Why is the right SO SHRILL AND ANGRY about Scooter? Kate O'Beirne

[DesEtoiles]

was practically crying on Hardball she was so angry.

O'Beirne actually shrieked that it is wrong to convict someone for partisan political purposes. Matthews pointed out that she is saying now exactly what the left said about the Clinton impeachment. She just sputtered - well Clinton admitted he lied! Scooter maintains his innocence! Matthews was like - what in the hell are you talking about, crazy lady.

Novak and Krauthammer are raving in their WaPo columns.

They really have their knickers in a twist on this one.

Why are they so enraged? Is it because they are bullies used to getting their way all the time, and for once they got a bloody nose?

[grasswire]

1. her husband works in the Pentagon

He is up to his eyeballs in Iraq stuff.

[Eurobabe]

2. because there skeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeered outta their wits

that someone is going to pop their little ponzi scheme!

:scared:

[gatorboy]

3. Because they're bug fuck crazy?

I mean, seriously. Look at Newt. People find out that he had an affair while whining about Clinton having an affair and he has the nerve to act bug-eyed shocked that people just might find he behavior a little.... hypocritical?

They're complete loons, man.

[DesEtoiles]

77. that takes b@lls

[GreenZoneLT]

4. I dunno, I don't blame them.

It IS exactly like the Cisneros conviction or the Clinton impeachment, which as I recall, we Democrats got pretty emotionally exercised about. If you can't charge somebody with a crime, you shouldn't be able to charge them with lying about a NON-crime. A witch-hunt is a witch-hunt; I don't care who gets caught up in it.

[sandnsea]

9. There IS a crime

Releasing classified information about a CIA operative is a crime. It was done. The reason it cannot be proven is because of the number of people who lied about it. Libby's lies can be proven, which is why he went on trial. This is not like Cisneros or Clinton at all.

[GreenZoneLT]

16. I'm no expert, but I don't think it is a crime for Cheney.

Cheney and Bush both have authority to classify and declassify information. Bush is the ultimate authority on that (it's a completely executive-branch matter), and he officially delegated the same authority to Cheney years ago. I'm sure Libby dummied up to avoid political embarrassment, and possible prosecution, of Cheney, but I don't think they'd charge Cheney even if everyone told the exact truth about every part of the Plame-outing effort.

[sandnsea]

18. Why do you believe lying sacks of shit??

They told you this line of shit about the declassification. Turns out none of it was true. They attempted to destroy these people in order to hide their war lies, which Libby was a part of, and Libby lied about it. There's nothing here to feel sorry for. Wake the fuck up.

http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/02/the_vice_presidents_declassifi.html

[GreenZoneLT]

38. I found a cite on it the other day. I don't watch much political TV, so...

wouldn't really know what their talking points are. I really haven't kept up with the Libby case that much, either, but anyway...

Bush rejiggered the executive order to give Cheney classification authority.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/eoamend.html

" Sec. 1.3. Classification Authority. (a) The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by:

(1) the President and, in the performance of executive duties, the Vice President;"

You could argue whether political smearing is part of performing executive duties, and whether the President and VP are covered under the law that forbids outing covert agents (as separate from the executive order on classification/declassification), but it's not cut and dried. In my opinion, no prosecutor would ever touch something that close to a constitutional crisis (see Iran-Contra, which was a much more serious matter).

[tibbiit]

42. Why comment at all then?

I found a cite on it the other day. I don't watch much political TV, so...
Posted by GreenZoneLT


wouldn't really know what their talking points are. I really haven't kept up with the Libby case that much, either, but anyway...

///
BUT ANYWAY... I dont know what im talking about but I will comment anyway????
If what you wrote is true, then you dont know what you are talking about.
So why do you comment on something you havent paid much attention to?
Does'nt it strike you that maybe you dont know enough about this story to comment at all?
Why do you even open your mouth about this subject?
tib

[GreenZoneLT]

48. Compared to the general discourse?

A: You don't learn much from watching TV, period.

B: Anybody else posted the cite above? No? Then I'm adding to the discourse. I don't know that many specifics about the Libby case, but I do know a fair amount about the law, criminal procedure, how classified info is handled, and research.

C: I hate echo chambers; SOMEBODY's got to be a devil's advocate around here.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tibbiit]

76. lol

troll droppings
tib

[hlthe2b]

60. WE are talking about DECLASSIFICATION...

From your own citation (that you obviously did NOT read):
Declassification authority is defined in Section 6.1(l) of E.O. 13292. It is granted to: "(1) the official who authorized the original classification...; (2) the originator's current successor in function; (3) a supervisory official of either; or (4) officials delegated declassification authority in writing by the agency head or the senior agency official."

So the Vice President has authority to declassify anything that he himself classified. He also clearly has authority to declassify anything generated in the Office of the Vice President, which he supervises.

But is the Vice President, like the President, "a supervisory official" with respect to other executive branch agencies such as the CIA? Did the 2003 amendment to the executive order which elevated the Vice President's classification authority also grant him declassification authority comparable to the President's?

"The answer is not obvious," said one executive branch expert on classification policy.

[ProfessorGAC]

74. And That Exec Order Passes Constitutional Muster, In Your Eyes?

Unbelievable.
The Professor

[hlthe2b]

29. Nice reiteration of RW talking points. No Cheney & Bush* do NOT

unilaterally have the authority to declassify. The information belongs to the agency, in this case the CIA and it is up to them to determine the appropriateness of declassifying and recommend to Bush* (not Cheney). This was not done. In fact the CIA was not even consulted. So, next time you hear Hannity or Limbaugh or Hume feeding you this crap, you might want to do some further reading. Just because Cheney makes the claim that he and Bush* have the authority does NOT make it so. I've yet to see them respect the constitution to date. Maybe you can accept a non-consitutional monarchy. Most of us can not.

[KittyWampus]

30. If (Big IF) Cheney Was Able To Declassify Plame's Status, There Was Specific Procedure

for doing so. To safeguard Plame, her colleagues and her mission.

All evidence points to that procedure NOT having been followed. Therefore, she was not legally declassified by anyone including Cheney or Bush.

That is why the CIA demanded Fitzgerald's investigation.

[GreenZoneLT]

39. Yeah, but who created the procedure?

Is it something specified by a law, or is it just part of an executive order, like most classification rules are? Cheney and Bush can legally dick around a LOT as far as executive orders go; they issue them, after all.

[hlthe2b]

61. Declassification is in the very citation you refer to, but obviously

did not read:

Declassification authority is defined in Section 6.1(l) of E.O. 13292. It is granted to: "(1) the official who authorized the original classification...; (2) the originator's current successor in function; (3) a supervisory official of either; or (4) officials delegated declassification authority in writing by the agency head or the senior agency official."

So the Vice President has authority to declassify anything that he himself classified. He also clearly has authority to declassify anything generated in the Office of the Vice President, which he supervises.

But is the Vice President, like the President, "a supervisory official" with respect to other executive branch agencies such as the CIA? Did the 2003 amendment to the executive order which elevated the Vice President's classification authority also grant him declassification authority comparable to the President's?

"The answer is not obvious," said one executive branch expert on classification policy.

[KittyWampus]

65. Furthermore, what is the Procedure and Protocol to be followed and did Cheney follow it?

To suggest Cheney, even IF he's deemed capable of declassifying Plame, follow correct procedure?

Did he notify the CIA ahead of time so they could safeguard all agents involved and their mission?

[KittyWampus]

63. Are you suggesting the Executive branch can change CIA declassification procedures to the point

they can declassify an agent's status without even notifying the CIA they have done so?

To suggest such a thing is possible is to suggest the Executive branch can make absolutely ANYTHING legal at any time.

[GreenZoneLT]

66. The CIA is IN the executive branch.

The CIA director works for the president. There are a lot of laws that limit the president from doing stuff, but I'm not clear on how and whether laws about military secrets do that.

And yeah, since classification procedures are executive orders, the president (and under Bush, the VP) can pretty much make up rules on the fly. It's bad policy, but it's hard to find a law against it.

[KittyWampus]

68. Yes, that is the argument coming from the White House. I'll start a thread asking if that is legit

[hlthe2b]

70. legit if we buy into a Dictatorial Monarchy...

which is what the RW seemingly wants to promote under this unitary executive BS... Can you imagine any true libertarian (as the poster claims to be) promoting such? :eyes:

[hlthe2b]

69. I see..

Since the following from your own citation that you referred to has been pointed out to you multiple times, I can only conclude that you have difficulty in reading and comprehension. My apologies for being insensitive to your issue.

Declassification authority is defined in Section 6.1(l) of E.O. 13292. It is granted to: "(1) the official who authorized the original classification...; (2) the originator's current successor in function; (3) a supervisory official of either; or (4) officials delegated declassification authority in writing by the agency head or the senior agency official."


RESPONSIBILITY falls to the CIA-- the original agency who authorized the classification. They were not even CONSULTED. IT was the CIA, under Tenet, that requested the Federal investigation to begin with.

[KittyWampus]

71. The GOP MAY then perhaps argue that the CIA may have granted the status but a POTUS authorized it

creative interpretation.

I just don't get how an Executive Order can just ignore previous protocol. To allow that means we have set laws if the Executive can change anything at will without telling anyone.

[hlthe2b]

73. Beyond the fact...

that in doing this, Bush*-CHeney are violating their OWN executive order... This totally renders the entire Executive Order premise as pointless and ridiculous.

[DesEtoiles]

79. they released her name first and then "declassified" as coverup

for their lawbreaking

[WinkyDink]

53. The jurors weren't charged with judging Cheney. Libby was convicted of exactly what he was charged

with.

[Old and In the Way]

10. Just like the Cisneros conviction?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/30/AR2005093001744.html

This spring, Republicans and Democrats voiced outrage over the news that independent counsel David M. Barrett was still pursuing a decade-long, $21 million investigation into a crime long confessed and paid for. Without debate, the Senate unanimously agreed to strip Barrett of further funding for his inquiry on former housing secretary Henry G. Cisneros.

But, prodded by conservative commentators, House Republican leaders grew convinced that Democrats were trying to suppress embarrassing revelations about the Clinton administration. The Senate provision was ditched behind closed doors, and Barrett and his staff continue to work -- at a cost to taxpayers of nearly $2 million a year -- on an inquiry that seemingly ended 13 months ago.

Barrett is the last independent counsel of the Clinton era, still in business six years after Cisneros pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about money he paid to a former mistress. Cisneros paid a $10,000 fine and a $25 court assessment in 1999 and was later pardoned by Clinton.



I don't know...spending 10 years and $21MM of taxpayer money to dig up dirt on a mistress pay-off doesn't seem to be in the same ballpark as investigating and convicting a person involed with a treason activity such as the outing of a CIA agent.

[GreenZoneLT]

15. OK, not exactly alike, but the same concept

I don't like when prosecutors, failing to uncover a crime, start prosecuting people for how they dealt with the inquisition. That's what happened to Cisneros. Obviously, all the crap afterward was nothing like Fitz's investigation.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

31. Lying to a grand jury is a crime. Lying to the FBI is a crime.

Obstruction of justice is a crime. It's the lying that prevented Fitzgerald from finding out whether Scooter committed the underlying crime. That's the obstruction of justice part, and that's why lying to grand juries and investigators is a crime by itself.

And anyhow, if Libby didn't at least believe he'd done something wrong, why did he lie in the first place?

[GreenZoneLT]

41. Fuck the FBI.

If the FBI asks me questions about private behavior that don't bear upon a crime, I'm gonna lie my ass off, just like Bill Clinton did. Fuck those fascist bastards.

[hlthe2b]

44. not too subtle, are you?

:eyes:

[fasttense]

19. That argument really amazes me

So how are you to find out if there is a "non-crime" if it is ok to lie to federal law enforcement investigators and grand juries? If you think it is a non-crime, you may lie but who decides it is a non-crime? The person who commits the non-crime or the person who investigates? And since Clinton lied about a non-crime then he should never have been impeached. But how would you know it was a non-crime unless you investigate......

And is it really a non-crime? Why did the CIA ask for an investigation if Plame's identity wasn't classified? And why didn't Cheney or bush tell the CIA they were declassifying Plame's identity like regulations require when you are declassifying something? To declassify, you must notify the originating agency so they can protect their contacts or at least warn them. Why did they leak the name of a CIA agent all over the place and never tell the CIA as required by law?

[GreenZoneLT]

43. I'm talking about 60 percent out of my ass here.

I REALLY hate witch hunts, so... But if you can't come up with a criminal charge, and the truth or untruth of a person's statement don't really bear on that (in other words, you've figured out, yeah, there's no crime here, and this guy's lies didn't really obfuscate that point), then you oughta drop the investigation.

Now, if Libby's lying about timing of interviews, or whatever the fuck it was exactly that he lied about (haven't followed the case, to be honest) actually prevented them from being ABLE to charge him with a crime, then sure, screw him with the obstruction charge. But from what I'm hearing, the ONLY chargeable offense was perjury and obstruction; the stuff he was lying about was embarrassing to Cheney, but not illegal.

[hlthe2b]

45. OBSTRUCTION of Justice... what part of that don't you understand?

Lying in the course of a judicial investigation such that it totally obstructs said investigation of a crime is a big problem, at least to most Americans. Why is it not to you?

[GreenZoneLT]

49. Open-ended investigations aren't justice.

Same reason I was against it when Ken Starr was doing it. The prosecutors didn't SAY that Libby actually harmed their investigation, just that he didn't cooperate with it and that he lied. From what I've read here and in the news coverage, it wouldn't matter WHAT Libby said; nobody's going to get charged with the Plame outing.

That's the difference. If I thought there was any chance Rove or Cheney were going to get indicted, then I'd be all for them nailing Libby, but just watch; the whole thing is going to fizzle out now whether Libby flips or not.

[hlthe2b]

50. Hardly open ended... Good Goddess you've got the RW points

down pat...

The reason no one is getting charged with the underlying OUTING-related crime is because of Libby's obstruction of justice. Let's see what Waxman's committee can reveal.

[GreenZoneLT]

51. Awright, back off with the talking point crap.

Just because I happen to be a small-l libertarian who is sensitive to ANYONE being ground under the wheels of "justice" doesn't mean I hear, read or parrot RW talking points, except by coincidence.

If it turns out that Libby actually did hinder a future prosecution, then great, fry him. I think they just made an example of him and nobody else is going to get a hangnail, but we'll see.

[hlthe2b]

57. then quit spieling them and present your own arguments.

Everything you've said to date has been word for word the Faux news talking points.

I don't know any true libertarians who are willing to support obstruction of a law investigation for ones own agenda. In this case there was a crime that may have exposed countless American CIA operatives associated with PLame's cover unit, Brewster Jennings to personal harm. Now that may be inconsequential to you. It is NOT to me.

[Caretha]

56. "I'm talking about 60 percent out of my ass here"

Now that's the first honest thing you've said in your many many many posts on every single thread regarding this subject "that you haven't really followed".

[hlthe2b]

64. No, even on that, I'm not sure the poster is being acurate...

Apparently it is closer to 99.995% :eyes:

[DefenseLawyer]

24. So, if you can't indict for a crime

because someone obstructed justice to prevent you from doing so, you shouldn't be able to charge them with obstructing justice? Exactly when would it be appropriate to charge someone with obstruction of justice on your planet?

[MoonRiver]

27. So you think the conviction of Scooter Libby by a jury of his peers

is a witch hunt.

Hmmm....

[GreenZoneLT]

46. No, the moving target of the prosecution is the witch hunt

It's like a much, much less heinous version of Whitewater. First, we were looking into supposedly corrupt real estate deals, and now we're all up on some lying in a separate civil matter about a blowjob.

In Libby's case, which is a very, very weak parallel, I'll admit, we start out investigating whether somebody broke an espionage law, conclude nobody did, then charge a guy with lying about his part in not breaking said espionage law. That's fucked up.

The jury did what they had to, considering where the case was by then. But as they said, "Where's Rove?" Answer: Rove didn't do anything illegal, and didn't lie to the FBI to cover up what he DID do.

[Justice]

32. I read this yesterday - not mine but summed it up perfectly

If Clinton had told the truth, nothing would have happened.

If Libby had told the truth, Cheney would have been indicted.

Don't forget - it was obstruction of justice, not just perjury.

[GreenZoneLT]

47. If that's true, then all my objections are dropped.

I just don't think they had a case against Cheney, because classification of government secrets is an executive-branch matter, and Bush delegated pretty much presidential-level authority on that to ol' Dick.

[mmonk]

36. So you buy into their spiel?

[spanone]

37. Bullshit, lying to a grand jury under oath if your Clinton or the garbage man or Libby

If you want to call lying about a war crime a witch hunt I believe you are in the wrong place.

[WinkyDink]

52. Isn't perjury a crime? Are you denying the reality and factual nature of that?

[Lochloosa]

62. Sorry, I disagree. As Fitz said, he had no choice but to charge

Libby. The Grand Jury's job was to determine if a crime had been committed.

All Libby had to do was tell the truth and he's off. At the time he may not have known that and that is why he did lie. But lying to a Grand Jury is a crime regardless of the circumstances.

You don't get a pass just because of a "NON-Crime".

[DesEtoiles]

78. lying to the grand jury is lying to the grand jury = a crime

If there was no underlying crime, why lie to the grand jury? Maybe because there WAS an underlying crime... NOW we're getting somewhere, savvy?

[The_Warmth]

5. I would have to say...

as you reach farther in to the right, you reach a finer authoritarian mindset. As you reach the authoritarian mindset, a belief in an infallible belief follows. These extreme right wingers view a single invalidation of divineness as a threat to the whole belief.

[sendero]

26. Exactly..

... THEY can do no wrong.

Anyone who thinks a crime was not committed here is a FUCKING MORON, be they Dem or Rep.

[wtmusic]

6. accountability is a bitch

oops, everyone has to obey the law!

[jobycom]

7. They've convinced themselves of their own lies.

They've said "There is no underlying crime, Plame wasn't covert, no law was broken, babababa" so often that some have convinced themselves, and others have never even listened to the facts of the case. They only listen to other conservatives, so many are convinced of what they've been told. They are like the spouses of murderers who blame the victim for making the killer kill them.

The right wing is a cult. They've been programmed to believe only their side, and never to even hear the other side. When the Davidians were massacred in Waco, there were people who ran out of the burning building, saw the people outside trying to rescue them, and ran right back in. They had been so brainwashed that they believed dying in the fire was less frightening than what awaited them outside. That's what's going on here. Short of deprogramming, some of them will never see the truth. They'll be spouting out conspiracy theories forty years from now, unable to understand the facts, trusting only the thoughts planted in their minds.

[SeattleGirl]

8. Sam Seder nailed it on Countdown. Video:

It's about two minutes into the 5+ minute piece:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYiXVWnSQOk

[KittyWampus]

33. Thanks for the clip. Seder does nail it. If they admit Libby lied, they'd have to wonder WHY

he lied to protect Cheney. They they'd have to wonder what Cheney did that was so bad someone had to lie for him.

[oasis]

11. Hack Katie defends the "16 words" in the SOTU that the WH said shouldn't have been

included.:crazy:

[fooj]

12. She looked like her head was going to explode!

Ask Kate about her husband's hiring practices...

[cboy4]

13. I love your bully analogy. She's really one sour lady when she and

her fellow Republics don't get their way.

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

14. REPUBS ARE HYPOCRITICAL SON'S OF BITCHES!

They don't give 2 SHITS about this country, it's troops, it's citizens....alll they give a fuck about are themselves.

They are going to bring this country down to it's knees before they're done. Perhaps they'll cause the end of the world. I don't see how we can survive with 30% of these fucking MORONS out there, hell bent on their own selfish Bullshit.

[Solly Mack]

17. Because this could (and should) spread

and it'll be spreading all over the neo-cons.

[Swamp Rat]

20. Caught with their hand in the cookie jar

[EstimatedProphet]

59. That's one of your best! Honestly!

I love the reference to "They Live!"

[deacon]

21. Libby is a felon- 4 times over- why he played patsy is a question

that only he can answer. Was he smart for being made a fall guy? Given that the alternative was to be scoped in on as the leaker, this was his best option. Should he be pardoned? Absolutely not. The jury found him guilty as charged.

The bottom line is Cheney USED him. He saw Libby's loyalty as a weakness that he pounced on. Ironically, Cheney took a huge beating because of this trial and rest assured, as Rove seems to be whistling down the street after this, that Cheney won't try to pull out a rug from underneath him in some way.

[sendero]

28. I really doubt..

... that he was directed to lie. At the point where the investigation really took off, that would have been really risky for Cheney.

He may have decided to "fall on his sword" for his master, but if so that was still his decision.

The man is guilty of obstruction of justice, simple as that. None of the possible reasons for doing so are a defense of any kind.

[deacon]

22. And one other thing, the "culture of corruption" gets a boost with

pardon talk. Go on GOP, keep up your passion for unaccountability. Keep up your passion and acceptance for criminal activity.

[MiniMe]

23. Because they know its the tip of the iceburg

And that more convictions are coming.

[marions ghost]

25. such a range of reaction

everyone reacts to this according to their own personal integrity.

[radfringe]

34. they are under the mistaken idea that by pardoning scooter

it will close the book on the story

However - the story is not did scooter lie or not

the story is why did he lie, who is he protecting and why

behind that are the questions going back to the infamous "16 words" that bush uttered in SOTU

behind that are questions about what intell was manipulated, cherry picked and used to mislead and lie to the country about the reasons for invading Iraq in the first place

[NI4NI]

35. They're pissed off because

they haven't been able to fully corral and corrupt criminal court room proceedings with their ideology......YET.....But don't think they aren't tryin'.

[City Lights]

40. The whole interview with her and Ann Redington infuriated me.

Did you notice that Kate-O-Burn redefined what a pardon means? Matthews said that in order to accept a pardon, one must admit and accept guilt. She disagreed. She's changed the meaning of a pardon - pardon now means expunge. I wonder how many other wing-nuts have also redefined it in this way. :shrug:

Gawd, I wanted to reach into my television and rip her wooden teeth out! :argh:

And don't get me started on Ann Redington and her claim that "Everybody has an agenda of some sort" in response to Fittzgerald's motives in this case. Fineman smacked her down nicely by muttering in response, "Except you."

And Matthews could barely contain himself in Redington's presence. :puke:

[Atman]

58. Kate and the BushCo Whores know who butters their bread

They invested lots of time and energy bringing down Clinton so they could get the keys to the vault. Now they've been exposed for being the worst kind of duplicitous thieving scumwads and they're SHOCKED! SHOCKED I tell you, to be called to account.

O'Beirne always sucked bigtime, imho -- be she laid it all bare in that interview as an utterly shameless, self-serving, anti-constitution whore in that interview. She should resign from whatever the hell job it is she claims to have. She has absolutely ZERO credibility.

.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

67. yeah right, how very partisan

[Beelzebud]

72. Because they're all in a little social clique, and "Scooter" was one of the good ole boys.