Welcome to PatsFans.com

Libby Juror says: "Pardon him."

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Fogbuster, Mar 8, 2007.

  1. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    MSNBC host Chris Matthews spoke with Libby juror Ann Redington on HARDBALL. Juror [#10] says she would support a Bush pardon for Libby.

    Transcript:

    Chris: You're for a pardon out of sympathy for the defendant.

    Ann: Yeah, I think in the big picture, um, it kind of bothers me that there was this whole big crime being investigated and he got caught up in the investigation as opposed to in the actual crime that was supposedly committed.

    Chris: Which is the leaking of a CIA agents name.

    Ann: Exactly.



    http://www.drudgereport.com/flash1.htm
     
  2. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,608
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    lol... is drudge your homepage?
     
  3. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0



    No, MSNBC is. Why?


    Anywho, that a juror would come out so quickly and surely to say that this whole fiasco is nothing but political gamesmanship is certainly a breath of fresh air. It's been clear all along what this charade has been about: this was NEVER about Libby, or his scooter. This has always been about vindictive, partisan, hack, small-minded people wanting to get to Bush by the ol' domino game, as they did to Nixon: go after one underling after another until the pool is so filled with blood the sharks will grab at anything, even a president who took the bold step of standing up to gutless, cowardly terrorists who hide behind schools, hospitals, their own allegedly sacred mosques, and even *wear women's clothing* to commit their despicable deeds.



    //
     
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2007
  4. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    43,268
    Likes Received:
    330
    Ratings:
    +829 / 27 / -33

    Could the whole Clinton fiasco been about political gamesmanship also?? I would think that outing a CIA agent for political retribution would trump a BJ in the Oval Office, but that is not a popular opinion. I know he lied to a grand jury. Everything in DC is about party politics, but if you break the law, you break the law. If this woman wasn't looking for her 5 minutes of fame, maybe she should have voted her conscience.. easy to come forth now and say what she should have done or how she felt. Another f....ing follower of Herr Rove and crew.
     
  5. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    43,268
    Likes Received:
    330
    Ratings:
    +829 / 27 / -33

    You also might want to read this perspective, better than the dribble put out by Drudge and the rest of the Right Wing Circle Jerkers.. there are a lot of myths being perpetuated by the right on this issue, and talk about using it for their own political gain. One thing a lot forget here is that what took place was due process, and Scooter had his day in court.

    http://mediamatters.org/items/200703060008

    No underlying crime was committed. Since a federal grand jury indicted Libby in October 2005, numerous media figures have stated that the nature of the charges against him prove that special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's investigation of the CIA leak case found that no underlying crime had been committed. But this assertion ignores Fitzgerald's explanation that Libby's obstructions prevented him -- and the grand jury -- from determining whether the alleged leak violated federal law.

    There was no concerted White House effort to smear Wilson. In his October 2005 press conference announcing Libby's indictment, Fitzgerald alleged that, in 2003, "multiple people in the White House" engaged in a "concerted action" to "discredit, punish, or seek revenge against" former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. In August 2006, it came to light that then-deputy secretary of State Richard Armitage was the original source for syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak's July 14, 2003, column exposing CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity. Numerous conservative media figures subsequently claimed that this revelation disproved the notion of a "concerted" White House effort to smear Wilson. But to the contrary, David Corn -- Washington editor of The Nation and co-author of Hubris (Crown, 2006) the book that revealed Armitage's role in the leak -- noted on his Nation weblog that Armitage "abetted a White House campaign under way to undermine Wilson" and that whether he deliberately leaked Plame's identity, "the public role is without question: senior White House aides wanted to use Valerie Wilson's CIA employment against her husband."

    Libby was not responsible for the leak of Plame's identity. Some in the media have suggested that because Libby did not discuss former CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity with Novak -- the first journalist to report she worked at the CIA -- he is not technically responsible for the leak. But such claims ignore the fact that Libby discussed Plame's CIA employment with then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller on several occasions prior to the publication of Novak's column naming Plame as a CIA operative.

    Libby merely "left out some facts." Some media outlets -- such as The Washington Post -- have suggested that FBI agent Deborah Bond testified at the trial that Libby simply "left out some facts" when he was interviewed by her in 2003. Specifically, the Post asserted that Bond said Libby "did not acknowledge disclosing the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame to reporters." In fact, Bond testified that Libby actually denied having leaked Plame's identity or having had any knowledge of her -- this despite the fact that two reporters had already testified that he .......
     
  6. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0



    Except that the Dems started the machine in motion with Watergate. A harmless break-in, done even with noble intentions, and the piranhas were set loose. The left thought they had gotten over on Nixon in particular and America in general, but found out the story didn't -- will never -- stop until the situation is fully cleaned up, 100%. America is not just any nation. It has a higher purpose.

    That meant Bill Clinton, even with his glamorous approval ratings, would not be allowed to sully the nation by his selfish panderings. Yeah, Bill's bj from Monica (and all the rest) was about on par of seriousness as Howard Hunt, Gordon Liddy and the Cuban crew: wire-tapping and bugging a loose cannon candidate in McGovern.

    Tits for tats until all is good. It will continue as long as necessary.

    You still don't get it??



    //
     
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2007
  7. 3 to be 4

    3 to be 4 2nd Team Getting Their First Start

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,676
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    ok, even I have to stop and say to that, WTF??????
     
  8. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0



    OK, a few deep breaths now. In.... out...... in ..... out..... breathe....... in....... breathe......... out.


    The bit came from MSNBC!! Hello?! Drudge was the finder, not the maker.




    Have a good 'un.


    //
     
  9. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0




    Ah, Grasshopper, you will see. You will see. Someday.



    //
     
  10. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    Netscape news is reporting the headline that Bush "won't pardon Libby". Actually, what Tony Snow said was, "not ruled out, but not right now."

    Harry Reid, of course, wants his full pound of flesh, while the Wall Street Journal is "thundering" that the time to pardon is *NOW*.

    I say that W will wait until the Dems inevitably get into one of their traditional cat fights among themselves -- kind of like Hamas and Fatah among the Palestinians -- and quietly open the cell door.

    What? Clinton can pardon dozens, including Marc Rich, but Bush cannot??!!

    He can. Tits for tats.


    //
     
  11. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    41,746
    Likes Received:
    279
    Ratings:
    +1,152 / 5 / -10

    It's mine.
     
  12. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,738
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Since when is fixing an election noble?

    What about the first break in? You know Ellsberg's Psychiatrist's office? Were they there to check and makes sure Mr Ellsberg was getting the right amount of Valium?

    How about when Nixon forced the little old lady to take the fall for the gap in the tape record?
     
  13. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    As they say at the Harley dealer: If I have to explain you wouldn't understand.

    It was not about fixing any election. Who is Daniel Ellsberg, anyway? Who does/did he work for? Etc., etc. There were legitimate reasons for everything done. May have been heavy-handed, sure, but there were legitimate reasons.

    But you won't accept that. You want to impose some dark evil upon Nixon and now Bush, Jr., when there really isn't any.



    //
     
  14. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    41,746
    Likes Received:
    279
    Ratings:
    +1,152 / 5 / -10

    Drudge is part of the "New Thing" we have in America today they tell you all the little things that the
    "Old Thing" (liberal media) doesn't want you to know.

    If it wasn't for Drudge you never would of heard the name Monica Lewinsky.

    I hope nobody is fool enough to think that Cute Perky Katie or the NY Times would have told you about her.

    WE NOW GET THE WHOLE STORY, BOTH SIDES (that drives the left wing nuts)
    :bricks:
     
  15. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Face it, Libby broke the law, which is why he was convicted. The bigger crime went unpunished, but I have a feeling you're OK with that, Fogbuster, because your heroes in the White House would be facing the judge now instead of Libby. Libby was the low man on the totem pole, but he was still on the totem pole and broke the law.
     
  16. scout

    scout Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    7,725
    Likes Received:
    30
    Ratings:
    +51 / 0 / -2

    #15 Jersey

    I just love it when hard core Republicans give Nixon a free pass. Sometimes, its' they all do it or in your case, a harmless act. Nixon was dirty. If it wasn't Watergate it could have been anyone of a handful of illegal acts. As I mentioned in another thread, he had contemplated planting evidence in a attempted murder investigation to help secure an election. I guess that gets a little chuckle from Nixon devotees. The dismissal of Watergate as tit for tat puts your credibility in question. The get-even scheme is problematic, however, this string was broken with Iran Contra, as the Democrats chose not to pursue. They had a good case, and some Republican did receive sentences for those illegal deeds (tho, later pardoned and hired in the current administration).
     
  17. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,457
    Likes Received:
    327
    Ratings:
    +918 / 7 / -3

    Sure, he got a BJ in the Oval Office, but he also admitted to lying under oath. The Impeachment may very well have been a witch hunt, but lets not forget that lying under oath is a very serious offense. Our entire justice system is based on sworn testimony. If the friggin president feels he doesn't have to tell the truth under oath, why should anyone else feel compelled to?

    As for the juror, and the pardon stuff, I watched it all on Hardball last night (I always watch the show, even though Matthews has moved very left) and came away a bit appalled. Here you have a juror, who just convicted a guy of lying to a grand jury, who found him guilty on 4 out of 5 counts, saying she was confident in her verdict, now saying "awe, he seemed like a really nice guy with his cowboy hat, the president should pardon him". HUH? Even Matthews wants him pardoned. What is going on in this country? The guy commited a crime and was found guilty, hello? Matthews convicted this guy months ago, and now he wants him pardoned? This country, and the media, is azzbackwards.
     
  18. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,457
    Likes Received:
    327
    Ratings:
    +918 / 7 / -3

    Pujo, commit the crime, do the time. For me, it's that easy. This fall guy crap is BS. He lied, sorry. When you start excusing behavior because he might have been doing it to cover someone you really want to nail, or because as juror #10 put it, "he seemed like a really nice guy", you're a maroon. This guy should go to prison so that the next clown working for a VP does his job honestly, and doesn't LIE TO A GRAND JURY! Some people in this country boggle the mind. To see MAtthews on TV last night saying Libby should be pardoned was laughable. Sucks to cuz I like his show, but he's gone so far off the deep end since last fall he's loosing all credibility to me. He kept trying to thawrt that National Review chic by saying Clinton yada,yada, yada....Guess what, HE LIED TOO! Why would anyone want to exonerate criminal behavior? Do we look at pissing on the justice system differently for some people and not others? Why should anyone under oath ever take it seriously when politicians do it and get excused?
     
  19. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,457
    Likes Received:
    327
    Ratings:
    +918 / 7 / -3

    This is why I stopped following this case a long time ago. Everyone was saying that the yay was fact, while others claimed that the nay was fact. Worse, it was people in the MSM saying it, which made it very difficult to know what was true, and what was not. Being a believer in media bias, the agenda's of some were written on the wall. At any rate, post verdict, they still can't agree on anything, and even have one paper calling the other a liar.

    Enjoy!

    A Washington Post editorial I read about the case...

    Excerpt:

    Mr. Wilson was embraced by many because he was early in publicly charging that the Bush administration had "twisted," if not invented, facts in making the case for war against Iraq. In conversations with journalists or in a July 6, 2003, op-ed, he claimed to have debunked evidence that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger; suggested that he had been dispatched by Mr. Cheney to look into the matter; and alleged that his report had circulated at the highest levels of the administration.

    A bipartisan investigation by the Senate intelligence committee subsequently established that all of these claims were false -- and that Mr. Wilson was recommended for the Niger trip by Ms. Plame, his wife. When this fact, along with Ms. Plame's name, was disclosed in a column by Robert D. Novak, Mr. Wilson advanced yet another sensational charge: that his wife was a covert CIA operative and that senior White House officials had orchestrated the leak of her name to destroy her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson.

    The partisan furor over this allegation led to the appointment of special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald. Yet after two years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald charged no one with a crime for leaking Ms. Plame's name. In fact, he learned early on that Mr. Novak's primary source was former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage, an unlikely tool of the White House. The trial has provided convincing evidence that there was no conspiracy to punish Mr. Wilson by leaking Ms. Plame's identity -- and no evidence that she was, in fact, covert.


    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/06/AR2007030602020.html



    And the counter from the Baltimore Sun.


    Editorial Lies
    Astonishingly, everything in this Post attack on Wilson is either a gross distortion or a lie.

    Contrary to the Post’s account, Wilson did debunk suspicions that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger. He was dispatched by the CIA because of questions asked by Cheney. (Wilson never said Cheney personally sent him.) His information did reach the highest levels of the administration, explaining why the CIA kept deleting references to the Niger claims from speeches.

    The full Senate Intelligence Committee did not conclude that “all [Wilson’s] claims were false.” That assertion was pulled from “additional views” submitted by three right-wing Republicans – Sens. Pat Roberts, Orrin Hatch and Christopher Bond – who carried the White House’s water in claiming that Wilson’s statements “had no basis in fact.”

    As for the CIA selection of Wilson, the Post editorial-page editors know that Wilson was chosen by senior CIA officials in the office of counter-proliferation – not by Valerie Plame – and that Wilson was well qualified for the assignment since he had served in embassies in Iraq and Niger. He also took on this task pro bono, with the CIA only paying for his expenses.

    The Post knows, too, that Valerie Plame indeed was a covert CIA officer, despite the endless lying on this topic by right-wing operatives. Plus, Wilson was right again when he alleged that the White House was punishing him for his Iraq War criticism.

    Indeed, the Washington Post’s own reporters have described this reality in the news pages. For instance, on Sept. 28, 2003, a Post news article reported that a White House official disclosed that the administration had informed at least six reporters about Plame and did so “purely and simply out of revenge” against Wilson.

    Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald made the same point in a court filing in the Libby case, stating that the investigation had uncovered a “concerted” effort by the White House to “discredit, punish or seek revenge against” Wilson because of his criticism of the administration. Hiatt can look it up. It was on the Post's front page. [Washington Post, April 9, 2006]

    As for the lack of evidence at trial about Plame’s covert status, the Post editorial leaves out the context: Libby’s defense attorneys argued against admission of that evidence on the grounds that it would prejudice jurors who might be enflamed by the idea of exposing a covert CIA officer and her spy network. In addition, Plame’s undercover work was not considered essential to a case narrowly constructed about Libby’s lying.

    So, what can be said about a newspaper’s editorial board that willfully lies to its readers and slanders an American citizen, Joe Wilson, who took on a difficult assignment for his government at no pay and who later tried to blow the whistle on a White House misleading the public on an issue as important as war?

    In a normal world, a newspaper would praise Wilson for his dedication and patriotism. But the Post editorial board can’t seem to get past its own gullibility in buying into the administration’s bogus WMD claims in 2002-03.


    Rather than apologize for enabling Bush and Cheney to lead the nation into a disastrous war, Hiatt and Graham apparently have judged that they have the power to continue smearing Joe Wilson and other American citizens who had the foresight and courage to get the facts right.Rather than apologize for enabling Bush and Cheney to lead the nation into a disastrous war, Hiatt and Graham apparently have judged that they have the power to continue smearing Joe Wilson and other American citizens who had the foresight and courage to get the facts right.

    http://baltimorechronicle.com/2007/030807Parry.shtml
     
  20. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,625
    Likes Received:
    175
    Ratings:
    +471 / 13 / -14

    Shocking to hear that from the Post editorial board as to the Balt Sun, well they are in error. Plame nominated Wilson for his partisan hit job prior to Cheney even veing breifed. If Wilson didn't explicitly say cChency requested him he certainly implied. The fact that Cheney asked for the matter to be investigated, AFTER Plame nominated her Hubby to go there was good luck for Wilson giving him cover and increasing his credibility.


    BTW if Cheney wanted to fudge the data why not take the allegations at face value rather than asking the CIA to look into it?
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>