If you ever wondered why so many people are sickened by American politics, including our own citizens that don't vote...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070703/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_trial

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20070702/i/r3620813723.jpg?


Bush wipes away Libby's prison sentence

By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer
32 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Just when things looked darkest for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, when prison seemed all but certain, President Bush wiped away the former White House aide's 2 1/2-year sentence in the CIA leak case.

Bush's move came Monday, just five hours after a federal appeals panel ruled that Libby could not delay his prison term. His prospects for an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court seemed bleak. The former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, Libby was just waiting for a date to surrender.

After months of sidestepping pardon questions, Bush stepped in. He did not issue a pardon but erased a prison sentence that he felt was just too harsh.

"I respect the jury's verdict," Bush said in a written statement. "But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend 30 months in prison."

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald disputed the president's assertion that the prison term was excessive. Libby was sentenced under the same laws as other criminals, Fitzgerald said. "It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals."

Libby's attorney, Theodore Wells, said in a statement that the Libby family was grateful for Bush's action and continued to believe in his innocence.

Because he was not pardoned, Libby remains the highest-ranking White House official convicted of a crime since the Iran-Contra affair. But he won't have to serve a day in prison, a fact that his friends cheered, even those who wished he'd received a full pardon.

"That's fantastic. It's a great relief," said former Ambassador Richard Carlson, who helped raise millions for Libby's defense fund. "Scooter Libby did not deserve to go to prison and I'm glad the president had the courage to do this."

Though the leak investigation is complete and nobody will have to serve prison time, the scandal that has loomed over the Bush administration for years did not subside. Democrats were enraged.

"Libby's conviction was the one faint glimmer of accountability for White House efforts to manipulate intelligence and silence critics of the Iraq war," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. "Now, even that small bit of justice has been undone."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Bush's decision showed the president "condones criminal conduct."

The president left intact a $250,000 fine and two years probation for his conviction of lying and obstructing justice in a probe into the leak of a CIA operative's identity. The former operative, Valerie Plame, contends the White House was trying to discredit her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a critic of Bush's Iraq policy.

Congress ought to investigate "whether or not the president himself is a participant in the obstruction of justice," Wilson told The Santa Fe New Mexican. Wilson, Plame and their children moved to Santa Fe earlier this year.

"The president has utterly subverted the rule of law and the system of justice that has undergirded this country of ours for the past 220 years," Wilson said Tuesday on NBC's "Today" show.

Bush said his action still "leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby."

The leak case has hung over the White House for years. Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald questioned top administration officials, including Bush and Cheney, about their possible roles. And Libby's trial revealed the extraordinary steps that Bush and Cheney were willing to take to discredit a critic of the Iraq war.

Nobody was ever charged with the leak, including Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage or White House political adviser Karl Rove, who provided the information for the original article. Prosecutors said Libby obstructed the investigation by lying about how he learned about Plame and whom he told.

Already at record lows in the polls, Bush risked a political backlash with his decision. President Ford tumbled in the polls after his 1974 pardon of Richard M. Nixon, and the decision was a factor in Ford's loss in the 1976 election.

Bush's father — former President George H.W. Bush — issued pardons shortly before leaving office in 1992 for former Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger and five other former officials who had served in the Reagan administration. The six were involved in the Iran-Contra affair, in which arms were secretly sold to Iran to win the freedom of American hostages, then the money was funneled to anti-communist guerrillas in Nicaragua despite a congressional ban on military aid.

On Monday, White House officials said Bush knew he could take political heat for commuting Libby's prison sentence and simply did what he thought was right. They would not say what advice Cheney might have given the president.

Bush said Cheney's former aide was not getting off free.

"The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged," Bush said. "His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant and private citizen will be long-lasting."

Attorney William Jeffress said he had spoken to Libby briefly by phone and "I'm happy at least that Scooter will be spared any prison time. The prison sentence was imminent but obviously the conviction itself is a heavy blow to Scooter."

politics? how about abuse of the law? for all the infatuation america had with paris getting locked up, i bet they dont even care half as much about this, which is really a fucking shame. Its the lack of caring by the citizens that makes this shit go smoothly. Not this resulting in a lack of caring. just my 2 cents.

That's a very good point.

Seems every president pardens criminals just because they are friends. The kings and their men are beyond the laws of us paupers.

im surprised Jr. didnt wait till the last second to pardon him, but i guess that would have ment libby serving 18 of the 30 month sentence.

generally speaking, i would think, pardoning a felon would mean that most of bush's itinery for the rest of his presidency would involve sitting on his hands.

but if your bush, why not? its not like shit can go any worse for you. after the immigration debacle, he's pretty much lost every friend that was loseable.

Good move imo. No law was broken till the crazy SP got involved. Bush will prolly pardon him as he is leaving office.

are you serious? i have yet to hear one person defend this one.

no law was broken? lol. a united states court said beyond a reasonable doubt that a law was broken. what makes you say differently?

also, food for thought:

PARDONS AND COMMUTATIONS
George W. Bush (2001 - )
Pardons -- 13
Commutations -- 4

Bill Clinton (1993-2001)
Pardons -- 396
Commutations -- 61

George H.W. Bush (1989-1993)
Pardons -- 74
Commutations: 3

Ronald Reagan (1981-1989)
Pardons -- 393
Commutations -- 13

Jimmy Carter (1977-1981)
Pardons -- 534
Commutations -- 29

Gerald Ford (1974-1977)
Pardons -- 382
Commutations -- 22

Richard Nixon (1969-1974)
Pardons -- 863
Commutations -- 60

Lyndon Johnson (1963-1969)
Pardons -- 960
Commutations -- 226

John F. Kennedy (1961-1963)
Pardons -- 472
Commutations -- 100

Dwight Eisenhower (1953-1961)
Pardons -- 1,110
Commutations -- 47

Harry Truman (1945-1953)
Pardons -- 1,913
Commutations -- 118

but the vast majority of these come at the end of the pres' last term. also, i think if i did more research i would like jr's dad alot more. from what i know about him he seems like he was definitly a country before party type president. i dont think anyone would ever accuse jr of that.

Nice stats, b-d.

Gotta love how the President gets 4-8 years to make a mess of everything and then just cleans it all up on the way out.

It's kind of an odd thought, and the numbers don't necessarily back this up, but it seems like the better your Presidency goes, the more latitude that you should be able to take with the pardons on your way out (nobody's paying attention and they don't suspect foul play).

I'd guess that W won't pardon too many on his way out, you know everyone is going to be watching for it with all the shit that he's pulled over his 8 year term.

Nice stats, b-d.


thanks, i stayed up all night and didnt go to work today researching this. but i think its payed off.

as for your theory about quality of service / # of pardons, its a thought. but i think there is a myriad of reasons for pardons. some are because simply the prez doesnt want them to be punished further, some are political favors, and some are self serving ( i recall clinton pardoning a bro-in-law, i believe).

im personally expecting record #'s from jr. murderers, rapists, child pornographers, satan, ron artest, matt millen. its going to be hell going through the list.

you are living in a closed world if you haven't heard 'anyone' defend this. My liberal friends were crying in their beer over it and others thought it was a good call.

Finish my sentence out...'no law was broken till....keep reading.

The renegade SP knew who leaked the info from the begining. It wasn't Libby. Plame was not undercover and on and on.

But he got caught up after the fact. So its a good move on Bush's part to commute his sentence and hopefully he'll be pardoned on Bush's way out the door.

"i will not replace the judgement of a jury. not unless new facts arise your the trial was unfair".

the one and only, jr. what new facts have arisen or what was unfair?

keep in mind that obstruction of justice actually is a serious offense.

or, a serious offense to the average person. i guess not for someone who rolls w/ this administration. and especially not for a person who's going to take one on the chin for protection of said current administration, and who in all probability would have immidiatly started talking to the "renegade" prosecutor (you mean the republican doing his job?) if he actually had to serve time in jail.

you are living in a closed world if you haven't heard 'anyone' defend this.
Or you are if thats all you've heard. Or maybe its a reflection of party bias pissing on free thinking minds in america yet again. The beauty of invisible cages and handcuffs and falsely advertised idealism that you've made decisions beyond your status quo belief set.


But fuck both parties.

all I know is that if anyone else did this not in the bush camp, they woulda been prosecuted all the same and no pardon would have been provided. In fact they would have been hailed as a traitor to the country in the court of public opinion(which he probably is). If anyone you know disputes that fact, forget closed world, you live in area with no common sense whatsoever. Defend your party all you want, but dont lose reality in the process. Spin that anyway you want, just dont dispute that much.

The author of the law says Plame was not 'covert'

The renegade SP knew that it wasn't Libby who leaked the name.

So hurl whatever bullshit your left wing sites come up with but it is bullshit.

i guess not for someone who rolls w/ this administration. and especially not for a person who's going to take one on the chin for protection of said current administration, and who in all probability would have immidiatly started talking to the "renegade" prosecutor (you mean the republican doing his job?) if he actually had to serve time in jail.

Periods are free homes. Try them. I can't understand half that bullshit.


You don't know me, but make all the dumbass assumptions you want. I have a differing opinion so you start hurling insults. LOL.

Whinny liberal bitches who can't handle opposing points of view.

The author of the law says Plame was not 'covert'

The renegade SP knew that it wasn't Libby who leaked the name.

So hurl whatever bullshit your left wing sites come up with but it is bullshit.
Explain how your info is on middle ground when you segueway everything someone else has read to a "left" this or "left" that. You may have an opposing view to me. But its not a free thinking one. I dont care what party is involved. pardons on convictions is weak special lookouts no one else is getting in this matter. not even OJ with a billion dollar lawyer team is getting out of a conviction. If it were anyone else, they'd do the time or would have to appeal like like everyone else.

I'm saying the person who helped author the law said over and over Plame was not 'covert' She said there are several hurdles before the law would be broken and that didn't happen.

So I'm not saying 'middle' but it does seem to be, at the least' a credible voice in this.

And Libby was NOT the person who leaked the name. Are you disputing that? I mean Russert said he wasn't the leaker either. I'm not asking that in a mean way, but a serious question. Are you disputing that Armitage was the person who leaked the name by mistake? Thats in the report too. And Krohl or the liberal writter was the other.

Libby got shitty legal advice and fucked up during questioning, but he didn't leak the name. He's been disbarred. He's a fellon.

So my opinions are based on fairly irrefutable knowns. Libby didn't leak, She wasn't Covert.

I completely understand that peeps think otherwise, and I'm ok with that, but some of y'all get your panties in a bunch cuz someone thinks otherwise (based on fairly widely known facts).

I'm saying the person who helped author the law said over and over Plame was not 'covert' She said there are several hurdles before the law would be broken and that didn't happen.
Again you're missing the point.


The conviction is an irrefutable fact. The bypassing of it by the president is an irrefutable fact. You're trying to spin selective reasoning into this. But the reality is that all that is for appeals and does not justify anything that just happened. Save your insults and all that sidebar banter for b-diidy. i give less than .0000000001 percent of a shit about that bs.

Libby got shitty legal advice and fucked up during questioning, but he didn't leak the name.

actually, i'd say he got the best legal advice you can get, "dont let this go any higher, and you'll get off scott free, and we'll also throw you a 7 figure exec job at haliburton (speculation)".

call me cynical. but dont forget what this is all about: bush/cheney's malicious retaliation to one man who tried to debunk bush's weak ass pitch for war (think before finishing the job, before being humanitarians, before spreading democracy, before getting rid of an evil dictator, it was wmd's.)

its nice to know someone still supports Jr. though. i thought he lost the least few stragglers with the immigration bill debacle.

"see you at the bill signing".

its nice to know someone still supports Jr. though. i thought he lost the least few stragglers with the immigration bill debacle.

".

Hey man, whatever floats your boat. Go ahead and post it. You are making yourself look stupid, imo.

Again you're missing the point.


The conviction is an irrefutable fact. The bypassing of it by the president is an irrefutable fact. You're trying to spin selective reasoning into this. But the reality is that all that is for appeals and does not justify anything that just happened. Save your insults and all that sidebar banter for b-diidy. i give less than .0000000001 percent of a shit about that bs.

I wasn't replying to you in the other post.

call me cynical. but dont forget what this is all about: bush/cheney's malicious retaliation to one man who tried to debunk bush's weak ass pitch for war (think before finishing the job, before being humanitarians, before spreading democracy, before getting rid of an evil dictator, it was wmd's.)



Well, if Wilson didn't lie in his original article and say he was sent by the VP's office, none of this prolly would have ever happened.

When they asked the VP's office about it, originally they said they didn't know wtf he was talking about. Later they learned he was sent by the CIA and I believe the testimony shows on recomendation of his wife.

Gutz, I'm not saying Libby was innocent but a partial commutation of his sentence is not corruption.

Being a contrarian soul, I'll defend Tahoe on a narrow point:


No law was broken till the crazy SP got involved.
Of course not. The nature of the crimes he was convicted of all start out with the authorities trying to do something and, afterwards, his responses to that. You can't (normally) be found guilty of resisting arrest before the officer attempts to arrest you and you fight back. Regardless of the reasons or lack thereof to arrest, the resisting itself is a crime.

Bush may have inadvertently wiped away Libby's probation. Much in the same way that one can't resist arrest without a cop, or perjure themselves without first being sworn under oath, Libby's flavor of probation ("supervised release") only exist subsequent to an actual term in prison:

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2007/07/judge_questions.html

I'm saying the person who helped author the law said over and over Plame was not 'covert' She said there are several hurdles before the law would be broken and that didn't happen.
Who?

Lots of legislators are involved with authoring the law of the land. But, AFAICT, the principle dude that added the key compromise language that caused the IIPA to pass near-unanimously, was dead by its time of signing:


And finally, I only wish that the late Representative John Ashbrook, who took the lead on the House floor, could be with us here to witness this signing. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act is his legislative monument.

Most of the other key authors of the law in the House and Senate -- Edward Boland, Daniel Moynihan, Barry Goldwater, John Chafee -- died before Plame's name was ever revealed.

The renegade SP knew who leaked the info from the begining. It wasn't Libby. Plame was not undercover and on and on.

But he got caught up after the fact. So its a good move on Bush's part to commute his sentence and hopefully he'll be pardoned on Bush's way out the door.

I have not followed this too closely, because the end has always seemed inevitable. Anyways AFAIK, Bush political appointee James Comey named Bush political appointee and career prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate the Plame leak. Bush political appointee and career prosecutor Fitzgerald filed an indictment and went to trial before Bush political appointee Reggie Walton. A jury convicted Libby, and Bush political appointee Walton sentenced him. At sentencing, Bush political appointee Judge Walton described the evidence against Libby as "overwhelming" and concluded that a 30-month sentence was appropriate. However, now it seems the Libby prosecution was the work of political enemies (i.e. renegade SP) who were just trying to hurt the Bush Administration. I guess bush's appointments just aren't as blindly loyal as they should be. If you want to argue that other presidents have also been corrupt, that is ok (but not really pertinent to the discussion). Arguing that libby was targeted and persecuted in this matter is just silly.

it was those renegade checks and ballances, i think.

but as the old saying goes, dont do the crime if you cant do the time, unless you are rolling w/ a pretty corrupt president. in that case do whatever the hell you want.

MXY Victory Toensing

Xanadu you makes wrong assumptions then make an argument against them, silly really. I never once said political enemies, thats Hillaries line. I said renegade SP and he is. He knew who leaked the name very early on and didn't indict him. He kept going to keep his name in the press, imo.

I don't like renegade prosecutors in small towns, large cities or anywhere else where they railroad peeps.

pdiddy, you are a waste imo. I mean you imply I'd talk under a prosecutor and what are you trying to say about the immigration bill? I don't think you have the balls to say what you are implying there.

I voted for Clinton. I make decisions about issues when I'm interested in them. You are the worst. You walk lock-step with your liberal web sites because you have no brain. You couldn't make a decision on issue if your life depended on it. You really remind me of the peeps who used to fight Clinton on an issue when Clinton was right. But it was Clintons idea so it must be wrong. You are just like them. I'd have pity for ya if you weren't a waste of time.

MXY Victory Toensing

Xanadu you makes wrong assumptions then make an argument against them, silly really. I never once said political enemies, thats Hillaries line. I said renegade SP and he is. He knew who leaked the name very early on and didn't indict him. He kept going to keep his name in the press, imo.

I don't like renegade prosecutors in small towns, large cities or anywhere else where they railroad peeps.

pdiddy, you are a waste imo. I mean you imply I'd talk under a prosecutor and what are you trying to say about the immigration bill? I don't think you have the balls to say what you are implying there.

I voted for Clinton. I make decisions about issues when I'm interested in them. You are the worst. You walk lock-step with your liberal web sites because you have no brain. You couldn't make a decision on issue if your life depended on it. You really remind me of the peeps who used to fight Clinton on an issue when Clinton was right. But it was Clintons idea so it must be wrong. You are just like them. I'd have pity for ya if you weren't a waste of time.

the way i see it, there are two possibilities: 1) seemingly your theory. the big bad prosecutor is rampaging all over the poor little innocent bush administration, and now bush is just returning justice by completely overthrowing the judicial ruling. OR, 2) bush is insulating himself from justice in a quid pro quo (it stops with you, and you'll never face any repurcussions). except in this quid pro quo, bush gets a win-win. nice for him. but someone always loses... just seemingly never bush or his croneys.

i guess its up to whoever to decide, but im pretty certain that the one thing this administration has earned is skepticism.

the immigration bill. i have no idea what im too scared to say. what i was implying is that this was a huge mistake by bush, very few people from his base actually wanted the bill, but a huge # absolutely did not want this bill passed. i dont know, or really care, where you are, but in chicago w/ its high hispanic population, alot of people who would have supported bush through pretty much anything are pissed at him over this. what am i scared to say?

also, i never once said one thing about you, other than being surprised that you still supported bush. all that other stuff you wrote was an incorrect inferrence. but thanks for trying to make this personal.

This isn't about the Bush admin, its about a prosecutor who should have folded up the tent when he found out who leaked the name. Either indict that person or fold. He's a pos prosecutor.

IMO, you made it personal but I'm not going to get into a big pissing contest about that.

This isn't about the Bush admin, its about a prosecutor who should have folded up the tent when he found out who leaked the name. Either indict that person or fold. He's a pos prosecutor.

IMO, you made it personal but I'm not going to get into a big pissing contest about that.

no, obstruction of justice is a serious offense. forget armitage. when libby lied, or whatever, to the special prosecutor, he was committing a felony that should always be punished. guilt of the underlying crime is irrelivent.

further, if bush / cheney suggested to libby that he lie, that would make them accomplices to a felony. and if they didnt instruct him to lie, but knew he was lieing, then they are accessories to a felony. dude wasnt some staple collector, he was in the oval office. did you know that at one point his defense plan was to bring cheney in to court and take off the gloves? then suddenly dude goes 180 and takes it on the chin. you tell me what happened there.

This isn't about the Bush admin, its about a prosecutor who should have folded up the tent when he found out who leaked the name. Either indict that person or fold. He's a pos prosecutor.
Keep in mind that the name of the leaker was known -before- Fitzgerald was involved, so Fitzgerald shouldn't have been there at all. There were lots of people willing to step on a land mine to protect someone higher up the food chain, or just for the notoriety. (Libby's gonna make a fortune on a book deal and the speaking circuit.) The idea was to keep the White House's hands away from it.

Fitzgerald's job was to do an independent investigation, and consequently not just to take what was handed to him on a silver platter. The impression I had was that during his investigation, everyone told him basically the same story (within the limits of Rashomon), except Libby who was badly off the mark for whatever reason, and kept digging himself deeper every time. That's what's prompted his prosecution.

As far as Toensing's involvement as a legislative aide, some quick digging indicates that the vast majority of the language of the bill had been finalized under Jimmy Carter, long before she left Detroit for D.C.. The key sticking points involved intent and "would this law be used to hide criminal agents", not the definition of "covert". Ahh, just found something that's relatively readable besides Reagan's signing statement:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/IB70.cfm

I have a lot more respect for "renegade SP" Fitzgerald than I do for Scooter Libby. Fitzgerald led major investigations against a republican governor and a democratic mayor. Libby's claim to fame is working for wolfowitz and cheney. I suspect fitzgerald had a significant amount of circumstantial evidence about another facet of the leak (other than armitage), but not enough to indict. Given proof that libby was lying through his teeth, this would suggest that there is more to the story than just armitage (unless you think libby was trying to protect armitage). Thus, Fitzgerald wanted to use libby's perjury as leverage to get the whole story. I am sure that many prosecutors (not just the renegade ones) use this tactic. I also find it hard to believe that he was just a victim of bad legal advice considering his background as a high priced defense lawyer. He is almost assuredly hiding something and he obviously has no problem with misleading an active investigation. The fact that the sentence was determined by a bush appointee rather than fitzgerald himself further suggests that libby deserved to be punished. I close with this shady statement by poor victimized scooter.

"You went to jail in the summer. It is fall now. You will have stories to cover – Iraqi elections and suicide bombers, biological threats, bird flu and the Iranian nuclear program. Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning. They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them. Come back to work — and life. Until then, you will remain in my thoughts and prayers.
With admiration, Scooter Libby"

pdiddy...Yea and if monkey's flew out my butt.... I'm not interested in hypotheticals that 'bush and chenney told him to lie' If there is credible evidence to that, they'd have dealing with it. Seriously, that to me is more likely to have happened then Clinton having Brown's plane shot down or that Hillary murdered that one aid, but its in the same category.

MXY I can't find the transcript anymore but Toensing testified along side that bitch Plame at the hearings. There were some good reads at the time. IMO, Waxman (Chairman) shut Teonsing down every time she was about to make a point, but that might be from my perspective. The point is if she was NOT instrumental (which she was) in drafting this law(and the final draft) she wouldn't have been along side Plame in front of congress.

Look, my point is this. I came to my conclusions based on the hearings and what I've read from fairly credible sources. Please come up with your own conclusions, but when someone starts getting prejudice with me, I generally write them off...unless I'm along side of them at a bar or something.

Zanny, believe me, I don't have Scooters pics hanging in my office. I just don't like most prosecutors, or cops for that matter. I'm prejudice, I guess. They all just seem to have an attitude like they were beat up in School or something and have this huge bug up their ass and their nose high in the air.

Yup, a legal system without prosecutors. I'll all for that too.

Yup, a legal system without prosecutors. I'll all for that too.

Just a legal system with prosecutors without a bug up their ass.

pdiddy...Yea and if monkey's flew out my butt.... I'm not interested in hypotheticals that 'bush and chenney told him to lie' If there is credible evidence to that, they'd have dealing with it. Seriously, that to me is more likely to have happened then Clinton having Brown's plane shot down or that Hillary murdered that one aid, but its in the same category.
.

well congradulations, cuz you win. we're almost certain never to find out those facts, because bush just made sure of it (while you applauded).

im not sure this is democracy. infact, i'd say its the opposite of democracy. and its setting some real nasty precedents for future presidents. go ahead and applaud you boy, but hillary is waiting in the wings, and she is pretty damn ruthless herself. when the democrats take over in 09 (your boy jr has pretty damn well guaranteed this one) im much looking forward to seeing how you react to THOSE scandals. because believe me, hillary is just as real politik as jr is. and if she gets in, shady shit will go down.

Just a legal system with prosecutors without a bug up their ass.
I wanted to ask when and where has that ever existed, but that would be assuming I have the faintest idea what you meant by a bug.

well congradulations, cuz you win. we're almost certain never to find out those facts, because bush just made sure of it (while you applauded).

im not sure this is democracy. infact, i'd say its the opposite of democracy. and its setting some real nasty precedents for future presidents. go ahead and applaud you boy, but hillary is waiting in the wings, and she is pretty damn ruthless herself. when the democrats take over in 09 (your boy jr has pretty damn well guaranteed this one) im much looking forward to seeing how you react to THOSE scandals. because believe me, hillary is just as real politik as jr is. and if she gets in, shady shit will go down.

Here you go again making yourself look like a fucking idiot.

And if it wasn't for Monica holding on to her stained dress Clinton would have continued to lie about her and discredit the powerless. So just roll with Clinton got caught and Bush didn't. I could care less, but I never knew you are so prejudice.

well, your good at ad hominum attacks.

any evidence that i've ever defended clinton?

Man you are hilarious. You make all the ad hominems and you get a lil one back and you get your panties all in a bunch.

right... any evidence i've defended clinton?

right... any evidence i've defended clinton?


If you haven't, you are a wus. Cuz he was attacked unjustifiably at times.

MXY I can't find the transcript anymore but Toensing testified along side that bitch Plame at the hearings. There were some good reads at the time. IMO, Waxman (Chairman) shut Teonsing down every time she was about to make a point, but that might be from my perspective. The point is if she was NOT instrumental (which she was) in drafting this law(and the final draft) she wouldn't have been along side Plame in front of congress.
Toensing filed an "amicus curiae", which means "I've got something to say about it, but I'm not directly involved". Any attorney can file those. A lot of such things are total noise -- lobbyists of one stripe or other. Some might be of actual relevance. Based off her filed briefing, she was likely chosen to testify because of stated affiliation with the law and the era when it was written. It's unclear from some statements at the time just how instrumental she really was in that particular bill, but even if she had no direct involvement with the bill, she may have been chosen to testify based off her past job experience.

I see what you're talking about with Waxman. I saw this snippet just now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKvU-SmKBdE

I get where both of them are coming from. Waxman is asking her a pretty reasonable question in the context of past testimony: How would she know that Plame is covert or not? As a long-time private citizen, I wouldn't think that she would know many covert CIA agents and have lists with her of who was covert or not. To whatever extent she had contacts with people who did know covert CIA agents, she shouldn't have been told of such things except in narrow contexts (attorney-client privilege, perhaps). If given certain key facts, she'd be able to testify on their interpretation under the law, but that's about it.

Her response tries to cast his questions in the context of authoring the law, trying to set up a framework where she can repeat her talking points. It's irrelevant and Waxman is being jerky in how he handles it. Does writing a law defining a covert agent all by itself mean you know who's employed as a covert agent? Of course not. You'd need to know things like, oh, their assigments, their level of secrecy, etc. I don't know if any particular cop is working undercover because I wrote a law defining undercover cops and their conduct. I'd have to get data, then apply to the law. She glosses over the whole "get data" part, Waxman gets more ticked off and doesn't follow it up well. His initial question was dead-on the right sort of thing to ask, though.

I'm just going to make a quickie reply as i'm about spent on this thread.

As I understand it and I think you agree, the law could care less if the CIA has an agent as covert. The ID Protection Act doesn't cover everyone that the CIA has deemed 'covert'. Before the ID Protection Act is broken, the person has to be living abroad for x amount of years, etc, etc. Toensing was able to determine she wasn't, in her opinion. iirc, Toensing didn't think Plame met ANY of the 3 requirements. I could be wrong on that, but she was sure about not meeting all 3.

Replying to another point you made... iirc, Toensing was given some security clearance by congress so she could review and testify in a knowledgable way before Congress. So once Plames ID was out there from Armitage and the shit hit the fan on this I'm thinking a lot of this stuff was public knowledge anyway.

My puter or my server is fucking up tonight so these have to be quick but after reading your post again, it looks like we disagree on what info VT had prior to her testimony. Like I said, I could be wrong on that but I thought she got something from Congress but maybe it was from testimony that was in the public.

I stole this from another board but its so friggin ridiculous(if true) it had to be posted.



one of bush's people said he thought the commutation was appropriate because "prison is a place for people we're scared of, not people we're mad at".



Bunch of crazy fucks up there.

My puter or my server is fucking up tonight so these have to be quick but after reading your post again, it looks like we disagree on what info VT had prior to her testimony. Like I said, I could be wrong on that but I thought she got something from Congress but maybe it was from testimony that was in the public.
She stated that it was testimony from the hearing at the end, and didn't say anything about giving special powers to review information or anything like that. For her to obtain more data to review that she didn't have already as a function of her current activities, she would've needed to be a witness for the prosecution or defense and part of the case, not just filed an amicus brief.

Here's the relevant section of the law she claims to have written defining covert officer (though a reading of the Carter-era summaries of legislation drafted before she was ever in the White House suggests otherwise):


(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—

(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or
(There's a "B" and "C" for informants and non-citizens, which doesn't apply.)

So, Toensing would need to know Plame's employment status, identity status, classification status, and the recent assignment history at the time of Plame being disclosed to evaluate her status relative to the above law. She could make qualified statements, but they'd have to be qualified -- "if x and y, then z". The full video provides a lot more context -- the 3 minute snippet from Youtube that made the rounds doesn't make a lot of sense without context:

http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1245

Ultimately, none of this really matters regarding Libby's guilt.

Impeachment and Libby Commutation Polling
American Research Group, July 6





"Do you approve or disapprove of President George W. Bush commuting the 30-month prison sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby while leaving intact Mr. Libby's conviction for perjury and obstruction of justice in the CIA leak case?"

All Adults

Approve: 31%
Disapprove: 64

Voters

Approve: 26%
Disapprove: 69%

"Do you favor or oppose a complete presidential pardon for Mr. Libby"

All Adults

Favor: 11%
Oppose: 84%

Voters

Favor: 9%
Oppose: 84%


"Do you favor or oppose the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush?"

All Adults

Favor: 45%
Oppose: 46%

Voters

Favor: 46%
Oppose: 44%


"Do you favor or oppose the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney?"

All Adults

Favor: 54%
Oppose: 40%

Voters

Favor: 50%
Oppose: 44%


Margin of error +/- 3%

http://americanresearchgroup.com/

Nice.

But it's too late to start all of the impeachment bullshit, the American people fucked up when (enough of them, allegedly) voted for this assclown.

Hopefully this is a lesson learned, but I doubt it.

I think the numbers would be the same for most pardons. Peeps generally don't like someone that a jury found guilty to get off.

And second, kind of like Glenn is saying, the public is just sometimes wrong.

And then we have to take in to account the liberal media reporting of this story too. lol

Nice.

But it's too late to start all of the impeachment bullshit, the American people fucked up when (enough of them, allegedly) voted for this assclown.

Hopefully this is a lesson learned, but I doubt it.

i dont think its ever too late to impeach. even if its purely on a symbolic level. checks and balances are the crux of our democracy, and its important that the other two branches reign in the third should it ever tip the balances.

i dont like how much power bush has tried to grab for the executive branch. i was frustrated that the republicans let the legislature be a rubber stamp for the executive, and i damn well expected the democrats to stand up to bush. i understand why we passed the warfunding bill last go round, but i think this is it.

there must be accountability.

The American public had the best shot at accountability after his first four years.

The election will be here before impeachment could even be accomplished, IMO.

^^^That's a tough call, Glenn. The Republicans marketed fear, and that election marked the time when American's agreed with the Repubs on one important point: We're a bunch of fucking self pitying pussies. It's tough to argue that we shouldn't have re elected Bush due to that. The war, terrorrrorrrororoism, evildoooeoeoeroers, and in 2002 we gave the lying fucker control of the Senate AND the house. (Not me, btw).
American citizens bought the repub scare tactics, they might buy it again and elect Rudy G.
We've gone from being John Wayne to being Will and Grace.

On what grounds would you possible impeach bush on???

here's the dealio on ye ol' impeachment process.

it starts in the house, from the house judiciary committee. if they want to, the write an article of impeachment that states the offense he is being impeached for. they can do one of these, or infinite.

the house votes. a simple majority in favor of conviction for any one of these articles means impeachment is on and it moves to the senate (note: the house is much more partisan than the senate, so right now the dems have the numbers and maybe the will to impeach just cuz they dont like bush--though im sure they could come up with one or 600 valid reasons for impeachment).

once to the senate, there is a trial, prosided over by the chief justice of the supreme court (i believe). after the trial, the senate votes on a verdict. 2/3 vote is needed for a conviction.

------------------------------------------

a little clear up on what is an impeachable offense:




Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution says, "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." In his report, Independent Counsel, Starr accuses President Clinton of committing eleven acts for which he could be removed from office by impeachment. Are any of those acts "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors?" Well, that's up to the members of the House of Representatives. According to Constitutional Lawyers, "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" are (1) real criminality -- breaking a law; (2) abuses of power; (3) "violation of public trust" as defined by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. In 1970, then Representative Gerald R. Ford defined impeachable offenses as "whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." An excellent definition, Mr. Former President. In the past, Congress has issued Articles of Impeachment for acts in three general categories:

# Exceeding the constitutional bounds of the powers of the office.

# Behavior grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office.

# Employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.

i like gerald ford's definition, and i think a case against bush could be made for any three of the #'s.

im wondering exactly how much talk of impeachment has actually gone on in washington. note: i thoroughly doubt the senate would convict unless a few bombshells came out, but i dont think its farfetched that it could go through the house. look at those polls i posted, if you actually go to the link you'll see that most democrats and most indipendents would approve of impeachment. its not as far away as you might think.

The time to do it was when the balance of power shifted, they talked about it some (Conyers was at the forefront) but decided that the public had already issued a de facto impeachment with their votes.

I think what Cruscot is asking is on what grounds, not under what authority. What'd he do? You know, Him and Chenney brought the Towers down.

Pelosi and Reid are such ass bags that the American people would prolly want them put in white coats first. Congress' approvals are worse now then under the Republicans during some weeks. And I think Reids and Pelosis approvals are worse than Bushs. At least Pelosis positions have been consistently stupid, Reid went to the luney left so he could get into a position of power.

Because there is some poll that shows the majority feels X doesn't mean the Gov't should do it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070709/ap_on_go_pr_wh/congress_bush


WASHINGTON - President Bush directed former aides to defy congressional subpoenas on Monday, claiming executive privilege and prodding lawmakers closer to their first contempt citations against administration officials since Ronald Reagan was president.

It was the second time in as many weeks that Bush had cited executive privilege in resisting Congress' investigation into the firings of U.S. attorneys.

White House Counsel Fred Fielding insisted that Bush was acting in good faith in withholding documents and directing the two aides — Fielding's predecessor, Harriet Miers, and Bush's former political director, Sara Taylor — to defy subpoenas ordering them to explain their roles in the firings over the winter.

In the standoff between branches of government, Fielding renewed the White House offer to let Miers, Taylor and other administration officials meet with congressional investigators off the record and with no transcript. He declined to explain anew the legal underpinnings of the privilege claim as the chairmen of the House and Senate judiciary committees had directed.

"You may be assured that the president's assertion here comports with prior practices in similar contexts, and that it has been appropriately documented," Fielding wrote.

Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House panel, left little doubt where the showdown was headed.

"Contrary to what the White House may believe, it is the Congress and the courts that will decide whether an invocation of executive privilege is valid, not the White House unilaterally," the Michigan Democrat said.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said the posturing was a waste of time and money and a distraction from the questions at hand: Who ordered the firings, why, and whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should continue to serve or be fired.

Specter, a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the Democrats' threat of taking the standoff to court on a contempt citation was spurious because the prosecutor who would consider it is a Bush appointee.

"On a case like this, does anyone believe the U.S. attorney is going to bring a criminal contempt citation against anyone?" Specter said in a telephone interview. "The U.S. attorney works for the president and it's a discretionary matter what the U.S. attorney does."

Historically, such standoffs over executive privilege are resolved before the full House or Senate votes on referring a congressional contempt citation to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. But rather than cooling off over the July 4th holiday, Bush and Democrats returned from the weeklong break closer to a legal confrontation.

The last contempt finding Congress sought to prosecute was against former Environmental Protection Agency official Rita Lavelle in 1983. The Democratic-led House voted 413-0 to cite her for contempt for refusing to appear before a House committee. She was later acquitted in court of the contempt charge but was convicted of perjury in a separate trial.

Just before Congress left town, Bush invoked executive privilege on subpoenas lawmakers filed for any documents Taylor and Miers received or generated about the firings. On Monday, Bush again invoked privilege on the women's scheduled testimony for this week. Through their attorneys, Bush instructed the pair not to testify on the firings.

Lawmakers said they had plenty of questions to ask the women outside the privilege claim.

Both officials were included on e-mails about the firings released earlier this year by the Justice Department, and Miers at one point suggested the firings of all 93 federal prosecutors. Taylor also could have sent e-mails on a Republican National Committee account outside the White House, according to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, who insisted those communications were not covered by executive privilege.

The dispute squeezes Miers and Taylor between the president's instructions and the possibility of being held in contempt of Congress. Their lawyers did not respond to requests for comment, but Leahy said he expects Taylor to appear before his panel Wednesday, as scheduled. It was unclear if Miers would appear before Conyers' committee the next day.

Fielding invoked executive privilege in dismissing a Monday morning deadline set by Conyers and Leahy for the White House to explain and list which documents it was withholding from their committees.

"We are aware of no authority by which a congressional committee may `direct' the executive to undertake the task of creating and providing an extensive description of every document covered by an assertion of executive privilege," he wrote.

Bush's counsel, a veteran of executive privilege disputes, cloaked his tough rejoinder to the Democratic committee chairmen in gentlemanly language. But his message was unequivocal: The White House won't back down.

He argued that the committees' "open-ended" investigation into the firings had no constitutional basis, in large part because the president has the right to hire and fire his own political appointees.

Fielding cast the impasse as a natural constitutional tension between branches of government and complained that Leahy, D-Vt., and Conyers had accused the White House of acting in something other than good faith. He called for "a presumption of goodwill on all sides."

Democrats didn't bite.

"The president seems to think that executive privilege is a magic mantra that can hide anything, including wrongdoing," said New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, chairman of the Senate Democrats' 2008 election campaign operation.



no chance the white house is properly applying the executive privelege. theyre just running down the clock. 2009 cant come quick enough for bush.

For me that is where Ex Pr should be used, but thats me. Clinton tried to use Ex Pr, what seemed like, every other day AND for peeps way outside of his inner circle.

-----------

I heard somthing for the Bush is the devil crowd. Something like, if he would have completely pardoned Libby, then Libby would have had to testify and could NOT have used the 5th. Since he is still a felon, he can use it before congress. It seems to me it would be the other way around, but thats what that report said.

So that might be an answer for some of you as to why he commuted instead of Paronding.

Clinton did -not- do a lot of Executive Privilege, really. Reagan successfully invoked full Executive Privilege three times, and Clinton five (mostly Whitewater issues and derivatives, IIRC) over the course of two terms. Clinton's most celebrated use of Executive Privilege that was famously and ultimately denied involved communications with his wife, who is certainly within his inner circle.

FWIW, I was always amused by the logic for the denial of Executive Privilege in Clinton's case. It's "ok" for Congress to spend big bucks to dredge up your past before you were President, simply because you're currently President. But it's not ok to defend your past with White House $, simply because you're currently President. Therefore, it's not ok to use the Executive Privilege either.

Much different recollection on my part and from what I read. I think it was 14 and he tried to have it for a guy somewhere in Iowa. Not even close to him. Thats my post but for you to take it seriously, I need to provide a link. I'm ok with that, but not going to do it right now. If I find I'm wrong, I'll post that too.

Found this on a quick search...


1993 - to block an inspection of Vince Foster's files after his suicide
1994 - to block turning over documents from its ethics review regarding Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy
1995 - to block lawyer's notes from conversations with Hillary Clinton
1996 - to block turning over documents relating to arms shipments from Iran to Bosnia
1996 - to block turning over a memo by FBI Director Louis Freeh criticizing the drug policy
1996 - to block turning over documents subpoenaed concerning Haiti police violence
1996 - to block turning over Travel Office documents
1997 - to block turning over campaign finance related records
1997 - to block testimony of Bruce Lindsey concerning James Riady - campaign finance
1997 - to block turning over documents pertaining to cancellation of an Indian casino
1998 - to block testimony of Paul Begala
1998 - to block grand jury testimony of Bruce Lindsey and Sidney Blumenthal - Lewinsky
1998 - to block grand jury testimony of Bruce Lindsey ("attorney client") - Lewinsky
1998 - to block Secret Service testimony - Lewinsky (new privilege, "protective function") - Lewinksy
1998 - to block answers to 2 questions Hillary Clinton ("spousal privilege") - Whitewater
RDMHQ Funding Document
Secret 3rd privilege claim.

I think they're cherrypicking each document as a separate instance of attempted Executive Privilege. Most of those 1998 ones were effectively one action, defended as one action, and weren't allowed.

Goddamm conservatives. Still after Clinton after all these years, and you got your own mess that is about the most fucked up pile of shit shince, well, Iran Contra!

I think they're cherrypicking each document as a separate instance of attempted Executive Privilege. Most of those 1998 ones were effectively one action, defended as one action, and weren't allowed.

I couldn't say for certain. I thought he was kind of known for using the EP quite a bit for a while there. But he did have a bunch of peeps up his ass half the time too.

United Press International 6/19/99 "...White House spokesman Joe Lockhart (Thursday) defended President Clinton's refusal to give Congress internal documents relating to his decision to pardon 16 members of a Puerto Rican nationalist group. Lockhart said Congress has no right to interfere in a presidential pardon and questioned the motives of House Government Reform Committee Chairman Dan Burton, R-Ind.

I couldn't say for certain. I thought he was kind of known for using the EP quite a bit for a while there. But he did have a bunch of peeps up his ass half the time too.
There's threats of Executive Privilege versus its actual use. The Reagan era had lots of threatening to use of Executive Privilege. It's like the veto. Bush hasn't vetoed many things, but if they know he'll veto and they lack a supermajority, then getting him to use the veto is an exercise in sticking it to him.

I forgot that there was Executive Privilege invoked with that Puerto Rico fiasco, though. The bigger issue was giving clemency in mid-term to those FALN dudes who didn't really want it, which was stupid on so many levels. Causing Clinton to invoke Executive Privilege was rubbing salt into a self-inflicted wound.

Well, Tahoe is the first I've heard saying that the commutation was a good idea, and I'm a freaking news fanatic. Other than the President, that is.

In fact it seems that opinion is divided between "he shouldn't have done it" and "well what the hell did you think he was going to do?"

Saying 'good move' is prolly wrong, but certainly acceptable when he didn't commit the crime that the sp was investigating.

Not even close to be outside the ball park when comparing to pardons/commutations.

edit...and politically, BFD. He didn't lose any votes by it(the peeps who didn't like it don't support him) and prolly stabilized his base.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/11/washington/11surgeon.html?_r=3&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1184166435-9Z4fC+8DE9cIUGAFcAHrXg



Surgeon General Sees 4-Year Term as Compromised

WASHINGTON, July 10 — Former Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona told a Congressional panel Tuesday that top Bush administration officials repeatedly tried to weaken or suppress important public health reports because of political considerations.

Skip to next paragraph
Related
Text: Dr. Richard Carmona’s Prepared Testimony (pdf)
Times Topics: Richard H. Carmona

Richard H. Carmona
The administration, Dr. Carmona said, would not allow him to speak or issue reports about stem cells, emergency contraception, sex education, or prison, mental and global health issues. Top officials delayed for years and tried to “water down” a landmark report on secondhand smoke, he said. Released last year, the report concluded that even brief exposure to cigarette smoke could cause immediate harm.

Dr. Carmona said he was ordered to mention President Bush three times on every page of his speeches. He also said he was asked to make speeches to support Republican political candidates and to attend political briefings.

And administration officials even discouraged him from attending the Special Olympics because, he said, of that charitable organization’s longtime ties to a “prominent family” that he refused to name.

“I was specifically told by a senior person, ‘Why would you want to help those people?’ ” Dr. Carmona said.

The Special Olympics is one of the nation’s premier charitable organizations to benefit disabled people, and the Kennedys have long been deeply involved in it.

When asked after the hearing if that “prominent family” was the Kennedys, Dr. Carmona responded, “You said it. I didn’t.”

In response to lawmakers’ questions, Dr. Carmona refused to name specific people in the administration who had instructed him to put political considerations over scientific ones. He said, however, that they included assistant secretaries of health and human services as well as top political appointees outside the department of health.

Dr. Carmona did offer to provide the names to the committee in a private meeting.

Bill Hall, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, said that the administration disagreed with Dr. Carmona’s statements. “It has always been this administration’s position that public health policy should be rooted in sound science,” Mr. Hall said.

Emily Lawrimore, a White House spokeswoman, said the surgeon general “is the leading voice for the health of all Americans.”

“It’s disappointing to us,” Ms. Lawrimore said, “if he failed to use this position to the fullest extent in advocating for policies he thought were in the best interests of the nation.”

Dr. Carmona is one of a growing list of present and former administration officials to charge that politics often trumped science within what had previously been largely nonpartisan government health and scientific agencies.

Dr. Carmona, 57, served as surgeon general for one four-year term, from 2002 to 2006, but was not asked to serve a second. Before being nominated, he was in the Army Special Forces, earned two purple hearts in the Vietnam War and was a trauma surgeon and leader of the Pima County, Ariz., SWAT team. He received a bachelor’s degree, in biology and chemistry, in 1976 and his M.D. in 1979, both from the University of California, San Francisco. He is now vice chairman of Canyon Ranch, a resort and residential development company.

His testimony comes two days before the Senate confirmation hearings of his designated successor, Dr. James W. Holsinger Jr. Two members of the Senate health committee have already declared their opposition to Dr. Holsinger’s nomination because of a 1991 report he wrote that concluded that homosexual sex was unnatural and unhealthy. Dr. Carmona’s testimony may further complicate Dr. Holsinger’s nomination.

In his testimony, Dr. Carmona said that at first he was so politically naïve that he had little idea how inappropriate the administration’s actions were. He eventually consulted six previous surgeons general, Republican and Democratic, and all agreed, he said, that he faced more political interference than they had.

On issue after issue, Dr. Carmona said, the administration made decisions about important public health issues based solely on political considerations, not scientific ones.

“I was told to stay away from those because we’ve already decided which way we want to go,” Dr. Carmona said.

He described attending a meeting of top officials in which the subject of global warming was discussed. The officials concluded that global warming was a liberal cause and dismissed it, he said.

“And I said to myself, ‘I realize why I’ve been invited. They want me to discuss the science because they obviously don’t understand the science,’ ” he said. “I was never invited back.”

Dr. Carmona testified under oath at a hearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee headed by Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California. The topic was strengthening the office of the surgeon general. Dr. C. Everett Koop, surgeon general in the Reagan administration, and Dr. David Satcher, surgeon general during the Clinton administration and the first year of the administration of George W. Bush, also testified.

Each complained about political interference and the declining status of the office. Dr. Satcher said that the Clinton administration discouraged him from issuing a report showing that needle-exchange programs were effective in reducing disease. He released the report anyway.

Dr. Koop, said he had been discouraged by top officials in the Reagan administration from discussing the AIDS crisis. He did so anyway.

All three men urged major changes in the way the surgeon general is chosen and the way the office is financed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/11/washington/11surgeon.html?pagewanted=2&_r=3&hp&adxnnl=0&adxnnlx=1184166435-9Z4fC+8DE9cIUGAFcAHrXg


dont think this is impeach-worthy. just crappy.

Saying 'good move' is prolly wrong, but certainly acceptable when he didn't commit the crime that the sp was investigating.

Not even close to be outside the ball park when comparing to pardons/commutations.

edit...and politically, BFD. He didn't lose any votes by it(the peeps who didn't like it don't support him) and prolly stabilized his base.

im not sure if bush cares about his legacy. im guessing no. but this is going to be one of the bigger marks against bush in the history books.

im not sure if bush cares about his legacy. im guessing no. but this is going to be one of the bigger marks against bush in the history books.

I hope its his worst mark, cuz that will mean the Iraq war won't turn out so bad.

The war is a fucking mess and mainly cuz of mismanagement, imo.

edit ... looking forward to hear Patreus here shortly.

Ex-Bush Aide Denies She Spoke to Bush About Attorney Firings

By Dan Eggen and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, July 11, 2007; 4:02 PM

A former senior White House aide told the Senate Judiciary Committee today that she never spoke or met with President Bush about plans to fire a group of U.S. attorneys last year.

Sara M. Taylor, who left her job as the White House political director two months ago, also testified that she had no knowledge that Bush was involved in the dismissals at all.


Special Report
View continuing Washington Post coverage of the 2006 firings of eight U.S. attorneys.

Full Coverage
Documents Released by DOJ and Congress


Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.
Salon - The Blog Report - Home
Salon - The Blog Report - Home
Its my Right to be Left of the Center


Full List of Blogs (35 links) »


Most Blogged About Articles
On washingtonpost.com | On the web


Save & Share Article What's This?

DiggGoogle
del.icio.usYahoo!
RedditFacebook




"I did not speak to the president about removing U.S. attorneys," Taylor said. "I did not attend any meetings with the president where that matter was discussed."

The remarks came during several hours of reluctant testimony from Taylor, who sought to respond to a subpoena from the Senate panel while also abiding by a request from Bush not to provide details about the firings. Bush and his aides assert that such internal deliberations are protected by an executive privilege, and thus do not have to be divulged to Congress.

But congressional Democrats say the administration's privilege claim is substantially weakened by remarks from Taylor and others that Bush was not significantly involved in deliberations about the firings.

"Your answer that you did not discuss these matters with the president and, to the best of your knowledge, he was not involved is going to make some nervous at the White House," said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee. "It seriously undercuts his claim of executive privilege if he was not involved."

Nine U.S. attorneys were fired last year, including seven on one day in December, as part of a long-running effort by the Justice Department and White House to identify prosecutors for removal based in part on their perceived lack of loyalty to the Bush administration. The firings and other questionable personnel practices at Justice have led to widespread calls for the resignation of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, who has refused to leave and is strongly supported by Bush, his longtime boss and friend.

In her testimony today, Taylor sought to tread carefully around the White House request, refusing to answer many questions while still providing some new details about events surrounding the U.S. attorney firings.

"In light of the president's direction, I will answer faithfully those questions that are appropriate for a private citizen to answer while also doing my best to respect the president's directive that his staff's communications be privileged," Taylor said.

At first, Taylor refused to answer questions about whether she had communicated with Bush about the firings. But later in the morning, she relented and allowed that she had not discussed the issue with him and was not sure whether he was involved in any such discussions.

"I don't have any knowledge that he was," Taylor said.

Taylor is eager to avoid sanctions but unwilling to defy the president she served. By appearing at the hearing and agreeing to answer at least some questions, she and her attorney hope that the Senate will focus any enforcement action on the White House rather than on her.

For Taylor, the legal dilemma is an unexpected coda to an eight-year run working for Bush, which vaulted Taylor to the highest circles of power before she was 30.

When she cleared out her White House desk in late May, Taylor, now 32, hoped to take a six-week break before pursuing a corporate career and private political work. But, instead, she finds herself at the center of an investigation into the U.S. attorney firings, after the release of e-mails in which she denounced aides to Gonzales for fumbling the response to the disputed firings and asserted that one prosecutor was sacked for being "lazy."

Democrats want Taylor to testify about the role of her immediate boss at the White House, Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, in the firings. Former Gonzales chief of staff D. Kyle Sampson testified in March that he believed the dismissal of U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins of Little Rock was important to Rove because the intended replacement, former Rove aide Tim Griffin, was important to Taylor.

Taylor did give some insight into that, saying it was her understanding Cummins had planned to leave the office on his own and that Griffin was picked as a competent replacement who was well-known in Arkansas and known for his work in the White House.

Asked if Rove or Miers intervened to ensure Cummins was replaced by Griffin, Taylor at first said she could not answer, then offered, "I don't specifically know . . . I don't know . . . if one or both or either did."

She also apologized for the e-mail in which she referred to Cummins as "lazy," saying it was something she "had heard. . . . It may not be fair. . . . I said it and I apologize for it."

Like many Washingtonians caught up in scandal, Taylor sought out the best legal help regardless of partisan leanings. Her attorney, W. Neil Eggleston, a Democrat, is very familiar with White House staffers being forced to testify on Capitol Hill, having appeared before House and Senate committees to talk about internal deliberations as a deputy counsel in the Clinton White House. He also represented the Clinton White House in executive-privilege battles with special prosecutors.

But Democrats might use his words against his client. "The assertion of privilege by the White House in the face of allegations of misconduct by high-ranking White House staffers is just not going to be politically tenable," Eggleston told the Legal Times in 2003 after a criminal investigation was launched into the leak of a CIA officer's name.

In his letter to the committee on the eve of Taylor's testimony, Eggleston portrayed his client as a sympathetic character caught up in a larger political and constitutional struggle between a president and Congress.

"Having worked most of her adult life for President Bush, she is unquestionably loyal to the president," he wrote. "If there is to be a clash, we urge the Senate to direct its sanction against the White House, not against a former staffer."



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/11/AR2007071100249.html?hpid=topnews

the good news for ms. taylor is there is nothing the judicial system can do to her that bush wont undo.

Another fuck up by the Bush admin is their handling of the firings. Since they are appointees, they can fired, period. The Bush admin went secretive and got their collective tit caught in another investigation.

I didn't like it when the Clintons fired peeps, I didn't like when Bush fired peeps, but it's their right to do it.

For me, republican or democratic controlled congress, I don't want them spending time trying to trip someone up and have them committ purjury on an issue like the firing of political appointess.

Another fuck up by the Bush admin is their handling of the firings. Since they are appointees, they can fired, period.
It's not that simple because their job function involves criminal investigations. If the reason for their dismissal is to obstruct criminal investigations, that's against the law (specifically the laws prohibiting obstruction of justice). That's the big reason why such appointees are rarely replaced once they are initially appointed (except at term boundaries, a logical handoff point) Thus far, no one's gotten a straight answer as to why the attorneys were dismissed, and a lot of smoking guns suggesting something more sinister than political whim, so there's probes. If they can't force an impeachment vote with what they have on Gonzales, they are just being fucking idiots. Obstruction of justice laws apply similarly to "at will" employees.

Government report: Al Qaeda strongest since September 11, 2001

-- Al Qaeda is the strongest it has been since the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a new U.S. government analysis concludes, according to a senior government official who has seen it.


A Pakistani soldier mans a bunker near the Afghan border in a tribal area of Pakistan.

Despite a campaign of military action and counterterrorism operations, al Qaeda has regained its strength and found safe haven in the tribal areas of Pakistan, the report says, according to counterterrorism officials familiar with the report.

The five-page intelligence analysis remains classified and was prepared for senior U.S. policymakers. It was not issued in response to a specific threat.

Two intelligence officials said the report's finding are similar to what is expected to be in the National Intelligence Estimate anticipated to be released later this summer. The NIE is the intelligence community's collective analysis of pressing national security issues.

The White House's view is that "over the past six years, we have prevented attacks from al Qaeda by taking the fight to them," a senior administration official said. "But they are an enemy that adapts."

This new report backs up warnings by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and other officials that al Qaeda remains a serious threat and that the United States is vulnerable despite the numerous security changes made since September 11, 2001. Watch Chertoff explain his "gut feeling" »

Chertoff said Wednesday, however, that there is no "specific, credible information" that terrorist attacks on the United States are imminent.

In a House Armed Services Committee hearing Wednesday, several senior intelligence officials talked about how the terrorist group has found refuge in parts of Pakistan.

"We actually see the al Qaeda central being resurgent in their role in planning operations," John Kringen, head of the CIA's intelligence directorate, testified at the hearing Wednesday. "They seem to be fairly well settled into the safe haven in the ungoverned spaces of Pakistan there. We see more training. We see more money. We see more communications."

Don't Miss
Times: Secret '05 mission to get al Qaeda aborted
Former 9/11 panel member says U.S. still not secure
20 dead, 20 arrested in raids on al Qaeda hub
Thomas Fingar, deputy director of national intelligence, told lawmakers that al Qaeda leaders hiding in Pakistan are able to maintain relationships "with affiliates throughout the Middle East, North and East Africa and Europe."

In a statement, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said it was no surprise al Qaeda has been able to reorganize and rebuild "given President Bush's stubborn dedication to keeping our overextended military mired in an Iraqi civil war."

"It is a travesty that Osama bin Laden remains at large nearly six years after the 9/11 attacks and appears to have found new sanctuary to operate freely in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border regions," Reid said. "The Bush administration and most congressional Republicans would rather stubbornly stick with a flawed strategy and fight a war that senior military leaders say cannot be won militarily, than adapt to fighting the enemy who attacked us six years ago."


In recent weeks, counterterrorism authorities have expressed concern about the possibility of another attack on U.S. soil, saying several factors, such as the thwarted terror plots in Britain, have them on edge.

The FBI has created a small group of agents and analysts to examine new threats and leads over the summer, a bureau official told CNN. The group, which was created several weeks ago, is supplementing what agents and others are also doing in field offices across the country and is an example of how the government is trying to make sure no credible lead is missed, the official said


http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/11/al.qaeda.report/index.html

i gues bush doesnt stone wall all bad reports...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/11/al.qaeda.report/index.html

i gues bush doesnt stone wall all bad reports...

I think he really wants us to see this one.

EDIT: NICE avatar. I've got a video of HST drinking whiskey and shooting automatic weapons with Conan O'Brien, and that shit is hilarious.

HST = The man!

i saw that conan w/ him. i had to wake up early the next day but stayed up cuz i had never seen him before. he was definitly something else.

i got to see part of bush's response to the benchmark report. i swear, you could have played this Q&A 3 years ago and it would have fit right in.

hes going to do everything he can to dump this on his predecessor.

hes going to do everything he can to dump this on his predecessor.

This? What?

Diddy: I think you mean "successor."

al-Qaeda is a bunch of nobodies. They still are. They're not shit. It's just a fucking name that bin Laden came up with after reading too many science fiction novels. I don't even think the guys who did the WTC job really would have identified themselves as al-Qaeda.

But the thing is now that the Bush administration has this new policy where every single Islamic terrorist has to be identified as al-Qaeda, so that stupid people can identify Islamic terrorism with a brand name. The truth is that there are tons of terrorists out there belonging to tons of small organizations or no organization at all. So by saying that the insurgency in Iraq is being perpetrated by al-Qaeda, all Bush is really doing is just giving the terrorists a scary brand name that they can claim happily for themselves.

Before, al-Qaeda was a bunch of losers. Now, it's basically the fucking terrorist version of Spartacus. "I'm al-Qaeda!" "No, I'm al-Qaeda!" Every Sunni terrorist group is going to call themselves al-Qaeda because the US has gotten so afraid of the word, and just like in Spartacus, it's going to be impossible to actually figure out who's who.

He could've conceivably meant Clinton, though. Because Clinton didn't do enough to get Bin Laden killed (as if that would've been sufficient to get all of Al Qaeda), it's all his fault. And it's Hillary's fault. Don't elect that bitch, or anyone from the Democrat party. Yadda yadda yadda.

Let's not think too hard about what Bush did prior to 9/11 in this regard. Heaven forbid!

For the record, I love reading Mich & Tele's posts.

I'm off to the mancrush thread...

I know a lot of people are talking about Ron Paul these days, but at this point I can't really see myself voting for any Republicans at all.

Scratch that...I might vote for a Republican if my Democratic choice was Joe Lieberman.

Well whatever you want to call them, they were here attacking us before Bush took office and they'll be here attacking us after he leaves.

So Bush might not be handling it like you want him to, but Clintons aproach didn't work either. Hopefully the next prez can come up with something.

The way I see it, if someone is that determined to kill me, they're going to find all kinds of ways around law enforcement. I'd rather the government focused their efforts on trying to provide emergency services and a survivable infrastructure so the effects of an attack are far less severe.

I think this whole thing about "Clinton fucked up vs. bin Laden" is probably true, but who cares? The real point is that the current administration is trying to pretend like there is really that much, in terms of military action, that a government can do to prevent a terrorist attack.

To be really simple and blunt about it: if someone's willing to die so I get blown up and face the judgment of an angry Allah, no one is going to stop them. Not the FBI, the CIA, the Marines, Blackwater, no one. I figure I might as well spend my time on Earth enjoying a good economy, educational opportunities, healthy and safe food and water, relatively cheap gas, etc.

Mich:
You are as DEAD ON as can be.
I still like that "Clinton fucked up shit". TWENTY FOUR dead from terrirrorororist attacks while he was in office. And, the guy has manned up and admitted his mistakes in Africa. But again there, what could we have done?
I'd like for someone to tell me exactly how Clinton fucked up on Bin Laden when he had an executive order out to kill him.
This whole Al Quaeda bullshit is nothing more than the marketing of fear and the justification for a COMPLETE failure by the Bushies in foreing policy. It is, was, and always will be about Democracy and the "ridding of an evil dictator" LAST. We now have, more than a worry about terroirorororists a stronger than ever military industrial oil complex that is taking the baton from Cheney/Bush to set up a permanent presence in the Middle East to protect Israel on some biblical bullshit, to control the oil there, and to keep us on the verge of war for a long, long time.

The way I see it, if someone is that determined to kill me, they're going to find all kinds of ways around law enforcement. I'd rather the government focused their efforts on trying to provide emergency services and a survivable infrastructure so the effects of an attack are far less severe.

I think this whole thing about "Clinton fucked up vs. bin Laden" is probably true, but who cares? The real point is that the current administration is trying to pretend like there is really that much, in terms of military action, that a government can do to prevent a terrorist attack.

To be really simple and blunt about it: if someone's willing to die so I get blown up and face the judgment of an angry Allah, no one is going to stop them. Not the FBI, the CIA, the Marines, Blackwater, no one. I figure I might as well spend my time on Earth enjoying a good economy, educational opportunities, healthy and safe food and water, relatively cheap gas, etc.

Replying to paragraph 1. I disagree there. I want the Gov't find new ways of fighting this new enemy. Military solution? I'd have to say not only no, but fuck no. It ain't that kind of a war.

Cells were broken up cuz of the wire taps, for instance. I know that is a real thorn in some peeps side, but I agree with it. Tenet says it works. You can't hang your hat on everything he says, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water either.

Paragraph 2. I'm sure if Clinton had it to do all over again, he'd do things differently. I wish he would have NOT treated it like a criminal offense and more of an act of war against the US. Not use the military the way Bush in repsonse, but it would have given him more power to do shit. I think he said he would today. But thats me. I sure as hell hope Bush would want to do something differently if he had it to do all over again too, but I'm not to sure about that.

Replying to paragraph 1. I disagree there. I want the Gov't find new ways of fighting this new enemy. Military solution? I'd have to say not only no, but fuck no. It ain't that kind of a war.

Cells were broken up cuz of the wire taps, for instance. I know that is a real thorn in some peeps side, but I agree with it. Tenet says it works. You can't hang your hat on everything he says, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water either.
Note that wire taps aren't new, and aren't used with foreign nationals to nearly the extent that they could be. I tend to be on the side of using existing legal mechanisms rather than adding new ones, just on general principle. (For every new law created, there should be a requirement to remove 10 old laws.)

Note that wire taps aren't new, and aren't used with foreign nationals to nearly the extent that they could be. I tend to be on the side of using existing legal mechanisms rather than adding new ones, just on general principle. (For every new law created, there should be a requirement to remove 10 old laws.)

If what we have on the books are sufficient, I'm ok with that. But I'm also for new ways to combat this enemy too.