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

[Rick <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Mike Miller wrote:
> I understand now what he was getting at.  Of course, the Libby case 
> means that Libby has successfully concealed the truth from us forever 
> and the Clinton case meant nothing then and it still means nothing.

Except that the President of the United States is okay with committing 
perjury.

 >
> > He's useless as a scapegoat, and his charges, counter to what Obama 
> > says in his offical statement, have nothing to do with the revelation 
> > of the covert agents identity.
> >
> > Which leads to my second observation about this whole mess. His 
> > conviction had nothing to do with the revelation of Plames identity. 
> > It only hinged on the fact that he made statements that were factualy 
> > dishonest, period. Nothing to do with an outed identity. Nothing.
>
> He was lying about *when* he told people about Plame.  He was going 
> around scheduling meetings with people to tell them that Wilson's wife 
> was a CIA operative.  He lied about when those meetings occurred.  Why 
> was he telling people about Plame??  What am I getting wrong here?

So? Armitage had already leaked it. Once information is released, 
especially in today's "always connected" world, it might as well be on 
the front page.

> > And another point I have seen out in Internet land hinges on the fact 
> > that Bush said he would not interfear with the apeals process. If you 
> > read his statement, that is still his intent. The only reason he 
> > commuted the prison time was so that Libby could remain free while 
> > seeking his apeal. The judge forced the issue by refusing his request 
> > to stay out of jail while the apeal was in process. It's not an 
> > unusual request. IIRC Martha Stewart and a lot of other high profile 
> > cases that involved small time white collar crime have done this.
>
> Do you mean that Libby may still go to prison if the appeal fails?

I would certainly hope not. Ending his political career, probation, and 
a decent sized fine should be adequate in my eyes.

> > Making sure people are honest in court is a very importiant goal for 
> > prosecuting violations like this. Problem is, were his statements due 
> > to not understanding what was going on or not remembering things 
> > clearly or in the right order. That is the question and it's a lot 
> > less of an issue than what the news people want you to think.
>
> The clever way to lie in court is to say that you don't remember.

But you've already stated that you're ok with this...

Oh wait, it's not the "I don't recall" you're ok with, it's the blatant 
lying based on a potential difference in semantics.

http://mlug.missouri.edu/list-archives/discussion/2006-01/msg00312.php3

Mike Miller wrote:
For her. She had sexual contact with him. Not for him. He did not have 
sexual contact with her.

Is this crazy? Yes, but this is what they did!!

> Mike

Rick
--
Let's have a traditional thanks giving this year...invite the neighbors 
over for dinner..then kill them and take their land!!
----

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