Bush commutes Libby sentence

[Patroklos]

Exactly, which is why Imran's continued quoting about how the sentence is justified because Libby facilitated the actual crime to go unpunished is inane.

The crime has gone unpunished because they have been dicking around with Libby instead of doing their job.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
If you don't base it somewhat on "speculation", then you draw a line that is either too harsh on most perjurers or doesn't provide much negative incentive for those perjuring themselves in, say, mob cases.

I'm not so sure that I want a system of justice that decides how long someone goes to prison based upon "potential" crimes and speculation.

That seems to be a recipe for abuse. I think that Libby's sentence was clearly an abuse as it was never even established that the "potential" crime had ever taken place.

"Justice is Blind" in the saying. Never have I seen it before now that "Justice is clairvoyant".

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Point being they knew prior to any of his testimony and still proceeded to set the perjury trap.

Conspiracy to insite a crime? Surely that is illegal.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Point being they knew prior to any of his testimony and still proceeded to set the perjury trap.

There was no trap... they were trying to find out if there was enough to go after Cheney.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


There was no trap... they were trying to find out if there was enough to go after Cheney.

Poppycock had that been the case Cheney would have been compelled to testify before the grand jury.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Poppycock had that been the case Cheney would have been compelled to testify before the grand jury.

Most likely the WH would have stalled that in some way. Less objection to having Libby come down and Libby would have probably been in a position to know.

Not like Fitzgerald is a liberal democrat anyway.. he was appointed by this administration.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Fitzgerald political alignment means nothing. He was looking to ensure he had a kill.

Point being all this mattered not a whit considering they knew Armitage ran his mouth significantly earlier blowing Plames cover. Anything the VP or Libby said was immaterial to criminal proceedings unless it could be proven they blew Plames supposed covert status earlier.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, that's kind of why they have grand jury proceedings... to find out if some one else blew the cover earlier.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

And anyn line of questioning that were underway were talking about time periods at or around the Wilson Times article significantly after Armitage. So how were they investigating if Libby/Cheney were first leakers.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Libby was facing the grand jury before it was revealed that Armitage was the primary leaker. Fitzgerald repeated has said that Libby's obstruction was a main impediment in finding out what happened with the leak of Plame.

They didn't know the primary leaker when Libby was asked to give his testimony. They found out who it was afterwards.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
They didn't know the primary leaker when Libby was asked to give his testimony. They found out who it was afterwards.

No, he found out fairly early in the inquiry who the leaker was.

Early in the inquiry, Armitage told authorities he was Novak's source. Armitage said Fitzgerald asked him to not to say that publicly. Fitzgerald then pressed on with the investigation, questioning White House aides.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15489180/

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Libby was facing the grand jury before it was revealed that Armitage was the primary leaker. Fitzgerald repeated has said that Libby's obstruction was a main impediment in finding out what happened with the leak of Plame.

They didn't know the primary leaker when Libby was asked to give his testimony. They found out who it was afterwards.

So if someone perjurs themselves in a murder case, but its found out later who committed the murder anyway(and it was not the perjuror, or anyone the perjuror was protecting), does it make sense to punish the perjuror to the same extent as the murderer?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
No, he found out fairly early in the inquiry who the leaker was.

Early in the inquiry, Armitage told authorities he was Novak's source. Armitage said Fitzgerald asked him to not to say that publicly. Fitzgerald then pressed on with the investigation, questioning White House aides.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15489180/

Armitage says he was Novak's source, but was he the only one? Or was he acting as the fall guy? In the same article it appears that Armitage and Novak disagreed about the manner of the leak, Armitage saying it was inadvertent, and Novak saying it was nothing of the sort. The question of whether Armitage was told to tell Novak this information is not discerned from that.

[DinoDoc]

It's quite obvious that he was trying to sugar coat it and minimize his mistake, Imran. And why would a Powell loyalist who wasn't so hot on going to Iraq agree to be the fall guy for a group of people he betrayed and hung out to dry for such a long time?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Of course he was trying to sugar coat it, he didn't want to be charged. But to claim that he wasn't so hot on going to Iraq ignores that he was one of the signers of the PNAC letter to Clinton.