Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I was with him until the last paragraph, which seems to say something like, "He shouldn't have had to face the perjury trap because the press thought what he was doing was okay at the time." Since when are these things decided by what the press thinks is cool? Arrogant conclusion, if you ask me.

eta: Plus, what Greedy said.

Kinsley's last paragraph:

• So as much as I dislike the war in Iraq, as much as I dislike President Bush, as much as I expect that I would dislike Mr. Libby if I ever met him, I feel that he should not have had to face a perjury trap: the choice between prison for lying, or prison for his role in a set of transactions that the press regards as not merely O.K. but sacrosanct. In fact, if journalists had a more reasonable view about this, the reporters whom Mr. Libby tried to peddle this story to would have said, “Look, outing C.I.A. agents is bad and we are not going to help you do it anonymously.” I bet that today, commuted sentence and all, Mr. Libby wishes they had done just that.

Kinsley would always rather say something clever and counterintuitive than repeat what someone else is saying, so his angle on this issue is to duck whether the commutation is right or wrong, or whether Libby should have been prosecuted or convicted, and instead to tell reporters that their views that leaking is sacrosanct are unreasonable. Getting the NYT to run it is the icing on the cake.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
That would be crap logic. I don't think he says that Libby should have been lying. I think he's calling the newspaper (esp. the Times) on their hypocrisy in printing Libby's leaks, refusing to testify about their involvement, and then calling for his prosecution. If they hadn't cooperated with him at the outset, he wouldn't have found himself in the perjury trap. That doesn't mean it was OK for him to lie.

Kinsley says about Scooter: "I feel that he should not have had to face a perjury trap: the choice between prison for lying, or prison for his role in a set of transactions that the press regards as not merely O.K. but sacrosanct. " If this means, gee, we guys in the Press shouldn't have asked him questions about classified information, your reading would make sense. But I read it as saying he shouldn't have been put in the "perjury trap" that was not a trap at all, of course, thanks to the 5th Amendment.

Seems to me he's no upset about the traitorous lying weasel getting off.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I think it's a bit different than this - Libby has bargaining power, because if he plays ball with Fitzy who knows who might go down.

Where, the 20-somethings getting 25 years for quanities of coke no greater than George W once carried while wandering the streets of New Haven have no bargaining power. Perhaps if they'd just hung out a bit more with the twins they'd know something of value.

Do you know how much coke you have to have on you to get 25 years? Are you suggesting W carried a duffle bag full of pure granular cocaine?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You did say (IIRC) that Libby's prosecution was political, which is absurd. There wasn't a Democrat involved anywhere in the process. At every stage, you had Republican appointees making the decisions. Indeed, the thing was depoliticized by the fact that various political appointees -- Ashcroft, most notably -- had to recuse themselves, letting Fitzpatrick do his job as he saw fit.

The Democrats pushed the issue to the point that the GOP had to agree to Fitzy doing his thing. That was the beauty of the hit job, afterward, the Dems could offer exactly the defense you did here.

You don't think the Dems kept this non-story front and center for all those months where people were beginning to tire of it?

It was a perfect hit. No prints at all.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Do you know how much coke you have to have on you to get 25 years? Are you suggesting W carried a duffle bag full of pure granular cocaine?

As you suggest, he must be failing to distinguish between cocaine and crack cocaine, for which the Sentencing Guidelines make enormous distinctions.

I doubt W did much crack in the early 1970s -- I don't think he was even drinking anymore by the time crack caught on.

S_A_M

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
First, this is crap logic. Second, there is something called the fifth amendment that is basically a get-out-of-jail free card for those caught in a perjury trap. Invoke it, and the prosecutor inevitably offers you immunity so you can tell the truth. There was no trap for dear old Scooter - just a choice between telling the truth about his little cabal who were busily outing a CIA agent for political gain or breaking the law yet again. He chose to break the law yet again.

Now that... That is a really good argument. I didn't think of that, but it is an excellent hole in Kinsley's reasoning.

Why didn't Clinton do that as well?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Now that... That is a really good argument. I didn't think of that, but it is an excellent hole in Kinsley's reasoning.

Why didn't Clinton do that as well?

Is adultery or sodomy still a crime in DC?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Now that... That is a really good argument. I didn't think of that, but it is an excellent hole in Kinsley's reasoning.

Why didn't Clinton do that as well?

Politics.

How do you think it would go over to have a sitting president "take the 5th?" Wow. Boggles the mind.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Is adultery or sodomy still a crime in DC?

Might have been in Arkansas, where the alleged offense occurred -- but you're right it probably wasn't available.

S_A_M

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Is adultery or sodomy still a crime in DC?

My bad. I was thinking he'd previously testified that he didn;t have sex with Lewinsky. He only said that at a press conference.

I also still hold to the position that a blow job isn't sex, but I recognize I'm in very thin company there.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Politics.

How do you think it would go over to have a sitting president "take the 5th?" Wow. Boggles the mind.

S_A_M

"Executive Priviliege" has been pretty synonymous with it since Nixon.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Kinsley says about Scooter: "I feel that he should not have had to face a perjury trap: the choice between prison for lying, or prison for his role in a set of transactions that the press regards as not merely O.K. but sacrosanct. " If this means, gee, we guys in the Press shouldn't have asked him questions about classified information, your reading would make sense. But I read it as saying he shouldn't have been put in the "perjury trap" that was not a trap at all, of course, thanks to the 5th Amendment.

He's saying that the press shouldn't have taken his leaks in the first place. He's careful not to defend what Libby did once he was in the perjury trap.

Kinsley doesn't answer the questions that other pundits can answer. He thinks outside the box. Understood as a proposition for establishing a niche in the media marketplace, the man is brilliant. Maureen Dowd is just playing his game.

Seems to me he's no upset about the traitorous lying weasel getting off.

No, he's much too cerebral to get upset about much of anything, except perhaps stem-cell research.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Might have been in Arkansas, where the alleged offense occurred -- but you're right it probably wasn't available.

S_A_M

The White House is in Arkansas?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Kinsley's last paragraph:

• So as much as I dislike the war in Iraq, as much as I dislike President Bush, as much as I expect that I would dislike Mr. Libby if I ever met him, I feel that he should not have had to face a perjury trap: the choice between prison for lying, or prison for his role in a set of transactions that the press regards as not merely O.K. but sacrosanct. In fact, if journalists had a more reasonable view about this, the reporters whom Mr. Libby tried to peddle this story to would have said, “Look, outing C.I.A. agents is bad and we are not going to help you do it anonymously.” I bet that today, commuted sentence and all, Mr. Libby wishes they had done just that.

Kinsley would always rather say something clever and counterintuitive than repeat what someone else is saying, so his angle on this issue is to duck whether the commutation is right or wrong, or whether Libby should have been prosecuted or convicted, and instead to tell reporters that their views that leaking is sacrosanct are unreasonable. Getting the NYT to run it is the icing on the cake.

Maybe. Are you suggesting that because he doesn't weigh in on the right or wrong of the thing as you'd like to see him everything else he offers somehow lacks creddibility?

Right or wrong in politics is entirely, well, partisan. I'd say his refusal to take that simple judgmental road gives his points added credibility.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The Democrats pushed the issue to the point that the GOP had to agree to Fitzy doing his thing.

Congratulations -- this is just about the stupidest thing anyone has ever said on this board (setting aside, of course, things said by people who were full of shit or on some kind of supervised release from an institutional setting). The GOP did not "have to agree" to any of this. The CIA -- not "the Democrats" -- was the agency that actually refered the matter to the DOJ. James Comey is the person who appointed Fitzpatrick, and there is no reason to think that anything any Democrat ever said or did contributed in any way to his decision.