RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [POLITICS] News Alert: Bush CommutesLibby'sPrison Sentence

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Sorry -- I get it now -- my remarks were in quotations.  I'll reply 
interspersed below..

On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Spurling, Shannon wrote:

> > "The reason he mentioned Clinton's perjury charge is because it's the 
> > same charge leveled aginst two people. The cases are different, but 
> > it's the same indictment about not telling the truth in a court of law.
>
> > 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."
>
> He didn't conceal anything. If he did, they couldn't say for sure that 
> he lied!

I don't understand this.

> The reason you could not follow my argument is that you still think he 
> stonewalled the investigation, which he didn't. He could not. That is 
> how they knew his statements were not accurate. The investigation 
> concluded with a complete timeline and accurate statements from every 
> one.

They knew that he lied because his statements were contradicted by several 
other people.  I never used the word "stonewalled."


> > "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?"
>
> Yes, he gave out the wrong dates. His recall of the dates and times were
> bad.

What makes you think it was a recall problem and not lying?  If you ask me 
a question, and I answer it, and it turns out that my statement is 
blatantly false, would you conclude that I had failed to recall correctly? 
His claim that Russert told him about Plame is obviously false and it is 
not possible that he was simply recalling inaccurately.  How could that 
happen?


> If they asked him directly why he told people about Plame, and he 
> refused to answer, they would put him in jail for something other than 
> perjury.

Did they ask him?  I don't know.


> "Do you mean that Libby may still go to prison if the appeal fails?"
>
> No but he will have the mark stricken from his record, and not be 
> charged the fee if he is found not guilty. If he serves, and he is found 
> innocent, how will he be recompensated? He's not a spring chicken. Are 
> they going to give him two years back on his life when he hits his death 
> bed?

How much sympathy are we supposed to have from people working in the upper 
echelons of government with vast power and connections that we can barely 
understand?  Not much in my book.  He'll be fine.  When he dies, he will 
have several million dollars and a beautiful home.

It's hard to imagine a successful appeal.  In fact, it is unimaginable and 
that is why he was being forced to go to jail now.  The appeal is just a 
way of wasting time and pretending he is not guilty.  It helps the 
Republicans, so he does it.

Mike

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