Politico's Allen ignored polling data showing Libby pardon to be extremely unpopular
In a June 17 Politico article on the "[p]ressure" Republicans and conservatives are putting on President Bush to pardon former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief political correspondent Mike Allen quoted an anonymous adviser to a 2008 Republican presidential candidate explaining that it would be "politically good" for Bush to pardon Libby because "[t]he very bedrock of believers in conservativism" are "united around" a pardon. At no point in the article, however, did Allen report the most recent polling data on the issue, which indicate that the vast majority of Americans opposes a pardon for Libby.
On March 6, Libby was convicted on federal charges of perjury and obstructing justice in connection with the investigation into the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity. He was sentenced to 30 months in prison and fined $250,000 on June 5.
In his June 17 article, Allen wrote:
Libby pardon politically good?
At first, the presidential contenders shied away from the topic, but former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani said during their last debate in New Hampshire that the sentence was "grossly excessive," and others said a pardon should be considered.
"When Scooter first got indicted, the reaction was that it was unthinkable to consider a pardon -- everybody was in the Marc Rich mode," said an adviser to one of the Republican presidential campaigns, referring to the controversial last-minute pardon for the fugitive billionaire by President Bill Clinton.
"Now, it's about 75 percent there that it would be politically good. The only people who aren't going to like it are people who slam you every day, anyway."
The adviser explained a possible political upside for the president, who is at historic lows in the public opinion polls, this way: "The very bedrock of believers in conservativism -- across the spectrum, from the religious to the intellectual to the ones who care about national security to the federalists and libertarians -- have been disappointed in some way by this administration. This is something they're all united around."
The lobbying is subtle, according to participants. They say that making the case directly to the president or his top aides would be insulting and could backfire. Instead, friends of Bush and Libby have been quietly working cocktail parties and other venues, laying out their logic for a pardon.
When these people do talk to presidential aides, they confine their remarks to what they consider safe ground -- how hard the ordeal has been on Libby and his family.
Allen quoted several other Republicans and conservatives supporting a Libby pardon, as well as Dave "Mudcat" Saunders, adviser to Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, who "said the brouhaha over heiress Paris Hilton would make it easier to get traction for charges that Libby was getting special privileges." Allen also cited two other articles on the subject of conservatives pushing for a Libby pardon -- a June 7 New York Times article by reporter Jim Rutenberg and a June 14 article by Slate.com chief political correspondent John Dickerson -- writing that "Libby's friends cooperated with" these articles in order to "get their messages to the top echelons of the White House." None of the three reporters, however, mentioned polling data in their articles indicating just how unpopular a Libby pardon would be. According to the most recent polling on the issue -- conducted after Libby's conviction but before his sentencing -- two-thirds of Americans oppose a pardon for Libby.
- A March 9-11 CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll found that 69 percent of Americans believe Bush "should not give a presidential pardon to Libby," compared with 18 percent who believe he should.
- A March 9-12 Time magazine/SRBI poll found that 72 percent of Americans think Bush "should not" pardon Libby, compared with 18 percent who think he should.
- A March 11-14 Gallup poll found that 67 percent of Americans believe Bush "should not issue a presidential pardon for Lewis 'Scooter' Libby," compared with 21 percent who believe he should.
Technically Allen was correct in what he said even though most Americans would oppose a pardon. The bedrock Bush supporters (the few there are still left) aren't going to be bothered by a Libby pardon at all.
My guess is Bush will pardon Libby but not until his last hours in office. Since Libby wasn't actually convicted of outing Valerie Plame his suporters aren't going to be bothered by it and those that dislike Bush will just be happy to see him finally gone.
I thought the same thing at first, until I found this analysis:
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/pardon.php
Also be sure to follow the link to his follow-up. This individual offers a far better analysis than MMFA. Not only does he show the lack of general support for a pardon, but even casts doubt on the support from the base.
Remember last week's "report" from MMFA which tried (and failed miserably) to prove that Americans are generally liberal and not conservative?
MMFA used polling data they liked, and ignored the data that refuted their argument.
Allen has done the exact same thing here.
He used a poll that supports his assertion and ignored polls that do not.
Why is MMFA upset about someone using the same intellectually lazy approach to "research" as it does?
You're confused...Allen was quoting Giuliani. Giuliani is a politician, not a polster.
CD, unless I read this wrong, Allen's not even quoting Julie-Annie, but an unnamed source pulling a random figure out of his tar hole.
I guess to our friendly neighborhood Republoclowns, that's the same as a Dem citing an actual poll. Har!
Yes I did indeed misread what Allen did.
He cited an anonymous source, not a poll.
But my point remains the same. I wrote:
He used a poll that supports his assertion and ignored polls that do not.
and then, having hit the wrong button...
He used a poll that supports his assertion and ignored polls that do not.
Change "poll" to "anonymous adviser" and it's plainly clear that Allen did what MMFA does routinely. He cited a source supporting what he wanted to say, while ignoring polls that refuted his point.
Apparently only MMFA is allowed to do that.
MMFA hasnt done this. Cough up an example of MMFA using an anonymous source to claim 75% of the people believe ANYTHING.
So are you going to cough up the polls that say 75% of the people think Bush ought to pardon Libby? I dont think they exist. Perhaps you can cough up an example of MMFA citing an anonymous source saying 75% of the people say ANYTHING? I am betting that wont happen. Ya got nothin. That was weak. Allen either pulled this directly out of his rectal database or he is citing someone who pulled it from his.
"He cited an anonymous source, not a poll."- Roger7
"He used a poll..." - Roger7
I'm going to call this one a tie, Roger.You've met your match.
That's what's called a "mistake", Hunt. Since you've never made one, you obviously cannot relate. Having admitted this mistake 2 posts ago, I hope you feel better, stronger, taller, or in some way more relevant.
Since Solon is stomping his feet...
It's irrelevant to my point whether Allen used an anonymous source, a Gallop poll or a poll of kids sitting in his living room. He used one source to back up what he wanted, and ignored the ones that didn't back him up.
I understand Solon that this really irks you, but it doesn't matter that MMFA doesn't use anonymous sources. What matters is the childish nature in which they use sources whose data they like, and handily ignore the ones that refute their points.
I guess I need to check and see if these posts are erased, now that we know how typically intolerant the lefties who run this site really are (see the "Van Natta falsehood" thread to see what I mean...roughly 40 posts were erased because someone at MMFA didn't like them....free exchange of ideas my ass).
"It's irrelevant to my point whether Allen used an anonymous source, a Gallop poll or a poll of kids sitting in his living room. He used one source to back up what he wanted, and ignored the ones that didn't back him up." --roger7
According to that reasoning, anyone can pick out any number from anywhere and it is entirely equal to a real published poll. Thanks for clearing that up.
You are missing the point. Either you arent too bright or this weak sillyness is the best you can do, mores the pity. WHERE is the evidence used by either him OR his anonymous source that YOU claim MMFA is ignoring? See someone pulling something out of his ASS is NOT evidence. He is claiming 75% Either that came from somewhere or it didnt. If it did WHERE? If you can not cough up any EVIDENCE for this then either HIM or his anonymous source is overusing his rectal database. MMFA HAS evidence whether it meets your approval or not is a moot point, it is SOME EVIDENCE. NONE is in picture from Allen or his anonymous source. You really have to step up your game, at this point you are just embarassing yourself
Doh - you're absolutely right. My mistake. Please read "anonymous advisor" wherever I've written "Giuliani."
WRONG. MMFA cited a STUDY done which used polling going back DECADES to show on some issues Americans are liberal. Its simply true. You didnt LIKE the polls and tried while failing miserably to say they were wrong. They werent. On many issues Americans poll and have for decades about like Norway or Finnland fairly liberally. YOU took it to mean Americans are flat out liberals, they are on some issues and more conservative on others just like they have been for decades at least.
ALLEN made this claim, which sounds like it was derived from polling: "Now, it's about 75 percent there that (a Libby pardon) would be politically good. The only people who aren't going to like it are people who slam you every day, anyway."
So, where's Allen's backup FACTS to support his claim that a Libby Pardon would be considered "GOOD" by 3 out of 4? It's a specific claim, where's the PROOF, the BACKUP? Eh?
He can't be looking at those polls in March. None of them come NEAR supporting an asinine claim like this.
They "POLLED" the jury many months ago. That POLLING stands as the VERDICT.
The passing of time does not change that outcome, even though the Rightwing would love to cling to an "outdated" defense of Libby's crimes.
To pardon Libby would be a travesty ... true yesterday, true today, and true tomorrow. Americans believe ... HAVE to believe ... in the RULE of LAW, and its equal application to all.
BTW, the fact that Libby was a "public servant" does not accrue to lieniency ... quite the opposite. A public servant has a special responsibility to behave properly, and if he violates the PUBLIC trust, he has offended not just a few, but ALL the American People.
FULL TERM for Libby, Bush's crook and good Republican.
I hate to break it to ya there, Tex, but a poll is only as valid until the next one comes out - or when they become months old that their timeliness has run out.....as for it being some sort of VERDICT, well, that inane statement speaks for itself.
But your rule of law speech was touching, considering sadly, both parties routinely thumb their nose at it - your Democrats' noses are no cleaner.
TOMMY:
Well, Scooter is headed for jail. He can say "HI" to Cunningham, Ney, Seidensticker, Jensen, McGee, Grethen, and other GOP convicted scumbags in the slam. They can prepare a room for Tom DeLay. Ken Lay won't be there as planned, of course, because he died before donning the stripes.
Now I fully expect your return fire, your listing of all the DEMOCRATS jailed for wrongdoing, because after all, you say everybody does it, and Dem noses are no cleaner.
All you need is EIGHT examples to prove your point. Looking forward to your adding of "balance" to bolster your claim. (P.S. "Jefferson" will get you started, but sadly that doesn't give you a CONVICTION ... just accusations at this point, and leaves you seven short in the 'sentenced to JAIL' count in any event. Good luck!)
Tex:
Jim Traficant, Web Hubbell, Henry Cisneros, Roger Clinton, Jim Guy Tucker, Jim McDougal, Susan McDougal, Jim McDougal, Johnny Chung, and John Deutch. There's nine. I can add more if you like.
KEVIN:
Those Republicans I listed were convicted within the past 5 years … i.e. CURRENT. But, that’s OK. I realize you have to go back a decade or more to find some Democrat convictions, so let’s look at your “Clinton era” list:Jim Traficant (voted with the Republicans, but there’s one), Web Hubbell (convicted for offenses unrelated to politics, but that’s two), Henry Cisneros (didn’t report payments to mistress. Not political, and no jail time, but will call it three). Roger Clinton (not in politics), Jim Guy Tucker (four, and I won’t even add Republican Governors to MY list), Jim McDougal, Susan McDougal, Jim McDougal (not in politics), Johnny Chung (a contributor, and if accepted, would have to revise my list to include Abramoff, etc.), and John Deutch (non-partisan CIA director).
So, you’re halfway there, KEVIN. See if you can find some RECENT Dem convictions for offenses IN OFFICE by public servants. Just throwing out names of anyone loosely related to Dems is very damn weak, and remember, the implication you are attempting to prove is that “everybody IS DOING it, corruption of a Republican TODAY is offset by a corrupt Democrat TODAY. That’s the claim … plumbing history doesn’t support the charge believably (I didn’t go back to Nixon or Reagan …).
You're a bit dishonest with your lists. You won't accept Johnny Chung because he was a contributor, yet you want to add Ken Lay to the GOP side. Lay did not hold political office. He was a contributor.
Your list also has DeLay, who has not been convicted of anything, yet you won't accept William Jefferson on the Democrat side of the ledger because he has not yet been convicted. Dishonest.
Seidensticker was merely a campaign worker. If you want to count campaign workers, I can add a Democrat congresswoman's son and three Democrat campaign workers who were convicted just last year. See http://www.cbs8.com/story.php?id=48014
And why must we limit the time to just five years? I have seen no evidence that Democrats have become less corrupt during the past five years.
KEVIN:
The claim made by Tommy was, "But your rule of law speech was touching, considering sadly, both parties routinely thumb their nose at it - your Democrats' noses are no cleaner."
The POINT Tommy wishes to make is, sure, Republicans are crooks and corrupt, but SO ARE DEMOCRATS.
I listed GOPers in jail or headed there TODAY, and gave Tommy the opportunity to match that list with Democrats "of equal stature, and contemporaneous" ... meaning prove his point that it's an equal ongoing balance.
You tried to help out, by delving into Clinton's Administration ... but it doesn't make Tommy's point.
I know the temptation is to defend YOUR corrupt people, by saying, "Oh YEAH? Well YOUR guy is corrupt TOO." It's just a better point if your examples relate to current events (as MINE did) instead of ancient history.
Tex:
The quite a criterion. You asked someone to point to examples of Democrat corruption and then say, "But you can't discuss the Clinton administration."
That's like asking someone to cite examples of Sasha Cohen movies without discussing Borat.
And where, exactly, did Tex say "you can't talk about the Clinton administration"?
That's all you people have: "Clinton did it TOOOOOOOOOOO" (which is untrue, but that doesn't matter to you) like that somehow excuses the rampant lawbreaking by your heros. Witness Fredo's disgusting DoJ debacle for a recent example, but there's lots to choose from. That is, IF your eyes are OPEN and not blinded by misplaced loyalties to people that couldn't give one s**t about you, your family, or your life.
The law only applies to Dems and people you don't agree with ideologically, apparently.
Your DemocratIC corruption was a couple of decades old the ReNAMBLAcan corruption was current. That is a difference.
KEVIN:
On the contrary, I ACCEPTED those Clinton era convictions ... even those that didn't result in jail time (Cisneros), and STILL the count was FOUR. I listed EIGHT, so to demonstrate the charge that Tommy made ... Dem's noses aren't clean, either ... the poster fell short.
So, Tommy's POINT ... even INCLUDING the Clinton list ... is still not made. If we go back any further in history, though, MY list of convicted GOPers will grow enormously, so there has to be an historic era comparison to be valid.
KEVIN, can you add to the list? I listed EIGHT GOPers in jail or headed there (I also mentioned DeLay, but didn't COUNT him). Can you name EIGHT DEMS currently jailed for corruption in office? If NOT, then Tommy's POINT has been rebutted, and his "everybody does it" claim collapses for lack of evidence.
Now for the follow-up question: which of these were officials of the Federal government at the time of the crime, or at the time of the conviction?
"Jim Traficant, Web Hubbell, Henry Cisneros, Roger Clinton, Jim Guy Tucker, Jim McDougal, Susan McDougal, Jim McDougal, Johnny Chung, and John Deutch. There's nine. I can add more if you like."
Traficant: wasn't a Democrat. Cisneros didn't go to jail. Roger Clinton's one jail sentence was for cocaine in the '80s. You counted Jim McDougal twice. Susan did time for refusing to answer questions. Deutsch never went to jail. What you're counting is people your party is going after.
Trafficante was a Democrat. I believe a Democrat from Ohio
Why are all the polls from March?
It would be much more relevant to ask that question after Libby's prison sentence was detailed.
Because they were hoping that you wouldn't notice.
Shallow, juvenile reporting by mmfa staffer Maloy...citing polls that are 90 days old...with the caveat that they are the "most recent".
This demonstrates little credibility for a "media watchdog"...but plenty of credibility for a political operative, masquerading as a media watchdog.
So reference a more recent poll to support your argument. Please take all the time you need and get back to us when you find one.
The point is without the context of Libby's full sentence, this polling to support the public's appetite for his pardon is nearly irrelevant.
You make a valid point that could be rectified by a polling company conducting a more recent poll. Wesley, however, is accusing MMFA of intentionally lying and omitting more recent polling data with no evidence to support his claim that more recent data even exists. I conducted a very quick search and couldn't find any. Maybe he can, since he is the one who made the claim.
- Wesley, however, is accusing MMFA of intentionally lying and omitting more recent polling data - jawill
Nope...no such thing. They did use polling data that has no bearing on the current state of the issue.
If a new poll backs up their claim...great. But until then...their use of irrelevant polling data is shoddy reporting and pandering.
Have another drink.
WESLEY:
So, your contention is that polling data on the popularity of the idea of pardoning Scooter Libby is irrelevant to the American People's attitude, instead, to the idea of pardoning Scooter Libby.
Makes perfect sense.
Wes,
If some on this board say sarastically "makes perfect sense", then believe me, you do make perfect sense.
make that "sarcastically"
I was going to respond to the cowboy...but I'll let your cogent statement stand in its place.
Thanks
I expected no more from you guys. Thanks for not disappointing.
You guys are both weak. It is an ON POINT question. I dont see how the sentence would add anything new and its the most recent available if it werent you would have a point. As far as I know it isnt so you dont. WHERE is the poll to support the contention made by Allen? YOU guys are snivelling because the poll is three months old yet you dont seem to mind Allen pulled his stats directly from his rectal database.
Why don't you? I'd LOVE to see Tex wipe the floor with your ignorant a**. You're so far out of your league, you're not even in the same universe.
Where's your post showing the more recent polling data showing that Americans have changed their opinions AT ALL? Oh, I know, THERE AREN'T ANY. Nor is there ANYTHING new about the case to suggest that the opinions of Americans have changed one iota, but hey, that doesn't stop ol' Wesley, hell no! Nope, since it was in March, it must not be valid any more, because you don't agree with the results. Therefore, they don't matter! Don't bother me with facts, I KNOW what I know! Yep, typical conservative logic all right.
As usual, you got jack doodely squat, ya got nothin'.
How does the length of a jail term change anything? What people were asked, basically, was should Bush pardon someone who broke the law? The harshness of a sentence is a separate matter all together and would require a different polling question.
The point? Actually, that was your point, to which I wasn't responding. In any event, the specific details of sentence are more relevant to commutation than pardoning. Your assertion is weak.
Why would that make any difference at all? Somehow, the American populace got warm and fuzzies because Scooter was given a sentence? Is that what you're suggesting?
Where's the polling data that suggests this outcome in ANY way whatsoever?
Where's the justification for that thought at ALL? Pulled out of the rectal cavity, it would seem.
You got it...mmfa could find no more recent polling...and that's what makes their use of this polling data shallow reporting.
mmfa's reliance on polling data to make their points credible has now bordered on the ridiculous.
I'm sure some of mmfa's koolaid drinkers will find no fault with this style of shady reporting...however I do.
By that logic, then Allen's claim (or - more precisely - Guiliani's) has absolutely no basis. That would have definitely been an easy article for MMFA; i.e., Allen is smoking-dope because there's no recent poll to support his claim. Of course, such a counter-argument would make no more sense than yours.
No, Wesley, their use of the polling data is a perfect refutation (PROVED fasehood) of the cited claim: the very same data pool that Allen refers to, produced at its last polling, the undeniable reversal of Allen's claim (unless you have up your sleeve a much more recent poll, showing different results?)
What is ridiculous is YOU trying to portray this polling data as somehow flawed when it is DIRECTLY on point because you dont like it yet you say nothing about Allen just making his up. At least MMFA had SOME data to back up their point ALLEN HAD NONE, zip, nada, bupkis. I see no reason anything would have changed because of the sentence nor the passing of three months. YOU have nothing to suggest the publics mind has changed in any appreciable way except your OPINION, which is not DATA. MMFA HAD DATA. Ya got nothin
Hahha.. I love it. Your defense of outdated polling information in a nonstory is to issue a challenge to those criticizing the obsolescense to try to get us to find something more recent?
Gotta give you credit for the chutzpah!
If there's no more recent polling, then what do you want? It's possible that the sentencing makes a slight difference in the numbers, but it's hard to imagine too many people changing their minds over that. "What he did was wrong...but 30 months! Outrageous! He should be pardoned!" I'm not seeing it.
Otherwise, what's changed in the last three months? More respect for Bush and the administration in general? Not really.
If there is no more recent polling, then considering there are new facts and details surrouding this case, the old polling is hardly worth it.
Just because you find the sentencing details irrelevant to your decision has no bearing on how others feel. That is why they do polls. Assumptions and guesswork offer no incite.
There are new facts regarding the case? You mean just the sentencing, I'm assuming. It still seems sort of odd that people are going to change their minds because he got 30 months in prison. It doesn't seem like a plausible enough concept on which to discredit the article.
Poor phrasing, I meant the sentencing. Some may find it irrelevant, some may not. But I would think a fresh poll would be a better indicator of that than a presumptious thread as this one is, in my opinion.
I agree it would be a better indicator, however the assertions coming from Wesley are of shoddiness, etc. If there's no more recent polling, no new facts, then it's the best that can be done to make what appears to be a valid point. It's clearly a baseless assertion that a pardon could be a good move politically, in the absence of the same new polling that conservatives are clamoring for here.
So what of Allen's repeating of Giuliani's presumptious [sic] statement? Is Giuliani presumed truthful until proven stupid by a jury of his faithful worshipers?
Yes, it's always "better" to have the most current information. But, since we don't have any more recent polls, the *most current* data is what is relied on and referred to- this is (poll) science 101.
Your general assertation that "things are different now since the sentencing" is totally baseless, and is nothing more than your opinion. The only thing that's "different" is the sheer volume of the neocon whining to "Free Scooter", like somehow a convicted felon is a "victim", puh-leeeeeeeze. It's enough to make me want to vomit.
Tommy, maybe I've missed it, but do you think there are more recent details regarding the case that are favorable to Libby?
"Just because you find the sentencing details irrelevant to your decision has no bearing on how others feel. That is why they do polls. Assumptions and guesswork offer no incite." - Tommy
Tommy, you do realize that a representative sample for a poll is slightly more than 1000 people? Polling companies don't ask every single person what his/her opinion is. They then take that data and extrapolate to general ASSUMPTIONS about the populace.
This conservative hack made a claim that pardoning Libby would help Bush. MMFA provided the most recent data to show this claim was bogus. If this hack can claim, erroneously, that the conservative base IN GENERAL would support a pardon, I think MMFA can use the most recent data about the GENERAL POPULATION to prove him wrong.
So then having polling data three months old is a huge problem but pulling data out of his ASS like Allen ISNT a problem? You guys are even weaker than usual.
I wonder what percentage of the voters would have approved of Clinton's pardons for Marc Rich and the Puerto Rican terrorists?
Probably only the same rightwingers who cheered the pardoning of unrepentent terrorist Orlandon Bosch by George Sr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_Bosch
Because that's when it was being discussed.
A March 9-11 CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll found that 69 percent of Americans believe Bush "should not give a presidential pardon to Libby," compared with 18 percent who believe he should.
A March 9-12 Time magazine/SRBI poll found that 72 percent of Americans think Bush "should not" pardon Libby, compared with 18 percent who think he should.
A March 11-14 Gallup poll found that 67 percent of Americans believe Bush "should not issue a presidential pardon for Lewis 'Scooter' Libby," compared with 21 percent who believe he should.
I'd love to know who they polled.
How much of the general population even knows the details of this case? I'd bet 67%-72% know so little about the case that the Poll is probably somewhat irrelevant.
Other than the media, & political junkies Libby is barely a blip on the radar for the general public.
I don't care one way or the other what Bush decides to do. As we all know other Presidents have issued questionable Pardons.
I wouldn't Pardon the guy [if it were up to me], but as with most that goes on in this country I have no say ;-)
J,
I am basically with you on this, who really cares for the most part. And I am not in favor of some political pardon for Libby either. What troubles me a little is if a President pardons someone so closely connected with his administration just seems a little unseemly for me.......if for example, Libby was some sort of fall guy for Cheney or anyone in the Bush adm, then they can just make a deal to throw the stooge to the wolves and not to worry - when it's all said and done he will be pardoned by the President anyway.
I have no idea if that is the case here, but I see nothing gained from a pardon. The processed worked, let the verdict stand.
Tommy,
I casually followed this trial [mostly on Hardball] and what I fail to understand is why Patrick Fitzgerald stopped with Libby. Why didn't he reach down further...like to Cheney? It was so obvious that's where the trail led.
By just going after Libby, it appears Fitzgerald just wanted a scalp, any scalp, instead of pressing his investigation further. Unless they figured Libby would turn on his boss. I'm doubtful of that happening.
I wouldn't Pardon Libby simply because any man his age that goes by the nickname Scooter and looks like a garden gnome doesn't deserve a get out of jail card ;-)
But seriously, I agree with you, the process worked, the verdict should stand.
By just going after Libby, it appears Fitzgerald just wanted a scalp, any scalp, instead of pressing his investigation further. Unless they figured Libby would turn on his boss. I'm doubtful of that happening. -Jeter2
Jeter2,
The reason Fitzgerald couldn't get Cheney and Rove was because of Libby's obstruction. If Libby had told the truth which is Cheney ordered him to leak Plames identity, then Fitzgerald could go after Cheney.
Because Libby said it was the reporters that told him of Plame identity this blocked Fitzgerald from getting to the real culprit which is Cheney.
Libby was going to prove to the jury that he was the fall guy for Cheney. When his time came up the defence team dropped that defence. This angered the judge because Libby's defence tricked the judge and jury into beliving they were going to hear the fall guy defence when in reality the defence was playing monkey business with the judge, jury and the People of the United States.
By just going after Libby, it appears Fitzgerald just wanted a scalp, any scalp...
Definitely plausible, as Firtzgerald did seem a bit annoyed about something, for which I can imagine more than one explanation. Of course, it's all speculation; Fitzgerald was also doing his job.
Unless they figured Libby would turn on his boss.
I agree; that seems like a long-shot. However, given the burden of proving knowledge of the covert status, Fitzgerald may have figured the long-shot was better than none. In any event, it's all highly speculative.
Maybe Fitzgerald will enlighten us all in his memoirs one day...
what I fail to understand is why Patrick Fitzgerald stopped with Libby.
Because Libby was successful at obstructing justice.
See, that's the problem. People that don't really know much about the case, yet feel OK in offering up a judgement on what should, or should not be done.
The man is a convicted FELON. That is the FACT. The system worked in this case.
Libby was convicted of Obstruction of Justice and Perjury. Perjury, let's recall, was a "very serious crime" to these SAME conservatives when Clinton lied about a bj. Libby LIED and OBSCURED a Federal Investigation to the point where the prosecutor could not continue the investigation into how a covert CIA asset was exposed. THAT was the ORIGINAL crime that was referred BY THE CIA to the DoJ.
This is what Fitzgerald tried to communicate with his "sand in the eyes of the umpire" baseball analogy, but the dummies just aren't getting it, apparently. Maybe he should've tried football. Anyway, he was UNABLE to continue a Federal Investigation into the original crime, an act of Treason, BECAUSE of Scooter's actions of obscuring and lying his ass off about anything that mattered.
Before the "she wasn't covert" crap even starts, the CIA sure thought Plame was covert, otherwise they wouldn't have referred the matter to the DoJ in the first freakin' place. So enough with the "she wuz jes' a deskjockey" nonsense from the neocon water carriers like Limbaugh and Hannity.
The reason that nobody was charged with or convicted of outing a covert CIA asset was BECAUSE OF LIBBY'S OBSTRUCTION AND PERJURY, which he was rightfully convicted of and sentenced for. These charges RESULTED from the original Investigation, but were NOT the original charges that caused the Investigation in the first place, which was exposing a covert CIA asset.
Now, this DOESN'T MEAN, as the right loves to pretend, that NO CRIME OCCURRED since Scooter wasn't convicted of outing Plame. Scooter WAS NEVER CHARGED WITH THAT CRIME, so of course he wasn't convicted of it. The CIA referred the matter to the DoJ, so the crime of outing a covert CIA asset certainly DID occur. That crime remains unsolved. This is why they're screaming so loudly for a pardon NOW- the neocons are afraid ol' Scoot will crack in the pen and spill his guts. That's the problem with organized crime, one guy that gets popped can blow the whole thing. Fitzgerald knows this too, with his history of mafia and organized crime investigations.
Fitzgerald KNOWS Libby wasn't the guy, he was just following orders. This is why Fitzgerald refers to a "black cloud that hangs over the office of the Vice President", because he knows it was The Dick that committed the crime, with Rove closely involved.
Tommy got it right though, you can't have the pres pardoning his people, or people that were very closely involved with him- that just throws the whole Rule of Law concept right out the window in public view.
That doesn't mean anything to this crowd though, so I fully expect to see the pardon.
"If the President does it, that means it is not illegal."
Tommy, since you say the system worked, do you think there should never be any pardons? It seems to me that is what you are arguing.
We all know that this conviction is based on something that wasn't even prosecuted as a crime. If ever there is a political witch hunt, this was it. It is a myopic world when one is convicted of a crime for covering up a non-crime. The punishment meted out is in my opinion, way beyond the bounds of the crime. Two and half years and $250,000 fine seems excessive to me given the questionable tactics used by Fitzgerald.
For a comparison take a look at Sandy Berger's theft of top-secret documents? What did he get? A $50,000 fine and loss of his law license for a few years? A little more than a slap on the wrist.
What about the disclosure of top-secret information by the media with regards to the war on terror? Any prosecution there?
I'm not saying Libby is not guilty, but he is appealing. There is no flight risk, so if Libby's appeal is eventually denied and he's not pardoned, he will serve his time.
AA,
I don't believe I said there should be no pardons and I explained my hesitance when the President pardons someone so closely aligned with his administration. I get a little uncomfortable and an eyebrow gets raised, for me, when that happens.
This isn't some citizen with no government connection we're talking about here. It's the VP's right hand man.
AA, hand on the bible, "Do you swear to the the truth and nothing but the truth?"
Libby's answer: Yes
What part of lying didn't you get.
the part where if you're a repuke the question does not apply...
How true. I'm having a hard time understanding the difference between lying and lying if your Libby. Maybe lying is different when you drink the kool-aid.
It's what the lie was for, Pearl! If you lie to protect yourself, well, obviously every right wing whack job in the country is going to go ballistic and rant about moral obligation to society and all that crap. But when you lie to protect the "cause" well, that's different because the "cause" is more important than the country. It must be protected at all costs regardless of the consequences.
Snop, that's why I drink wine and not kool-aid. It's much clearer when drinking vino :-)
I understand the phrase completely. Thanks for asking.
Perhaps Scoter would have preferred," Do you promise to covet property, pulrality, surity, security and not hurt the state, say what.
Sounds like Firesign Theater
A political witch hunt? You can't be serious? Oh wait, knowing some of the other stuff you've posted in the past, you are indeed serious.
A political witch hunt, conducted by a very hardcore republican prosecutor, who was appointed to his position by Bush himself. Yeah, there is some political witch hunting going on there, when someone from your own side does the prosecuting. What a weak argument you have.
Libby obstructed justice, and lied to cover up the fact that he, and probably his bosses, outed a covert CIA agent for personal vengence. He lied, under oath, on something that directly applied to the case that was being heard. He was also given a fair hearing, and a jury of his peers found him guilty, and under federal sentencing guideline, he was sentenced, and fined accordingly.
This, has nothing to do with Berger, as much as you'd want to make it that way, but it's not the same. Berger didn't lie in a federal case to a grand jury. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your arguments and all.
Mag, somebody (I think Jeter) mentioned being curious as to who was polled on this, as the case seems to be minor to most Americans.
Turn on your am righty shows sometime, they're spinning it almost verbatim just like the post you're responding to.
I'd bet a good number of Americans are fairly well informed about the case, as it's fairly simple, and can be understood by reading one or two good objective sources.I'd also guess that those in favor of a pardon are the most misinformed, and have heard the most hours of propaganda about it.
I would agree with you on those points, and unfortunately, I have been listening into the righty talk shows, and indeed, they are all about getting a pardon for Scooter. Same folks were up in arms about Bill C. and his perjury though about a little action in the Oval Office, and now we're actually talking about a real case that has national security details, and all of a sudden it's a political witch hunt. Funny how times have changed.
Here in NC we have righty FM talk radio though, so we get even more and louder shows to contend with, and they come in even better. Scary. Although the local morning drive show ain't that bad, they're pretty balanced actually. Not too far right, not too far left, but they play it fairly in the middle. I agree sometimes, and other times, not so much.
We also have a fulltime AM talk radio station that is nothing but conservative propaganda for the most part. Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Boortz, and so on and so forth.
You're in NC? My niece is in Winston-Salem, and she can't seem to tell me if she's near Mayberry. Can you help?
Mayberry isn't that far from Winston-Salem at all (in the fictional world at least). You know how they always talked about Pilot Mountain, and places like that. That's just down the road from Winston Salem, as is Greensboro, so she is right in the middle of Mayberry, or at least, the general fictional location.
Mount Airy, North Carolina [located in Surry County] is Andy Griffith's hometown and was the inspiration for the fictional town of Mayberry.
Mag,
It seems to me that Fitzgerald seemed more intent on adding a notch to his belt than anything else. Since there was no law broken in outing Plame, It seems to me he had to try to find something to prosecute. Libby gave him that opening.
It is puzzling to me why Libby would have lied. I'm not saying he didn't, and I know the conviction so nobody needs to repeat it. I don't know Libby's motive and I disagree with the sentence in relation to the original noncrime and other sentences, i.e., Berger, for what seem to me was a greater acts of lawbreaking. That example just jumped to mind.
Well, in the prosecution of and investigating of the outing of a covert CIA agent, Fitzgerald was lied to by Libby. This, as we all know, is called perjury. In this particular case, it was a federal issue, with which this carries greater consequences in this case. Again, Libby directly lied to possibly coverup his, and his bosses involvement in the outing of Plame. Again, he obstructed justice, and got what he deserved in this case. Berger, in his case, got what he deserved.
Fitzgerald wasn't looking to add another notch to his belt. He did his job with actual integrity, not like Mr. Starr from year's past, and didn't try his case in the media. He did it in the courts. As the old saying goes, sometimes it's not the crime or in this case, the alleged crime that was committed, it's the coverup that gets the people who were involved. Scooter could have avoided this whole thing by, you know, telling the truth. It's really not that hard.
I can't let that pass even though I am at work and should. There may have been a crime committed chief. Fitz prosecuted Scooter because he kept him from getting to the truth. Covert agent was outed by Dick Cheney to his subordinates and then directed them to leak the information to the press. She was covert and had traveled outside the US within the past 5 years as such. Even if there was no technical crime committed the outing of Mrs. Wilson did serious harm to our intelligence gathering abilities in the field of WMD. This according to the CIA. Stop making lame excuses and comparing this to Sandy Berger's pilfering of some copies of documents he shouldn't have. His is a serious crime and he has been dealt with but it pales in comparison to the act of treason from the VPs office.
even the prosecutor in the berger case said that he felt that berger was doing just what he said he was doing. taking copies home to study, instead of taking the time sitting in the archives looking them over. there was nothing lost, the 9-11 commission said they had everything they needed, and there was nothing in those documents that was the least damaging to our national security. it's only in wingnut fantasy land that the two even compare. rove and libby broke their security oaths by deliberately giving the name of an undercover cia operative to reporters. they did exactly what they were accused of by joe wilson in the beginning. plame's outing did real damage to our present and future intelligence gathering capability. a spy network that took many years and planning to put together was destroyed in an instant by the traitor novak and members of the bush administration. this action also made future contacts overseas reluctant to deal with us, because they could end up dead in an alley if some blabbermouth in washington talks. plame had no official cover, meaning that she could be imprisoned in a foreign country if caught. she is a true hero, compared to the worms in the bush white house who did their best to out her. and the worms who defend or dismiss those actions.
You may not like this, but Novak said he learned Valerie Plame's idenity from Who's Who In America, 2000; info that shehad to agree to be published.
Who's Who published that Valerie Plame was a CIA Agent? Wow. Didn't know they did that! They are thorough.
; )
You are so full of it. You cannot POSSIBLY claim no crime was committed this bogus talking point has been shredded over and over. Did you know only about 25% of bank robberies are solved? I guess by your logic those banks WERENT ROBBED and the money is still there. No one ever found out who murdered Bob Crane. I guess that means he is still alive. This talking point is so ludicrous it is impossible to believe anyone with an IQ higher than a carrot could possibly take it seriously. Robert Blake wasnt convicted of killing his wife so I guess that means she isnt dead or at least wasnt murdered. Stop making a fool out of yourself repeating this incredibly stupid talking point.
If there is a crime and Fitzgerald knows who outed Plame, where's the prosecution?
As a side note, why does no one discuss the culpability of Wilson?
AA,
Two things here: Just because Fitz did not prosecute anyone for the outing of the Plame does not mean a crime was not committed. Prosecutors are often trained to bring cases they have a good shot of winning. I think the best example I can think of is Al Capone. There is probably no doubt that Capone and his thugs murdered people, but where there was doubt was could it be proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt? In Capone's case, probably not, but crimes were still committed. In this case, there was a crime committed but Libby's perjury and obstruction hindered the case so much (my best guess here) that Fitz probably believed he could not beyond a reasonable doubt get a conviction with a jury.
#2-Does that mean Libby did not commit a crime? No. If it did, what would stop people from hindering criminal investigations? If your neighbor was kidnapped and you told investigators you had seen him for the past week every day so there was nothing to worry about and said neighbor ended up dead across the country with evidence that his body had been there for a while, you would still be guilty of obstructing justice even if no one knew who committed the crime.
The talking point is STUPID. Where was the conviction of the bank robberies when they couldnt make the case? Does that mean the bank robberies didnt happen or werent a crime? Where was the prosecution of Capone for the St Valentines day massacre? Does that mean no one was really killed? This is one of the most mindlessly, moronically ignorant pieces of debris hoisted up as a talking point I have ever seen.
Because he HAS no culpability. What was he supposed to KNOW that telling the truth about Bush misleading in his SOTU speech was going to make the Bush Administration compromise National Security and possibly break the law in a fit of political Pique?
We all know that this conviction is based on something that wasn't even prosecuted as a crime.
Hardly. Right-Wingers "know" that. The educated populace knows the truth.
Well you have done your propaganda parrot duty and regurgitated your long refuted rightwing talking points. So propaganda 1 logic ZERO
First its ludicrous to say there WAS no crime because it was unable to be prosecuted. By that logic since Al Capone was convicted ONLY of tax evasion those guys gunned down in the St Valentines day massacre really lived long fruitful lives and werent murdered afterall. Berger took COPIES, and shouldnt have but calling that stealing national security documents like it was a crime WORSE than obstruction of justice or exposing a CIA agent which we ALL know happened even if all the elements of the crime couldnt be proven, especially considering without the obstruction of justice it MIGHT HAVE BEEN is just weak.
As for the disclosure of top secret information that is information embarassing to the Bush administration it was nothing, it certainly wasnt like exposing the identity of a NOC agent working on WMD proliferation. I guess you mean Bush tracking banking information which he only mentioned SEVEN TIMES HIMSELF in speeches the only thing new in the story was that Bush was circumventing the usual legal channels to do that. You are such a weak sychophant. If Bush were shown on tape live on CNN sodomizing a goat you would rush in here to crow about how wonderful it was that our great president supported 4-H so much.
Solon,
You are so rabidly partisan that you cannot acknowledge the simple facts.
Fitzgerald knew who outed Plame. We all do now. It was Armitage.
Armitage was not prosecuted. Why? The simple fact is no law was broken. If it is otherwise, then Fitzgerald was not doing his job was he. But you argue that he was. Which is it?
Berger stole top secret document even if they were copies. He was a former National Security Advisor and he's stealing?
Berger got a wristslap and, (correct me if I am wrong,) nary a peep of outrage from the likes of you.
Hey HBL, look at Solon for the classic example of condescending.
Condescending isn't bad when the condescender has something to back it up. ;0)
It's the combination of condescending and wrong that makes you so much fun.
As we've seen before, the citing of "Armitage" is supposed to prove that he is THE leaker. That's obviously fallacious, since more than one person could have been doing so.
The difference between Berger and Libby is that we (in general) recognize that Berger did something wrong, and have no problem with him being held accountable for it. All we get from you on Libby is uninformed and illogical apologism.
The ignorance of that statement reeks of stupidity. We all KNOW Capone was behind the St Valentines day massacre he wasnt prosecuted how does that mean those guys werent murdered? This has already been explained a dozen times. You dont care. Repeating the propaganda like a parrot is all you care about. The way the law is written EVERY exposure is not itself a crime. Armitage convinced Fitz his was inadvertant, since intent IS an element of it being a crime HE wasnt prosecuted however he also wasnt the ONLY leaker. More than one person can commit the same crime, that is a pretty simple concept. Until the point that Novak publicised her identity as a covert agent the exposure could have been done by any number of people just because Armitage didnt do it intentionally is not evidence the OTHER exposures were also not intentional. This is so simple the only reason you are not getting it is that you only care about the utility for propaganda purposes nothing else matters to you not facts, not reality nothing so no matter how often we smack you upside the head with plain facts and logic you keep shrugging it off and repeating what is useful for propaganda its pathetic
ANOTHER AMERICAN:
You may be growing up. You say, "We all know that this conviction is based on something that wasn't even prosecuted as a crime. If ever there is a political witch hunt, this was it."
Do us a favor. Tell us your evolution from the Clinton days, and the charges levelled against HIM during impeachment. Compare and Contrast.
If there ever was a political witch hunt ... INDEED.
You make a good point.
Either Clinton should have been given a tougher sentence or Libby's should have been lighter. Either way and I'd feel better. ;-)
My guess is Libby will probably win on appeal, his conviction overturned, and all this talk will be moot. ;-)
My guess is you have lost all touch with reality
The only people who aren't going to like it are people who slam you every day, anyway
It seems that he is correct with that statement. 70% of America don't approve of a pardon, and the same number don't approve of Bush. The idiocy comes with the assessment that it would be good politically to appease the 30% that already supports him.
Leaving out the libertarians, it seems clear enough that the bedrock of conservatives would favor a pardon for Libby. After all, they have no concern at all over lawless and criminal actions on the part of Republican administrations, and in fact like them -- Watergate, Iran-Contra, Guantanamo, etc. etc. etc., all win their favor.
I wouldn't support a pardon, per se, so much as Libby doesn't have to do jail time if Cheney agrees to do the time instead.
Now THERE is a viable solution!
I would, myself, sign off on that proposal - if the time started now, and we didn't advance the clock at all while Bungle remains in office.
Sure focus on when the poll was taken and get your mind off the fact that Bush stood in front of the People of the United States and said he would like to get to the bottom of who outed Plame. Bush even went so far as to say that if anyone in his administration has even an appearance of wrong doing they will be fired.
When it turns out to be Rove, Cheney and Libby as the ones behind the outing Bush changed the bar to anyone found guilty. Libby was found guilty.
So now the Repbulicans and Conservatives are asking Bush to change the bar one more time and this time to change the bar from anyone found guilty to anyone found guilty will be pardoned.
Libby's conviction was not politically motivated. An agent was outed. This is a legal issue. Libby lied to the grand jury and obstructed justice this is a legal issue. Libby was tried in court with jury. The jury heard the legal issues and gave the verdict. The verdict is Libby is guilty of the wrong doings that he was charged with. Nothing political about this.
The judge is correct in saying that Libby being in the position he was in has no one to blame but himself for the wrongs that he did.
If Bush pardons Libby rest assure that it will be brought up how Bush changed the bar to benefit his partners in crime.
I think Bush will pardon libby. The neocon base demands it and have been actively working the cocktail crowds to silently push it. This is all about loyalty to the cause, and for Bush to ignore that when he has up till now made it the mantra of his cabinet would bode ill for him, it would definitely cement his place as worst president. Only a pardon will redeem him in the eyes of the neocon base and help shield him from the majority who will judge him so.
Bush MUST pardon Libby, because how ELSE can Bush assert that he and his people are ABOVE THE LAW?
How dare a prosecutor prove that laws were broken? How dare a jury decide that Libby violated trust, his oath of office, and lied repeatedly to law enforcement authorities?
No, a PARDON is the only way Bush can assert his omnicience and superiority to the rest of us poor schlubs who have to be law abiding. Not this White House, no sir. The law doesn't apply to THE ELITE RULERS.
[Plus, if Libby sees that he's actually going to have to take up occupancy in a cell, he may decide to finally tell the truth, cut a deal, and rat out his Bosses. Can't have THAT.]
Just did my lunchtime scan of the am radio. El Rushbo's fill-in guy was repeating what the Oxymoron has been hammering home for the duration of the case(and what was parroted in posts above);
No crime, political witch hunt,etc., along with repeated mentions of the Duke case prosecutor, Nifong, creating an "all prosecutors are corrupt/incompetent" hypnotic suggestion for the zombies.
It seems to be working on some of them.
Who needs prosecutors? They only exist to give boring, law abiding people, like me, a hard time.
We all know who the terrorists, illegal aliens and traitors are. These are bad people who aren't deserving of any rights. Just lock them up and fire all the prosecutors...and cut my taxes.
/sarcasm off
FYI: I started listening to that guy while in my car at lunch and quickly turned the dial to listen to Prager.
It matters little when Bungle issues the pardon - *I* am betting big on a pardon being issued. The Repugnants simply could not take the chance that, facing real prison time, Libby might start to talk to the prosecutor about others, such as Rovesputin and Darth, sometime this autumn. So, I am predicting either Thanksgiving (instead of the other turkey) or early December, to spare the Libby family the "heartbreak" of daddy being absent at Christmas. Please just continue to ignore the 160,000+ U.S. in Iraq, who will be absent to support Bungle's plan, and the 3500+ who will be absent due to being dead, and the 31,000+ who will be absent due to Iraq-related injury. It must be made clear that Justice cannot supercede Libby's presence at his Christmas celebration. After all, one of the tenets of Bungledom is "compassionate". Ranks right up there with "conservative".
With the unknown possibility of an emergency stay, I'm not willing to make that bet yet. However, if Libby doesn't get the stay, I'd bet on a pardon in September or October. Cheney and Rove won't take the chance on Scooter singing.
There's a relevant lesson from this...the reluctance of Bush & Co to issue a pardon now seems to good evidence that even they consider it politically risky. Too much public annoyance at the administration's flouting the law could provide Congress with the support (or balls) to vigorously pursue other investigations.
Uh, it occurs to me that the Libby family may not even celebrate Christmas. Kwanza is probably out. Maybe the Jewish holiday Chanukkah? Not that Bungle will know, care, or correctly identify the holiday for which he assures Libby's release, just a tendency to be, well, _______.
Ah, the Scooter Libby dilemma for the president. Will he continue to follow insane advice that tickles his ears or will he do what he usually does when the going gets tough: nothing?
I'm pulling for a pardon. That should bottom out the president's approval even more and attach itself to his historic "legacy."
-FK
thoughtalarm.blogspot.com
I think everyone sane has already left the Bush bandwagon at this point he could accidentally nuke New York City and his sychophants would cheer his urban renewal plan.
I fully expect Bush to pardon Libby. This guy has shown nothing but utter comtempt for the opinions of the American people time and time again, so this would just be one more feather in that cap.
That said, I actually hope Bush goes forward with the pardon. In my humble opinion, it would help cement his legacy of failure and cronyism.
I don't care what a poll says, it is the right thing to do to pardon him.
At least the right wing thing to do.
At least it would be the right thing to do on PLANET WINGNUT
I think many Americans are wondering why Libby is going to prison after committing perjury and obstruction of justice while Bill Clinton gives million dollar speeches after doing the same thing (not to mention adultery, which is a misdemeanor in D.C.).
Let's see:
Libby, convicted in a court of law by a jury of his peers. Punishment, jail time
Clinton, impeached by a bunch of lying Republican Congressional hypocrites who also cheated on their wives. Punishment, continued coverage of an event that still has no bearing on him as President.
More: Libby CONVICTED; Clinton NOT.
Ah because Clinton was AQUITTED OF PERJURY? Because in a court of LAW Clinton was never ACCUSED of perjury? For it to be perjury the lie has to be material to the case. A judge said Clintons lie WASNT. Libby's WAS that is the difference between a crime and a violation of ethical standards for which Clinton surrendered his license to practice law. Of course you KNOW all that. The last time I had this argument I linked to findlaw and the LAW ITSELF which said all this. Try to keep up. I dont think any Americans outside the comitted to rightwing propganda set are asking themselves anything like that. Certainly no one who is the least bit informed on the issue are asking that.
You must really hate that G. Gordon Liddy has a radio talk show!
Here is one HUGE difference for you (other than the conviction): One was lying about an extra-marital affair, one lied about National Security.
Who knows, after Libby gets out, maybe he will land on his feet like Liddy and get a regular gig out of being a martyr.
"A well-connected Republican whose views have reached Bush’s inner circle said that if Libby goes to prison, “It would be seen by the religious and policy conservatives as the president abandoning his loyalty virtue for the hedonistic pleasure of political expediency.” Allen
Bush, a hedonist? That is closer to the truth than most would think. The man and his whole administration take great pleasure in lying to the American people. One more lie, pardoning Libby, for him and the neo-cons is just the next climax in the royal screwing we've been getting since they came to power?
Just who are these religious and policy conservatives anyway?
Why according to the religous right just lying is breaking one of the Ten Commandments, thou shall not bear false witness, and one should NEVER do anything so unchristian. But, I quess in the reich world, alls fair in power and politics. So not only does Libby need to come clean to the American people but he needs to tell the good citizens of this country just who he is lying for. Confession is good for the soul, so they say. :-)
And apparently its legal for any woman to go topless in NewYork City. It may still be illegal to get drunk with a fish in Oklahoma. Being a criminal often takes more than intent.
Bill was convicted of perjury, then made that wild escape in O.J.'s Bronco. Yea I remember that. Who would have thought he had it in him. Fooled everybody but you. That'll show us.
I do confess to a brain fart on the obstruction of justice by Bill. Clearify, or don't.
Has the statue of limitations run out for the adultery charge? I don't remember any charge being made. Where was Kennith Starr when we needed him?
Prolly due to Clenis not having "known" Monica in the Biblical sense? Consequently, no adultery.
I think the courts were pretty backed up with Heresy cases at the time as well.And Witchcraft.
It is amazing that the Clenis still has such power to provoke fear and dread among the rightwing sheeple
The only folks in favor of the libby pardon are the Republican s with something further to hide. Libby can nail Cheney on a boatload of shady backroom deals. The majority of fair minded citizens feel that when you do the crime, you do the time. Just not in Bush World. If Bush grants the pardon, he'll go from history books to comic books for eternity.
Jeter and Tommy. Do you believe Scooter Libby is a criminal? Yes or no.
The poll is misinterpreted, they were only sampling the public's fed up disgust for the very mention of that whole preferential-justice circus. And circus-legal is one of the republican's growth industries, they even had that athiest's pledge of allegiance, nuissance litigation thing in California because they wanted to prop a liberal, anti-American media virus out there to demonize while Bush's ratings were tanking.
So, pardon me if I say this has nothing to do with any of the fiction's main characters. But like most of the unconscious media, pollsters would be inclined to interpret anything to their liking, quite possibly fudging their data from any random source of overheard public conversation or internet message postings. They write the questions, remember. Hence they defraud the concept of prioritizing issues. Next week maybe they'll be playing 'Will it float?' like Letterman.
Arguably there is no difference.
And your evidence that the public was only responding to a poll that simply asked if Bush should pardon LIbby in your partisan way is WHAT? Oh it doesnt exist? Imagine my suprise. The question was on point, I think the misinterpretation is YOURS. I have as much to back up my opinion as you do yours.
Tommy incurred in a commonly used fallacy used by sophist, which consists in demanding the opponent to prove a negative.
Prove, they say, that views of Americans on the Libby pardon have not changed since March. He does this even though he is aware that the burden of proof rests on whoever makes the accusation or the original claim, in this case the media character who hypothesized that Bush would benefit politically from pardoning Libby. This media character did not present any poll whatsoever as evidence to back up his/her claim, while those of us on the left presented the whole universe of polls available up to mid-March.
The 75% Allen refers to isn't about polling at all. He's saying that it's about 75% a sure thing that a pardon wouldn't hurt Bush.
"Now, it's about 75 percent there that it would be politically good. The only people who aren't going to like it are people who slam you every day, anyway."
Ok lets say thats what he means it sounds reasonable. Exactly WHAT is that contention based on considering that the existing evidence is that about 70% of Americans disagree with pardoning Libby? Anyway you look at it whatever he meant if flies in the face of the existing evidence unless you are saying he meant that 70% of America is slamming Bush every day.