Libby was convicted of obstruction of justice and of perjury. Convicted of, shooter, not just accused of.

Indeed he was, Berger merely admitted doing worse, and then voluntarily gave up his law license to short circuit further investigation. But back to Libby...He was the only scalp available, and even the jurors didn't feel comfortable convicting him on one person's (Russert's) say so
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/06/libby.juror/index.html

Juror Redington actually called for a pardon. If Libby had said "I don't know", no case would be presented. For that matter, a potentially exculpatory witness was denied to Libby. So in the end Libby was convicted by someone else's hearsay to the court, over an incident that WASN'T prosecuted.

Then he was sentenced for those crimes by a judge who was following the sentencing guidelines in respect to those crimes.

Indeed he was. For the crime of being contradicted by Russert, he was sentenced to the maximum of the guidelines. I don't care who appointed these folks, this was a hanging prosecutor and judge out for jailing anyone available.

Bush made the distinction between guilt and innocence and came down on the side of accepting the jury's decision. The question is whether being contradicted by Russert is worth 30 months in jail, when the correct answer of being told first by the State Dept was worthless to the prosecutor? I think not.

Is there any reason why you would voice a defense of the criminal, Scooter Libby, beyond you just being stupid and blind to the reality of the situation?

I decided to answer your question even with the pejoratives you added, because I understand the addled state of mind BDS inflicts upon it's victim.

Shooter: and even the jurors didn't feel comfortable convicting him on one person's (Russert's) say so,
Kitt: 12 to 0 for conviction, Boomerang.

I was going to do a riff off your adolescent posturing, but it just isn't worth it. The ignore list is the place for you. But before I go...
(1) The jurors felt they had to convict, while at the same time not being happy abut it. Apparently you aren't smart enough to appreciate that contradiction.
(2) The verdict was 11-0 demonstrating substantial ignorance, much less understanding. Prattle on with your fellow inmates, but please do it without me.

gc­_wall : I have one question. When did it become acceptable for suspects in a criminal act to commute the sentence of a co-conspirator? Bush’s excuse is meaningless, since he and Cheney are two of the suspects in ordering Libby to release the name of a covert C.I.A. operative to national news reporters.

Bush was cleared by Fitzgerald himself.

"During this time, while the President was unaware of the role that the Vice President’s Chief of Staff and National Security Adviser had in fact played in disclosing Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment,..."
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_04/008595.php

gc_wall continued: What a horrible ending to a criminal act. And the crimes continue against our nation, because the criminals remain in leadership positions. Dick Cheney is nothing more than a vulture standing over the carcasses of rotting American principles, waiting for them to die. Hearings, my ass, arrest the bastards.

This is truly an individual, many french fries short of a happy meal. Heh.

* Does anyone else here see the flaw in relying on anarchists to lead anything?
* Liberals have been vilifying conservatives, Republicans, and Bush, since 2000. Calling for more rhetoric is silly, you folks are at max already.
* The individual that said impeachment is the end of a process not the beginning is correct.
* Libby obstructed an investigation of no crime. How is that logically even possible?
* You folks should be more careful about making accusations that are untrue, unverifiable, or just absurd. Remember that Democrats set the standard for how their next President is treated.

shooter242 : "Libby obstructed an investigation of no crime. How is that logically even possible?" - - shooter242

Fitz : "First, it was clear from very early in the investigation that Ms. Wilson qualified under the relevant statute (Title 50, United States Code, Section 421) as a covert agent whose identity had been disclosed by public officials, including Mr. Libby, to the press."

- - Fitz

-- sysprog

And your point would be what exactly? Fitzgerald can opine all he likes, but he didn't prosecute anyone for leaking her identity. Nobody. Zip, zero, nada, nobody. There was no crime.

Pull all the troops from everywhere....
* No combat casualties
* Save enough money to pay off the entire debt
* The world will love us once again.
It truly is, the best of all possible outcomes. Well, at least for us anyway. That's all that counts, right?

And how does indiscriminately bombing a country’s citizens to overthrow a dictator we put in place and supported until he did not do what we wanted him to helps anyone but ourselves? Your points never make sense.-- amacqueen

What in the world does the above have to do with advocating isolationism for the future? Considering this reply I can understand why my points don't seem sensible to you.

Published in 1958, after we saved the world, helped rebuild it, and peace reigned over the land. If popularity contests are to be the measure of our country, be prepared to lose every time.