Rita And Libby

Various outlets are noting a comparison between the treatment of Scooter Libby and Victor Rita.  Patterico has already caught the LA Times, but let's start there - from the LA Times:

Just last week, the Supreme Court upheld a 33-month prison sentence for a decorated Army veteran who was convicted of lying to a federal agent about buying a machine gun. The veteran had a record of public service — fighting in Vietnam and the Gulf War — and no criminal record. But Justice Department lawyers argued his prison term should stand because it fit within the federal sentencing guidelines.

Not quite - from the Supreme Court opinion:

Rita was convicted in May 1986, and sentenced to five years’ probation for making false statements in connection with the purchase of firearms. Because this conviction took place more than 10 years before the present offense, it did not count against Rita [for purposes of the Sentencing Guidelines]. And because Rita had no other relevant convictions, the Guidelines considered him as having no criminal history points.

So in fact, Rita had been convicted for perjury for the second time in a gun-related investigation.  Although that fact was not emphasized in the legal discussion, it may well have entered the minds of some of the people involved.

Let's see how Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune handled this:

Rita was sentenced to 33 months in prison for making two false statements to a grand jury about a parts kit he had purchased, allegedly to make an illegal machine gun.

     Rita is a decorated combat veteran of the Vietnam and Gulf Wars and has no  prior criminal history.

Ooops - not reality-based.

For comparison, let's note how a seasoned pro like Adam Liptak of the Times can obfuscate rather than communicate:

Like Mr. Libby, Mr. Rita had no criminal history for purposes of the federal sentencing guidelines.

Well done!  Steve Benen, guest-blogging at The Political Animal, translated that as "both Rita and Libby are first-time offenders".  Oops - not reality-based.

Well - another obvious problem with the Libby-Rita comparison is that Libby's defenders argue that there was no underlying crime; it is certainly true that Fitzgerald indicted no one for the leak he was purportedly investigating.

However, this news release tells us that indictments were handed down in the investigation in which Mr. Rita was involved.

To sum up - Mr. Rita was convicted on two occasions of perjury in gun related investigations; in the second investigation, indictments for the underlying crime were returned.  Not a compelling comparison to the Libby case.

Comments

[cboldt]

ead the Links TM provided - apparently, that the kits are machine guns is disputed (that there is an underlying offense is disputed) yet Rita got slammed with jail time for lying. The indictments in Rita weren't on the matter of the efficacy of the kit as a machine gun, but Rita was charged with lying about having machine gun parts.

This reminds me of tarring Fitzgerald with the indictment of Cowles and the release of classified information in Holy Land Dallas - which was a sloppy conclusion reached without reading the record. MSM, meet blogger; blogger, meet MSM. Reader, do your own research.

That Rita was a criminal isn't disputed. The dispute in the case cited here is as to sentencing, not as to the question of whether or not Rita lied to investigators (he did - but the lie didn't affect the determination of illegal machine gun sales or the investigation in covering up money transfers), and SCOTUS determined that Rita's sentence was within guidelines for obstruction and perjury.

[cboldt]

ead the Links TM provided - apparently, that the kits are machine guns is disputed (that there is an underlying offense is disputed) yet Rita got slammed with jail time for lying. The indictments in Rita weren't on the matter of the efficacy of the kit as a machine gun, but Rita was charged with lying about having machine gun parts.

This reminds me of tarring Fitzgerald with the indictment of Cowles and the release of classified information in Holy Land Dallas - which was a sloppy conclusion reached without reading the record. MSM, meet blogger; blogger, meet MSM. Reader, do your own research.

That Rita was a criminal isn't disputed. The dispute in the case cited here is as to sentencing, not as to the question of whether or not Rita lied to investigators (he did - but the lie didn't affect the determination of illegal machine gun sales or the investigation in covering up money transfers), and SCOTUS determined that Rita's sentence was within guidelines for obstruction and perjury.

[cboldt]

More on the Rita case in the comments at
Scooter Libby Couldn't Serve Even One Day?, in particular posts #15, 21, 27, 29, 32, 35, 42, 46, 49 and 51.

[windansea]

apparently, that the kits are machine guns is disputed (that there is an underlying offense is disputed)

disputed by whom? the gun nuts in that chat room below the press release?

[cboldt]

-- disputed by whom? the gun nuts in that chat room below the press release? --

Disputed by the defendant.

[cboldt]

But dispute or not, the parallel with the Libby case is to put the onus on the prosecutor to first prove there is an underlying offense.

[windansea]

Disputed by the defendant.

the kits in this case are imported russian machine guns that various importers cut wholes in to comply with BATF regs

don't know your knowledge of guns or machine tools but if you read these links (these guys know they are being monitored) you can see they aren't buying them for display purposes.

another factor in the Rita case is he actually switched kits after agents contacted him, so he not only lied, he tried to destroy evidence.

comparison with Libby case is weak.

link

link

[Other Tom]

Come on, folks--Libby worked for this president, Rita didn't. Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory were owed money by Clinton's brother-in-law Tony; Rita wasn't. Carlos Vignali and Almon Braswell each gave $200 large to Clinton's brother-in-law Hugh; Rita didn't.

Is there a pattern here?

I happen to think the pardon of Libby was more defensible than those of the Gregorys, Vignali and Braswell; others may disagree. But poor ol' Rita is gonna do the time.

[cboldt]

-- don't know your knowledge of guns or machine tools --

Probably equal or better than yours, but that detail isn't relevant for the case at hand. I was the "process designer" for implementing high volume production of intake and exhaust valves, power steering pumps, locking and limited slip differentials, and a variety of other precision parts used in automobiles and trucks.

I'm not a gunsmith, but I understand the technical distinction between semi and full automatic weapons, as well as the principles of firearm mechanism that are useful to delineate the distinction.

But as I started out, all that technical background is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the government proved the kits were machine guns. The government didn't prove it, and wasn't pressed to prove it.

The parallel with the Libby case is the supposed requirement for proof of an IIPA violation, in order to justify charging Libby.

[chch16]

No underlying crime of leaking for the millionth time was charged because Libby blocked getting information on the puppeteers Cheney and Bush who orchestrated the leak.

Apples Oranges. Libby was about the highest levels of government lying to cover up a failed war where Bush keeps mouthing the same platitudes about victory and the only victory is to get as many live bodies out intact now. There's no victory in the sense of a super bowl, and the Iraqi army is worthless, and the Iraqi parliament has done nothing meaningful yet balking at any decision.

Once again, what will happen is the troops pulled back to the Kurdish area to contain the civil war. Also the surrounding regions have done squat over nothing to contribute toward any stability in the area, and Iran is poised to take it over if they can.

It was a huge mistake not to indict Rove who was one of the orchestrators.

Rita's case did not involve a breach of national security; Libby's did. There is no doubt that Plame was a covert agent, except in the eyes of the ditzy base.

The arguments that the base has trotted out ad nauseam are that whatever they want it to be is--a little Marguerittaville In Libbyland.

Further, TM didn't compare the DOJ's harsh sentencing tough on crime stance in Rita (has he read the government's brief at the S.Ct. or DOJ sites)? Contrast this to the easier sentencing guideline newly minted attorney without lawschool or guidance from the DOJ Bush has proposed.

All over the country this weekend, defense attorneys began making what they called Libby Sentencing motions. If Bush thinks the guidelines are too hard for Libby, they're too harsh for their clients as well.

A number of Republicans who aren't glued to the base no matter how dangerous the base's and Bush's ideas are, have spoken out vigorously against Bush's giving his friend a break to protect his own ass.

It denigrates the significance of perjury prosecutions,” John S. Martin Jr., a former U.S. attorney and federal judge in New York, said of the commutation.

Habeas petitions now will base much of their arguments on the Bush proclamation that the sentencing guidelines are too harsh. Of course Bush meant, "for my friends and their crowd, because we are Patricians and we don't take showers in communal BOP stalls and piss in communal BOP urinals 40 in a room.

Hopefully this will raise the discussion people say it can invoke, on the stupidity and lack of reality in sentencing guidelines. If so, and I really doubt it, then some good would come from this.

Guidelines are made by people on the committess who have no idea what prison is like, and former prosecutors and judges who consider getting locked in a bathroom Armageddon.

Also Tony Snow as usual was blowing smoke out his ass yesterday. He said the Probation Office misnaming it the Parole Office (parole hasn't been available in the federal system since 1988) recommended what Shrub did.

Not so.

They recommended about 16-17 months, and very probably because Rove called Leonides Mecham an insufferable autocratic bastard who runs the AOC--the Administrative Office of the Courts and told him to offer a promotion to the Probation Supervisor at the D.C. district court.

Meacham is famous a few years ago for trying to follow keystrokes in the district court offices and chambers. This produced an amusing stat that federal judges' chambers were downloading 6% porn from file share sites and torrents.

Judge Kozinsky threated to launch a DOJ prosecution of Meacham, and at the 911 Judicial Conference, Meacham backed his very very large ass up--two times the size of Mike Moore's for all you Michael Moore fetishesits and that was the end of key stroke following.

The Ninth Circuit and all their far flung district courts shut down their computers for two weeks in protests. This was one story the WSJ covered as did the NYTimes and many legal blogs.

As cbolt says the S.Ct. found his guidelines acceptable for purgery, and in doing so they found Libby's guidelines--24 actual months to serve acceptable.

I don't believe Rita did a lot for clarification, and what will happen is judges will be more afraid to do departures from the guidelines downwards.

The unconcionable cutting of Libby's sentence should spark a debate for the makeover of the Draconian and often racially unfair (crack vs. powder) a case the S. Ct. will hear next term but often the Roberts court is content to define little, unless it can actually overturn a precedent without overtly saying it did.

[A.L.]

This is kind of weak, Tom. The point is that Libby's sentence was not excessive; it was exactly what the guidelines call for. Whether or not the circumstances in the Rita case were exactly the same as Libby's, the point is that there are defendants all over the country who have been sentenced to prison terms the same as or longer than Libby's for the same crimes. Rita was just singled out because his case happened to be decided by the Supreme Court just recently. If you object to this comparison, there are plenty other more apt comparisons to be found out there.

And the very factors Bush cited as reasons for commuting Libby's sentence (first time offender, record of public service, consideration of facts at sentencing not proven at trial) are all built into the guidelines system, which the President and his party have been the principal proponents of over the years.

This is a case of blatant preferential treatment and no reasonable person can deny that. Republicans can point to other questionable pardons by other presidents, but that doesn't make this decision right. This decision was brazenly unprincipled and hypocritical and there is no point defending it on the merits.

[Jane]

It seems to me the only valid comparison is between Libby and Berger.

[windansea]

The parallel with the Libby case is the supposed requirement for proof of an IIPA violation, in order to justify charging Libby.

many of us noted that Fitz declined to even try to prove an IIPA violation while alluding to it in his presser and concluding statements.

I haven't read the transcript for Rita case but you are assuring us that is was argued and not proved that these were indeed machine gun kits.

I am sure that's why the offender switched kits after the initial contact. :)

I haven't seen any hiding or destroying of evidence by Libby whatsoever, he waived his 5th amendment rights and signed waivers for all reporters involved...

Looks like apples and oranges to me... or limes and lemons at least.

anyway, justice is not blind nor black and white, what is "proven" in a court of law is not always just or fully illuminated by the truth.

you may not like it but our "system of law" is built upon judgement calls by prosecutors, judges, juries, appelate courts, Supreme Courts, Presidents, etc and a series of interpretations of our laws and relevant precedents by human beings capable of divine insight or a gamut of self centered greeds and/or prejudices.

it's amazing it works as well as it does

common sense usually prevails but tricky lawyers on both sides often game the system, as well as judges on up to Supremes

was Gore vs Bush 2000 resolved for you?

anyway, based on what I saw in the Libby case, I would never ever waive my rights or submit to a note taking FBI "interview" without counsel present.

You?

[cboldt]

-- I haven't seen any hiding or destroying of evidence by Libby whatsoever --

That fully explains your position. No need to get into underlying anything.

-- was Gore vs Bush 2000 resolved for you? --

Yep. I reviewed the SCOFLA decision and Florida statutes in detail.

-- based on what I saw in the Libby case, I would never ever waive my rights or submit to a note taking FBI "interview" without counsel present. --

You are a bigger cynic than I am then.

[vnjagvet]

What dfference does the Rita case make anyhow? Commutations are a matter of grace, not of law.

Whether Libby's sentence was at the high end of the guidelines is irrelevant to an exercise of presidential grace. Bellyaching is the only remedy for this action. And enough of that is going on for a substantial increase in Pepto Bismol sales.

[cboldt]

-- What dfference does the Rita case make anyhow? --

None. It's just another venue for opposing sides to misrepresent facts to supposed advantage. Somebody in the press brought it up as an example of a case where a convicted perjurer's jail term was upheld by SCOTUS.

The Libby case is different because Libby is special. Libby's commutation can't be rationalized with "the law" except to note the President has commutation/pardon power, and the President has the power to use his independent judgment to temper sentences handed out in the routine administration of justice.

[Cecil Turner]

The parallel with the Libby case is the supposed requirement for proof of an IIPA violation, in order to justify charging Libby.

The non-parallel (on that particular point) is that Fitz admitted he had no evidence Libby knew Plame was covert (and hence wasn't guilty of an IIPA violation). Subsequent testimony made that point even more stark: if she was classified, nobody knew it.

So this isn't a case of "we can't prove the underlying offense, so we'll get 'em on the obstruction charge." It's: "we know he's innocent of the underlying offense, but if we work at it we can get him on obstruction." Personally, I don't think that's a subtle distinction, nor a meaningless one.

[boris]

That fully explains your position.

Don't consider Libby's comprehensive state of knowledge between the Cheney note and 2nd week in July as reconstructed in September to be "evidence". YMMV.

Cooper's note that Libby added "don't know if it was even true" is what I consider evidence. His non recollection of that detail establishes taint in using that type of recollection reconstruction in this kind of case.

Miller's early notes confirming Andrea Mitchell's claim that reporters covering intelligence knew about Valerie is what I consider evidence.

Ari blabbing to multiple reporters after exposure to INR memo intel but not after supposedly hearing it from Libby is what I consider evidence.

The items I consider evidence discredit the Fitz version of the tale but directly and indirectly support the Libby version.

[windansea]

I am cynical times infinity but am often pleasantly surprised.

where exactly did Libby hide or destroy evidence, I missed that part.

misremembering conversations don't count, did Scooter hide or destroy physical evidence like Rita? I don't recall that even being alleged.

[Other Tom]

"...based on what I saw in the Libby case, I would never ever waive my rights or submit to a note taking FBI 'interview' without counsel present."

I'd have advised you to take exactly that position thirty years ago, and I haven't wavered a bit in the interim.

[A.L.]

So this isn't a case of "we can't prove the underlying offense, so we'll get 'em on the obstruction charge." It's: "we know he's innocent of the underlying offense, but if we work at it we can get him on obstruction." Personally, I don't think that's a subtle distinction, nor a meaningless one.

Cecil, I'm sure this is true in some alternative universe, but in this one, you're full of it. Fitzgerald has never said anything remotely like this. In fact, in his press conference announcing Libby's indictment, he repeatedly stressed that he was not able to determine whether an underlying violation occurred because Libby lied, repeatedly.

Moreover, there is circumstantial evidence that Libby at least was aware he was not supposed to be talking about Plame's CIA job. When he leaked this information to Miller, he did so on "deep background" and asked to be sourced as a "former Hill staffer." And people like Ari Fleischer, who learned about Plame from Libby, knew it was not something to be discussed on the record (which is why he never mentioned it in the various press gaggles about Wilson)

Did Libby know Plame was covert? Who knows? Certainly not you, unless you have mind-reading abilities. So this is not a situation where we know Libby is innocent of the underlying charge.

[cboldt]

-- where exactly did Libby hide or destroy evidence, I missed that part. --

The point I was making was that if one holds that Libby was "honest enough," the issue of underlying crime has no play.

The allegation in the indictment is that Libby hid from investigators his ability to apprise reporters that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.

[Walter]

For those that are interested, the statements that constituted perjury by Victor Rita:

During his testimony, Mr. Rita was asked whether he had spoken with representatives of InterOrdnance after being contacted by the ATF concerning the recall of PPSH kits. He replied no. He was then asked whether the ATF had requested that he surrender his PPSH kit. He replied no. Id. The government contended that this information conflicted with telephone records and statements obtained by investigating ATF agents.

These two brief exchanges gave rise to a five-count indictment against Mr. Rita: two counts of making false declarations in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623(a), two counts of making false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2),
and one count of obstructing justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. Mr. Rita argued, during a two-day jury trial, that his answers before the grand jury were sincere and responsive to the questions asked. The
jury, however, returned a verdict of guilty on all counts.

A presentence investigation report was prepared in advance of sentencing. It advised that Mr. Rita should be assigned no criminal history points, that his base
offense level should be 14, and that no aggravating characteristics were present that might warrant an upward adjustment
under the United States Sentencing Guidelines.

1 A “parts kit” is a collection of components that may be assembled into
a replica – generally inoperable – of the subject firearm. J.A. 41.

(“Guidelines”). The offenses of conviction were grouped for Guidelines purposes, and the highest offense level (14) was applied. Nevertheless, the report asserted that the offense level should be increased from 14 to 20 based on a Guidelines cross-reference directing that Mr. Rita was an “accessory after the fact” to supposed violations by InterOrdnance of 22 U.S.C. § 2778(b)(2), which prohibits the import and export of
certain firearms. This six-level enhancement– imposed even though (i) the issue was neither submitted to the jury nor proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and (ii) the purported import/export violation by InterOrdnance was neither mentioned in the indictment nor raised in the jury instructions, – doubled the range of imprisonment recommended under the Guidelines, from 15 to 21 months to 33 to 41 months.

[windansea]

cross poaching from Patterico site, too lazy to register

You distinguish Libby on your conclusion that that Libby lied about a non-crime, yet the official record doesn’t confirm or deny an underlying crime. (I happen to think there is no underlying crime)

right, he wasn't allowed to contest it cuz Fitz declined to assert it...and gosh darn it..nobody proved it in court

Likewise in Rita, the record doesn’t confirm or deny the underlying crime. You comments are focused on details that Rita lied, not on the meeting the elements of the underlying offense.

likewise??...I don't think so...didn't you tell us upthread that this was actually contested in the Rita case? is that a big diference to how the underlying crime was completely avoided in the Libby case? as in never contested, evidence provided, ruled upon?

[windansea]

and never asserted as well

[Cecil Turner]

Cecil, I'm sure this is true in some alternative universe, but in this one, you're full of it. Fitzgerald has never said anything remotely like this.

Are you talking about my characterization of the situation or the fact Fitz admitted he had no evidence Libby knew Val was covert? If the former, no kidding. If the latter, I'd say this is more than "remotely like" that (8/27/04 Affidavit):

To date, we have no direct evidence that Libby knew or believed that Wilson's wife was engaged in covert work.

In fact, in his press conference announcing Libby's indictment, he repeatedly stressed that he was not able to determine whether an underlying violation occurred because Libby lied, repeatedly.

He also claimed Libby was the first leaker. Doesn't hold up under scrutiny, does it? Nor is there any obvious information Libby could provide to help clear this up, or is there?

Moreover, there is circumstantial evidence that Libby at least was aware he was not supposed to be talking about Plame's CIA job. When he leaked this information to Miller, he did so on "deep background" and asked to be sourced as a "former Hill staffer."

The "Hill Staffer" thing applied to the entire Nigerien uranium thing, where he was discussing things from the NIE that hadn't been publicly declassified. Claiming the Plame detail is the real reason ignores the simpler explanation.

Did Libby know Plame was covert? Who knows? Certainly not you, unless you have mind-reading abilities.

Oh, who told him then? The VP? How would he know? Grossman, Grenier, Schmall? All say they didn't know themselves, nor is there any indication they should. Anyone who learned from the INR memo? Nope, not in there. Absent any plausible source for the information, I'd say it's a reasonable inference he didn't.

[cboldt]

-- didn't you tell us upthread that this [confirming or denying the underlying crime] was actually contested in the Rita case? --

I said the record is void of that argument being raised at Rita's trial.

One of the points to my observations is that the "no proof of underlying crime" quality was present in Rita's case too - and like Rita, Libby didn't argue that at the trial.

But if one takes the position that there was no misleading, that the testimony was truthful, then the (bogus) defense of materiality need not be brought into play.

[boris]

The allegation in the indictment is that Libby hid from investigators his ability to apprise reporters that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.

And Mitchell's public statement indicate Russert hid from investigators his ability to apprise Libby that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. Then he was surprised when he read it in Novak's column "as if for the first time".

Oh wait !!! Libby admitted he wrote a note about it right up front! Oooops. Sorry I don't credit "but I must have fogot about it" as HIDING his admittied ability to appraise reporters that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. Minimize? perhaps. Hide? No.

[BobS]

Wow. CheChe Guerva, the dead latino leftist post here. Cool. He's so last century, and its such a laugh when this dead guy tries to argue with people that are so much smarter than he is. Its so sad. But he's so pathetic as all he does is like post stuff from this pot head, Syd Blumenthal. And like he acts like its so GOSPEL. What a little college kid.

[BobS]

And then he gets so teary-eyed shrill and like cuts and pastes from Wikipedia and makes it so Founding Fathers ya know. . What a dork and a little wuss. And he like calls everyone else stupid and a moron and the dude couldn't like pass a 9th grade Geography class with no maps and math with a calculater.

[Cecil Turner]

. . . Nevertheless, the report asserted that the offense level should be increased from 14 to 20 based on a Guidelines cross-reference directing that Mr. Rita was an “accessory after the fact” to supposed violations by InterOrdnance of 22 U.S.C. § 2778(b)(2) . . .

This is the point that'd seem to be most applicable to the Libby case. AFAICT, the defense didn't contest it, and asked for leniency (under the guideline) based on service, infirmity, and vulnerability. And though the Supremes considered the cross-referencing, they didn't question its validity . . . possibly because they weren't asked to. Not sure they would've in Libby's case either, but it's a much better case IMHO.

[windansea]

I said the record is void of that argument being raised at Rita's trial.

nope..you said it was never proven, as if it had been contested in court...

the IIPA violation was never alleged, contested, or even debated in Libby so where is the parallel?

[cboldt]

-- nope..you said it was never proven, as if it had been contested in court --

Not that the difference matters, but I said ...

... and like Rita, Libby didn't argue that at the trial.

-- the IIPA violation was never alleged, contested, or even debated in Libby --

It was contested, but not at the trial.

-- so where is the parallel? --

The parallel I drew in my posts above (not necessarily the only reasonable parallel) is that in both cases, Rita and Libby, the trial record proper is void of the argument that the prosecution is bogus because there was no underlying offense.

[BobS]

Che Che...dude...let it go...Val was not covert....even Schumers boy Fitzgerald knew that until he wanted to jack up the sentence and have it for the brain dead Kos Kids jury like you at close. (My bad. You were on that jury, werent you?)I'm so amazed how STUPID you are to try and argue with people who are SO much smarter than you and anyone in your party of leftist.

[BobS]

Oh, my. No good, huh? If Val was not covert, then you have no trial. Then Joe lied and that makes you a....a......fool.

[BobS]

Che Guerva...dead guy.....youre so STUPID and you like try and argue with people who are so much smarter than you and KNOW more than you. So sad you represent the democrat base.

[BobS]

I can hear the cuting and pasting already. No facts Dude, unless you just use the slogans from Keith Olberman

[BobS]

Uh, no they havent, Che....they never have. The statute dealt with covert operatives that are ONLY...hear this again, MORON...only stationed overseased. It girl hasnt been stationed overeseased since the late 1990's ....outside that statute....at best you may be able to use the word "classified" of which NO statute covers and is why MORON no one was prosecuted for outing her.

Oh thats right. You say you are a lawyer and already know Libby was not prosecuted for outing her....since she was not outed and/or covert....MORON.

[BobS]

MORON...let me give you some advise.....dont try to convince people who know the truth and that you are lying like Joe, Val, and Fitz. Use you efforts to pump up your base of like minded MORONS.

[BobS]

Apologies for using such course language for my friends who've had to listen to the slap down of a moronic lefty. Hopefully the publisher of the page will ban his sorry ass so the intelligent exchange of ideas can continue.

[BobS]

It takes lots of posts to make a lie legit. Give poor che che time.
Did you hear Hillary try and explain why her husbands

[BobS]

pardons were just fine and Libby's clemency was scandelous?

[BobS]

And that the Che Che clones who work for the AP just ate it up?

[BobS]

Again...its take lots of typing to explain away hypocrisy. Gonna be lots of insults, ya know.

[BobS]

Awwww...poor Che Che needs the F-word to emphasize his point and can't handle being called MORON back.

[BobS]

Many mainstream Republicans disagree with the base on Libby as do the career boys and girls at DOJ.

Huh, CheChe? Mainstream Republicans are the base, MORON. And what, if anything, do career boya and girls at DOJ haveto do with this OR anything for that matter.

Here's where I have to hand it to your side though. Career DOJ-whether they be boys or girls, sexists loser- are ALL DEMS.

[BobS]

Apologies again to freinds and the like minded for the partisan hit job.

[RalphL]

"Being called stupid by the likes of you or the base robots means nothing to me "Bob S." LOL"

Then why are you here?

[BobS]

Agreed, RalphL. I really had been trying to ignore him and had been encouraging others to do so. I don't care what he says about me, but I enjoy what lots of folks have to say here and grew weary of him calling them names and mucking up the thread.

[BobS]

awwwwww......Che.....you reveal your immaturity with a sentence. You know nothing of my life or my job. If you do, that means I've gotten into your head and you've had to find out. Along with the majority of the nice people here, we pity you and your ignorance. As you seem to articulate thoughts fairly well, its sad to see you unable to convey ideas or another point of view without honesty or civility. It seems the only thing you respond to is to be bullied as you sadly are a bully. But a bully of the most cowardly way. You hide behind a keyboard.