mudcat.org: BS: Libby convicted
Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafeawe

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3]


BS: Libby convicted

beardedbruce 09 Mar 07 - 03:22 PM
beardedbruce 09 Mar 07 - 03:25 PM
beardedbruce 09 Mar 07 - 03:27 PM
Ebbie 09 Mar 07 - 03:35 PM
Arne 09 Mar 07 - 03:38 PM
Arne 09 Mar 07 - 03:52 PM
Arne 09 Mar 07 - 04:08 PM
Arne 09 Mar 07 - 04:09 PM
Arne 09 Mar 07 - 04:16 PM
Wesley S 09 Mar 07 - 04:17 PM
Arne 09 Mar 07 - 04:25 PM
Wesley S 09 Mar 07 - 05:23 PM
GUEST,TIA 09 Mar 07 - 06:03 PM
282RA 09 Mar 07 - 07:06 PM
Arne 09 Mar 07 - 07:08 PM
Wolfgang 05 Jun 07 - 12:39 PM
Rog Peek 05 Jun 07 - 07:20 PM
Dickey 05 Jun 07 - 10:19 PM
McGrath of Harlow 06 Jun 07 - 04:05 PM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 03:22 PM

"Don Firth]: "had no bearing on anything beyond Clinton's family's and Monica Lewinsky's private lives. It did not have any bearing on anything beyond that."

Which makes it not perjury. Perjury requires that the facts be material."


And which was why I pointed out that Don's statement was FALSE. The questions were material to the case at hand, ie Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. at 692-93.

Let me get you some help in reading comprehension- you obviously have special needs to deal with.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 03:25 PM

So, if the case is dismissed, the testimony is NOT material?

Then, with no charges against anyone for releasing the name of Plume, which was the purpose of the grand jury, HOW can they hold Libby responsible, even if he did lie?

You just keep insisting on two sets of rules- one for the liberals, and a different one for conservatives. THAT is what I object to.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 03:27 PM

"And you're an eedjit that reads way too much Feeperville/WhirledNutzDaily crapola."

And you are a shit-for-brains that has a problem in simple reading comprehension. But don't let that stop you from passing judgement on the rest of the world.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 03:35 PM

bb, in my opinion you are being insulting. This ia an interesting subject but unless it can be discussed dispassionately and with a certain amount of respect for each other, I'm gone.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted
From: Arne
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 03:38 PM

Greg B. said:

Clinton had every right to lie. He was correct to lie. Because
what he and Monica Lewinsky did as consenting adults was the
business of only three people--- Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky,
and Hilary Clinton, the woman to whom Bill Clinton had pledged
sexual fidelity. It wasn't Paula Jones' lawyer's business, it
wasn't the grand jury's business it wasn't the special counsel's
business.

The idea that the government can make what happenes between
consenting adults its business is totally uncivilized.

Clinton's only mistake was in not saying 'I'm not going to
answer that question because it's none of your damned business.'

I bet he could have made it stick. To the good of all of society.


Say amen. Greg has it right (and the law backs him up too; perjury requires that the fact be material, something lacking in a consensual blowjob under these circumstances, even if highly embarrassing [which would also go to exclusion at trial in any case under FRE Rule 403]). I was suggesting just that at the time on Usenet; that Clinton should have lied his ass off and told them the moon was made of bleu cheese or just told them to stuff it. But because this was a political witch-hunt more than a legal one, Clinton was conscious of that and not looking for something they could trun against him politically either.

Cheers,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted
From: Arne
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 03:52 PM

BeardedBruce quotes the rabid "Dr." Krauthammer:

There are lies and there are memory lapses. Bill Clinton denied under oath having sex with Monica Lewinsky....

WFT cares? But FWIW, Clinton did this under the very strange and contrted definition of "sexual relations" that the judge approved after objection to the original definition by Clinton's lawyer. And under that asymmetric definition, it is arguable whether there was "sexual relations" as defined.

... Unless you're Wilt Chamberlain, sex is not the kind of thing you forget easily....

Irrelevant.

... Sandy Berger denied stuffing classified documents in his pants, an act not quite as elaborate as sex, but still involving a lot of muscle memory and unlikely to have been honestly forgotten....

Nor did he. That was RW Smear Machine lies. But FWIW, Berger did acknowledge mishandling of classified information, and pleaded quilty to such.

Scooter Libby has just been convicted of four felonies that could theoretically give him 25 years in jail for . . . what? Misstating when he first heard a certain piece of information, namely the identity of Joe Wilson's wife.

"Misstating". Such a polite word for lying. There were four separate counts (for perjury, lying to an FBI agent, and obstruction of justice), all proved beyond reasonable doubt to a unanimous jury. Libby's "my memory just failed me" was contradicted by so many pieces of evidence (including that Cheney's office was in the thick of things, and Libby was tasked by Cheney with tearing down Wilson for his impudence) that the jury basically laughed at it.

This demonstration of Russert's fallibility was never shown to the jury. The judge did not allow it. He was upset with the defense because it would not put Libby on the stand -- his perfect Fifth Amendment right -- after hinting in the opening statement that it might. He therefore denied the defense a straightforward demonstration of the fallibility of the witness whose testimony was most decisive.

Toensing thinks this might be the basis for overturning the verdict upon appeal. I hope so.


Toensing is such a bought-and-paid-for Republican flack that no one ought to listen to a word she says, law degree or not. I'll bet money with whoever wants to here that Toensing is just full'o'it here. Here's your chance to make a fortune, Brucie....

Cheers,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted
From: Arne
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 04:08 PM

BeardedBruce:

Krauthammer's point is that if the person committing the crime is not charged, then the lack of recall under questioning "was no big deal and shouldn't have been prosecuted in the first place"

To quote Arne,
"The perjury statute (18 USC § 1621) requires that the lie be about a material fact. Not just about something embarrassing "

If the crime was not prosecutable, how could a lie be material?


There was a criminal investigation (specifically, as requested by the CIA, of -- amongst other things -- a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act), and as Fitzgeral explained on more than one occasion, Libby's lies had the effect of hindering that investigation and possibly preventing any prosecution of such violations (by Libby or by others).

Let's deal with this foofrah about Armitage here once and for all: It doesn't matter if Armintage (legally or illegally under the IIPA) disclosed the classified information to Novak first or later. That someone else has also committed a murder will not excuse you for yours. And if there was a conspiracy to get this information out to the public in an attempt to discredit Wilson (or punish him, or whatever stoopid rationale they had for it), that would also be a crime.

Libby's obstruction prevented a full investigation of the corcumstances of the outing, and that is a crime.

Cheers,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted
From: Arne
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 04:09 PM

Why BeardedBruce continues to defend a criminal maladministration is beyond me....

Cheers,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted
From: Arne
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 04:16 PM

BeardedBruce:

Or do you agree with me that Clinton, who lied, admitted lying, and lost his right to practice law for a couple of years because of his lies,....

MRPC Rule 8.4(c) makes any kind of deceit ("dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation") misconduct subject to administrative sanction as a lawyer. Of course, didn't help that all the Democrats on the Arkansas committee recused themsleves from the lynch party, leaving a bunch of foaming Republicans to mete out "appropriate punishment".

But this ethical "standard" is a bit higher than the legal standard for "perjury" (as pointed out above). And FWIW, if we were to rigourously and strictly apply 8.4(c) to all lawyers after six-year, $60 million dollar investigations for each and every one of them, we'd perhaps achieve Shakespeare's "solution".

Cheers,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted
From: Wesley S
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 04:17 PM

I must have wandered into the wrong thread. It's labeled "Libby convicted" but y'all are arguing about Bill Clinton??


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted
From: Arne
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 04:25 PM

BeardedBruce:

And which was why I pointed out that Don's statement was FALSE. The questions were material to the case at hand, ie Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. at 692-93.

Ummm, who says you get to decide, Brucie? Who appointed you Grand Inquisitor?

If you simply maintain that it is your opinion that it should be "material", feel free to argue it and support your argument with appropriate caselaw and cites. "Argument by assertion" just doesn't cut it with me.....

FWIW, I've already pointed out FRE Rule 403 as a basis for exclusion of such, but I'd also argue that FRE Rule 404 supports my assertion, as well as the exclusive nature of Rule 415.

Not to mention, Judge Wright eventually ruled that all the dirt that Starr and the rest of the Arkansas Project had been digging up would be excluded and further inquiry on those lines ceased. But she doesn't get to determine materiality (although her exclusion argues heavily against such being found).

Cheers,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted
From: Wesley S
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 05:23 PM

Sorry Arne - but you're being played if you've been sucked into a conversation about Bill Clinton. It's called "bait and switch".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 06:03 PM

Yeah, but Arne kicked the living shit out of those arguments didn't he?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted
From: 282RA
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 07:06 PM

My heart leaps ecstatically with unrestrained joy. But, yeah, he'll get pardoned.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted
From: Arne
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 07:08 PM

Wesley S:

Sorry Arne - but you're being played if you've been sucked into a conversation about Bill Clinton. It's called "bait and switch".

Multitasking. I was covering BeardedBruce's Libby horse manure too.

Cheers,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted
From: Wolfgang
Date: 05 Jun 07 - 12:39 PM

30 months for him is a good start.

Wolfgang


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted
From: Rog Peek
Date: 05 Jun 07 - 07:20 PM

Shame he doesn't have a cell mate named Dick.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted
From: Dickey
Date: 05 Jun 07 - 10:19 PM

"The idea that the government can make what happenes between
consenting adults its business is totally uncivilized.

Clinton's only mistake was in not saying 'I'm not going to
answer that question because it's none of your damned business.'

I bet he could have made it stick. To the good of all of society."

Mike Wallace to Mit Romney: "Did you have pre-marital sex with Ann?"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Jun 07 - 04:05 PM

Betcha he never gets to serve one day in prison.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 1 April 1:11 AM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.