It will take 1 million people with Cindy Sheenan on July 23 and 1 million strong with VoteToImpeach.org on Sept. 15 and every month after!

Bush even violated the Department of Justice regulations on Presidential Pardons:

http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/pardon_instructions.htm

1. Submit the petition to the Office of the Pardon Attorney

All petitions, except petitions relating to military offenses (see paragraph 6 below), should be forwarded to the Office of the Pardon Attorney, Department of Justice. The completed pardon petition must be entirely legible; therefore, please type or print in ink. The form must be completed fully and accurately in order to be considered. You may attach to the petition additional pages and documents that amplify or clarify your answer to any question.

2. Federal convictions only

Under the Constitution, only federal criminal convictions, such as those obtained in the United States District Courts, may be pardoned by the President. In addition, the President's pardon power extends to convictions obtained in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and military court-martial proceedings. However, the President cannot pardon a state criminal offense. Accordingly, if you are seeking clemency for a state criminal conviction, you should not complete and submit this petition. Instead, you should contact the Governor or other appropriate authorities of the state where you reside or where the conviction occurred (such as the state board of pardons and paroles) to determine whether any relief is available to you under state law. If you have a federal conviction, information about the conviction may be obtained from the clerk of the federal court where you were convicted.

3. Five-year waiting period required

Under the Department's rules governing petitions for executive clemency, 28 C.F.R. §§ 1.1 et seq., a minimum waiting period of five years after completion of sentence is required before anyone convicted of a federal offense becomes eligible to apply for a presidential pardon. The waiting period, which is designed to afford the petitioner a reasonable period of time in which to demonstrate an ability to lead a responsible, productive and law-abiding life, begins on the date of the petitioner's release from confinement. Alternatively, if the conviction resulted in a sentence other than a term of imprisonment, such as probation or a fine, the waiting period begins on the date of sentencing. In addition, the petitioner should have satisfied the penalty imposed, including all probation, parole, or supervised release. Moreover, the waiting period begins upon release from confinement for your most recent c onviction, whether or not this is the offense for which pardon is sought. You may make a written request for a waiver of this requirement. However, waiver of any portion of the waiting period is rarely granted and then only in the most exceptional circumstances. In order to request a waiver, you must complete the pardon application form and submit it with a cover letter explaining why you believe the waiting period should be waived in your case.

4. Reason for seeking pardon

In answering question 20, you should state the specific purpose for which you are seeking pardon and, if applicable, attach any relevant documentary evidence that indicates how a pardon will help you accomplish that purpose (such as citations to applicable provisions of state constitutions, statutes, or regulations, or copies of letters from appropriate officials of administrative agencies, professional associations, licensing authorities, etc.). In addition, you should bear in mind that a presidential pardon is ordinarily a sign of forgiveness and is granted in recognition of the applicant's acceptance of responsibility for the crime and established good conduct for a significant period of time after conviction or release from confinement. A pardon is not a sign of vindication and does not connote or establish innocence. For that reason, when considering the merits of a pardon petition, pardon officials take into account the petitioner's acceptance of responsibility, remorse, and atonement for the offense.

5. Multiple federal convictions

If you have more than one federal conviction, the most recent conviction should be shown in response to question 2 of the petition and the form completed as to that conviction. For all other federal convictions, including convictions by military courts-martial, the information requested in questions 2 through 6 of the petition should be provided on an attachment. Any federal charges not resulting in conviction should be reported in the space provided for prior and subsequent criminal record (question 7).

6. Pardon of a military offense

If you are requesting pardon of a court-martial conviction only, you should submit your completed petition directly to the Secretary of the military department that had original jurisdiction in your case, completing questions 2 through 6 and question 15 of the petition form to show all pertinent information concerning your court-martial trial and conviction. The addresses for submitting a request for a pardon of a court-martial conviction are as follows:

Secretary of the Army
Department of the Army
Pentagon
Washington, DC 20310

Secretary of the Navy
Department of the Navy
Pentagon
Washington, DC 20350

Secretary of the Air Force
Department of the Air Force
Pentagon
Washington, DC 20330

Pardon of a military offense will not change the character of a military discharge. An upgrade or other change to a military discharge may only be accomplished by action of the appropriate military authorities. To apply for a review of a military discharge, you should write to the relevant military branch, at the address listed below:

Army Review Boards Agency
1901 South Bell Street
Arlington, Virginia 22202-4508

Secretary of the Navy
Naval Council of Personnel Records
702 Kennon Street, SE
Suite 309
Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5023

Air Force Review Boards Agency
SAS/MRBR
550C Street West
Suite 40
Randolph Air Force Base, Texas 78150-4742

7. Additional arrest record

In response to question 7, you must disclose any additional arrest or charge by any civilian or military law enforcement authority, including any federal, state, local, or foreign authority, whether it occurred before or after the offense for which you are seeking pardon. Your answer should list every violation, including traffic violations that resulted in an arrest or criminal charge, such as driving under the influence. Your failure to disclose any such arrest, whether or not it resulted in conviction, may be construed as a falsification of the petition.

8. Credit status and civil lawsuits

In response to question 14, you must list all delinquent credit obligations, whether or not you dispute them. You must also list all civil lawsuits in which you were named as a party, whether as plaintiff or defendant, including bankruptcy proceedings. You must also list all unpaid tax obligations, whether federal, state, or local. You may submit explanatory material in connection with any of these matters (such as an agreed method of payment for indebtedness).

9. Character references

At least three character affidavits must accompany the petition. If you submit more than three, you should designate the three persons whom you consider to be primary references. The affidavit forms provided are preferred. However, letters of recommendation may be substituted if they contain the full name, address, and telephone number of the reference, indicate a knowledge of the offense for which you seek pardon, and bear a notarized signature. Persons related to you by blood or marriage cannot be used as primary character references.

10. Effect of a pardon

While a presidential pardon will restore various rights lost as a result of the pardoned offense and should lessen to some extent the stigma arising from a conviction, it will not erase or expunge the record of your conviction. Therefore, even if you are granted a pardon, you must still disclose your conviction on any form where such information is required, although you may also disclose the fact that you received a pardon. In addition, most civil disabilities attendant upon a federal felony conviction, such as loss of the right to vote and hold state public office, are imposed by state rather than federal law, and also may be removed by state action. Because the federal pardon process is exacting and may be more time-consuming than analogous state procedures, you may wish to consult with the appropriate authorities in the state of your residence regarding the procedures for restoring your state civil rights.

11. Scope of investigation

Pardon officials conduct a very thorough review in determining a petitioner's worthiness for relief. Accordingly, you should be prepared for a detailed inquiry into your personal background and current activities. Among the factors entering into this determination are the nature, seriousness and recentness of the offense, your overall criminal record, any specific hardship you may be suffering because of the conviction, and the nature and extent of your post-conviction involvement in community service, or charitable or other meritorious activities. We encourage you to submit information concerning your community contributions.

12. Exclusive Presidential authority

The power to grant pardons is vested in the President alone. No hearing is held on the pardon application by either the Department of Justice or the White House. You will be notified when a final decision is made on your petition, and there is no appeal from the President's decision to deny a clemency request. The Office of the Pardon Attorney does not disclose information regarding the nature or results of any investigation that may have been undertaken in a particular case, or the exact point in the clemency process at which a particular petition is pending at a given time. As a matter of well-established policy, the specific reasons for the President's decision to grant or deny a petition are generally not disclosed by either the White House or the Department of Justice. In addition, documents reflecting deliberative communications pertaining to presidential decision-making, such as the Department's recommendation to the President in a clemency matter, are confidential and not available under the Freedom of Information Act. If your petition is denied, you may submit a new petition for consideration two years from the date of denial.

This article merely memorializes what most people have been thinking all along. The only question is what can be done about it.

Even the Supreme Court recommended impeachment for cases like this. As written in Ex Parte Grossman (1925):

Executive clemency exists to afford relief from undue harshness or evident mistake in the operation or enforcement of the criminal law. The administration of justice by the courts is not necessarily always wise or certainly considerate of circumstances which may properly mitigate [p121] guilt. To afford a remedy, it has always been thought essential in popular governments, as well as in monarchies, to vest in some other authority than the courts power to ameliorate or avoid particular criminal judgments. It is a check entrusted to the executive for special cases. To exercise it to the extent of destroying the deterrent effect of judicial punishment would be to pervert it; but whoever is to make it useful must have full discretion to exercise it. Our Constitution confers this discretion on the highest officer in the nation in confidence that he will not abuse it. An abuse in pardoning contempts would certainly embarrass courts, but it is questionable how much more it would lessen their effectiveness than a wholesale pardon of other offenses. If we could conjure up in our minds a President willing to paralyze courts by pardoning all criminal contempts, why not a President ordering a general jail delivery? A pardon can only be granted for a contempt fully completed. Neither in this country nor in England can it interfere with the use of coercive measures to enforce a suitor's right. The detrimental effect of excessive pardons of completed contempts would be in the loss of the deterrent influence upon future contempts. It is of the same character as that of the excessive pardons of other offenses. The difference does not justify our reading criminal contempts out of the pardon clause by departing from its ordinary meaning confirmed by its common law origin and long years of practice and acquiescence.

If it be said that the President, by successive pardons of constantly recurring contempts in particular litigation, might deprive a court of power to enforce its orders in a recalcitrant neighborhood, it is enough to observe that such a course is so improbable as to furnish but little basis for argument. Exceptional cases like this, if to be imagined at all, would suggest a resort to impeachment, rather than to a narrow and strained construction of the general powers of the President. [p122]
- http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0267_0087_ZO.html

Did Richard Armitage's leak result in the outing of Plame? NO.
Who was responsible for Plame's leak being investigated? The CIA.
Why? Because leaking her name was a serious crime.

Thus bringing Armitage's name up is illogical and a non sequitur.
It is obfuscation, and a lack of understanding about the key facts of the case.

The courts established Libby's guilt, though from Bush's commutation and these earlier strange coincidences, there is a lot more guilt laying around. Listen to Keith Olbermann's special July 3rd comment on the subject if the above article doesn't already move you to action. I called my congressmember on Tuesday as well as Speaker Pelosi's office. This article will also be sent to them. Impeachment and/or resignation should well be on the table for Bush and Cheney.

Congressional Switchboard: 202-224-3121

Speaker Nancy Pelosi' office: 202-225-0100

impeach Libby and make him un-pardonable

Mr. Hartmann correctly frames the question, and points to the remedy in his opening remarks. The power to pardon or to commute on the part of a president was enshrined in the Constitution, wherein was also enshrined the balancing power to impeach when that presidential power is abused.

He also points tellingly to the chain of events of Mr. Libby's trial, which began with us all thinking that Libby would indeed draw his bosses into the fray, as he himself thrashed about for the way out. As he is presently saying on his radio program, all of a sudden, Libby rolled over, made no defense, let the court proceedings convict him. Why did he do that?

This is the Achilles heel of the entire sorry process. We watched as a courtroom drama became a farce. The real deliberation, which was a criminal one, took place behind the scenes as Scooter Libby came to terms with Bush and Cheney. That is unacceptable in a constitutional democracy.

We can say, well, our democracy has died. It will have died if and when Congress does not determine that what we have witnessed in the courtroom trial of Scooter Libby was a charade, if it does not bring those culpable to account by the orderly process of impeachment.

The wheels of justice should now be turning. I hope and pray that they are. The evidence of obstruction of justice lies in the chain of events which Mr. Hartmann has delineated here.

Alexander Hamilton couldn't have imagined anyone acting like Bush. From Federalis #74:

He is also to be authorized to grant ``reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, EXCEPT IN CASES OF IMPEACHMENT.'' Humanity and good policy conspire to dictate, that the benign prerogative of pardoning should be as little as possible fettered or embarrassed. The criminal code of every country partakes so much of necessary severity, that without an easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel. As the sense of responsibility is always strongest, in proportion as it is undivided, it may be inferred that a single man would be most ready to attend to the force of those motives which might plead for a mitigation of the rigor of the law, and least apt to yield to considerations which were calculated to shelter a fit object of its vengeance. The reflection that the fate of a fellow-creature depended on his sole fiat, would naturally inspire scrupulousness and caution; the dread of being accused of weakness or connivance, would beget equal circumspection, though of a different kind.
- http://thomas.loc.gov/home/fedpapers/fed_74.html

He goes on to explain the problems with having to assemble the legislature to sanction a pardon or reprieve and uses that as reason to grant the authority to the President alone.

Times have changed. Maybe a Constitutional Amendment is in order.

"Conpiracy" by US institutions. "Ah, come on" now. This "terrible conspiracy" thang is getting out of control. Don't we "have more faith in US institutions than that? What have we got here, ya'll? I mean are we "really supposed to believe" that W is a liar on this thang, ya'll?

Now let's just not get into all this "conspiracy thang." What if somebody such as Cindy Sheehan and the US Social Forum were to call for an independent investigation of the 9/11 attacks. Oh, they already have.

This "just had to be" a spur of the moment thang, ya'll, "just a damn coincidence."

Outed CIA officer was working on Iran, intelligence sources say
Larisa Alexandrovna
Published: February 13, 2006
rawstory.com

The unmasking of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson by White House officials in 2003 caused significant damage to U.S. national security and its ability to counter nuclear proliferation abroad, RAW STORY has learned.

According to current and former intelligence officials, Plame Wilson, who worked on the clandestine side of the CIA in the Directorate of Operations as a non-official cover (NOC) officer, was part of an operation tracking distribution and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction technology to and from Iran.

Speaking under strict confidentiality, intelligence officials revealed heretofore unreported elements of Plame's work. Their accounts suggest that Plame's outing was more serious than has previously been reported and carries grave implications for U.S. national security and its ability to monitor Iran's burgeoning nuclear program.

While many have speculated that Plame was involved in monitoring the nuclear proliferation black market, specifically the proliferation activities of Pakistan's nuclear "father," A.Q. Khan, intelligence sources say that her team provided only minimal support in that area, focusing almost entirely on Iran.

Plame declined to comment through her husband, Joseph Wilson.

Valerie Plame first became a household name when her identity was disclosed by conservative columnist Robert Novak on July 14, 2003. The column came only a week after her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, had written an op-ed for the New York Times asserting that White House officials twisted pre-war intelligence on Iraq. Her outing was seen as political retaliation for Wilson's criticism of the Administration's claim that Iraq sought uranium from Niger for a nuclear weapons program.

Her case has drawn international attention and resulted in the indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, on five counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements. Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald, who is leading the probe, is still pursuing Deputy Chief of Staff and Special Advisor to President Bush, Karl Rove. His investigation remains open.

The damages

Intelligence sources would not identify the specifics of Plame's work. They did, however, tell RAW STORY that her outing resulted in "severe" damage to her team and significantly hampered the CIA's ability to monitor nuclear proliferation.

Plame's team, they added, would have come in contact with A.Q. Khan's network in the course of her work on Iran.

While Director of Central Intelligence Porter Goss has not submitted a formal damage assessment to Congressional oversight committees, the CIA's Directorate of Operations did conduct a serious and aggressive investigation, sources say.

Intelligence sources familiar with the damage assessment say that what is called a "counter intelligence assessment to agency operations" was conducted on the orders of the CIA's then-Deputy Director of the Directorate of Operations, James Pavitt.

Former CIA counterintelligence officer Larry Johnson believes that such an assessment would have had to be done for the CIA to have referred the case to the Justice Department.

"An exposure like that required an immediate operational and counter intelligence damage assessment," Johnson said. "That was done. The results were written up but not in a form for submission to anyone outside of CIA."

One former counterintelligence official described the CIA's reasons for not seeking Congressional assistance on the matter as follows: "[The CIA Leadership] made a conscious decision not to do a formal inquiry because they knew it might become public," the source said. "They referred it [to the Justice Department] instead because they believed a criminal investigation was needed."

The source described the findings of the assessment as showing "significant damage to operational equities."

Another counterintelligence official, also wishing to remain anonymous due to the nature of the subject matter, described "operational equities" as including both people and agency operations that involve the "cover mechanism," "front companies," and other CIA officers and assets.

Three intelligence officers confirmed that other CIA non-official cover officers were compromised, but did not indicate the number of people operating under non-official cover that were affected or the way in which these individuals were impaired. None of the sources would say whether there were American or foreign casualties as a result of the leak.

Several intelligence officials described the damage in terms of how long it would take for the agency to recover. According to their own assessment, the CIA would be impaired for up to "ten years" in its capacity to adequately monitor nuclear proliferation on the level of efficiency and accuracy it had prior to the White House leak of Plame Wilson's identity.

A.Q. Khan

While Plame's work did not specifically focus on the A.Q. Khan ring, named after Pakistani scientist Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, the network and its impact on nuclear proliferation and the region should not be minimized, primarily because the Khan network was the major supplier of WMD technology for Iran.

Dr. Khan instituted the proliferation market during the 1980s and supplied many countries in the Middle East and elsewhere with uranium enrichment technology, including Libya, Iran and North Korea. Enriched uranium is used to make weaponized nuclear devices.

The United States forced the Pakistan government to dismiss Khan for his proliferation activities in March of 2001, but he remains largely free and acts as an adviser to the Pakistani government.

According to intelligence expert John Pike of GlobalSecurity.org, U.S. officials were not aware of the extent of the proliferation until around the time of Khan's dismissal.

"It slowly dawned on them that the collaboration between Pakistan, North Korea and Iran was an ongoing and serious problem," Pike said. "It was starting to sink in on them that it was one program doing business in three locations and that anything one of these countries had they all had."

After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Pakistan became the United States' chief regional ally in the war on terror.

The revelation that Iran was the focal point of Plame's work raises new questions as to possible other motivating factors in the White House's decision to reveal the identity of a CIA officer working on tracking a WMD supply network to Iran, particularly when the very topic of Iran's possible WMD capability is of such concern to the Administration.

by Larisa Alexandrovna

Yeah, but Thom, we had a different press when Nixon was President. We no longer have an independent press. It's owned by the people running the country.

I started to say, by the people who own the rest of the country, but I forgot, that's China.

SIXTY SEVEN VOTES MY ASS -- STOP THIS ILLEGAL AND IMMORAL OCCUPATION NOW. We'll deal with the criminals after we've stopped hemmoraging. But right now, it's an emergency situation, and we're on the brink of attacking Iran -- we have to keep our eye on the ball.

Said another way, for all the obvious and indisputable crimes already having occurred, this is but a blip -- entirely predictable -- and being used by Democrats to cover for their complete unwillingness to do anything about the occupation.

Alexander Hamilton stated that the ''power of pardoning in the President has...been only contested in relation to the crime of treason.'' The delegates to the Constitutional Convention are recorded to have believed that treason was a crime leveled at ''the immediate being of the society''— an offense meant to strike at the heart of America's institutions and values.

In his closing argument of February 20, 2007 special prosecutor Fitzgerald specifically referenced the leak Libby lied to cover as having occurred during the time of war - very possibly firing up the treason statute with regards to actions by the Bush Administration.

18 USC 794 specifies that:

(b) Whoever, in time of war, with intent that the same shall be communicated to the enemy, collects, records, publishes, or communicates, ....information relating to the public defense, which might be useful to the enemy, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life."

So from a purely technical point it appears that Congress has no other choice but pursue impeachment of both Bush and Cheney.

Amend the Bill of Rights as per George Mason's objection.

As this whole affair unravels it has become a litmus test. If there is no impeachment, if there is no legal accountability then at least we will know where things now stand. A republic no more, a democracy under the rule of law no more, but the 'Decidership' he wanted all along. If the Republicans, the Democrats, the DoJ, the FBI, the press, do not bring this man to justice then it is lost isn't it? It must be nearly time for the next false flag methinks.
Incidentally, does the US have an extradition treaty with Panama?

fitzgerald dropped the ball by not going further. now nobody pays. mission accomplished.

We need a better explanation for Armitage and Novak's roles in this, because my conservative friends have been waving it in my face as proof that the Fitzgerald investigation is nothing but a witchhunt by a gang of Bush-haters.

They're using Armitage to distract us, but the only way to shut the loudmouths up is to reply with an airtight answer. Here's my take on it...

Armitage did talk to Novak about Plame... and to Bob Woodward also. He quoted a classified State Dept. memo that described her as a WMD investigator at CIA, but did not state that she was covert.

When the story broke, Armitage came clean to his boss and the State Dept Counsel. He fully cooperated with the investigation. Fitzgerald found no other evidence that Armitage knew of Plame's covert status when he talked to Novak and Woodward.

Karl Rove and others also spoke to reporters about Plame, and there's been nothing but denials and finger pointing from the White House.

So, I guess the short answer is... The investigation isn't over. Libby's conviction is just a detour. He didn't expose Valerie Plame, he lied to cover for those who did.

Armitage may yet get taken to court, or be disciplined by his employer. Novak may also face justice... but not until Fitzgerald gets a break in the case.

Armitage is terminally ill, I believe.

Maybe Nixon wasn't paranoid in thinking it was a personal attack. He would have been long gone if he was as bad as Bu$h the inferior and Shotgun Dick.

Anyone who didn't KNOW there would be a Quid Pro Quo is blind -- From the outset I just assumed Libby is hard-core AIPAC, and probably Mossad. Like Chertoff, like Monica Lewinski's family...like the entire cabal that serves cheneybushsluts.

But there was never any threat Libby would incriminate his "masters," cuz they are not his masters. AIPAC-Mossad are the masters. They have been running the whole show since day one. Cheneybushsluts serve THEM, not the other way 'round. The House of Saud just came along for the ride, and lots of $$$$$$.

I'm laughing at the naiveté of people, even the legal scholars, who believe Libby was threatening to spill the beans on cheneybushsluts.

Pu-leeeeze, people. Libby is hard-core AIPAC and most probably Mossad for decades. Like Chertoff and the other dual-national Zionists who surround cheneybushsluts. Like Monica, who brought down Bill to serve AIPAC-PNAC scenario.

Every last one of them were recruited by Mossad to ensure their influence at the highest echelons of power --- thereby serving Israel. "Never Again" is not an empty phrase to them.

Libby would NEVER have squealed, he's a pro. And his wife/kids are part of the equation. Pros don't squeal when the best interests of Israel demand silence.

Nevertheless, Mossad has so much on cheneybushsluts that I'm sure they had no problem getting their guy off the hook. Quid pro Quo? You betcha. Like everything these AIPAC/PNAC/Neocon whores touch. Americans should grow up. There are people running this regime, faces and names you don't know, who wipe their feet on the Constitution and on America. Their only loyalty is to Israel and against the whole world. It will always be that way.

The legal erudition of many of these posts is impressive and my appreciation especially to canuckchuck and georgia.

however

we know Bush, we know Cheney, we know many of the neo-cons by their words and their deeds. We know Bush has had any record of his iniquities expunged. Without documentary proof, all you have are allegations. We know he began building his own fortune by way of insider trading. But unless we have a smoking gun and the verdict of a court, we are constrained to scratch our heads and ask rhetorically Conspiracy, or Coincidence?

Is this what is meant by "the rule of law"? To pretend we don't know what is obvious?

These people conspired to invade and occupy Iraq. When an insider dissented and would not desist, they put out a contract on his wife to send a message to any who would defy them. "These people" are a gang. George Bush is titular Boss of this gang.

Gangs engage in gangsterism. Gangsterism is distinguished by it ability to operate within the letter of the law, to lie with impunity, to appear white while being in actuality, black. Everyone knows, but no one can find the evidence to prove it.

So Libby will die if he blows the whistle. The stress of his long ordeal will undermine his cardiovascular health and off he will go inito eternal silence.

Legalism is a straight jacket that allows gangsters freedom of movement.

Nevermind all these pettifogging statutes lawyers have developed to line their own pockets in the name of the rule of law and concentrate on the Constitution, its broad strokes, its eminent common sense! Impeach that son of a bitch ( is there any doubt that Barbara is a major bitch?) based on his public record, based on the fact that he sat reading "My Pet Goat" while New York detonated, based on his "signing statements" and his violation of the 4th Amendment.

We've already got his public confession.

All we need is ready to hand, friends. Thomm's message is "I'm a real legal beagel!" It may have legal substance, but politically it will go nowhere. Libby and Plamegate is just a distraction and an evasion, a problem these gangsters can eliminate if necessary. What they can't defend against is their outrage of the Constitution, unless, of course, we prefer to ignore it in favor of onanistic legalism.

About two years ago I went to a lecture by an investigative reporter and writer, and, to the audience's amazement, the lecturer said, in his own words, "not to hold our breath" with Mr. Patrick Fitzgerald as the U.S. attorney looking into this case if we expected an unbiased system of justice on the Plame outing. How right he was!

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE LIBBY SENTENCE

The arguments for & against the commutation of Libby's sentence are rendered irrelevant by the this conspicuous event, which was never explained by the presiding judicial team or the press:

Robert Novak and his source(s), escaped criminal prosecution after exposing a critical intelligence secret which could have endangered national security and lives of other agents.

Such crimes would have been labeled treason during WW 2, and might have resulted in death sentences.

Just when we think we have them., they come up with another legal maneuver. All their(the Bush group) legal nonsense seems to make all citizens look like fools. What's been happening all these years is careful planning on their part with expert lawyering. Let's face it, this group is several steps ahead of everyone else and they have had years to plot and connive. When is the general population to stand up and say ENOUGH Already!. And forget Pelosi as she's in way over her head and the Congress looks just as baffled.

This administration understands that the American people will NOT become enraged and take to the streets. The Dems will make speeches and go collect more corporate money so they will get to serve their true masters and it isn't the people of this country. Lets call for an end of representative government in this country. How about not allowing a candidate to take over $50.00 and free airtime on the public airwaves.

Americans, through apathy and/or indifference, have allowed this secretive (& unelected) zealot president to manipulate our rights by tolerating the senate's acceptance of dubious and potentially dangerous justices--even after the politically motivated & disasterous Supreme Court 2000 intervention which planted him in office. This has enabled unprecedented abuses including countless environmental sellouts, manipulation of science to impede environmental reforms, impediments of family planning and medical programs, & the list goes on.

The gravity of these unprecedented abuses eclipse the Lewensky scaandel which led to an impeachment, & are more serious than Watergate which brought down a presidency.

Robert Settgast

No Hartmann is not your enemy.

He does just enough to bash the DLC but he holds back enough on the Dems to keep his radio job. He is however, a great asset on exposing deep seating Neo-Con corruption. I don't however always agree with his solution, which is just write email or call your congress person and get involved. That alone won't work just like marching a million down main street USA won't work either.

The solution starts in fixng the media. When truth comes unadulterated through the media's airwaves, print, and TV boxes the majority of gulliable Americans will know the truth. Then we can begin to change and shape congress or the DLC or the crooks in the administration. Right now, only about 20 percent(if that) know the truth, and the other 80 percent believe the daily lies, oh uh umm eh excuse me I mean the daily news.

jjohnjj 6:44 pm

Your assessment sounds right. Here is a direct quote from the Wikipedia entry on the "Plame Affair":

"According to (reporter, Michael)Isikoff, as based on his sources, Armitage told Bob Woodward Plame's identity three weeks before talking to Novak, and Armitage himself was aggressively investigated by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, but was never charged because Fitzgerald found no evidence that Armitage knew of Plame's covert CIA status when he talked to Novak and Woodward."

In order to be in violation of the law, the leaker has to KNOW that the agent is covert. Armitage didn't know, apparently. But Scooter did.

My objection with Hartmann has nothing to do with his critique of the neo-conservative movement. My objection is that he never offers any critique of the Democratic Party who abides by the same standards as the Republican Party. It is true that Hartmann offers negative blasts at the DLC: but he never singles out individual people within that negative critique or within that organization. After all, who IS the DLC? Hillary Clinton for one. When she appeared on his radio show it sounded more like a love fest than a rebuttal. Hillary Clinton RUNS the DLC. I for one do not regard Thom Hartmann as a progressive and think he abdicates any legitimate voice by failing to hold the Democrats like Clinton to the same standard he uses to critique the right. Until this changes, he will remain part of the cacophany of surrender.

Maybe the Saudi King just wants to get a gay marriage with the Israeli prime minister and a few more billion US dollars. OK, it would likely be a fake gay marriage without Pat Robertson as the "lovely flower girl."

Cheney's note quoted above says "not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the other".
If Libby is the staffer to be sacrificed, who was the staffer to be protected? Rove? Armitage? Bartlett? Fleischer? Someone off the radar?

Mrs. Libby is a mother and a lawyer herself, and would not be easily intimidated. She knows her rights and knows jail time exposes her children to the taunts and jeers of bullies in their peer group.
She was a Democratic lawyer for the Senate Judiciary committee who interviewed Anite Hill during the 1991 Senate hearings for the nomination to the Supreme Court of Judge Clarence Thomas....any stories there??hmm...

Mrs. Libby was a Democratic lawyer for the Senate Judiciary committee who interviewed Anita Hill during the 1991 Senate hearings for the nomination to the Supreme Court of Judge Clarence Thomas....any stories there?? hmmm...

PLEASE DO NOT FORGET! NOR FAIL TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:

The outing of Valerie Plame and the subsequent cover-ups by all those involved [including?] the President, Vice-President, Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, the White House, neo-cons, and other "cons" are only part of the problem(s) right now. The primary objective --from day 1-- was to invade Iraq, irrespective of the prevailing truths and/or lies.

Iraq with it's vast resources of oil was ripe for the taking; and Saddam Hussein, a brutal dictator, [facilitated] the invasion of his country because of the "imminent threat" of WMD that were about to "rain down" on the USA.

Now we know otherwise; despite all the spins and outright lies being told since 9/11 until today in regards to the reason for the war in Iraq. But it wasn't only America who [went] into Iraq. Coalition forces were there --including Australian and British forces.

So, PLEASE DO NOT FORGET! NOR FAIL TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: even though Democratics are disgusted with so many things coming to light now --as evidenced in Libby's trial and fired federal judges-- Nancy Pelosi and Democratics in the House and Senate are very concerned about the war in Iraq. But they, too, are cautiously optimistic the [oil-sharing] agreement would be finalized before the troops actually pull out.

Do you really think that the Democratics would like to take over in 2008 and there is no oil to [run] the economy? Oil shortage? Factories affected? The economy going down because of an oil crisis? Think again. Just a few days ago (week end. Jul.07.2007) an Australian minister mentioned that Australia's [support] for the war in Iraq --with troops-- is to ensure that the current and future lifestyle of Australians would continue as long as an [oil-sharing plan/law] is passed.

With America's [addiction] to oil, Bush and many big businesses, along with the Republicans desperately want that [oil-sharing plan/law] to be passed as soon as possible. Oil is the America way. Bush, Cheney, Rove, Libby, and the White House know that. But PLEASE DO NOT FORGET NOR FAIL TO CONSIDER that Nancy Pelosi, Obama, Hillary Clinton, and the current Democratic Congress know that too.

jamespaper, it's not about the oil running out, its about controlling the spigot. Greg Palast points out that Saddham was enraging the big oil companies with his manipulation of oil flow out of Iraq, making prices fall at will. There are huge (70% of their oil) undeveloped reserves and that's what the oil companies are after. If they get their hands on it with the PSAs, they will have at least 30 years of unrestricted control over the flow of Iraq's oil, making them big OPEC players (their dream come true) and major controllers over the price ( way up there). This oil "benchmark" also puts Big Oil on the Iraqi oil board so they get even more say in Iraq's business.

The Iraqis are aware of all this and are fighting for the right to control their own resources. The Democrats in Congress are complicit. Dennis Kucinich has said we have no right to do this and they know it, but they're doing it anyway. The term benchmark is a coverup for theft.

Keeping America addicted to oil isn't necessary at all, there are plenty of ways to develop alternatives, but it does keep Americans supporting Big Oil, even if just by looking the other way while this is going on. In comes the eccentric orbit to disrupt this cozy game: global warming. The money behind all the "scientific" denial of global warming is coming out of Big Oil's pockets.

But if you think Big Oil's a problem, we should start talking about the insurance industry. But they sense a storm brewing and are morphing into financial institutions (where better to hide with our money?). They've all got the money and power and we won't win this fight in the electoral arena. We need the National Initiative to take back our Democracy. The Constitutional founders wouldn't have put this clause in the Constitution if they didn't know we were going to need it. And now we do. www.Ni4D.us