Ya Can’t Make This Stuff Up
DNC cancels L.A. debateThe Democratic National Committee plans to announce Wednesday night that it has canceled the final presidential debate in its fall series because of a potential writers strike at CBS News, a sponsor of the debate.
The Dems can’t debate because the writers might be on strike. Hmmm…
gurusteve
DFV the Scribe
Andre the Defiant
Wes
pg - your humble messenger
hairybeast
thompaine
Drowning Creek
A little Wednesday evening quick linkage
Amazing: the Democrats are cancelling a presidential candidate debate in Los Angeles due to the writers’ strike! Boy, does that say something!
Oh, well, we already knew that original thinking was not a Democratic strong point! Hat tip to t…
Common Sense Political Thought
28 Nov 07 at 7:53 pm
I love ‘da Beast!
pgwarner
28 Nov 07 at 8:29 pm
I didn’t know you weren’t a fan of W. Did the Scooter Libby pardoning bother you?
Wes
28 Nov 07 at 8:43 pm
Okay, I am obtuse, but Wes…”What are you talking about Willis?”
Me confuddle and befused!
pgwarner
28 Nov 07 at 8:59 pm
Oh, that’s on his Common Sense blog, but I figured I’d just comment here for simplicity’s sake.
Wes
28 Nov 07 at 9:07 pm
Score one for Wes. . . but the point should be made at Common Sense where the argument will be more aptly directed.
E the Wise
28 Nov 07 at 9:55 pm
He did. But the answer is that President Bush didn’t pardon Mr Libby. Rather, he commuted any jail time in his sentence; that leaves Mr Libby with a couple of years of probation, a quarter-million dollar fine, and he remains a convicted felon.
Dana
29 Nov 07 at 6:21 am
Commutation, then. He committed perjury at a time in which the President said he would punish anyone responsible for leaking the name. Not only did he leak that name, he lied about it under oath. The only reason it wasn’t a pardon was so he could rely on folks like you to keep pointing out it wasn’t a pardon. It had the same effect, we all know it, and I refuse to pretend a 250,000 fine would mean anything to a person in his position. Call me crazy, but I’m not worried about the man’s future. Is there anyone reading this who wouldn’t trade their current job prospects for the ones of Scooter Libby?
Wes
29 Nov 07 at 7:33 am
Mr Libby was never charged with leaking Valerie Wilson’s name. He was convicted for not being truthful during the investigation of something that was not a crime.
The independent prosecutor was charged with finding out who leaked Mrs Wilson’s position, and prosecuting if that was a violation of the law. On his first day in office, his very first day, Richard Armitage confessed that he had been the source. Later, during the investigation, Karl Rove said that he had also mentioned it to a reporter.
Two confessions, but no one charged with a crime, because it wasn’t a crime.
Mr Libby screwed up by trying to finesse his answers, to keep a lid on everything until at least after the 2004 election; he should not have done that, and he’ll pay the price for it. But if his actions enabled George Bush’s re-election and John Kerry’s defeat, it was well worth it and a patriotic action.
Dana
29 Nov 07 at 8:37 am
I had no idea that breaking the law could be patriotic. Particularly undermining the legal system (though maybe DFV will set me straight here). This kind of thinking is what leads men to circumvent the law in the first place. And it is unequivocally wrong.
And frankly, if you’re allowed to describe someone in the CIA in terms as specific as somebody’s wife, then what good is the law against that anyway? Just another law that has been bent beyond recognition, never to be useful again.
Wes
29 Nov 07 at 8:56 am
I’m sure Wes believes that President Clinton should be slapped with a $250,000 fine too. . . since lying is so bad.
E the Wise
29 Nov 07 at 9:25 am
Armitage “leaked” the name, not Libby. It is hard to tell a secret when people already know it.
That law was designed specifically for cases like this. Precision matters. Anyone in this country could shout out what Ms. Plame did for a living from the Capitol dome, and not break the law. That is if she would not be considered a “covert” agent under the law.
Now the administration’s critics will always have wiggle room here as a court has never, and at this looks like one never will, issue a ruling she was not one. As Fitzgerald did not bring charges against, or even ask for an incitement on anyone, one can safely argue he did not have any evidence that the statute was violated.
It is important to note that a prosecutor, a witness or any other person’s opinion regarding what happened are not the same as the court’s opinion.
What happened here was the criminalization of politics, nothing less, nothing more. A person may consider the actions of the people involved as unsavory or even immoral. Whatever their actions were, they clearly weren’t illegal.
pgwarner
29 Nov 07 at 9:44 am
OK, possibly I have a misunderstanding. It was established that Joseph Wilson’s wife’s name was Valerie Plame, right?
“Joseph Wilson’s wife is a CIA agent.”
“Valerie Plame is a CIA agent.”
Those statements say the same thing to me. Maybe not legally, but realistically, they accomplish the same purpose.
What I saw in all this was a slipup in the dirty political tactics employed throughout the administration that actually was able to go to court. That it wasn’t a crime is more of a problem than an excuse to me. But regardless, it didn’t merit being commuted. Again, not speaking legally here (and I shouldn’t have earlier), since this entire issue stemmed from a subjective viewpoint.
As far as Bill Clinton goes, I wouldn’t consider them to be the same thing. A better analogy would be if Clinton had committed perjury in the Whitewater investigation. But still not a very good one, because Bill Clinton’s troubles almost exclusively stemmed from his personal life. This was an accusation of abuse of power at the highest possible level. Lying in this situation is more serious.
Wes
29 Nov 07 at 10:12 am