Clinton at the impeachment proceedings. Ba-zing!

I'm not even gonna start with this one.

This is the sentence fot Scooter Libby. Do you think it's fair? More time? Less time?

The shear fact that he is doing any time is a victory of sorts.

Personally, I would like them all in prison, but I will take it.

This is so hypocritical. What happened to the cherished freedom of speech that liberals are always whining about? Or doesn't it apply to Republicans?

The Republicans impeached Clinton for lying under oath about oral sex, so, um, I'd say you have the same problem there.

Of course then there is the fact that this has nothing to do with freedom of speech, and no one, not even liberals, is advocating the right to lie under oath.

The Democrats who defended Clinton at the impeachment proceedings. Ba-zing!

Okay, Clinton DID NOT lie to the grand jury. He shouldn't have been impeached in the first place, but the definition of sex the proceedings were using meant that Lewinsky had had sex with Bill Clinton, but Clinton hadn't had sex with her. It wouldn't be a law without loopholes you could a Ford Motherfuckinhuge through.

The Democrats who defended Clinton at the impeachment proceedings. Ba-zing!

1. Um. No Democrat defended Clinton on free speech grounds.

2. Try to wrap your brain around the difference between saying something is "okay" and saying that something isn't an impeachable offense.

Except for the fact that it was outside the scope of the original investigation...

Okay, Clinton DID NOT lie to the grand jury. He shouldn't have been impeached in the first place, but the definition of sex the proceedings were using meant that Lewinsky had had sex with Bill Clinton, but Clinton hadn't had sex with her. It wouldn't be a law without loopholes you could a Ford Motherfuckinhuge through.


Thanks for covering for me, guys. :)

Thanks for covering for me, guys. :)

No problem. I'm thinking about just copying that into a word file so I can just paste it whenever this comes up.

If you ask me, the government should be looking at the economy and not getting everyone blown up, not how people are using cigars in private.

No problem. I'm thinking about just copying that into a word file so I can just paste it whenever this comes up.

Good, good. Which stupid argument should I make an auto-reply for? I can post it here, then sig it.

2. Try to wrap your brain around the difference...

Yeah, yeah, yeah, you can make excuses all you want to, but that doesn't change anything. Double standards much?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, you can make excuses all you want to, but that doesn't change anything. Double standards much?

So who backed Clinton on Free Speech grounds?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, you can make excuses all you want to, but that doesn't change anything. Double standards much?

Its only double standard if it is the same situation different standards ... not so here

So who backed Clinton on Free Speech grounds?

Bill Clinton, a Democrat, lied to a jury but did not get punished whatsoever. "Scooter" Libby, a Republican, lied to a jury and was condemned to 2.5 years in prison. I reiterate: double standards, much?

Bill Clinton, a Democrat, lied to a jury but did not get punished whatsoever. "Scooter" Libby, a Republican, lied to a jury and was condemned to 2.5 years in prison. I reiterate: double standards, much?

That was not your original charge of a defense freedom of speech issue at all ... move the goal posts much?:rolleyes:

Bill Clinton, a Democrat, lied to a jury but did not get punished whatsoever.

Did he? What did he lie about and was it in the scope of the original investigation?

"Scooter" Libby, a Republican, lied to a jury and was condemned to 2.5 years in prison. I reiterate: double standards, much?

Actually no since he lied about something that was actually being investigated. Bill Clinton did not legally lie under oath because it was not part of the investigation.

Bill Clinton did not legally lie under oath because it was not part of the investigation.

Indeed, and for the semantically-conscious people out there, the definition of "is" is up for debate. After all, if "is" means "at this very moment," he was not having sexual relations with that woman on the stand, so he wasn't lying.

Also, if telling a lie while under oath does not classify as legally lying under oath, we live on a crazy planet.

Indeed, and for the semantically-conscious people out there, the definition of "is" is up for debate. After all, if "is" means "at this very moment," he was not having sexual relations with that woman on the stand, so he wasn't lying.

Um yea... go back and look at what he was originall under investigation for. Then look at the fact that it was eventually expanded into a totally different area. That is why he did not lie under oath. He was not investigated until after I believe.

Also, if telling a lie while under oath does not classify as legally lying under oath, we live on a crazy planet.

Either that or you live there.

Indeed, and for the semantically-conscious people out there, the definition of "is" is up for debate. After all, if "is" means "at this very moment," he was not having sexual relations with that woman on the stand, so he wasn't lying.

Also, if telling a lie while under oath does not classify as legally lying under oath, we live on a crazy planet.

So, if someone were to, say, ask if 'Under God' was in the Pledge and you say 'no' while under oath, you deserve to be imprisoned even if this was a drug trial?

Clinton didn't deserve to get impeached anyway, most of the hysteria was the fault of the neocons making up crap against him like whitewater and his relatives death (it was suicide), and they tried to make him out as some kind of sociopath amoral person. Who cares if they got a blow job, good on him, compared to Dubya neo-fascism he is an angel.

Clinton didn't deserve to get impeached anyway, most of the hysteria was the fault of the neocons making up crap against him like whitewater and his relatives death (it was suicide), and they tried to make him out as some kind of sociopath amoral person. Who cares if they got a blow job, good on him, compared to Dubya neo-fascism he is an angel.

We already have one extremist on one side of this discussion. Let us not make it two.

We already have one extremist on one side of this discussion. Let us not make it two.

No, that is the truth, former assistants accept no that whitewater were made up and perpetuated by neocon think tanks.

http://blog.esaba.com/projects/catphotos/catimages/01332305.jpg

No, that is the truth, former assistants accept no that whitewater were made up and perpetuated by neocon think tanks.

The truth according to whom? I already know you are an Ideologue so why should I actually trust what you are saying?

The truth according to whom? I already know you are an Ideologue so why should I actually trust what you are saying?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brock

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brock

So you do not have a refute for my post. I see. Ok. I did not expect one anyway.

Perjury and the associated crimes for thirty months...maybe a bit light, but otherwise seemingly fair.

This is after Sandy "Burglar" got away after stealing documents from the archives most likely to cover Clinton's ass for the 9-11 commission hearings. And who was also ordered by a court to take a lie detector test, and hasn't done so for 800 days.

This is after Sandy "Burglar" got away after stealing documents from the archives most likely to cover Clinton's ass for the 9-11 commission hearings. And who was also ordered by a court to take a lie detector test, and hasn't done so for 800 days.

Yeah because we all know "but he did worse" is a valid defense for committing a crime and getting punished for it

What does Sandy have to do with this case, his guilt or the punishment?

The anal rapeage will be epic.

Speak of "epic", do you think he'll pen the tastier parts of the experience?
http://www.amazon.com/Apprentice-Novel-Lewis-Libby/dp/0312284535

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=104&contentid=2934

And who was also ordered by a court to take a lie detector test, and hasn't done so for 800 days.
Blame that on the new Bush bureaucrazy! :rolleyes:
Redtaperedtaperedtape

He actually was reminiscing about Lewinsky and Bill, and started masturbating with the documents. Knowing how much the republicans would make a big issue of a "moral" issue :rolleyes: as compared to a serious legal issue, he opted to use them to clean up a little moisture until they were dry. That process, of course, smeared a few documents, which is an issue as evidence goes (as every rightwinger should know by now).

Wow. What the hell are you talking about? What idiot would say it is ok to lie in front of a Grand Jury in the name of free speech?

Apparently, they don't understand the difference 'twixt the two based on a history of legislation and attempted legislation.

Good, good. Which stupid argument should I make an auto-reply for? I can post it here, then sig it.

I have my Evolution rant completely memorized. I should just copy/paste, I know, but well, yeah...

On topic:

Good, good. So the fall guy takes the bullet. Again. Woo. So, if every member accept for the Captain has taken one for the team, then what next? Only the captain is left, if you catch my drift.

Only the captain is left, if you catch my drift.
Drift, eh? :p

Oh yeah. Even, as Colbert so astutely (and BALLS-ily) put it, rearranging deck chairs on the Hindenberg!

Blub.

He didn't even leak the name, they got him on a technicallity charge of obstruction or something. Thing is they never charged he who actually did it which makes me wonder if a real crime was ever committed.

He didn't even leak the name, they got him on a technicallity charge of obstruction or something. Thing is they never charged he who actually did it which makes me wonder if a real crime was ever committed.

And that, of course, is part of the argument being made about him being a scapegoat.
Admittedly, there really IS enough horrible material and intent on part of the U.S. administration that it really is a matter of shuffling atrocities/malfeasance and ever worsening the U.S.' collective ADD.

This is so hypocritical. What happened to the cherished freedom of speech that liberals are always whining about? Or doesn't it apply to Republicans?

Perjury is not covered under freedom of speech. Put down the pipe MTAE/FAG

And that, of course, is part of the argument being made about him being a scapegoat.
Admittedly, there really IS enough horrible material and intent on part of the U.S. administration that it really is a matter of shuffling atrocities/malfeasance and ever worsening the U.S.' collective ADD.

Agreed. Fitzgerald described there being a "black clouding hanging around Cheney" to the federal judges when he pursued this case. It's a shame that more wasn't done to combat that instance but lying under oath is against the law. Clinton lied about something and he was impeached for it, that was his punishment. The impeachment failed because even many Republicans didn't believe that this amount to high crimes and misdemeanors. So blame the Republican reps and Senators for that. I'll also repeat that Clinton's lie had nothing to do with the scope of the original charge. He didn't lie to cover up an illegal act which is what Libby did. He lied to get out of admitting to getting a BJ so his wife would get mad. See the difference FAG? I know you won't but secretly in the cavern meant for a heart you'll realize it.

He didn't even leak the name, they got him on a technicallity charge of obstruction or something. Thing is they never charged he who actually did it which makes me wonder if a real crime was ever committed.

A real crime was committed, lying to a grand jury in an investigation, which is obstruction of justice. If he truly had not done anything, and his rights were not being violated, then he should have been truthful to the grand jury in his testimony. He chose, instead, to lie when he had apparently no reason to protect himself.

A real crime was committed, lying to a grand jury in an investigation, which is obstruction of justice. If he truly had not done anything, and his rights were not being violated, then he should have been truthful to the grand jury in his testimony. He chose, instead, to lie when he had apparently no reason to protect himself.

If he did have reason, he would have been smart enough to plead the 5th Amendment.

I am glad this guy is going up the River.

This is clearly a case for a Presidential pardon. Maybe Bush will use it to smooth over the rift caused by this lousy immigration bill.

This is clearly a case for a Presidential pardon. Maybe Bush will use it to smooth over the rift caused by this lousy immigration bill.

Now you're just BEGGING for argument. :D

Wow! Two and a half years! Almost as much as murderers and rapists! But nowhere near as much as potheads! Wait...Does anyone else see something wrong with this picture?

No.

Now you're just BEGGING for argument. :D
I like this excerpt from the Weekly Standard.

"So much for loyalty, or decency, or courage. For President Bush, loyalty is apparently a one-way street; decency is something he's for as long as he doesn't have to take any risks in its behalf; and courage -- well, that's nowhere to be seen. Many of us used to respect President Bush. Can one respect him still?"

A pardon for Libby would make it a little easier to answer yes to the question.

I like this excerpt from the Weekly Standard.

A pardon for Libby would make it a little easier to answer yes to the question.

I do not believe a pardon is forth coming.

I do not believe a pardon is forth coming.
If that turns out to be the case, we should add disloyal, indecent, and cowardly to the list of adjectives we use to describe GWB.

If that turns out to be the case, we should add disloyal, indecent, and cowardly to the list of adjectives we use to describe GWB.

Why would he be a coward if he does not pardon Libby?

Why would he be a coward if he does not pardon Libby?
Bush demands loyalty from his subordinates. If he doesn't have the moral courage to show the same loyalty to them, then that is certainly cowardly behavior.

Libby committed a process crime. Not the crime that the Grand Jury was convened to investigate. The fellow that committed that crime will never see the inside of a courtroom. If anyone deserved a pardon for a criminal conviction, it's Libby.

Bush demands loyalty from his subordinates. If he doesn't have the moral courage to show the same loyalty to them, then that is certainly cowardly behavior.

Libby committed a process crime. Not the crime that the Grand Jury was convened to investigate. The fellow that committed that crime will never see the inside of a courtroom. If anyone deserved a pardon for a criminal conviction, it's Libby.

Even though he violated the law?

Even though he violated the law?
I think I made that clear. Pardons are an act of forgiveness. Libby may not have been wrongfully convicted, but he was certainly charged and convicted of a crime that was about as far from the mark as was possible.

Bush demands loyalty from his subordinates. If he doesn't have the moral courage to show the same loyalty to them, then that is certainly cowardly behavior.

Libby committed a process crime. Not the crime that the Grand Jury was convened to investigate. The fellow that committed that crime will never see the inside of a courtroom. If anyone deserved a pardon for a criminal conviction, it's Libby.

1. Since when are "process crimes" a seperate category of lesser evils? I love how four felonies (one count of obstruction of justice, one count of making false statements, and two counts of perjury) are somehow insignificant.

2. Of course lying to the Grand Jury and obstruction of justice weren't what the Grand Jury was convened to investigate. You couldn't convene a grand jury to look into someone lying to them until after the lying has taken place.
But make no mistake, Libby's crimes were directly related to the grand jury investigation. He lied about material facts central to the investigation.

3. According the the special prosecutor it is because of Libby's obstruction that no one else was indicted yet. Should we reward Libby for protecting the guilty parties? That is rather Through the Looking Glass.

I think I made that clear. Pardons are an act of forgiveness. Libby may not have been wrongfully convicted, but he was certainly charged and convicted of a crime that was about as far from the mark as was possible.

May not have been wrongfully convicted?

And what do you mean by "as far from the mark as possible?" The man committed four serious serious felonies.

Forgiveness usually requires that one first take responsibility for one's actions. Has Libby fessed up?

So he didn't get done for releasing that agents name? Why not?

He'll be out in 15, anyway.

not quite accurate td...fed sentences are different then state/county sentences.
they dont give you good time reductions,ala paris hilton,they work off a point system on your particular crime.
you get x amounts of points for cooperating,first offence,etc.
you get negative amounts for mitigating factors,and they all fall within preset parameters or sentencing mandatories/minumims.
if your offence calls for a 30 to 60 month sentence,the judge weighs the above mentioned factors to determine your actual sentence(done before you even finish trial)and then sets the time,and then you do that time..period.
my ex boss is going to the fed slammer soon,he has not even gone to trial yet and allready knows his sentence.(allready agreed to with the fed prosecutor)
his best frien is just finishing a 7 year stint in a minumum security fed prison,he got 7 and has done 7,he did get out for a few weekends the past year to "look for employment"

now with me,i got 6 months in county(non federal court)and was taken straight to jail(unlike fed stuff,they let you get your affairs in order...and apparently paris hilton was treated at county differently as well)
i did 1 month in and 1 month out for a total of 2 months on a 6 month sentence.
it was not a violent crime and i guess they need the space.

i wouldnt cry to much for scooter though,he will be going to club fed,not joliet..lol,my friends buddy in the fed pen does not even have a fence,he could walk away if so inclined.he has his own room,unrestricted freedom of movement in the jail until 11pm,conjugal visits,recreation anytime from 7am to 11pm.
hell that beats the shit out of my life in some ways,watch tv all day or play pool,get laid on family day,no work worries,no bills.

note to self..commit a non-violent federal crime and have a good attorny.