#1. Libby wasn't accused of revealing Valerie Plames's identity. He was accused of a process crime.

#2. Valerie Plame wasn't covert.

#3. Armitage revealed her identity.

#4. Libby shouldn't go to jail...if Sandy Berger didn't go to jail.

#5. Bush should pardon him....hopefully he will. The guy doesn't deserve 20 years.

#6. Fitzgerald is gonna be to us, what Star was to you guys!

#7. Go Bush!! Had to put that in...just to make the fur fly!

#8. If Bush truly did twist truth...he sure doesn't have a monopoly on it!

norm

Hi Mallika,

Difficult questions to answer.

To say anything about CIA is risky.

Lots of Love
Rajesh Sharma

Hello Mallika and Everyone,

Libby was found guilty of obstruction of justice, making a false statement by intentionally lying to the FBI, perjury by lying in court, and a second count of perjury.

Now, if you or I were convicted of these crimes then you know what would happen, we would probably go to jail for awhile, the fact that his name is Libby and he worked for the Vice President is really not the point. I think the point is..if you are involved in an investigation by Grand Jury or with the FBI you better not lie, and they are telling us why.. in convicting Scooter of these crimes.

Martha lied to the FBI and off she went.

Hey, you can bet if they(FBI or Grand Jury) ever have a reason to come knocking on my door, I am telling the whole truth, and nothing but the truth!

have a great day everyone, ruth

well said ruth! we must have double standards ..no one is above the law...and if bush and co are someday put on trial and later found guilty...they must not be pardoned...that would make a mockery of the justice system...in other words...corruption...libby did the crime...now he must do the time...if we are willing to impose our high standards to the world...we must also uphold those same standards at home! D...

correction "must not"...

Mallika,
today on Dutch television, there was this,
Belgium judge, who, ruled, that one, can be forced to testify,

now, that's nothing new,

But you know the funny thing was..

UNDER HYPNOSES!! seriously! it was today on Dutch television, Belgium judge, Antwerp,
dunno, what field of law that was, but i'm gonna find out,

ltz,
love, passion

Yep, if we insist on transparency in government and corporate reporting, we must insist on transparency within ourselves. No exceptions. No Lies.

Bonnie

Hello Mallika and Everyone,

Lying in the political capital of our Nation is, in my opinion, pretty commonplace for all involved whatever political party, it happens, its done, its understood without having to say anything to anyone, but, when it comes to lying to the law then you better watch out, you better not lie because they do not mess around and they are bound to make you wanna cry.

I do not think it will matter one bit if President Bush pardons Scooter Libby, in fact, I think most will assume he will, after all, he took one for the team! The point, I think, is that there was a federal investigation and he got caught lying to the Investigators and the Investagtors had no recourse but to take action on it if they were at all serious about their jobs. They followed through with an investagation and a jury of Libby's peers found him guilty of certain crimes. The legal process was attended to as it needed to be attended to in order for the absolute seriousness of our legal system to speak to all involved and be respected by all involved and all who are witness to the process.

The fact that it all started with this Administration trying to protect and defend it's decision to go to war is really another issue altogher.

I suspect there will be an appeal and he may end up serving very little time and then being pardoned, but the real gold in this whole mess is that when it comes to our laws, we all better take them seriously no matter who we work for, no matter how important we believe that work is to our cause because the law takes what we say, when we say it and to whom we say it, very seriously during a criminal investigation.

have a great evening everyone, ruth

but if we are going to impose punishment for breaking the law ...and hopefully no one is above it...and then turn around and water down it, what's the point? how can we expect to hold others to a higher standard abroad and not practise the same at home? am i missing someting here? damn!

If going to jail for lying was "a good thing" for Martha, then it is a good thing for Scooter too.

Diablo, you are not missing anything. We can't/(shouldn't) without losing our integrity. And we are very, very close.

Bonnie

Hi Mallika

Yes, Scotter Libby should go to jail, but complete justice will remain thwarted, until his bosses Cheney and Bush join him there for those and much bigger crimes!

Norm, you have visiting rights.

Kind Regards,
Stan

Humm ... after reading all this, I think I will not open my mouth about anything related to the CIA that's hearsay, purely projection, pondering and roaming thoughts, or otherwise a mystery that one might be better off never investigating. These organizations are here to protect our countries and if they do what is wrong, then surely karma will make sure the debt is paid. So I guess only the really wise and knowledgeable should pursue secret services, etc. There goes the fear setting in again. All those movies about CIA, KGB, FIB, etc. are pretty scary - don't you think? I think it's not a game and if so, it's a very serious one to play for someone who is not a participant. People get killed over this stuff. I know, I have been watching too many movies lately. :-)

....just some thoughts.

Love, Char

Char4 was CIA,KGB,FIB a slip of the fingers or?
?? LOL LOl

Bonnie

stan i agree ...

if the dems and good repubs ever grow some sizeable balls someday and decide to put president dick and his sidekick bush behind bars for their crimes...the 'good' judge should allow private visitation rights to their 10 loyal wingnuts...no?

Let it not go unnoticed that Libby and President Clinton were both put on trial for the same crime. Clinton had it easier because half of his 'jury' were democratic senators and therefore incredibly bais.

Both cases were also incredible waste of time and money.

Clinton twice authorized pre-emptive strikes in Iraq.

"The only difference between Bush and Clinton is 9/11"- Ted Kopple

www.unity08.com

Dear Char
#13,

My post #2,

I second what you say.

My vote is for you (#13).

Lots of Love
Rajesh Sharma

bobby,

Your sense of proportions seems a little out of wack.
How can you compare Bush’s wholesale invasion and subsequent rape, and pillage of Iraq, with Clinton’s attack on a few random radar stations in the no fly zone?? Pre-emptive strikes indeed. There is also a big difference between lying about sex and lying about national security. The court found Libby guilty. Clinton suffered no such fate. Blame it on the Democratic Senators if that makes you feel better, but at the end of the day, the two so-called crimes are as different as night and day, and Clinton should never have been on trial in the first place.

Surely, you know about the unwritten law that says, “Any person in a high stress job like the President of the United States is entitled to a free BJ a day with no questions asked”.

The real difference between Clinton and Bush is not 9-11; it is the hundred of thousands of dead bodies, many of them our own boys, and girls, killed in an unnecessary war, started by a THIS inept and lying President!

Regards,
Stan

"The real difference between Clinton and Bush is not 9-11; it is the hundred of thousands of dead bodies, many of them our own boys, and girls, killed in an unnecessary war, started by a THIS inept and lying President!" quoting stan..

stan u are being polite when u say "inept and lying"... how about being wacked, skewed and insane? no?

Just for the record I was not referring to the bombing of the radar stations ordered by President Clinton when speaking of pre-emptive strikes. I was referring to Public Law 105-338, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which doesn't suggest pre-emptive strikes.

But, it's not beyond the realm of reasoning to think that after the US was attacked that the logical sequence of events would have led to a Iraq War by any US President (and that plans would have already been on the table). The scope and scale would have been different perhaps (more Bosniaistic). It would have been sold different.

Clinton didn't get impeached for getting a BJ (or doing that cigar thing). The world could have found out about that without any legal problems for the President. He didn't impeached for saying "I did not have sex with that women" at a press conference. There was a woman who accused him of humiliating and degrading her with unwanted sexual advances. She went after him within the legal system. When he was forced to testify it was then that he lied about his sexual tendencies. He was under oath. That was perjury. That is why President Clinton was Impeached.

Now would his crime (again, the perjury, not the sex. The sex wasn't the crime) have been brought to light if it was not for Starr and our tax dollars. No, it wouldn't have. I would have been happy to never hear of it myself, especially the part about the cigar (although I often wondered, why didn't he just @#$% her? Because he was lawyering his way through even that natural act? Was what didn't bring him to have intercourse with her the same thing that didn't bring him to take out Bin Laden when he had him in his site?).

Libby didn't get convicted for revealing Valerie Plane, although he did it. But there is evidence that her job wasn't that big a secret. Ironically that evidence wasn't brought to light because he wasn't on trial for that, but for perjury. And the ironic, scary, maccarthyist, conspiratory theroyist thing about his trial is that members of the media came to testify. The NBC Washington Bureau Chief Russert testified. The man who once said with passion "we..have..it...right ..in.. Iraq", ‘we’ meaning the press. Myself, I'm always weary of anybody being so sure they have anything right, 10 fold if that person is in a management position (there's your opening boys).

Anyway, in short, the Libby/Clinton crimes are the same in that they are mostly political in nature. The Libby thing will end here. They have gotten the most out of it. Nothing of this makes me 'feel' better. This, as well things like the continuous campaign that America has embraced and the demi glace of the two party system (bush/clinton/bush/clinton) are all signs of a government and society coming to a complete stop.

Disclousure: I Voted for both Gore and Kerry.
I'm glad they both lost.

www.Unity08.com

u make no sense!

Hello Mallika and Everyone,

Just came from huffingtonpost.com and read a little of what Denis Collins Juror #9 wrote, apparently he is giving an inside commentary on the day to day of his jury duty. I just read a little and really I am not so interested in what he has to say, he seems like he is giving the first installments to his, most likely, upcoming book that he, most likely, will write on this experience of his.

There is something kind of sad about this, for me, I am not sure why. It just seems like such a blatant self promotion, the kind that is so popular these days. Also, it makes me kind of nervous. I know if I were the losing team I would be listening closely to what these people say to see if I could get some ammo for a new trial, a better deal for my client, I am sure they love this loose tongue syndrome that is also so popular today. Anyway, I just wish these folks would wait awhile after the verdict before they start their self promoting ways.

have a great day ruth.

Thanks Rajesh. I took the clue and decided to investigate what I thought, which was wrong on my part to say something that I was not sure of, especially about the government and important issues. I need to learn to clearly define speculations when I speak on these types of matters in that manner, so that the truth can surface with feeding the rumor mill . Love, Char

Yes Bonnie...I realized that I typed FIB, but I could not change it and was hoping no one noticed my error :-) Love, Char

Char, I just thought it was funny that we are talking about lying and you type "FIB" instead of FBI.:)

Okay, since this came up, here’s a letter from Congressman Callahan, which shows the difficulty in the question of whether to impeach or not. Anyway, I found it interesting and thought I would share it here.
------------------------------
January 4, 1999

Dear Jack:

Thank you for contacting me to voice your views on impeachment proceedings against President Clinton.

As you may know, I withheld judgment on the President until both sides presented their cases to the House Judiciary Committee and the committee, in turn, reported its findings and recommendations to the full House for disposition. I read the entire report and sadly concluded that the President did commit perjury and obstruction of justice and that the case must be forwarded to the Senate for determination of an appropriate penalty. Therefore, I support impeachment. For your information, I am enclosing my statement on the subject.

Your views on this process are important to me. I encourage you to also share them with Senators Shelby and Sessions if you haven’t already done so. With best regards, I am

Sincerely,

Sonny Callahan
Member of Congress

SC:ntst
Enclosure

###

STATEMENT OF REP. SONNY CALLAHAN

It is with a heavy heart that I have concluded I must vote in favor of the articles of impeachment presented to the House by the Judiciary Committee.

The most sacred responsibility of Members of Congress is respect for and adherence to the guiding principles set forth in the U.S. Constitution. That document explicitly gives the House of Representatives the charge of impeachment if the evidence so justifies. We have empowered the Judiciary Committee to conduct the inquiry and present its findings to this body. In my view, the committee has fulfilled its mandate and done so admirably, given the contentious nature of this serious matter.

Until now, I have declined to pass judgment on the President over these last several months because I believed strongly that it was improper to do so before the process secured evidence through a rigorous investigation where both sides presented their cases. That process is complete and we are now in receipt of the results of the investigation, as well as the specific recommendations made through the articles of impeachment.

Let me say I do not take lightly the prospect of removing this or any American President from office. It is contrary to the normal political process and disruptive to society. However, the Constitution must override any reservations we have and we must vote to maintain its sanctity. Today, Congress is not standing in judgment on the President’s character, nor are we debating the issue of his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Rather, we are being asked to determine whether or not he broke the law. And after a thorough review of the evidence, I am convinced that the overwhelmingly shows the President knowingly committed perjury and obstructed justice. It saddens me immensely to conclude that we must vote for the articles of impeachment but quite frankly, we have no other choice than to refer the matter to the Senate for further action, given the body of evidence and the requirements of the Constitution.

Like all of my colleagues, I have been inundated with phone calls, faxes, e-mail messages and other forms of communication. Many of my constituents from South Alabama, in fact, probably most of them, hold strong views on the guilt or innocence of the President, and they have made those views know. After all, that is the American way, and it is also what makes our Republic work.

Obviously, either way the vote goes, a certain segment of the population will strongly disagree with the decision. But let there be no disagreement in this House – or in any house throughout the country – that more important than the treatment of any one person – even the President of the United States – is fair and equal application of the rule of law. Preservation of the rule of law demands a vote in favor of impeachment.

Today is a sad day for the President, for sure, but it is an even sadder day for the nation.

I know ... I thought the same thing and felt it was kind of funny as well, but in a strange way - must be a Freudian slip :- )

PLEASE NOTE: I inadvertently made a few minor typing errors in Congressman' Callahan's letter above, of which there were none in the original letter. Don't know what it is with my typing ... maybe my nails are getting to long as they keep sliding off the key board and I am in a hurry as I don't really have the time to post all this, but had the desire.