News-Record.com

Thank you Mr. Johnson its time people understand power and money rules in this country. Now if you could get your buddy, Doug Clark to understand that. He still thinks his buddy Black is above the law. Wants him to get off with free eye exams.
Hell I give free rectum exams if I can steal millions of dollars. Do I know how, nope, however I never heard anyone, say their Dr. did a good job either. So give me the millions and bend over.

Well, that didn't take you very long.

"Bush did this..."

"Well, CLINTON did that..."

When do you focus on what's really going on - the dangers to our Constitutional government - and stop using the worn-out, debunked, and barely comparable historical (Clinton) events to attempt to justify current actions? Ask the harder questions.

(1) Are sentencing guidelines "excessive?" If so, shouldn't more convicted criminals have sentences commuted? Why is commutation appropriate for Libby's "excessive" sentence than for others who got the same sentence?

(2) Was there quid pro quo in the commutation? Were the Bush administration loyalists afraid of what Mr. Libby might say as part of his imprisonment?

(3) Is one convicted felon (Libby) superior and deserving of special treatment because he's a friend of the Bush administration - more so than other convicted felons who are not?

The "Clinton did it" defense falls apart when you look at the facts; something I'd thought and hoped a newspaper would do and not simply juxtapose events that are hardly comparable (unless you say them long and loud enough).

Pasting in this editorial smacks of comparing two mostly unrelated pardon/commutation situations, Allen. Beneath your dignity, IMO.

Allen:

So the point of this (and the Bush administration's current arguments) would be that "two wrongs make a right?" By this argument, all of Clinton's ethical problems are excused by the former President pardoning Casper Weinberger or by Watergate or some such.

Thanks for your note, Sue. I think we addressed the Bush commutation on its merits (or lack thereof) in the editorial we ran on July 4.

I don't defend Bush at all with the "Clinton did it" argument. Our editorial last week makes that clear, I hope.

I re-ran the 2001 editorial above to show that both men misused their powers and that we've taken both to task for it.

Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence was justified and reasonable given the situation.
It was a sham prosecution over a criminal case that had no basis and in which Libby took no part. He was targeted and skewered for political purposes. This was a bogus conviction all the way around. The prosecutor KNEW before prosecuting Libby that Richard Armitage leaked her name, but didn't prosecute Armitage. Why? Because it was NOT a crime, given Plame's assignment did not warrant statutory identity protection. So how can you prosecute someone who had no part in actions that were determined NOT to be a crime? Well, Fitzgerald did it with Libby.

Dave, I think you may have missed my note above. Both men are (were) wrong, as our editorials say.

Allen, it's a shame you consider Bush's sentence commutation for Libby's wrongful prosecution a "misuse" of power. (Our posts crossed while I was waiting for the l-o-n-g time it takes to post anything here.)
If a 15-year old here in NC received a 20-year sentence for a shoplifting crime he wasn't involved in and Gov. Easley commuted it, would you also consider that a "misuse" of power?
Either you ignore the facts of the case, the Constitutional authority under which the President operates, or you simply buy into the Democratic Talking Points with no further investigation.

Allen, I sent you a very long email detailing the mis-information and wrongful facts in that disgusting and shameful anti-American diatribe masquerading as your "editorial" on July 4th.

What Bush did was legal, but it wasn't right. Same with Clinton.

"Right" as determined by who, Allen? I think it was right, you think it wasn't. Your opinion and mine are worth exactly the same.
I'll have to ask you the question I used to ask Lex about his political pronouncements: Who made you the arbiter of what is right and what is not?
I'd think a lot more of you if you stated, "I don't think it's right" expressing your opinion rather than trying to tell me and the rest of the world how we should think. This is the "opinion" section, is it not? You are in charge of "opinions" down there, are you not?
Don't confuse your opinion with fact.

And, Allen, there's a w-h-o-l-e lot of difference between Bush commuting the sentence of someone wrongly convicted and Clinton giving a full pardon for an international fugitive after said fugitive's wife lays $1 million cold cash on his desk.

Actually, Bush never said Libby was wrongly convicted. In fact, he supported the verdict in his statement, but not the sentence.

Jaycee:

If the President was so "right" about Libby's commutation, why did he sidestep all of his office's standard procedures for these types of issues? Why didn't he consult with the prosecutor, which is his standard procedure in all other cases? Why didn't he solicit an opinion from the Department of Justice, which is his standard procedure in all other cases? Surely he will follow Clinton's example, waive executive privilege, and allow his aides to testify regarding these procedures. Right.

This was no sham prosecution. Libby was convicted of four serious felonies by a jury. Libby obstructed an investigation into the disclosure of classified information. Prior to the publication of the Novak column on July 14, 2003, Valerie Plame's name was classified. In May of 2003, Libby began obtaining information on the Wilson trip, and in early June, he obtained classified documents from the CIA regarding the trip and report. In early June he was also advised about Plame's status and in a conversation with another government employee made it clear that he understood that her name and cover were classified information. In late June, he disclosed Plame's name, which was still classified, to Judith Miller; he later lied about this. Libby discussed Plame again at least two other times with Miller in early July. Two days before Novak's column came out Libby also discussed Plame's identity with Matthew Cooper, a matter he later lied about.

Part of the investigation into the disclosure of classified information involves determining exactly who said what and in what order. Libby's lies impeded that part of the investigation. Armitage was Novak's initial source and by all accounts leaked the information independently. However, if Libby (or anyone else) leaked before this and knew that the information was classified, they would be guilty of a crime. Establishing this, however, requires getting the time line straight. Fitzgerald has made it clear time and again that he thought that there were possible crimes related to the disclosure of Plame's name and other classified information.

A Republican-appointed U.S. attorney prosecuted this case, and a Republican-appointed judge presided and set sentence following guidelines largely advocated by Republicans.

Very good points, Dave. The American people seem to agree. According to a brief in today's paper, 66 percent of the respondents in a USA Today-Gallup poll believe that President Bush should not have intervened on Libby's behalf.

Wrong again, Mr. Ribar.
"Prior to the publication of the Novak column on July 14, 2003, Valerie Plame's name was classified."
There was not one single word of testimony supporting this bogus claim. Merely working at CIA does not make one a "secret squirrel."
No crime was committed when her name was published. If it was, Armitage would have been prosecuted. He wasn't becase NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED.
It's a bogus investigation/prosecution when you prosecute someone for impeding a criminal investigation when you already know that no crime occurred.
Allen, are you suggesting the President should run out country based on poll numbers? We already saw that with the disastrous 8-year bungling of Bill Clinton.
What that poll reflects, Allen, is the perception people have gotten from news coverage, which (as usual) was largely dominated by the 5 liberally slanted mainstream media organizations, i.e., ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN. Political polls are merely barometers of how well the news media is getting their point of view across to the people. For events in which they're not personally involved people only know what they're told by news media, and if it's liberally biased then that's what people think about an issue.

I forgot. It's the Liberal Media's fault. Of course.

So, Jaycee, am I to assume you oppose sentencing guidelines?

Allen, what people think about any issue is determined by the source of their information on the issue.
On issues in which they're not personally involved, such as national politics, the war, overseas events, etc., the news media shapes perception of these events. The manner in which the media presents an issue is ingrained in the subconscious of the viewer/reader and becomes "fact" to that viewer/reader regardless of accuracy.
You know this as well as I do, it's how you make your living, isn't it?
Sentencing guidelines are not the issue at all. The President has similar powers to a Governor. He may commute, pardon, etc., as he sees fit.

Yes, but he is still accountable for how he uses those powers. Clinton misused them and so has Bush.

Jaycee,

You can claim there was "no crime committed", all you want, however, the fact of the matter is that the investigation of the leak of Valerie Wilson's name was begun at the behest of the CIA. Your statement that simply working for the CIA does not make one "secret squirrel" may be true for some CIA employees but in this case it is not. How do we know this fact? The CIA released an unclassified summary of Valerie Wilsons employment and cover history(http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections
/news/070529_Unclassified_Plame_employement.
pdf#page=2). The key sentence states: At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure of Ms. Wilson's employment relationship with the CIA on 14 July 2003, Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States. The summary also established that she had headed a counter-proliferation operation focused on Iraq and had traveled overseas in an undercover capacity in the five years prior to the disclosure of her identity. Based on this fact, the CIA launched an investigation believing that a violation of the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA) had occurred. Thereafter, the CIA asked the Department of Justice to investigate the source of the leak. Then Attorney General John Ashcroft appointed Mr. Fitzgerald (a Republican appointed DA) to investigate the matter. What he found and presented to the jury was that Mr. Libby had in fact leaked the covert identity to then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller and then-Time reporter Matthew Cooper. Miller testified at Libby's trial that he had disclosed Ms. Wilson's CIA employment to her at a July 8, 2003, meeting, before Novak published it in his July 14, 2003, column. The law is very clear here, the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA), does not specify that the identity of a covert operative has to be published for a crime to have been committed, only that the information be intentionally disclosed to someone unauthorized to know it (from the IIPA, 50 U.S.C. 421). Mr. Fitzgerald presented a case to a jury on obstruction of justice charges for lying to the grand jury and FBI agents investigating the case. Only one of the 11 jurors who spoke publicly immediately after the verdict said that there was great sympathy for Mr. Libby in the jury room, but that the case presented by the prosecution was overwhelming (NYTimes March 6, 2007). The judge (Republican appointed) handed out a stiff but not unreasonable sentence for the convicted Mr. Libby. Most Americans could take some solace that a member of the current administration's staff, who had broken the law, was prosecuted and found guilty by a jury and then sentenced for the crime. In other words, the system, flawed that it is, worked. That's why 60 some percent of the people polled were unhappy with the president's decision not due to some massive brain washing by the so called "liberal" media. May I recommend Eric Alterman"s "What Liberal Media" for further reading on this topic. As a parting thought Jaycee, posting something in all caps with no documentation gives little to no argument for your point of view.

The truth is out there

MOTR, very nice reference to MSNBC's political editorial opinion story, seems like you want to believe it's the law. It ain't.
You'll note that CIA asked for an investigation "believing" a violation had occurred. Fitzgerald determined that no violation occurred, and Armitage, the leaker, faces no criminal action. No crime, no charge. Case closed.
Allen, please quit stating your opinion as if it's a fact, some people might believe it. I'll ask you again, who gave you the power as arbiter of what's right and what's wrong to be able to make the definitive, factual statement that Bush misused his powers? That's an opinion, and you should label it as such.
I have an opinion, too, and it differs from yours. They both have equal value. If I were a N&R staffer and publicly stated, "President Bush did not misuse his powers" would I be treated the same as you, and given the same forum for my opinion? Somehow I doubt it.

Jaycee:

The claim that there was no crime is simply wrong.

First of all, a Republican-appointed judge, a Republican-appointed prosecutor, and a neutral jury all came to a different conclusion based on the facts of the case. In fact they concluded that multiple felonies were committed. Even President Bush conceded that Libby's transgressions merited punishment, which is why he commuted but did not vacate the sentence.

Second, how does "no other charge" automatically mean "no other crime?" By your convoluted reasoning, no unsolved or unprosecuted murder would ever represent a crime. All that we know for sure is that Fitzgerald determined that he could not successfully prosecute anyone for other crimes. What we do not know is whether such a prosecution could have gone forward with Libby's truthful testimony. As Fitzgerald stated in his sentencing memorandum, Libby's lies "made impossible an accurate evaluation of the role that Mr. Libby and those with whom he worked played in the disclosure of information regarding Ms. Wilson's CIA employment and about the motivations for their actions." Fitzgerald went on to write, "the reasons why Mr. Libby was not charged with an offense directly relating to his unauthorized disclosures of classified information regarding Ms. Wilson included, but were not limited to, the fact that Mr. Libby’s false testimony obscured a confident determination of what in fact occurred."

I was referring to the alleged "crime" of disclosing Plame's identity. Fitzgerald (and the whole world) knows that Armitage disclosed the name; Armitage admitted it. Fitzgerald can't charge, indict, or prosecute Armitage because it was not a crime to disclose Plame's name. If it was, Fitzgerald would have charged Armitage. No crime, no indictment. Case closed. As is my discussion here.

With all due respect, you're splitting hairs Jaycee.

Really, Allen? Then show me where Fitzgerald concluded that Armitage violated the law by disclosing Plame's name and indicted him for it.
Didn't happen. No crime, no indictment. Case closed.
OK, this time I'm really not gonna comment anymore. :)

Jaycee:

Fitzgerald concluded that at least three executive branch officials made unauthorized disclosures of classified information: Armitage, Libby and Rove. He flatly states that the reason not to charge people with those disclosures owed in great part to Libby's lies. Fitzgerald is absolutely clear that there was a potential crime to be investigated and that Libby impeded that investigation. You could read Fitzgerald's indictment and sentencing statement if you wish.

Jaycee,
Did you even open the link I posted? If you had, you would have found a pdf file, which MSNBC posted of a declassified document the CIA submitted to the court, which stated unequivocally that Ms. Wilson was a covert agent. I did this in response to your inaccurate statement that, "There was not one single word of testimony supporting this bogus claim. Merely working at CIA does not make one a "secret squirrel". The focus on Armitage's leak to Novak on July 8th at 3pm is a red herring. The facts show that Mr. Fitzgerald found that Mr. Libby had leaked 'something' highly classified, outside all formal security protocols, to Ms. Miller at 8:30am the same day. Previously, on June 13th and on June 23rd, Mr. Armitage and Mr. Libby, both respectively, had leaked the information that 'Wilson's wife' worked at the CIA; but not Valerie Plame's name. However, Mr. Libby's leak to Ms. Miller on the morning of the 8th is the first clearly established instance where Mr. Libby reveals Ms. Wilson's name, position and employment at the CIA. The Armitage leak later on the 8th is not the origination of leaking Ms. Wilson's identity. The hard part of the investigation was that both Mr. Libby and Mr. Armitage claimed that they didn't realize that their conversations potentially exposed a covert agent and therefore, exculpated them from IIPA issues. The crime that was easy for Mr. Fitzgerald to prosecute was that Mr. Libby lied under oath to both the FBI and the grand jury resulting in a conviction.
MOTR

We can let Colin Powell have the last word, "there were others involved—a lot of others—and [prosecutors] couldn't get all of the answers they needed to get resolution. If everybody who had talked with reporters during that period had done what Armitage had done, I think this would have ended early on and not dragged out."

Libby, a paid public servant and a trained lawyer, faced a choice initially to come forward with what he knew. He did not. He faced a choice when he was interviewed by the FBI and appeared before the grand jury. Instead of telling the truth, he lied. The prosecutor, judge and jury saw this, and he now stands a convicted felon.

Fact:

Fitzgerald, the CIA, Valerie and Joe Wilson, and all the anti-commutation posters here do not get to decide the law regarding "covert" status.

Fact:

The Wilsons' pre "leak" words, writings and behavior are de facto evidence that they themseleves did not consider Mrs. Wilson "covert".

Fact:

Fitzgerald knew the leaker was Armitage very early in the prosecution, but was not willing to close down shop until he had fried someone, anyone, preferably Rove or Cheney. No credible evidence existed that suggested he had probable cause to proceed further.

This means that had he done the right thing to begin with, Libby would not have been in a position where he would have had any legal exposure.

It's also likely that Libby's conviction will be overturned, and this whole nonsense certain folks are making about the commutation will look pretty silly, indeed.