Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
The Biggest Story is NOT the Indictment
Topic Started: Oct 28 2005, 08:14 PM (804 Views)
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Speaking of more sober analyses:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110007476
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Quote:
 
The attorney who helped draft the initial legislation is on record that Ms. Plame does not fit the definition of covert operative.


Do you have a cite for that? I haven't seen it, but I'd be interested to see what he (or she) had to say.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
That would be Victoria Toensig. I have heard her say that as well.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
QuirtEvans
Oct 29 2005, 08:00 AM
Cisneros and Espy were not White House officials.  Cabinet-level secretaries are not White House officials.  The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is not a White House official.  The Chairman of the Federal Reserve is not a White House official.  Someone who accepts an appointment as an assistant to the President is a White House official. 

Russert was right.  You are wrong.

Sorry to post this so late, but I forgot:

There was one other White House official who was indicted during the Clinton administration.

William Jefferson Clinton.

The charges were perjury and obstruction of justice arising from the Lewinsky scandal. The Senate acquitted Clinton on both counts in a trial concluding on February 12, 1999. The day before leaving office, Clinton agreed to a five year suspension of his Arkansas law license as part of an agreement with the independent counsel to end the investigation. Based on this suspension, Clinton was also automatically suspended from the United States Supreme Court bar, from which he chose to resign.



How could I forget!
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nina
Senior Carp
JBryan
Oct 29 2005, 02:42 PM

Interesting analysis, but I don't agree with it.

As I read the article (granted, pretty quick glance), the general idea seems to be, "well yeah, Libby did commit perjury and make untrue statements and was kind of a pain in the butt to the grand jury, but there wasn't a crime in the first place, so what's the big deal?"

The big deal, as I felt Fitzgerald took great pains to explain, is that you're not supposed to commit perjury, make untrue statements and be a pain in the butt to the grand jury. Full stop.

The relevance or irrelevance of the questions asked by the jury is completely beside the point as far as Scooter's indictments go.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Quote:
 
As I read the article (granted, pretty quick glance), the general idea seems to be, "well yeah, Libby did commit perjury and make untrue statements and was kind of a pain in the butt to the grand jury, but there wasn't a crime in the first place, so what's the big deal?"


Actually, if you read the article, you will see that the idea is much more nuanced than simply letting Libby off the hook.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Quote:
 
There was one other White House official who was indicted during the Clinton administration.

William Jefferson Clinton.


Wrong again, although I have you on a technicality.

You cannot indict a sitting President. It's contrary to the Constitution. He was impeached, which is a different thing entirely.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
QuirtEvans
Oct 30 2005, 10:56 AM

Wrong again, although I have you on a technicality.

You cannot indict a sitting President.  It's contrary to the Constitution.  He was impeached, which is a different thing entirely.

im·peach

tr.v. im·peached, im·peach·ing, im·peach·es

To make an accusation against.

To charge (a public official) with improper conduct in office before a proper tribunal.
To challenge the validity of; try to discredit: impeach a witness's credibility.
=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=
in·dict

tr.v. in·dict·ed, in·dict·ing, in·dicts

To accuse of wrongdoing; charge: a book that indicts modern values.
Law. To make a formal accusation or indictment against (a party) by the findings of a jury, especially a grand jury.
==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--

Except for the (technical) difference of impeachment being the accusation of a crime by an elected official, and indictment being the accusation of a crime by anyone, what's the difference?

Where in the constitution does it prohibit the indictment of a sitting president?
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nina
Senior Carp
JBryan
Oct 30 2005, 07:57 AM
Quote:
 
As I read the article (granted, pretty quick glance), the general idea seems to be, "well yeah, Libby did commit perjury and make untrue statements and was kind of a pain in the butt to the grand jury, but there wasn't a crime in the first place, so what's the big deal?"


Actually, if you read the article, you will see that the idea is much more nuanced than simply letting Libby off the hook.

What do you think the basic argument is?

I reread it, and it does seem to be saying that Libby shouldn't have been culpable for lying to the grand jury about the crime of outing a CIA operative in retaliation, because they didn't prove that a crime had been committed.

So then, until a crime has been proven, it's OK to obfuscate?

It will be very interesting to find out who Official A is... I'm hearing reports that it was, indeed, Cheney... but nothing but rumor.

The problem I find with the "policy disagreements" argument is this. If Valerie Plame was in a high enough position to influence or make the decision about sending her husband to Africa to investigate yellowcake, then outing her was a serious thing. Even confirming her identity is serious.

On the other hand, if she was already "well-known" as an agent, or in a meaningless and trivial position as some have claimed, then she was probably not in a position to have influenced any decision to send her husband to Niger. I don't think you can have it both ways.

And I don't think defending the administration's position includes outing, or even confirming the identity of an agent/operative or whatever you want to call her.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Here's the constitutional analysis of why you cannot indict a sitting President. Note that neither Nixon nor Clinton was indicted in office.

Quote:
 
KEN GORMLEY, Duquesne University School of Law: Well, Margaret, I believe that when Archibald Cox and Leon Jaworski looked at this during Watergate and also Robert Bork, then the solicitor general, they concluded that it was most likely not constitutional to indict a sitting president, that's, in fact, why President Nixon was not indicted and Jaworski just named him an unindicted co-conspirator. I think if you look at the constitutional history, if you look at Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 69 and 77, it was clear what he envisioned was that the president would have to be removed from office before he could be indicted or prosecuted. And when you look at the separation of powers, ramification of this, it becomes really clear why that's the rule. It creates gargantuan problems if you allow a sitting president to be indicted and prosecuted because with that comes the ability of another branch of government to incarcerate him, to arrest him, to put him in jail. And that can effectively stop the functioning of the government because, unlike any of the officials who Professor Freedman mentioned, vice president or a federal judge, the president is the sole head of the executive branch. He's the commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy, he is the head of all the executive departments and if you are allowed to indict and prosecute this president, you can also put him behind bars and keep him effectively from being able to govern the country.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Nina
Oct 30 2005, 12:49 PM

The problem I find with the "policy disagreements" argument is this. If Valerie Plame was in a high enough position to influence or make the decision about sending her husband to Africa to investigate yellowcake, then outing her was a serious thing. Even confirming her identity is serious.

On the other hand, if she was already "well-known" as an agent, or in a meaningless and trivial position as some have claimed, then she was probably not in a position to have influenced any decision to send her husband to Niger. I don't think you can have it both ways.


Yes you can because, while she may have had enough infliuence within her department (she was a WMD analyst) to have her husband sent to Africa, she was not a covert agent and did not fit the requirement (had to have been out of the country within the last five years) as stated under the relevant statute.

I would quarrel with the article on one point. Valerie Plame's working for the CIA was, technically, classified and Libby learned of this from Cheney not from a reporter so he had to know it was classified and revealing it was wrong. I'm just not so sure that a charge that could bring 30 years in prison and a 1.25 million dollar fine is justified in this particular case.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
QuirtEvans
Oct 30 2005, 10:22 AM
Here's the constitutional analysis of why you cannot indict a sitting President. Note that neither Nixon nor Clinton was indicted in office.

Quote:
 
KEN GORMLEY, Duquesne University School of Law: Well, Margaret, I believe that when Archibald Cox and Leon Jaworski looked at this during Watergate and also Robert Bork, then the solicitor general, they concluded that it was most likely not constitutional to indict a sitting president, that's, in fact, why President Nixon was not indicted and Jaworski just named him an unindicted co-conspirator. I think if you look at the constitutional history, if you look at Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 69 and 77, it was clear what he envisioned was that the president would have to be removed from office before he could be indicted or prosecuted. And when you look at the separation of powers, ramification of this, it becomes really clear why that's the rule. It creates gargantuan problems if you allow a sitting president to be indicted and prosecuted because with that comes the ability of another branch of government to incarcerate him, to arrest him, to put him in jail. And that can effectively stop the functioning of the government because, unlike any of the officials who Professor Freedman mentioned, vice president or a federal judge, the president is the sole head of the executive branch. He's the commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy, he is the head of all the executive departments and if you are allowed to indict and prosecute this president, you can also put him behind bars and keep him effectively from being able to govern the country.

Impeach and then indict.

It is almost a distinction without much of a practical difference - if Congress does their job properly, which did not happen in the Clinton case...
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
JBryan
Oct 30 2005, 10:35 AM
Nina
Oct 30 2005, 12:49 PM

The problem I find with the "policy disagreements" argument is this.  If Valerie Plame was in a high enough position to influence or make the decision about sending her husband to Africa to investigate yellowcake, then outing her was a serious thing.  Even confirming her identity is serious.

On the other hand, if she was already "well-known" as an agent, or in a meaningless and trivial position as some have claimed, then she was probably not in a position to have influenced any decision to send her husband to Niger.  I don't think you can have it both ways.


Yes you can because, while she may have had enough infliuence within her department (she was a WMD analyst) to have her husband sent to Africa, she was not a covert agent and did not fit the requirement (had to have been out of the country within the last five years) as stated under the relevant statute.

I would quarrel with the article on one point. Valerie Plame's working for the CIA was, technically, classified and Libby learned of this from Cheney not from a reporter so he had to know it was classified and revealing it was wrong. I'm just not so sure that a charge that could bring 30 years in prison and a 1.25 million dollar fine is justified in this particular case.

Everybody should be held to the same standard.

Wonder if the jails are big enough....
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Quote:
 
I'm just not so sure that a charge that could bring 30 years in prison and a 1.25 million dollar fine is justified in this particular case.


The maximum penalty isn't required, it's just the maximum possible.

Really, the factors that you are talking about is what sentencing flexibility is for. FIRST, you decide whether the defendant is guilty of the crime. THEN, you consider the mitigating factors in determining what sentence the defendant should get.

And Jolly, the Clinton impeachment vote was a direct result of Clinton's positive approval ratings, which were in the 60's at the time that the Senate was voting. That's why even a few Republicans voted against impeachment. If Clinton's popularity then had been anywhere near what Bush's is now, we would have had President Gore.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
There is also such a thing as prosecutorial discretion. Ray excercised it when he chose not to indict Bill or Hillary. However, Libby was indicted and he took that risk if he lied to investigators and perjured himself before the grand jury. Fitzgerald sure didn't do anything improper.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Quote:
 
Ray excercised it when he chose not to indict Bill or Hillary.


For the reasons I gave above, it's not clear that it would have been constitutional to indict the Pres. Hilary is, of course, a different story.

Remember, it was three Republicans in the Department of Justice ... including conservative icon Robert Bork ... who concluded that it wasn't constitutional to indict a President.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
I mean he chose not to indict Bill after he left office. He did have that opportunity.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nina
Senior Carp
JBryan
Oct 30 2005, 11:35 AM

I would quarrel with the article on one point. Valerie Plame's working for the CIA was, technically, classified and Libby learned of this from Cheney not from a reporter so he had to know it was classified and revealing it was wrong. I'm just not so sure that a charge that could bring 30 years in prison and a 1.25 million dollar fine is justified in this particular case.

I tend to agree with you, jb--and seriously doubt that Libby would come close to getting the maximum, should he be convicted, and we're a long way from that point.

But as I read the indictment, Libby was nailed for lying to the grand jury, not for outing Plame. So all the talk about whether Plame was or wasn't important, yada yada, is just talk. Her identity was classified, and he shouldn't have told anyone about it. I'm assuming (again, I wasn't there :) ) that there wasn't enough of a direct line to connect Libby to the actual leak, otherwise he'd be indicted for that. But he lied to the grand jury and the FBI in the course of the investigation, and that's what his indictments cover.

I'm sure Fitzgerald would love to have found evidence of the actual leak. He may well have strong suspicions, but obviously none of them were worthy of indictment. It will be interesting to see what happens during Libby's trial.

And I'm still quite curious about Official A.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jack Frost
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Nina
Oct 30 2005, 06:10 PM

But as I read the indictment, Libby was nailed for lying to the grand jury, not for outing Plame. So all the talk about whether Plame was or wasn't important, yada yada, is just talk. Her identity was classified, and he shouldn't have told anyone about it. I'm assuming (again, I wasn't there :) ) that there wasn't enough of a direct line to connect Libby to the actual leak, otherwise he'd be indicted for that. But he lied to the grand jury and the FBI in the course of the investigation, and that's what his indictments cover.

I'm sure Fitzgerald would love to have found evidence of the actual leak. He may well have strong suspicions, but obviously none of them were worthy of indictment. It will be interesting to see what happens during Libby's trial.

And I'm still quite curious about Official A.

Nina, I think Fitzgerald does have Libby leaking the fact that Plame worked for the CIA. The relevant statute, however, prohibits intentionally leaking the identity of a covert CIA employee. I think that Fitzgerald had no proof that Libby knew Plame was covert and that is why he did not charge him with that count.

jf

Quote:
 
Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Quote:
 
I mean he chose not to indict Bill after he left office. He did have that opportunity.


That's correct, and it's how the Founders contemplated it would work.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
QuirtEvans
Oct 30 2005, 05:40 PM
That's correct, and it's how the Founders contemplated it would work.

I sit corrected. There is a difference between an indictment (a legal term) of a crime - that's what happened with Libbey, Cisneros, Espy and others - and impeachment.

Bill Clinton was accused of "high crimes and misdemeanors" and stood trial before congress. He was not "indicted..." just accused and tried,

and yes, acquited.

:veryangry:

Oh, and one of the many differences between Nixon and Clinton is that Nixon resigned before ever being impeached.

:tsktsk:
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
QuirtEvans
Oct 30 2005, 01:15 PM
Quote:
 
I'm just not so sure that a charge that could bring 30 years in prison and a 1.25 million dollar fine is justified in this particular case.


The maximum penalty isn't required, it's just the maximum possible.

Really, the factors that you are talking about is what sentencing flexibility is for. FIRST, you decide whether the defendant is guilty of the crime. THEN, you consider the mitigating factors in determining what sentence the defendant should get.

And Jolly, the Clinton impeachment vote was a direct result of Clinton's positive approval ratings, which were in the 60's at the time that the Senate was voting. That's why even a few Republicans voted against impeachment. If Clinton's popularity then had been anywhere near what Bush's is now, we would have had President Gore.

Since when does an approval rating constitute innocence or guilt?
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Miller
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Jolly
Oct 30 2005, 04:23 PM
Since when does an approval rating constitute innocence or guilt?

Since when does truth have anything to do with what goes through the mind of a politician?
Wag more
Bark less
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Jack Frost
Oct 30 2005, 05:39 PM

Nina, I think Fitzgerald does have Libby leaking the fact that Plame worked for the CIA. The relevant statute, however, prohibits intentionally leaking the identity of a covert CIA employee. I think that Fitzgerald had no proof that Libby knew Plame was covert and that is why he did not charge him with that count.

jf

Plame did not fit the classification of a covert agent as well. Leaking her name would not have been a violation of the statute under any of the three tests.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Quote:
 
Since when does an approval rating constitute innocence or guilt?


Maybe they figured that they didn't have the support of the American public who were for the most part heartily sick of the whole circus?
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2