Libby gets 2 and a half years.

[Diuretic]

You obviously haven't a clue how Lawyers work. Or your prsenting a red herring.

How do lawyers work? No red herring here I assure you.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Prosecutors especially only care about one thing.... winning. That however is NOT their job nor the mandate they are supposed to work under.

The Job of a prosecutor is to see justice is done for the PEOPLE he is representing. There should be NO ego and no desire to rack up a win column. That simply is NOT how it works. There are few lawyers that do NOT want to win at any cost. And there are even fewer prosecutors that do not want said wins.

It is a sad fact in this country that prosecutors routinely charge and convict people, not because they are guilty and not even because the prosecutor THINKS they are guilty, but because the win looks good.

Statistics show that people unable to hire their own lawyer are routinely convicted of crimes that a private lawyer would have won on. The best example of this would be In Wenatchee Washington about 10 or 15 years ago ( this is the one I remember best) A young girl claimed she was molested by a group of adults ( parents) and that this group routinely met and molested a host of children. Every person accused of the crime that didn't hire their own lawyer went to jail, every one that Hired their own was found Innocent.

The reason? The girl was a troubled kid that had lied in a similar matter before, there was absolutely NO real evidence , other then her word, that any of what she claimed had happened. The charges though were so sensational the community was up in arms demanding action.

Her foster father was the lead investigator and he also had a history of poor judgement and of not following procedures. The "evidence" of the other children supporting her statements were taped and when reviewed it was found they were manipulated by the interviewer, in essence they were coached on what to say and how to say it and it took many sessions to convince them to do THAT.

The prosecutor was well aware of all this BUT had no problem sending people to jail, not because they were guilty, but because he could get the appointed lawyers to plea them out. The win was all he cared about.

 

[Care4all]

Prosecutors especially only care about one thing.... winning. That however is NOT their job nor the mandate they are supposed to work under.

The Job of a prosecutor is to see justice is done for the PEOPLE he is representing. There should be NO ego and no desire to rack up a win column. That simply is NOT how it works. There are few lawyers that do NOT want to win at any cost. And there are even fewer prosecutors that do not want said wins.

It is a sad fact in this country that prosecutors routinely charge and convict people, not because they are guilty and not even because the prosecutor THINKS they are guilty, but because the win looks good.

Statistics show that people unable to hire their own lawyer are routinely convicted of crimes that a private lawyer would have won on. The best example of this would be In Wenatchee Washington about 10 or 15 years ago ( this is the one I remember best) A young girl claimed she was molested by a group of adults ( parents) and that this group routinely met and molested a host of children. Every person accused of the crime that didn't hire their own lawyer went to jail, every one that Hired their own was found Innocent.

The reason? The girl was a troubled kid that had lied in a similar matter before, there was absolutely NO real evidence , other then her word, that any of what she claimed had happened. The charges though were so sensational the community was up in arms demanding action.

Her foster father was the lead investigator and he also had a history of poor judgement and of not following procedures. The "evidence" of the other children supporting her statements were taped and when reviewed it was found they were manipulated by the interviewer, in essence they were coached on what to say and how to say it and it took many sessions to convince them to do THAT.

The prosecutor was well aware of all this BUT had no problem sending people to jail, not because they were guilty, but because he could get the appointed lawyers to plea them out. The win was all he cared about.

libby had a good lawyer and is a great lawyer hiself.

so now you have come down to saying our justice system is not just but corrupt and fitgerald is corrupt and THIS is why libby was charged with obstruction of justice and perjury etc?

sgt, it's time for you to end this shit of yours.

libby did lie under oath.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

libby had a good lawyer and is a great lawyer hiself.

so now you have come down to saying our justice system is not just but corrupt and fitgerald is corrupt and THIS is why libby was charged with obstruction of justice and perjury etc?

sgt, it's time for you to end this shit of yours.

libby did lie under oath.

Remind me again how your unpartisan position is that Libby not only outed her but specifically said she was covert. That his conviction is proof the Vice president committed treason. The one flinging shit is YOU.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Tenet allowed false evidence lead us in to a war because he kept silent when the administration was touting it, for this he received an award.

And with Mike Brown and the way he handled Katrina, he got an award for the poor job and a position on the board investigating what went wrong after he resigned his position.

No one in the administration was held accountable for the lapse in our security for 9/11.

Libby stayed in his position until he was indicted.

Bin Laden was not held accountable for 9/11.

Illegal Immigrants should be rewarded with legal status and amnesty.

No one in the administration was held accountable for the HYPE and misleading statements regarding The nuclear threat from Saddam that they repeated over and over again in various different ways.

No one has been held accountable for breaking the 4th amendment, even though they half heartedly admitted they were wrong....

Gonzalez has been a disgrace as AG and he won't resign.

No oversight, the entire first 6 years.

They allowed Foley to stay on so that they could win the next election with him even though they knew for YEARS about his inappropriate behavior.

--------------

I don't know Kathianne, there are a hundred other things I could bring up too that we have had no accountibility on since this administration has been in power....

care

You are aware who appointed tenant aren't you?

Remind us again of your Moderate Unpartisan position.

 

[Diuretic]

Prosecutors especially only care about one thing.... winning. That however is NOT their job nor the mandate they are supposed to work under.

Given the adversarial nature of the criminal justice system (which is the same in your country as it is in mine) then it's okay that a prosecutor cares about winning. It is their job, to prosecute the case to the best of their ability. It's the job of the defence to defend against that prosecution effort. That's the whole point of the adversarial system. The judge referees and the jury decides.

The Job of a prosecutor is to see justice is done for the PEOPLE he is representing. There should be NO ego and no desire to rack up a win column. That simply is NOT how it works. There are few lawyers that do NOT want to win at any cost. And there are even fewer prosecutors that do not want said wins.

Everyone in the criminal justice system supposedly wants to see justice done. The truth is that each individual beavers away at their own job not just with the intention of getting the job done but getting the job done and being seen to do a good job so they can get promotion of some sort.

It is a sad fact in this country that prosecutors routinely charge and convict people, not because they are guilty and not even because the prosecutor THINKS they are guilty, but because the win looks good.

You have me here. In my jurisdiction prosecutors are hired by the Director of Public Prosecutions who is appointed and independent of government but answerable to the legislature. A frequent complaint here is that the DPP will not take on a case that they might not win because they don't like to be seen losing.

Statistics show that people unable to hire their own lawyer are routinely convicted of crimes that a private lawyer would have won on. The best example of this would be In Wenatchee Washington about 10 or 15 years ago ( this is the one I remember best) A young girl claimed she was molested by a group of adults ( parents) and that this group routinely met and molested a host of children. Every person accused of the crime that didn't hire their own lawyer went to jail, every one that Hired their own was found Innocent.

It's a truism that the wealthy, the privileged, the connected, get the best deal out of the criminal justice system. I wish it was fair but it isn't. The wealthy, the privileged, the connected in my jurisdiction are the same - they walk or they get leniency that is hard to believe.

The reason? The girl was a troubled kid that had lied in a similar matter before, there was absolutely NO real evidence , other then her word, that any of what she claimed had happened. The charges though were so sensational the community was up in arms demanding action.

Her foster father was the lead investigator and he also had a history of poor judgement and of not following procedures. The "evidence" of the other children supporting her statements were taped and when reviewed it was found they were manipulated by the interviewer, in essence they were coached on what to say and how to say it and it took many sessions to convince them to do THAT.

The prosecutor was well aware of all this BUT had no problem sending people to jail, not because they were guilty, but because he could get the appointed lawyers to plea them out. The win was all he cared about.

That's a travesty of justice I agree. The lead investigator had a massive conflict of interest, apart from poor performance in the past. The investigation sounds like it was a fit-up from the word go. The prosecutor sounded like he or she was responding to political imperatives, not those of justice.

 

[Care4all]

Remind me again how your unpartisan position is that Libby not only outed her but specifically said she was covert. That his conviction is proof the Vice president committed treason. The one flinging shit is YOU.

May I asky why you keep repeating questions that you have asked and gotten answers on already?

I NEVER said Libby told the press Plame was a covert operative. I said he leaked her name and her employer, the CIA, to the press, to Judith Miller, BEFORE Novak's article hit the news stand. STOP lying.

I never said the Veep committed treason. I said that President George herbert walker Bush said that outing an agent and the likes was treason.

It is not treason under the law unless tied to other espionage et al crimes.

In fact it is a smaller sentence to out someone than it is to obstruct justice, if memory serves.

Ret sgt, you keep asking the questions and I and others keep answering them and providing links for them to back themselves up.

when will you supply some legitimate links to support your outlandish comments

Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed as an independent special investigator in to the outing of a classified undercover officer in our highest secret intelligence department of the CIA, by a Republican working for Ashcroft, the AG, who recused himself because of his financial / campaign relationship with carl rove, who was implicated as the possible leaker, at the time.

look at fitzgerald's record if you want to know what kind of FINE prosecutor he is.... he doesn't appear to be corrupt as you imply, what so ever! and he's a republican not a democrat, so i looked at fine details in to him when he was appointed, to see if he was just a Bushman cronie...

care

 

[Care4all]

You are aware who appointed tenant aren't you?

Remind us again of your Moderate Unpartisan position.

yes, i am aware that he was a carryover from clinton's admin, the ONE carryover that president Bush decided to KEEP on HIS staff. (i can do THAT too) sooooo what sgt? you are so reaching and such a partisan hack it is getting a little pathetic at this point... at least put up a good solid argument with some sort of support for your opinion instead of your partisan crap of putting words in others mouths and callig names. gees...

i am a moderate Democrat, i have never denied my thinking and outlook in politics leans towards the Democratic side of the aisle. I disagree with some positions of the Democratic party, but for the most part, i agree with them on the thinking behind their policy, not necessarily the results they get from it.

as i have said before, i think libby took the fall for his loyalty... although, i am certain he did not think judith miller would have to testify against her source and that fitzy would incarcerate her for not revealing him...same with the other reporters that were informed about plame, i am pretty certain that NO ONE thought they could be forced to testify against their sources....

sgt, i am sorry this upsets you so much, but my views on this won't change at this point from all that i have read.

care

 

[Bullypulpit]

Waiting for that retraction.... Or an explanation.

For what, your own intransigence in the face of the facts presented by myself and others?

 

[red states rule]

yes, i am aware that he was a carryover from clinton's admin, the ONE carryover that president Bush decided to KEEP on HIS staff. (i can do THAT too) sooooo what sgt? you are so reaching and such a partisan hack it is getting a little pathetic at this point... at least put up a good solid argument with some sort of support for your opinion instead of your partisan crap of putting words in others mouths and callig names. gees...

i am a moderate Democrat, i have never denied my thinking and outlook in politics leans towards the Democratic side of the aisle. I disagree with some positions of the Democratic party, but for the most part, i agree with them on the thinking behind their policy, not necessarily the results they get from it.

as i have said before, i think libby took the fall for his loyalty... although, i am certain he did not think judith miller would have to testify against her source and that fitzy would incarcerate her for not revealing him...same with the other reporters that were informed about plame, i am pretty certain that NO ONE thought they could be forced to testify against their sources....

sgt, i am sorry this upsets you so much, but my views on this won't change at this point from all that i have read.

care

Even some in the liberal media reported Plame was not covert.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-14-cia-wilson_x.htm

 

[CockySOB]

In fact it is a smaller sentence to out someone than it is to obstruct justice, if memory serves.

It depends on which portions of 50 USC 421 and 18 USC 1503 you're considering. The obstruction charge carried a maximum penalty of 10 years and/or fine while depending on which section of 50 USC 421 was applied, the sentence would be up to 10 years and/or fine.

 

[TheStripey1]

No asshat, the courts have ruled on Libby. I'm using compare and contrast, a higher order reasoning proposition. Get with the program. Libby is toast, unless Bush pardons him, which seems highly unlikely, considering he serves no purpose, much like the base of the GOP.

asshat? Should I start calling you fatass now?

Ok Fatass... IF you want to discuss other republicans, corrupt or otherwise, you should start another thread.

 

[TheStripey1]

Well the standard as provided to us by the democrats is if a democrat lies it is a OK. I wonder why?

I'm asking YOU directly, RetiredGySgt, do you approve of your party leaders lying under oath and to FBI investigators. Don't try to wriggle away by using democrats. They aren't going to help you square your position...

RGS whines... when the democrats lie, that means we of the law and order party and the party of family values, can lie too...

I don't agree. You either are for law and order or you aren't. When you try to excuse those that have broken the law by saying others have too, it doesn't make your arguement valid... au contraire... it makes your arguement pathetic...

So, I'll reiterate... I'm asking YOU directly, RetiredGySgt, do you approve of your party leaders lying under oath and to FBI investigators.

 

[TheStripey1]

What "leader" of the Republican party lied under oath? We DO have the Democratic President last in Office for Lying under oath, remind me again how HE was punished. We have Sandy Burger stealing classified documents IN a time of war, remind me of his punishment and contrast it to Libby.

We have as example of Obstruction of Justice McDougal in the Clinton affairs, remind me how Libby is proof of Vice President Cheney's guilt but McDougal is not proof of Clinton's guilty.

And we have people claiming that NO evidence is all they need to claim the Vice President is guilty of Treason.... LAST I checked one has to have a minimum of 2 EYE witnesses to even get someone on treason, not even one exists in this case.

Clinton lost his law license... if you are upset because he didn't have a harsher punishment, you should take it up with the republican controlled Senate, as they were the ones that acquitted him.

Did you conveniently forget that part?

 

[TheStripey1]

What "leader" of the Republican party lied under oath? We DO have the Democratic President last in Office for Lying under oath, remind me again how HE was punished. We have Sandy Burger stealing classified documents IN a time of war, remind me of his punishment and contrast it to Libby.

We have as example of Obstruction of Justice McDougal in the Clinton affairs, remind me how Libby is proof of Vice President Cheney's guilt but McDougal is not proof of Clinton's guilty.

And we have people claiming that NO evidence is all they need to claim the Vice President is guilty of Treason.... LAST I checked one has to have a minimum of 2 EYE witnesses to even get someone on treason, not even one exists in this case.

Also... Berger... when did he steal those classified documents? Which party was in power when he did it? Which party controls the Justice Department during that time frame? psssssst, rgs... it was YOUR party...

McDougal went to prison... you keep using her but you don't seem to understand that she went to prison for her crimes. Why do you think Libby should get off? Because he's a loyal bushie? tuffshit.

Would you like a nice straw man photo to go with your VP rant?

 

[TheStripey1]

Wow, a big fish if we ever heard of such.

you asked, he provided and now you're complaining... are you ever satisfied?

 

[TheStripey1]

ok? It's all because of the administration? They may have had the right goals and been fu in implementation, so wtf?

Yes.. the administration did them, who do you think should be to blame? Clinton again?

Libby lied. Libby obstructed justice. Libby was tried and convicted of the same. You should be applauding the fact that justice did their job instead of whining that it's not fair because ... why? he's a republican?

They have to obey the same laws as everyone else.

 

[TheStripey1]

Even some in the liberal media reported Plame was not covert.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-14-cia-wilson_x.htm

what does that have to do with libby lying under oath? or to FBI investigators? or obstructing justice?

pst... I'll give you a clue, rsr...

NOTHING!

He lied. He obstructed. He was tried, convicted and sentenced. And soon... he'll be behind bars where everyone that commits perjury and obstructs justice by lying to investigators should be.

Why do you think he should be free? Because he is a loyal bushie and a republican?

 

[CockySOB]

I'm asking YOU directly, RetiredGySgt, do you approve of your party leaders lying under oath and to FBI investigators. Don't try to wriggle away by using democrats. They aren't going to help you square your position...

RGS whines... when the democrats lie, that means we of the law and order party and the party of family values, can lie too...

I don't agree. You either are for law and order or you aren't. When you try to excuse those that have broken the law by saying others have too, it doesn't make your arguement valid... au contraire... it makes your arguement pathetic...

So, I'll reiterate... I'm asking YOU directly, RetiredGySgt, do you approve of your party leaders lying under oath and to FBI investigators.

Just curious here Stripey, but which "party leaders" are you speaking of? As I recall, the only person proven to have lied under oath ad to FBI investigators was Libby, right? And Libby is most certainly NOT a party leader, but rather a high-level functionary.

I don't have a problem with Libby's sentence, although I expect the obstruction charge to be overturned on appeal. I'm not nearly convinced yet that his conviction for perjury or false statements should be overturned.

 

[Bullypulpit]

One can only wonder that if the DICA lied about Valerie Plame's covert status in his statement to the Senate, if Valerie Plame lied about her covert status during her sworn testimony to the Senate, why haven't they been charges of perjury brought against these individuals?

Because the facts of the case stand as the DCIA and Ms. Plame presented them, she was covert at the time her cover was blown in Bob Novak's little hatchet job.

Those unable to accept this, I can only say that you are entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts.