Federal Judge Ruling: George W. Bush is a Felon

Hey dick I'll help you with the facts.

"Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told CNN's Wolf Blitzer in an interview broadcast Sunday that he did not realize Plame was a covert agent when he discussed her with syndicated columnist Robert Novak."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/12/cia.armitage/

Last reply: Who is Scooter Libby & what was he convicted of in federal court?

I'm done my friend......Knock yourself out!

Devil5052 wrote:This is like shooting fish in a barrel!

Your right, it is.

If your interested here is a link to the order. Al-Hara-FISA-order

Devil5052 wrote:Last reply: Who is Scooter Libby & what was he convicted of in federal court?

Former chief of staff to Cheney. Convicted of perjury, if I remember correctly.

Was not tried or convicted of leaking the name of Plame, divulging any classified information, contacting any reporters with any illegally divulged information, or anything of that sort. Having found out very early in his investigation that Mr. Armitage (deputy sec of state at the time, I think) was the one who leaked the name, Patrick Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, saw fit to continue the investigation for months and months more, spending millions of dollars and ending up no where on any of the alleged crimes he was charged with investigating in the first place. Basically, Libby's recollection of the facts, in some places, didn't jive with what a few of the reporters said. Also after a couple years of depositions, interviews, and testimony before grand juries about events happening years before, some internal contradictions crept in. Having nothing else to go on, Fitzgerald prosecuted the process crime (as opposed to anything resembling the alleged original crime) and won a conviction before the most anti-Bush Administration jury pool in the nation, Washington D.C. Bush, Cheney, Rove, and others who were targets of the investigation ended up being not charged with anything, presumably because not enough was found to even garner a similar process crime charge, much less the originally alleged crime(s).

I am not offering an opinion on if the conviction was sound or not, I don't know the details of the case and which lies were alleged to have been told. I do believe, however, the crime he was tried for was an attempt to justify the time and expense of the investigation more than anything else. He may well have lied and the conviction may have been correct, I don't know, but perjury trials are relatively rare and typically are the last refuge of a desperate prosecutor looking to pin something, anything, on someone in order to save face (see also Martha Stewart). I don't know if that was the case here or not, I have my suspicions that it was.

The overall parallels between the investigation of the Clintons and the resulting fallout on the basis of finding perjury and the Plame leak investigation and Libby's eventual conviction for the same crime is pretty amazing actually. Perhaps it was political karma.

As for Bush commuting Libby's sentence... I note he only commuted the prison sentence, he didn't commute the fines and Libby was still on the hook for what had to be a half million dollars or more in defense and legal fees. And he didn't pardon the crime outright, leaving the conviction on Libby's record and making him more or less unemployable as a lawyer anywhere for ever more. That said, I'm of a mixed mind on if the commuting should have happened. Again, without knowing more details of the case and what lies were alleged and what the evidence was, it is hard to make an assessment of the decision.

And on the point of the initial post: The ruling does not mean Bush is a felon. That is quite the spin. All it means is that the case will not be dismissed on the argument that Presidential war powers supercede FISA when it comes to this case. The prior ruling by the judge, to admit classified evidence as part of the plaintiff's case, was tossed out by the appeals court. I suspect this ruling will also be appealed since the high court specifically requested the lower court to rule on this issue (war powers vs FISA) before it would hear an appeal on that argument.

Note that this is all pre-trial motions. These rulings mean absolutely nothing, directly, when it comes to declaring Bush or anyone or anything else in violation of the law. Only a verdict in the final trial would have a chance at that. The trial may still be dismissed. The ruling may well come out in favor of the feds position. Or it may be appealed and overturned.

Also, isn't this civil litigation? No one gets deemed a "felon" in a civil case. Here, what's at stake is if the war powers provisions of the constitution are superceded by FISA, if there was an actual harm to the plaintiff as a result of this wiretapping, and thus if the government is liable for paying damages to this plaintiff on the basis of a 4th amendment violation. Possibly, if the government doesn't win this case at the end of the day (after all appeals and whatnot) it could be used as a buoy to start an actual criminal case against the President and others in the administration, however that is a whole other ball of legal wax.

pvolcko wrote:Former chief of staff to Cheney. Convicted of perjury, if I remember correctly.

& those lies were uttered to protect his boss, Dick Cheney, from being exposed as a traitor to his country & a felon.

pvolcko wrote:and won a conviction before the most anti-Bush Administration jury pool in the nation, Washington D.C. Bush, Cheney, Rove, and others who were targets of the investigation ended up being not charged with anything, presumably because not enough was found to even garner a similar process crime charge, much less the originally alleged crime(s).

Was that taken directly from White House talking points or copied from Fox News......It's total BS

pvolcko wrote:As for Bush commuting Libby's sentence... I note he only commuted the prison sentence, he didn't commute the fines and Libby was still on the hook for what had to be a half million dollars or more in defense and legal fees.

He will grant a full & complete pardon to Libby just b4 he (Bush) leaves office as the final payment in buying Libby's continued silence (I have a $1,000.00 bill & I'll give you ten to one odds if you want to take that bet) He didn't have the guts to grant a full pardon with so much time left in the White House, but he will, just b4 he sneaks out the WH window. As far as Libby paying a dime towards the fines.........Don't make me laugh!! (we all know that will never happen, don't we Paul?)

pvolcko wrote:And on the point of the initial post: The ruling does not mean Bush is a felon.

Here is the dictionary definition of a felon:


1. Law. a person who has committed a felony.



Bush has won that title many times over.....He simply isn't a "Convicted" felon.........YET!, but make no mistake......Bush is indeed a felon!:


When you say this Paul: ......"Also, isn't this civil litigation? No one gets deemed a "felon" in a civil case."......Would you please provide us with where you received your law license & what Law School you graduated from so that you can justify why we should accept you legal interpretations over federal judge Walker who officially ruled the following:

......"Federal Judge Ruling: George W. Bush is a Felon
Friday, July 11, 2008

Chief Judge Vaughn Walker of the US District Court in California has ruled that President George W. Bush is a felon.



Editorial Comment:

There are just no limits to what the Bush apologists of this country will do to excuse, try to sweep under the rug, explain away, obfuscate, or otherwise pretend that GW Bush's administration isn't the worst calamity to have struck this nation since the Civil War. Stock markets crashing, banks failing, endless (Pointless) wars, government powers misused by a President for petty personal vengeance, real national problems mishandled due to extreme incompetence,........& on & on & on......

Please provide a link to the actual ruling. I doubt that the judge ever used the words: "President George W. Bush is a felon". You are quoting an author's (hyperbolic) opinion of what the ruling meant as far as they were concerned, not the words of the judge himself.

I have no law degree. Accept my opinions and information with as large a grain of salt as you like. I might suggest that you give my opinions at least as much weight as you apparently give to Len Hart of The Existentialist Cowboy, who appears to have majored in communications and is a film and video producer (according to the profile on his site). Fine pedigree and probably a marvelous person, but having exactly the same amount of law education and experience as me... zero. Actually, I've been sued, so I may have more experience than him.

One does not get labeled a "felon", much less a "criminal", as the result of a civil court case, unless she commits perjury or is found in contempt of court or some other illegal act covered under criminal law. A "felon" has to have been found, in a criminal court, to be guilty of the accused crime and the crime has to be a felony. Civil cases generally are settled by paying damages to the plaintiff and perhaps other remedies (injunctions, custody, forced employment actions, etc.). Criminal cases, I believe (and I'm not sure about this), are always prosecuted by a government agency (DOJ, state AG's office, county criminal justice office, etc.), never by a private citizen.

That said, I do not know if this particular case is a criminal or civil case. Because the case has been phrased to be a private group/individuals against the government I assumed they were suing the government on the basis of civil cause of action. They could be after financial compensation or injunctive relief or both. The verdict and rulings in the case can establish legal precedent, and in the case of the government can result in laws being struck down or prevent actions from being continued. However, no one person would be ending up going to prison or personally paying a dime or otherwise losing their freedom or property. And certainly not Bush or anyone else would become a "felon" as a direct result of this civil case.

For example, was anyone in DC government deemed a felon for denying residents their 2nd amendment rights for the past 30 years? Of course not. Those that passed and enforced such violations were incorrect to be doing so all this time, but they weren't criminals or felons for having done so. So to will be the result in this case which probably boils down to a claim of a violation of this group's members' 4th amendment rights, assuming it goes forward and that they win. A win would have resounding impact, don't get me wrong. It is a very important case. It just isn't going to result in the kind of label and personal result for President Bush that you so clearly want.

And as for: "& those lies were uttered to protect his boss, Dick Cheney, from being exposed as a traitor to his country & a felon." Really? As I said, I don't know the details of what lies he was alleged to have told as part of the perjury charges. You'll forgive me if I don't take your word for it that the lies in question protected Cheney or others by hiding their traitorous, felonious acts. It just doesn't make sense that that was the case. If they have evidence enough to prove to a jury that there was truth besides that which Libby claimed on such an important matter as hiding Cheney's traitorous acts, then it stands to reason they knew enough to make a stab at prosecuting any crime revealed in those truths. Since that didn't happen, it stands to reason that the lies were much more mundane in nature. Probably attempts to protect himself from prosecution or perhaps were more or less inconsequential lies which in themselves were a crime to utter in the course of the inquiry but didn't really matter as far as further charges were concerned. If you can point me at some primary source materials accounting what was charged and what was found in the verdict, I'll gladly take a look.

pvolcko wrote:Please provide a link to the actual ruling. I doubt that the judge ever used the words: "President George W. Bush is a felon".

If you'll scroll back through this thread Paul, you'll find that chemung already provided a link to the actual case. (to lengthy for me to wade through but knock yourself out)

pvolcko wrote:I have no law degree

Then please refrain from expounding legal interpretations & challenging federal judges on their legal rulings.
I am not a lawyer either & while I have worked very closely with the law (& Asst. U.S. Attorneys) most of my life I try to avoid debating court findings on their legal merit.

pvolcko wrote:That said, I do not know if this particular case is a criminal or civil case.

Then why go into lengthy legal arguments (which you admit to not being qualified to do) & on a case you admit knowing nothing about??

pvolcko wrote:If they have evidence enough to prove to a jury that there was truth besides that which Libby claimed on such an important matter as hiding Cheney's traitorous acts

That is exactly what the United States was trying to prove when they convicted Libby of perjury. His lies fully protect his boss VP Dick Cheney from being exposed as the one who ordered the release of CIA Agent Valerie Plame's name to a friendly reporter (Robert Novak) as vengeance for her husband telling the truth about Bush's lies in re Niger. How many guys do you thing a shrewd guy like Cheney would give illegal orders too & in front of as future witnesses?? (These are evil men Paul, but not that stupid!! .......Well....ok ...maybe Bush is )
What other possible motive would Scooter Libby have to commit a felony by lying in a federal court?? (especially given the assurance of a full pardon by GW for his silence) Come on Paul,
Time to stop apologizing for this band of cutthroats!

Just read up on it, it's a civil lawsuit and not a criminal case therefore he cannot be convicted of anything. No conviction, no felony.

Devil5052 wrote: pvolcko wrote:Please provide a link to the actual ruling. I doubt that the judge ever used the words: "President George W. Bush is a felon".

If you'll scroll back through this thread Paul, you'll find that chemung already provided a link to the actual case. (to lengthy for me to wade through but knock yourself out)

Number of times "felon" or "felony" was used in the order, ZERO.

pvolcko wrote:I have no law degree

I don't either but I did stay at a Holiday Inn.

spc wrote:Number of times "felon" or "felony" was used in the order, ZERO.

So what???

If a court find that someone violated a law, & such violation constitutes a felony, it is not necessary name that person a felon. The fact that a law was violated is all that is needed.

Devil5052 wrote:Federal Judge Ruling: George W. Bush is a Felon
Friday, July 11, 2008

Chief Judge Vaughn Walker of the US District Court in California has ruled that President George W. Bush is a felon.
Makes you proud, doesn't it?(first sitting President in history to be adjudicated a felon)

Just correcting your misguided post.