Oh, speaking of special prosecutors, they finally wrapped up the Whitewater investigation today, after just seven years.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/20/scotus.whitewater.tucker.ap/index.html
I don’t want to hear any whiny Republicans complaining about special prosecutors… not today!
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
harris447 wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
vroom wrote:
Oh oh. It looks like when this trial finally gets going it might be shining some bright lots on some previously shady areas…
Libby Trial May Be Embarrassment for Bush
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060318/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak
[i]
WASHINGTON - Lawyers for Vice President Dick Cheney’s former top aide are signaling they may delve deeply at his criminal trial into infighting among the White House, the CIA and the State Department over pre-Iraq war intelligence failures.
In a prelude to a possible defense, the lawyers for I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby also are suggesting that the State Department - not Libby - may be to blame for leaking the identity of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame to the media.
Court papers filed late Friday raise the possibility a trial could become politically embarrassing for the Bush administration by focusing on the debate about whether the White House manipulated intelligence to justify the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
[/i]
OOOO Vroom, the Administration must be shaking in its boots…
…you wish!
Worry about your own corrupt liberal system “up yonder” and stop trying to badmouth the U.S. Remember, without us you’d still be wearing buckskin and hunting moose!
How exactly did the United States “modernize” Canada?
Or, do you not know what the fuck you are talking about?
Again.
You are a disgrace to the teaching profession! If I were your principal and you spoke like this, I would have you in the office filing papers until you retire – anyting to keep you from the kids.
The fact that you know what a “tautology” or whatever that is doesn’t matter because your consistent use of profanity shows someone who is a pathological vulgar individual.
What a shame…[/quote]
Way to change the subject.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Just what is the story here?
Brad61 wrote:
Cheney’s #2 man Libby is accused of:
Lying to FBI agents- 2 counts
Lying under oath - 2 counts
Obstruction of justice
Not serious enough crimes for you?[/quote]
That specifically does not answer my point, and attempts to mischaracterize what I said. All of the alleged infractions were violations that happened regarding the investigation process. Those are bad in and of themselves, if they are indeed proved, but they give no justification whatsoever for the brouhaha that started the whole process. There was never any national security issue.
Not to get too off topic, but since you wanted to go off into things unrelated to the point, here we go.
The special prosecutor law was and is unconstitutional, because Congress is illegally divesting the President of his executive authority – and it was created by the Democrats under Nixon. The Republicans constantly argued it was unconsitutional, but the Democrats wanted to keep it – they only came around to the point after the Clinton years. Fitzgerald isn’t a “special prosecutor” per se, in that he is not in an office that has been removed from the executive branch. Fitzgerald is still under the authority of the Attorney General, and by extension, the President.
Secondly, the Whitewater investigations were far from “totally empty.” Go ask Web Hubble, Jim Guy Tucker and the other cronies down in Arkansas who were convicted of felonies. Susan McDougal’s loyalty to whomever she was protecting when she served over a year for contempt of court for refusing to answer a question that did not implicate her 5th Amendment rights against self incrimination was quite strong…
And, BTW, whether anyone “trusts” the U.S. Dept. of Justice in the abstract and in general has nothing to do with the merits behind the start of this investigation, which was instigated by the press and George Tenet, former head of the CIA. Justice didn’t want to do it - after internal reviews, which they will not release due to the current investigation, it is very likely they determined the case was not worthy of prosecution and not winnable in any event.
No use whining about how the investigation started Boston, it won’t make it go away…
bradley wrote:
"Oh, speaking of special prosecutors, they finally wrapped up the Whitewater investigation today, after just seven years.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/20/scotus.whitewater.tucker.ap/index.html
I don’t want to hear any whiny Republicans complaining about special prosecutors… not today!"
Just some good ole boys,
never meaning no harm…
Here’s bradley’s hero, billyboy and his pals:
"VARIOUS ARKANSAS:
Roger Clinton: Bill Clinton brother; drug trafficking conviction (Wall Street Journal “The Foster Test” January 14, 1994)
Dan Lasater: governor Bill Clinton contributor and state contractor: drug trafficking conviction (Wall Street Journal “The Foster Test” January 14, 1994)
Dan Harmon: Arkansas Seventh Judicial District prosecuting attorney and Bill Clinton friend and political ally: five federal racketeering, extortion, and drug distribution convictions (Wall Street Journal “Arkansas Justice” June 13, 1997)
Bill McCuen: Bill Clinton political ally: former Arkansas Secretary of State; bribery, tax evasion, kickbacks convictions (Wall Street Journal: Whitewater: “The Prosecution Rests” May 7, 1996)
WHITEWATER:
Webster Hubbell: Bill Clinton friend and political ally; Hillary Clinton Rose Law Firm partner: embezzlement; fraud; two felony convictions (Wall Street Journal “Whither Whitewater?” October 18, 1995)
Jim Guy Tucker: fraud; three felony convictions (Wall Street Journal “Second-Term Stall” February 11, 1997; Associated Press “Tucker Pleads Guilty to Cable Fraud” February 20, 1998)
William J. Marks Sr.: Jim Guy Tucker business partner; one conspiracy conviction (Associated Press “Whitewater Defendant Pleads Guilty” August 28, 1997)
Jim McDougal: Bill and Hillary Clinton friend, banker, and political ally: eighteen felony convictions (Wall Street Journal “Immunize Hale” May 29, 1996)
Susan McDougal: Bill and Hillary Clinton friend; former wife of Jim McDougal: four felony convictions (Wall Street Journal “Immunize Hale” May 29, 1996)
David Hale: Bill and Hillary Clinton friend, banker, and political ally: two felony convictions of conspiracy and mail fraud (Wall Street Journal “The Arkansas Machine Strikes Back” March 19, 1996)
Chris Wade: Whitewater real estate broker; two felony convictions (Wall Street Journal “Hard Evidence From a Federal Investigator” August 10, 1995)
Stephen Smith: former Governor Clinton aide; one conviction (Wall Street Journal “Hard Evidence From a Federal Investigator” August 10, 1995)
Larry Kuca: Madison real estate agent; fraudulent loans (Wall Steet Journal “Hard Evidence From a Federal Investigator” August 10, 1995)
Robert Palmer: Madison appraiser; one conspiracy felony conviction (Wall Street Journal “Hale Predicts Hillary Conviction” October 21, 1996)
Neal Ainley: Perry County Bank president; embezzled bank funds for Clinton campaign; two misdemeanor convictions (Wall Street Journal “Arkansas Bank Shot” May 4, 1995)
John Latham: Madison Bank CEO; bank fraud conviction (Wall Street Journal “Smoke Without Fire” January 12, 1996)
John Haley: attorney for Jim Guy Tucker; misdemeanor guilty plea; tax fraud (Associated Press “Tucker Pleads Guilty to Cable Fraud” February 20, 1998)
Eugene Fitzhugh: Whitewater defendant, pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of trying to bribe David Hale; is appealing a ten month prison sentence (The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, “Whitewater Defendants” February 22, 1998)
Charles Matthews: Whitewater defendant, pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor counts of bribery, served fourteen months of a sixteen month prison sentence (The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, “Whitewater Defendants” February 22, 1998)
ESPY:
Tyson Foods: guilty plea; $6 million federal court fines and investigative costs (Washington Post “Tyson Foods Admits Illegal Gifts to Espy” December 30, 1997)
Sun-Diamond Growers: $1.5 million fine for illegal campaign contributions to Espy’s brother (Associated Press “A Look at Mike Espy Investigation” August 27, 1997)
Richard Douglas: former Sun-Diamond Growers official; several bribery convictions and guilty pleas(Washington Post “Tyson Foods Admits Illegal Gifts to Espy” December 30, 1997; Associated Press: “Lobbyist Pleads guilty in Espy Case” March 17, 1998)
James H. Lake: Sun-Diamond Growers lobbyist; three convictions regarding illegal campaign contributions to Espy’s brother (Associated Press “A Look at Mike Espy Investigation” August 27, 1997)
Ron Blackley: Espy’s chief of staff: financial fraud conviction; twenty-seven month prison sentence (Washington Post “Tyson Foods Admits Illegal Gifts to Espy” December 30, 1997; Associated Press: “Judge Sentences Espy Aide to Jail” March 18, 1998)
Smith Barney: improper payments to Espy; $1 million-plus fine (Associated Press: “A Look at Mike Espy Investigation” August 27, 1997)
Crop Growers Corporation: $2 million fine for money laundering to Henry Espy’s campaign (Associated Press: “A Look at Mike Espy Investigation” August 27, 1997)
Brook Keith Mitchell Sr. (with his company Five M Farming Enterprises: four counts) for fraud (Associated Press: “A Look at Mike Espy Investigation” August 27, 1997)
Five M Farming Enterprises (with owner Brook Keith Mitchell: four counts) for fraud (Associated Press: “A Look at Mike Espy Investigation” August 27, 1997)
John J. Hemmingson, former head of Crop Growers Corporation: three counts relating to illegal campaign contributions to Henry Espy (Associated Press: “A Look at Mike Espy Investigation” August 27, 1997)
Alvarez T. Ferrouillet, Jr., Louisiana lawyer and Henry Espy campaign finance head: ten count conviction (Associated Press: “A Look at Mike Espy Investigation” August 27, 1997)
Municipal Healthcare Cooperative: Ferrouillet-related company; perjury, bank fraud, money laundering convictions (Washington Post: “Tyson Foods Admits Illegal Gifts to Espy” December 30, 1997)
Ferrouillet & Ferrouillet: Ferrouillet-related company; perjury, bank fraud, money laundering convictions (Washington Post: “Tyson Foods Admits Illegal Gifts to Espy” December 30, 1997)
CAMPAIGN FINANCE:
Michael Brown (Ron Brown’s son): money laundering; misdemeanor conviction (Los Angeles Times, “Ron Brown’s Son Pleads Guilty to Illegal Donation” August 29, 1997)
Eugene Lum: Clinton/Gore campaign contributor and colleague; felony conviction; money laundering (Los Angeles Times, “First Fund-Raising Sentences Meted Out” September 10, 1997)
Nora Lum: Clinton/Gore campaign contributor and colleague; felony conviction; money laundering (Los Angeles Times, “First Fund-Raising Sentences Meted Out” September 10, 1997)
Johnny Chung: Clinton/Gore campaign contributor and colleague; many visits to Clinton White House and Oval Office with mainland Chinese associates; several illegal campaign contributions, money laundering, tax fraud, and bank fraud guilty pleas (Associated Press: “Democrat Fund-Raiser Pleads Guilty” March 17, 1998)
Roger Tamraz: Clinton/Gore campaign contributor and colleague; many visits to Clinton White House and Oval Office; fugitive from Lebanon embezzlement convictions; target of French government financial investigation; BCCI connections (The Wall Street Journal: “Integrity of the Institutions” March 20, 1997, et. al.) CISNEROS:
Linda Jones: Henry Cisneros mistress; conspiracy, bank fraud, money laundering, and obstruction of justice federal felony guilty pleas; sentenced to three and one-half years in prison (Associated Press: “Cisneros Ex-Mistress Sentenced” March 25, 1998)
Patsy Jo Wooten: Linda Jones sister; one conspiracy guilty plea (Associated Press: “Cisneros Ex-Mistress Sentenced” March 25, 1998)
Allen Wooten: Linda Jones brother-in-law; one conspiracy guilty plea (Associated Press: “Cisneros Ex-Mistress Sentenced” March 25, 1998)"
Last updated in 1998. If the liberal weenies so desire, I can try to fill in the last 8 years.
I love my modern dems!!!
JeffR
Bill Clinton wasn’t my hero, but at least he was better than the trainwreck president we have now.
Anytime someone even remotely connected to Bush gets criticized, the Bushbot’s eyes well up with tears, and he stammers…
“Buh… Buh… Buh… But Bill Clinton!!!”
Thanks for the chuckles. Way to take a stand and defend treason.
I hope they put Libby in front of a wall and shoot him at the crack of dawn.
bradley wrote:
"Bill Clinton wasn’t my hero, but at least he was better than the trainwreck president we have now.
Anytime someone even remotely connected to Bush gets criticized, the Bushbot’s eyes well up with tears, and he stammers…
“Buh… Buh… Buh… But Bill Clinton!!!”
Thanks for the chuckles. Way to take a stand and defend treason.
I hope they put Libby in front of a wall and shoot him at the crack of dawn."
Hey, FOOL, you brought up Whitewater.
Another little bit of friendly advice: don’t regurgitate talking points.
You are like an unpopular 7th grade boy. Your commentary is as stale as it is predictable.
If you want to get ahead, you’re going to have to think creatively.
I won’t hold my breath.
JeffR
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Bill Clinton wasn’t my hero, but at least he was better than the trainwreck president we have now.
Anytime someone even remotely connected to Bush gets criticized, the Bushbot’s eyes well up with tears, and he stammers…
“Buh… Buh… Buh… But Bill Clinton!!!”
Thanks for the chuckles. Way to take a stand and defend treason.
I hope they put Libby in front of a wall and shoot him at the crack of dawn.[/quote]
Ummm, go check this thread and see who brought up Whitewater et al first. You either have a short memory or you let others post on your screen name.
BTW, lying under oath, however bad it may be, and even if it is proved true and not just alleged, isn’t treason.
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
harris447 wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
vroom wrote:
Oh oh. It looks like when this trial finally gets going it might be shining some bright lots on some previously shady areas…
Libby Trial May Be Embarrassment for Bush
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060318/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak
[i]
WASHINGTON - Lawyers for Vice President Dick Cheney’s former top aide are signaling they may delve deeply at his criminal trial into infighting among the White House, the CIA and the State Department over pre-Iraq war intelligence failures.
In a prelude to a possible defense, the lawyers for I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby also are suggesting that the State Department - not Libby - may be to blame for leaking the identity of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame to the media.
Court papers filed late Friday raise the possibility a trial could become politically embarrassing for the Bush administration by focusing on the debate about whether the White House manipulated intelligence to justify the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
[/i]
OOOO Vroom, the Administration must be shaking in its boots…
…you wish!
Worry about your own corrupt liberal system “up yonder” and stop trying to badmouth the U.S. Remember, without us you’d still be wearing buckskin and hunting moose!
How exactly did the United States “modernize” Canada?
Or, do you not know what the fuck you are talking about?
Again.
You are a disgrace to the teaching profession! If I were your principal and you spoke like this, I would have you in the office filing papers until you retire – anyting to keep you from the kids.
The fact that you know what a “tautology” or whatever that is doesn’t matter because your consistent use of profanity shows someone who is a pathological vulgar individual.
What a shame…[/quote]
Yeeeeeeah…
You didn’t answer my question.
Could it be because the question has no logical answer besides, “Hee-yuk, I’m a dumbass?”
So, again: how did the US “modernize” Canada?
On the other note: my kids LOVE me. They regularly tell me I’m the best teacher they’ve ever had. Because guess what: I don’t curse in front of children. And, even if I did–they’re just words. The word “fuck” is not vulgar, it’s just a word.
So, take your “won’t somebody please think of the children” bullshit and stuff it up your tightly-clenched ass.
Oh, and the fact that you put tautology in quotes and then followed it up with “or whatever that is” really does prove my point: you’re an idiot.
Jerffy,
Are you allowed to post in threads that I started?
You’d better check your he man liberal hater clubhouse rulebook!
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
…
BTW, lying under oath, however bad it may be, and even if it is proved true and not just alleged, isn’t treason. [/quote]
Kind of ironic that Bubba and Scooter both did this and some people want to excuse Clinton and fry Libby for the same crime.
Fry them both.
No, Libby revealed the name of a CIA operative to the media, who printed it as political blowback.
That’s the treason.
You’re comparing apples and oranges… lying about an affair (stupid, yes) or lying about exposing a covert agent (not just stupid but treasonous).
When is Bush going to start firing people who were involved in this, like he said he would?
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
No, Libby revealed the name of a CIA operative to the media, who printed it as political blowback.
That’s the treason.
You’re comparing apples and oranges… lying about an affair (stupid, yes) or lying about exposing a covert agent (not just stupid but treasonous).
When is Bush going to start firing people who were involved in this, like he said he would?[/quote]
Libby’s not even accused of that, FYI.
He’s 1) not accused of “leaking” and 2) if the information was already known, she wasn’t “covert,” either in the legal sense or in any other sense.
As for firing, has anyone been convicted of anything? Or has anyone other than Libby been accused – and by “accused,” I mean officially, not by you or anyone in the media.
Move the goalposts much? Bush said he would fire anyone who was involved in the leak… he didn’t say on trial, he didn’t say convicted, he said involved.
Now, will Bush fire somebody who was convicted and is in prison? If so, big f’ing deal. Way to take a principled stand.
Libby wasn’t charged with leaking because of legal technicalities. You take a very nuanced view of this, hey you’re not French by any chance? Are you going to argue about what the meaning of is is, too?
Also, Bush said that he was going to get to the bottom of the leak, and fire anyone who was involved… kind of like how OJ is out there searching for Nicole’s real murderers. Libby said that Cheney authorized him to leak. All Bush had to do was walk down the hall and talk to Cheney, to get to the bottom of the leak.
Is old Scooter still employed by the administration?
He resigned, he wasn’t fired.
Then Bush and Cheney both called him a wonderful guy and a great employee.
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Move the goalposts much? Bush said he would fire anyone who was involved in the leak… he didn’t say on trial, he didn’t say convicted, he said involved.
Now, will Bush fire somebody who was convicted and is in prison? If so, big f’ing deal. Way to take a principled stand.
[/quote]
This is flatly incorrect, and has been pointed out many times on this forum. Do your own search – Firstly, any statement was in response to a question, and has to be seen in context of the question, including the statements of the White House spokesperson. It was extremely clear that Bush was referring to someone who committed a crime. He didn’t say he would fire anyone accused of being a “leaker.”
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Libby wasn’t charged with leaking because of legal technicalities. You take a very nuanced view of this, hey you’re not French by any chance? Are you going to argue about what the meaning of is is, too?[/quote]
You mean little, teeny-weeny legal technicalities like the actual law in question? Tiny technicalities like the fact she wasn’t under cover?
To have violated Title 18, United States Code, Section 793 [the Espionage Act], Libby would have had to “knowingly” disclose information considered “information respecting the national defense.” Two parts to that 1)
He would have had to know it was information respecting national defense, and then knowingly disclosed it. And, of course, the information would have to be material to national defense - kind of hard for something that’s not being actively protected.
In order to establish a violation of Title 50, United States Code, Section 421 [the Intelligence Identities Protection Act], it would be necessary to establish that Libby knew or believed that Plame was a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years.
Given that it does not seem the CIA was making efforts to conceal Plame’s identity, and that she hadn’t been involved in covert ops overseas over the past five years, that one strikes out too.
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Also, Bush said that he was going to get to the bottom of the leak, and fire anyone who was involved… kind of like how OJ is out there searching for Nicole’s real murderers. Libby said that Cheney authorized him to leak. All Bush had to do was walk down the hall and talk to Cheney, to get to the bottom of the leak.[/quote]
How many ways can you be wrong in one paragraph? See above on what Bush actually said (and do a forum search to find all the actual quotes that have been posted previously for your reading pleasure).
Libby did not say Cheney authorized him to “leak,” because it was known information. The report was that Libby’s lawyer said that Libby’s boss, referencing Cheney, was aware of what he had said. If it wasn’t a plan to leak classified information, what’s your point?
[quote]This is flatly incorrect, and has been pointed out many times on this forum. Do your own search – Firstly, any statement was in response to a question, and has to be seen in context of the question, including the statements of the White House spokesperson.
It was extremely clear that Bush was referring to someone who committed a crime. He didn’t say he would fire anyone accused of being a “leaker.”[/quote]
Bullshit.
One of the things republicans regularly claim is that they like the straightforward honest shootin’ that comes from Bush.
Bush talked in a very principled manner at the outset, then backpedaled as time went on.
Sorry you don’t like that.
[quote]vroom wrote:
This is flatly incorrect, and has been pointed out many times on this forum. Do your own search – Firstly, any statement was in response to a question, and has to be seen in context of the question, including the statements of the White House spokesperson.
It was extremely clear that Bush was referring to someone who committed a crime. He didn’t say he would fire anyone accused of being a “leaker.”
Bullshit.
One of the things republicans regularly claim is that they like the straightforward honest shootin’ that comes from Bush.
Bush talked in a very principled manner at the outset, then backpedaled as time went on.
Sorry you don’t like that.[/quote]
Give us the quotes.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
This is flatly incorrect, and has been pointed out many times on this forum. Do your own search – Firstly, any statement was in response to a question, and has to be seen in context of the question, including the statements of the White House spokesperson.
It was extremely clear that Bush was referring to someone who committed a crime. He didn’t say he would fire anyone accused of being a “leaker.”
vroom wrote:
Bullshit.
One of the things republicans regularly claim is that they like the straightforward honest shootin’ that comes from Bush.
Bush talked in a very principled manner at the outset, then backpedaled as time went on.
Sorry you don’t like that.[/quote]
No, the only BS going on here is your and Brad’s attempt(s) to re-write history to fit your desires. Frankly, I’m rather tired of pointing this out.
Bolding and underlining below added by me.
Date: September 30, 2003
Q Do you think that the Justice Department can conduct an impartial investigation, considering the political ramifications of the CIA leak, and why wouldn’t a special counsel be better?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There’s leaks at the executive branch; there’s leaks in the legislative branch. There’s just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.
And so I welcome the investigation. I – I’m absolutely confident that the Justice Department will do a very good job. There’s a special division of career Justice Department officials who are tasked with doing this kind of work; they have done this kind of work before in Washington this year. I have told our administration, people in my administration to be fully cooperative.
I want to know the truth. If anybody has got any information inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true and get on about the business.
Yes, let’s see, Kemper – he’s from Chicago. Where are you? Are you a Cubs or White Sox fan? (Laughter.) Wait a minute. That doesn’t seem fair, does it? (Laughter.)
Q Yesterday we were told that Karl Rove had no role in it –
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q – have you talked to Karl and do you have confidence in him –
THE PRESIDENT: Listen, I know of nobody – I don’t know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I’d like to know it, and we’ll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing.
And again I repeat, you know, Washington is a town where there’s all kinds of allegations. You’ve heard much of the allegations. And if people have got solid information, please come forward with it. And that would be people inside the information who are the so-called anonymous sources, or people outside the information – outside the administration. And we can clarify this thing very quickly if people who have got solid evidence would come forward and speak out. And I would hope they would.
And then we’ll get to the bottom of this and move on. But I want to tell you something – leaks of classified information are a bad thing. And we’ve had them – there’s too much leaking in Washington. That’s just the way it is. And we’ve had leaks out of the administrative branch, had leaks out of the legislative branch, and out of the executive branch and the legislative branch, and I’ve spoken out consistently against them and I want to know who the leakers are.
Thank you.
END 2:15 P.M. CDT