Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [POLITICS] News Alert: Bush Commutes Libby's Prison Sentence

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Rick wrote:

> 3 years in prison for not being able to recall conversations from 
> previous years? Retarded.

Is that what he was indicted for?


> This was an outright witch hunt. It was known that Libby didn't commit 
> the actual crime, yet the prosecutor kept twisting the screws until they 
> came up with something they could charge him with.

I don't know what "the actual crime means" -- Libby was making 
appointments to meet with people to tell them about Plame's identity.


> Clinton commited perjury, using semantics to keep his butt out of jail. 
> You've defended this behavior:
>
> http://mlug.missouri.edu/list-archives/discussion/2006-01/msg00294.php3

By "semantics" do you mean "the law?"  The law works that way.  It's like 
a computer program -- it does just what you tell it to do, not what you 
wished it would do.


> The jury decided that Libby lied to investigators, although my 
> understanding is that he simply maintained the entire time that he did 
> not recall the specifics he was being quizzed on.

He also made demonstrably false claims about important issues -- the 
timing of his meetings with various people where he told them about 
Plame's identity.  Why was he doing that anyway?


> Which is worse? Clinton's people were stuffing secret documents down 
> their pants, yet I don't recall any demands Sandy Berger be sent to 
> prison.

Demands by whom?  There's this:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22sandy+berger%22+%22should+go+to+prison%22

But your characterization is a little odd: "Clinton's people were stuffing 
secret documents down their pants"!  Think about it.  First, you are 
talking about one person, Sandy Berger, and not people (which is plural). 
Second, you say "Clinton's people" which seems to imply that someone 
working for Clinton did as you claim, but the Clinton presidency ended 2.5 
years before Sandy Berger did what he did (in October 2003).  Finally, 
regarding "stuffing ... down their pants," you probably mean that Berger 
had some notes in his pockets, but not stuffed down his pants.  Mostly he 
was putting documents in his attaché case.  This seems like a good 
introductory source:

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

Anything inaccurate in that?  This is what they say:

   lead prosecutor Noel Hillman, chief of the Justice Department's Public
   Integrity Section, stated that Berger only removed classified copies of
   data stored on hard drives stored in the National Archives, and that no
   original material was destroyed

So Berger was taking home some copies.  Why?  He says it was convenient to 
read them at home and that they didn't need to be so highly classified. 
Was he wrong?  I guess we'll never know because it looks like the content 
of the documents will not be revealed to us.  My guess is that Berger was 
working on a book and he wanted to use the documents while working at home 
so that he could be sure he was remembering things accurately.  I don't 
know that, it's just a guess, but it makes sense.


> > Right.  So what do you think Libby's meetings with his probation 
> > officer are like?  It must be a little different than most of their 
> > cases!
>
> Maybe him and Paris can get adjoining appointments =)

I know what I'd say to her:  "So, have you been keeping the drinking under 
control?"

But for Libby would it be "So, have you been keeping state secrets to 
yourself lately?"

Mike

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion