Justice in the Age of Bush
CHEYENNE, Wyo. – A federal judge has sentenced two people involved with selling methamphetamine on the Wind River Indian Reservation to life in prison.
Life in prison for selling drugs.
Scotter Libby got 30 months for treason.
Typical liberal. What Scooter did, he did for the country. Anyhow, the Indians will be better off in prison than on the reservation.
.
.
.
Okay, that was a bit over the top.
Justice in the Age of Clinton:
Scooter and Clinton charged with the same thing, Scooter gets 30 months, Clinton loses his law license.
What did Sandy Berger get again …??
Justice in the Age of Bush indeed.
Hubes’ Possible Reactions to Delawareliberal Posts, pick one.
a) Democrats think Bush knew about 9-11
b) Sandy Berger
c) Wesley College my ass
d) “insert typo here” you “insert insult here”
Ryan – we have a problem. I must have missed where getting a BJ was treasonous. If you think that I have to tell you that it makes me a bit nervous.
I hate to break this to you but I’ve heard BJ’s are not so easy to come by when we leave college – if we are not enjoying them now we might be missing our best chance.
These are supposed to be our BJ salad years. – please reconsider your BJ equals treason philosophy for both of our sakes.
All are valid except #3. (If you want to keep that one going, that’s your problem, not mine!)
Not treasonous when one is more concerned with getting head than capturing/killing bin Laden?
Wow …
Ya’ got to prioritize, Hube.
(I think Hube had sex last night, and he’s a bit touchy ’cause his butt still hurts.)
Is this where someone should bring up that the Judge who doled out the life sentences was nominated by President Clinton in May of 1994 when Congress was run by Democrats, too? http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=50125
Ryan hit the nail on the head.
You mean, “hit is head on a nail.” Trust me it was not pretty.
Ever notice how it’s “OK” for moonbats to make “funny” gay jokes?
The way I see it, Clinton lied to protect his marriage and his pride. Libby lied to obfuscate the wheels of justice and cover for someone outing a CIA employee. Here’s a question, was he protecting Armitage or did he really think that his boss had spilled the beans…
Please tell me what Whitewater has to do with Monica Lewinsky. I can show a clear line from the start of this investigation to the resultant conviction.
So it’s okay to lie under oath in a deposition, if you’re lying for certain things that LG finds acceptable?
Why is Armitage not under arrest? Because there was no underlying crime. Outing Valerie Plame was not a crime, or else Armitage would be under indictment.
Deal with it. Same crime, different time.
You’ll have to ask Janet Reno why she allowed Lewinsky to be brought into the whole Ken Starr investigation, Geek. Look, I thought the whole Clinton impeachment thing was a travesty, but it sure is fun bringing it up when you boneheads predictably chime in with your myopic partisan soliloquies…
Outing Valerie Plame was not a crime,
Yes it was. It was just not the crime they got Libby for.
Al Capone was jailed for tax evasion. That does not mean he was not a killer.
Yes it was. It was just not the crime they got Libby for.
Who’s been arrested for it?
Oh, so nobody’s been arrested so no crime has been committed. Listen to yourself Hube. I thought you were all about logic.
Given:
Plame was covert.
Given:
Her idendity was disclosed to the press by someone in the adminstration.
Given:
Libby lied about his knowledge of the nature of that disclosure.
Therefor:
Your willingness to defend these treasonous crimnals on the gorunds that “this one time a Sandy Berger committed a crime” makes you a Bush loving/America hating moron.
How’s that for some logic?
FSP, are you suggesting that there are not degrees of wrongness within the statute? I am suggesting that these are different levels of crime. In fact, the prosecutor in the Clinton case felt that there wasn’t enough evidence to prosecute. In fact, the Senate did not convict him. So this is not as cut and dry, apples to apples as you seem to be implying.
How about this: Was there malice intended when Clinton lied under oath? Was there malice when Libby lied? I think that Clinton is an easy “No.” We can debate the malice in the Libby case, but the jury already did so.
Hube,
I agree with you that impeachment was misapplied to Clinton, and can appreciate the desire to pour that particular salt to open wounds. And the answer for why Janet Reno didn’t have a backbone is that there were 10,000 angry conservatives just waiting to pounce on her if she stopped it. It was sickening on many levels.
OMG, I just agreed with Hube. MUST…SHOWER…NOW…
“Was there malice intended when Clinton lied under oath?”
To my knowledge, the nature of the intent is not relevant to perjury. You only have to intend to lie, not that it be done with malice.
On a moral level, self-protection or other personal benefit derived from perjury makes it pretty abbhorent. Clinton was not protecting his family. He was protecting his lascivious reckless disregard for any personal much less official honor.
Lying to protect someone else, as Libby did, is perhaps not as morally loathsome (unless protecting a far more loathsome crime). But nonetheless it is just as criminal since the intent is to lie.
Bottom line : Clinton broke the law. He was disbarred for it in his home state but, as President of the United States – Chief Executive of the Laws – he got off scot-free. His prolonged conduct to frustrate the federal judicial process and his specific intent to lie to a federal judge were serious denigrations of our justice system and the rule of law. He was no better than Nixon. The subject matter of the obstructions of justice underlying perjury are irrelevant when you are dealing with someone of such massive public authority as the President.
Libby broke the law. His course of conduct and specific intent were to mislead a federal prosecutor, a federal judge, and a federal grand jury. He obstructed justice. Unlike Clinton, Libby left government, but also unlike Clinton he will be rejoining it – as a ward of the federal prison system. Justice was done. The man deserves no pardon and no quarter.
Let’s not forget Bush and Cheney – the sleazy evasive beneficiaries of Mr. Libby’s crimes. These secrecy-obsessed cretons are even more lawless than Libby or Clinton put together. They lied on a mass scale to cause the United States to enter a war. They are directly, personally, monetarily, and politically connected to its criminal profiteers.
This is treason far beyond anything Libby or Clinton did. They need to be held accountable or the rule of law will further slide to oblivion under the boot stomp of the unconstitutional imperial presidency.
I agree with everything Tyler said except “[Clinton] was protecting his lascivious reckless disregard for any personal much less official honor.”
Name one guy, in the history of mankind, who hasn’t lied about a blow job (either lying about getting one he didn’t or lying about getting one he did). BJs pale in comparison to treason and betrayal of the public and national trust.
Hey; the man got a bj and he lied to his wife about it. Even Republicans do that. To prove my point, ask Hube if he’s ever sucked off Castle. I’ll bet you $100 he’ll deny it.
Even accepting that Plame was covert, the law in question states that a discloure must have an intent to reveal such, AND that the person doing th erevealing had to have had knowledge of such covert status in the first place.
Did Armitage meet that criteria, Jase? Logic dictates “no” since Fitzgerald did not pursue him.
That reasoning, plus a pack of cigarettes, will keep Scooter from getting it in the pooter tonight.
I still say the impeachment of Clinton is stupid, just like the pursuit of Mr. Libby when Fitzgerald already knew Armitage was the one who perpetrated the act.
The business of intent was what likely gave Fitzgerald pause in trying to prosecute anybody for outing Ms. Plame. And let’s remember that she was outed as part of the usual smear campaign tactics of the WH when her husband stood up and told the world that the uranium business was completely bogus.
Tyler, I will defer to you on matters of law, IANAL, UR. That said, Clinton does seem to pale in comparison to Libby’s intent. I am in favor of addressing the BushCo crimes and doling out punishment. However, if it turns out during the investigation, that Bush and Condi were doing some “Undercover Diplomacy” and he lies about it, I don’t care. Don’t prosecute. Don’t impeach for that.
Get the sonofabitch for treason, war-crimes or war-profiteering.
That’s highly illogical. The law works around acts, not motives.
A lie under oath is a lie under oath. No two ways about it.
Intent is indeed a common legal principle. It is often the determining factor in the degrees of a crime. (1st degree v. 3rd degree murder). I would argue that Clinton was guilty of 1st degree while Scooter was guilty of 3rd degree perjury. His intent was to hide potentially treasonous acts while Clinton was hiding the salami.
Keep in mind that I recognize that there is no legal delineation like this, but it is the kind of thinking that I suspect goes into the decision to prosecute.
The law works around acts, not motives.
Right. That’s why if you happen to kill someone, the law takes a “one size fits all” approach. In fact, there is no such thing as “manslaughter” or “1st degree murder” or “second degree murder” those are just liberal myths.
I wish you could hear yourself. The utter bullshit you toss off is astounding.
By ‘the law,’ I meant the law concerning federal perjury. Excuse me for being unclear.
Murder’s a valid point, though.
In case you missed my other post.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15988
Even Novak thinks Libby is innocent since he AND THE PROSECUTOR knew the who did before all this crap started. Witch hunt plain and simple.
“Hubes’ Possible Reactions to Delawareliberal Posts, pick one.
a) Democrats think Bush knew about 9-11
b) Sandy Berger
c) Wesley College my ass
d) “insert typo here” you “insert insult here””
Ok donviti. It is class time again. I know you are slow to grasp things, but that is ok. I will try to be patient.
What you are employing here, in debate terms, is known as a “preemptive strike”. It is done when one doesn’t want to have to address a potentially embarrassing issue with their opponent”. So you “demonize” the argument before it is made. In this case (and several others I have seen) you keep throwing “Sandy Berger” out so that we won’t.
So, consider your strike called. We have a man who admitted to “accidentally” putting a bunch of Clinton’s papers in his socks (which where I always shove important documents when I am in a hurry) and walking out of the National Archives with it. When he is confronted about it he rerturns all the documents he “accidentally” took. Problem is more are missing than he returned. It is safe to say that the ones he “forgot to return” probably don’t just contain precious little doodles that Bill Clinton made in a post-Monica mood. More likely it was damning evidence relating to 9-11 that he wished removed before the commission went a looking.
But again, because it involves a Dem darling, the man will get a pass. Because, any evidence that may have come to light but blow all you guys little conspiracy theory regarding 9/11. You know, that thing that Bush/Cheyney planned that was actually supposed to take place while Clinton was in office.
So consider yourself called out. Please explain to the class your spun version of Mr. Berger.
“I must have missed where getting a BJ was treasonous.”
Then repeat after me. “Loose lips, sink ships.”
Actually, there are two types of crimes. One type requires mens rea, or what is commonly referred to as ‘intent’. The other type does not require intent, i.e., statutory rape. With the latter, the act itself forms the basis for guilt or innocence. That’s why the “Your Honor, she looks 21.” doesn’t work as a defense. Whereas with a crime like murder, not only must the act of killing be proved, but also the intent to kill.
Now with a crime involving outing a secret agent, putting her life and the lives of her family at risk, for petty political gain, intent might have to be proved, unless there is a statute saying that outing a secret agent is a crime without intent.
Is this where someone should bring up that the Judge who doled out the life sentences was nominated by President Clinton in May of 1994 when Congress was run by Democrats, too? http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=50125
*
heh, good one Maria!
Then repeat after me. “Loose lips, sink ships.”
*
Pretty sure Clinton was working Monica’s lips not his own/:-)
Tyler is da bomb!