My latest at EffU. Bring it on, wingnuttia.
Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!
To commute the sentence of a man who holds the knowledge of his superiors’ actions is prima facie obstruction by the President.
“wingnuttia”? Sounds like the name of an interesting recipe or something.
Introducing the “Wingnuttia Bar”
Only one problem. That creamy brown stuff in the middle is not chocolate.
“wingnuttia”? Sounds like the name of an interesting recipe or something.
It is. Chock full of nuts.
I’ve got an intersting thought. Doesn’t the fact that we have seen a number of what is a bit misleadingly referred to as “al-Qaeda-inspired” terrorism plots and failed attempts cosntitute proof that keeping our troops in Riaq does NOT in fact “make us safer” and that we are being “followed home” even though we have 180,000 men-at-arms and an additional 30K contractors fighting overseas?
IOW, doesn’t that argument get a little ridiculous?
BTW, I have a feeling that once there is a Democratic president AND a Democratic Congress again, we’ll see a resurgence of right-wing trrorism.
Karl Rove: When a plot against the Emperor failed… the plotters were always given a chance… to let their families keep their fortunes. Right?
Scooter Libby: Yeah, but only the rich guys, Karl. The little guys got knocked off and all their estates went to the Emperors. Unless they went home and killed themselves, then nothing happened. And the families… the families were taken care of.
Karl Rove: That was a good break. A nice deal.
Scooter Libby: Yeah… They went home… and sat in a hot bath… opened up their veins… and bled to death… and sometimes they had a little party before they did it.
re 5: Right wing terrorists are frequently referred to by WingNutz as “freedom fighters”.
Are there any non-congressional ways to force the obvious LIbby issues into the public domain?
The key, it seems to me, may be that the only explanation for Libby’s PROVEN perjury is that he was protecting someone else.
E.g.
Could there be a class action suit by reservists claiming they had been called up on false premises?
Could there be a suit by tax payers claiming they had been taxed on false premises?
Whither Plame?
How about a sense of Congress resolution expressing concern that granting Libby clemency undermines the public’s confidence in the executive?
GEE
NOTHING ON FATASS AL GORES KID OR THE MAYOR OF LA WHO CANT KEEP HIS PECKER IN HIS PANTS DIDNT THINK SO YOUR LOSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSERS
Tuesday’s DL was very unusual. Several of the founding fathers were missing (Goldy,Lee, Darryl, Michael Hood) but there were a huge crowd, maybe 10-15 newbies and transients.
Any idea why?
You brainiacs (via Patti Smith) gotta help me with this. I’m trying to fathom some half-vast right wing conspiracy with Scoota in the middle, but weird stuff gets in the way.
Weird #1: Susan Estrich, a Dukakis Democrat and law professor, told Stephanie Miller that there is no underlying crime in the Plame Name Blame Game. Armitage “outed” an agent who was not covert. Because words matter, the operative definition of covert is found in the law that was written to protect agents from being betrayed by journalists, politicians, or bureaucrats.
Weird #2: Last month, June 10 in the Washington Post, David Broder wrote that there was no underlying crime. His article was reprinted in Seattle.
12
The elements of perjury do not include an underlying crime. Indeed, I would say that an underlying crime is rarely the motivation that leads to perjury. Rather, perjury usually simply arises from an individual’s desire to cover up some inconvenient fact, like hidden assets in a dissolution proceeding. So, why the right keeps whining about the supposed lack of an underlying crime is curious. It is nothing more than a red herring.
A new comprehensive worldwide Pew poll demonstrates the destruction of America’s strong and robust moral credibility under the Bush presidency……and Scooter Libby is just another nail in the coffin. SURPRISE!
Any idea why?
I couldn’t make it because I’m putting my house up for sale next week and have a lot of things to do, but my guess is that the higher turnout was because Wednesday was a holiday for a lot of people.
Hey PuddyBud, where are you?!
re 12: Libby was convicted of successfully obstructing justice. That being the case, how can you or anyone else state with such certainty that there was no underlying crime?
Libby was convicted of covering up the underlying crime.
Back to Logic 101 — genius.
13. Actually, leftist, the whining was being done by Estrich and Broder from the left. Estrich’s point to Ms. Miller was that, without an indictable underlying crime, the only crimes left were ones of process, on the surface.
That’s why Libster’s misleading statements to investigators, for which he was justly sentenced to 30 months, equate to Clinton’s misleading statements to investigators. For which Clinton got a book deal and got to start dating again.
@ 12
There is an underlying crime, that’s the reason Libby also got convicted of “obstruction of justice.”
Libby’s lying prevented the prosecutor from getting at the truth of who outed an undercover CIA agent. That’s the reason the underlying crime hasn’t been prosecuted — yet. And, why Patrick Fitzgerald said there was a “cloud hanging over the office of the VP.”
The CIA approached the DOJ because they KNEW for a fact that one of their agent’s identity was compromised. Furthermore, Valerie Plames testimony before congress had to be vetted by the CIA because, surprisingly enough, she was an undercover CIA agent. The CIA also pre-approved her testimony that at the time of her being outed she had traveled outside of the United States as an NOC.
Does anybody actually believe that CIA missed that part of her vetted testimony and let her make false statements to congress?
Only the wingnuttiest of the wingnuttia believes that hyperbole.
1. No Plame Crime
There is no crime in this case if there was no intent. Armitidge revealed her identity by accident, with no intent. If Bush Chaney (as now seems likley) revealed her identity WITH intent, then they broke the law.
2. Obstruction of Justice
Fitzgerald did not indict Bush or Chaney because he did not have evidence of intent … that issue, lack of the evidence is the result of the crime Libby is convicted of. Bush Chaney remain innocent until proven guilty under criminal law until Libby is forced to explain WHY he obstructed justice.
3. Chaney Bush Guilt
While these folks are protected politically, LEGALLY neither the civil courts nor the Congress is bound to the rules of the criminal court. This is likely why Libby is both free and silent.
4. Impeachment?
Why has Libby not been forced to testify to Congress (yet?)
I suspect that politically the dems do not want to begin an impeachment. This si a tricky issue. Impeachment could as easily hurt Hillary/Obama as it could help them. Erosion of Publican credibility by gradual revelations is hetter politics.
Lee,
Good luck with the house. These are tricky times!
GBS … is that for George Bernard? Or for Goldy’s Bull Shit? … Let’s be clear. Are you stating that you understand this case better than Democrat activist Estrich, a law professor? Are you saying that you see an underlying crime lying under the crime that she doesn’t see? How can you be that spiffing smart and still hang with geeks like us?
re 20: But the inherent weakness of the Democrats is their inability to mount an offense against Bush/Cheney when there is REAL cause for impeachment, and the converse strength of the Republicans, who were able to impeach Clinton on the flimsiest of BS.
In this era of FEAR POLITICS the impression of strength can outweigh the supposed virtue and honesty of the Democrats.
Who wants to elect a president from a party that is so vacillating and weak.
Democrats need to think about this. I’m sure Frank Luntz has.
@ 22:
I made no such statement that I know more than any law professor. I said what Patrick Fitzgerald stated.
Do you think anybody understands this case better than the prosecutor who prosecuted this case?
Futhermore, if there wasn’t an underlying crime there couldn’t be an obstruciton of justice conviction, just the perjury convictions.
Mr. Jew – I haven’t read the underlying statute that’s a predicate (?) for the underlying crime of blowing a covert agent, but I’ve heard its author discuss it. Recall no discussion of intent. Intent figures in Murder I and hate crimes, but not here.
There was about a ten-part test for the designation of covert … Plame flunked the test. If Armitage (or Cheney or Rove) said here name aloud, then their intent at the time, unprovable, matters less than the law’s definition of her status. Even if the CIA called Plame covert, the underlying statute doesn’t.
Seattle Jew:
“. No Plame Crime
There is no crime in this case if there was no intent. Armitidge revealed her identity by accident, with no intent. If Bush Chaney (as now seems likley) revealed her identity WITH intent, then they broke the law.
Mishandling classified information, particularly the identity of an undercover CIA agent, regardless of intent, is a crime.
When you are in the positons to be trusted with our nation’s most serious secrets, you are EXPECTED to know the procedures for handling that kind of information and are held to account when you violate that trust.
Correction at 24:
The reply is to 20 not 22.
In the interest of “getting along”… I have a proposal…
I think President Bush should pardon Bill Clinton for lying to a grand jury in a failed attempt to conceal a pattern of predatory behavior. The impeachment should be removed, the $800k returned, and his law license restored.
I think the timing of this long overdue pardon would be fitting toward the end of his term about one year from now.
What do you guys think?
@ 28:
I respect your attempt at reconciliation, but you cannot pardon the crimes of Bill Clinton since he was only Impeached and not convicted in the Senate of any crime.
Innocent until PROVEN guilty is one of the hallmarks of American justice that the Bush administration has trampled upon.
How Scooter Libby and Paris Hilton are different: He destroyed and intelligence network aimed at ferreting out weapons of mass destruction. She went to jail.
GBS… OK… so maybe his sentence should be commuted. Restore the law license and give the money back.
I crack myself up sometimes…
Daddy – Here’s a quiz for ya dumshit…
Who is “Richard Armitage”.
How fucking stoopid and uninformed can ya get?
30 “He destroyed an intelligence network aimed at ferreting out weapons of mass destruction.”
Ding-Ding-Ding-Ding!
Give that man the gold star!
So why, dear friends, would our administration which professes to be so intent on fighting the “war on terr’r” not want such ferreting to be accomplished?
Perhaps it’s because they’re having more fun playing make-believe than they would if they were doing the real thing…
This exchange between me and Proud Leftist is so good, I am going to post it in every thread on HA from now on. It destroys the Publicans’ stupid talking points – period.
“I’m working really hard to understand how President Bill Clinton’s actions act as justifcation for the righties. Read this fuckwads.
If your lame ass argument is that Bill Clinton was a bad President – which is what you say – and if your argument now is that the AWOL coward GW Bush is in someway comparable to Bill Clinton, what you are actually saying is that GW Bush is NO BETTER THAN CLINTON.
Does it hurt to be that stupid? I really want to know.
proud leftist says:
RES @ 18
You’ve hit it on the nose. The rightwing fringefucks consider Clinton to be the personification of evil–indeed, he is the devil incarnate in their twisted little minds. Nonetheless, their justification for all of the Bushites’ sins is, always, “well, Clinton did it, too.” Methinks they never studied logic.”
I see the lie that Plame wasn’t an NOC agent is still being spread.
I see the lie that Plame wasn’t an NOC agent is still being spread.
It will live on in conspiracy theory world forever.
Can you guys name ONE FUCKING THING that happened during Bubba’s reign that was his idea?
EVERY FUCKING THING he takes credit for was purely the result of Newt’s contract with Murka. ’94 Congress was the best fucking that every happened to him.
That’s why Newt should be our next Preznit.
Re 37: Explain how NAFTA and CAFTA are part of the Contract on America.
Pay your gambling debt and we might think about it.
But probably not, come to think of it.
Everytime MarktheRetarded™Redneck finds enough aluminum cans to pay his gambling debt, he gets sidetracked by a bottle of Ripple.
That $100 Ripple had better be pretty good Ripple.
At case prices, it should keep him buzzed for quite awhile.
Dick Armitage was one of Robert Novak’s two sources. He was also not a source for Judith Miller, Walter Pincus nor Matthew Cooper.
One of the best run-downs I’ve seen of the whole set of issues is John Dean’s piece at Find Law.
By the way, you should see some of the comments on Ward’s piece over at uSP. The Bush/Libby apologists have resorted to every form of rhetorical nonsense imaginable, including manufacturing facts out of thin air. It’s truly an amazing spectacle.
Merry Fitzmas!
Yes, I get it that Novak cited two, not one. I get it that Scoota’s mutable memory is perhaps shielding #2, who is probably Rove or Cheney.
I don’t get the “underlying crime.” Mr. Jew sez that Rove or Cheney muttering Plame’s name would have been one, because of their “intent.” That’s what Fitz said, sez Mr. Jew, in so many words.
I didn’t hear those words, perhaps because I heard only the MSM’s 15-second sound bite.
And even if Fitzgerald said those words in so many words, then the Armitage problem remains. Fitz knew almost immediately that Armitage leaked. Why wasn’t Fitz prosecutorially bound to hound Armitage, if Armitage committed the crime that this witch hunt is about?
Mr. Jew sez it’s because Armitage had good intent, while the mystery leaker near the Oval had bad intent, which would really have been the underlying crime, assuming that Plame was really covert, which — by the statute’s definition, if not the CIA’s — she wasn’t.
Liberal lawyer Estrich said “no underlying crime” last winter, about the time Libby was convicted. Liberal journalist Broder wrote it last month, after sentencing. Apparently I’m not the only one who’s confused.
As for stating that Libby’s crimes and Clinton’s are created equal, maybe I’m wrong. Perjury and obstruction of justice (and obstruction, sez Mr. Jew, means there was underlying crime) were articles of Clinton’s impeachment, but he was not convicted. Subsequently, however, something happened with Judge Susan Weber Wright that led to Clinton’s disbarment and payment of $800,000+ damages to Jones.
I thought that Wright’s action was premised on the factual fact that Clinton lied to investigators and to a grand jury. That he obstructed justice. But I don’t know law and I don’t know the law. That’s why I probably misused the word ‘predicate’ yesterday.
No, we don’t “consider Clinton to be the personification of evil–indeed, he is the devil incarnate …” Whatever evil-indeed means, we consider Jimmy Carter to be the personified devil incarnate. He’s only pretending to be a Baptist to mislead the fundamentalists who voted for him in 1976.
Rightwing fringefuck, & proud of it!!