Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Scooter Libby, has been indicted on five counts, including lying to the grand jury under oath. I don't have any links yet, as I've just heard this on tv and it hasn't made it online yet. However, for those who don't know, this is in regards to the investigation of the leaking of the name of a CIA operative. Here a a general link to the story:
Investigation

Whatever your opinions of the Bush administration, you have to admit it hasn't been boring...

P.S. They have just announced the Libby has resigned his post. At least he's not going to waste time trying to squirm out of it while this continues to unfold.

What I want to know is, after these one-after-another problems, will the Republicans be able to find a viable presidential candidate that IS associated with this administration? They're running out big names.

Well, grant you, it hasn't been boring but Clinton's years were funnier. Like comedian Chris Rock once said, "Clinton's got problems like I do".

I heard this item on the radio and was wondering how he got that nickname Scooter!

I think Bush is running out of candidates from his inside circle for the 'Supremes' too. If someone he picked wasn't conservative enough then...not sure who he'll find!

Quote:

---

I heard this item on the radio and was wondering how he got that nickname Scooter!

---

Supposedly his father called him that after he saw the way he crawled, and it stuck.

I don't know how he got the nickname 'Scooter' but he better chnage it before he goes to the slammer.

Can you see a group of hardened inmates' faces when the Warden announces, "Here's your new cell mate, Scooter"?

He better change it to "Killer" or "Mad Dog" quick.

Too bad Bubba never made it to the slammer where he belonged. Love to see what the many other Bubba's would have had to say about that. Isn't this just a bit petty, making fun of one's nickname because you don't care for his party ?? Some people still haven't gotten over the fact that they lost in 2000 and 2004.

Bubba? For the sake of many members of this site (like me) who are not familiar with whom you are referring could you please tell us? The only Bubba I know of is in Forrest Gump.

Sue, I beleive the Bubba he refers to is Bill Clinton.

Maybe Vendome's making fun of the nickname because he doesn't care for the person. I can't say I blame him. Maybe that doesn't make it less petty, but the guy is a criminal who abused his political power and breached national security for his own PETTY purposes. (If you can justify his actions, more power to you, or maybe not.) Not liking the guy is very easy, and doesn't have anything to do with being a stilted democrat. (I know from experience, as I'm not a democrat, therefore not a stilted one.)

I will also say it doesn't surprise me in the least to see this kind of corruption coming from the Bush administration. That IS my prejudice, though (or maybe not if it turns out to be true). I will also say it never surprises me to see corruption come from an administration, Dem or Rep. In the words of Douglas Adams (paraphrasing because I don't have the book in front of me), it is exactly the the kind of person who is capable of getting himself elected who should on no account be allowed to do the job. I will admit I like Bush less than many of the people I've seen in office. Actually, much less. But unless he manages to overturn the term limit law, I won't have to worry about it much longer, so I'm not going to make an issue of it.

Thank you. I guess the Vicar of Albion wouldn't mean a lot to many of our members, especially if they don't read Private Eye.

I see the " fair and impartial jury of his peers " here has already convicted and sentenced Mr. " scooter ". Funny how the supposed fair minded libertarians here and elsewhere are not even waiting for this man to have a trial.

Never claimed to be fair or impartial, and I never claimed to be a peer, either. I don't know who the libertarians are, but with or without a trial, they've got enough evidence for ME to convict him as far as I'm concerned. I suppose it would be presumptuous to wonder whether you had Clinton convicted before his testimony. But I don't need to see the trial to know how I feel about Scooter Libby. Let him have his due process. The only thing that will change my opinion of the man (which wasn't great to begin with) is knowing he was told to do what he did by someone higher up. And that won't change my opinion that much.

I'd seen a news bulletin about someone on the Bush administration being indicted, but hadn't caught the name. When I saw 'Scooter Libby' and opened this thread I'd half expected it to be a humorous one. It is an unusual name, and one I'm sure the media will have a field day with it, but as Mikey correctly makes the important point, he's only been indicted, not convicted.

What is not permitted at Funtrivia are personal attacks on other members.

My standards of proof come from the federal prosecutor at the press conference that basically outlined exactly what happened and implied they DID have proof. Proof isn't dependant on a jury. You can have proof that someone murdered someone and still have that person get off scott free. It is my understanding they generally like to have proof of wrongdoing BEFORE going to trial. I don't like Scooter Libby. There's nothing wrong with that. And I don't deny him the due process too which all Americans have the right. But as far as I can see, it should be no problem to convict the man, and that opinion comes from the statements of Patrick Fitzgerald outlining the timeline they have proof of compared to the timeline that Libby offered the Grand Jury. Just because he hasn't gone to trial doesn't mean there isn't proof that goes beyond "I don't like him". I seem to recall a lot of Republicans holding that very same opinion during the Clinton scandals.

And I'll formally say here where the mods can read it that I don't mind having debates with other people about issues like this, as I'm sure everyone knows, but when comments are just snide, backhanded attacks without any real substance I'm pretty sure that begins to go beyond the limits set for this site. Just because they aren't outright mean doesn't mean they should be tolerated.

Edited to add:
Er, right. What Sue said.

I did not mean that to be a personal attack. Hmmmm..I guess comments such as "snide", "backhanded" and without any "real substance" somehow don't rise to the level of " personal attack "

No problem. I will back off.

No it does not, because I was talking about your comments, not you. I don't know you and wouldn't attack you for your comments. However, "supposed fair minded", implying that my "standards of proof" are laughable, calling people petty and implying that the only reason they feel the way they do is because their party lost in the last election are personal attacks, ie attacks against the people themselves. Anyone can take exception to something someone says, but carrying your attacks further to the person themselves is not appropriate or permitted.

Semantics.

Closed