. . . advocating American political and religious liberty, free enterprise, limited government, military strength and traditional values.
posted by Carol Platt Liebau at 3:53 PM
The left is just dying to convict someone of the Bush admin of something and anything will do. Should the same insanity persist throughout the appeal, I think Bush should pardon Libby. Considering how many Clinton pardoned as he was leaving office, Libby has hardly done anything that should prohibit his pardon. Michael Savage made claims that this was payback for Libby defending Mark Rich, the guy that Clinton pardoned. Libby supposedly made the case for pardoning Rich & I guess Fitz was working on a Rich conviction. Anyone heard of this?Assuming the Savage take is true, I still don't see that Libby should have been convicted of lying about something that wasn't a crime.
I don't know all the details of the Libby case. But in response to some of the comments I've seen since the verdict, I have a problems accepting the "he was convicted for a faulty memory" line. He was convicted for lying not mis-remembering. I'm sure the jury was smart enough to know the difference.I was adamant that Bill Clinton's lying under oath was a serious crime - especially for the chief law enforcement official in the U.S. I can't, in good faith, pretend that lying in this case is different. If Libby lied to the Grand Jury, he should pay the consequenses. If Libby was wrongly convicted then the appeal process should correct the error.I do, however, have sympathy for one argument I've heard. If the prosecutor - actually the administration - knew there was no crime to warrant the investigation in the first place, then this has been a colossal waste of time and money!The similarity with the Clinton case is that lying under oath became the focus and obscured the original case. The difference between the two cases is that, with Libby, there was no underlying crime. In the Clinton case there was a very serious underlying crime. I think Republicans and Democrats alike have shown a serious character flaw in these episodes. The Democrats said Bill Clinton was only lying about sex. Republicans seem to be saying Libby only lied about some meaningless conversation. Apparently both parties endorse lying! That's a sad commentary in itself.
Greg,Just a suggestion, go to,Justoneminute.com. The facts there on this case will make your head spin! You might re think the idea that Libby actually lied. Read Clarise Feldman at Americanthinker.com Again the informatron will make your head spin!
Furthermore, the jurors themselvesdon't believe that Libby's guilty!Wow, what kind of screwed up judicial system do we have here?
Indeed Greg.You must also bear in mind that when Clinton lied under oath, there was no doubt,particularly with DNA evidence on a dress. It would be hard to forget that you had sex with someone (though for a big time philanderer, the details might be sketchy), but to forget specifics about a conversation, what was actually said, when it took place amidst all that a busy guy like Libby has to keep straight in his head...yeah, I can buy the forgetfulness angle easily. It was such an insignificant thing as well, particularly in light of the fact that no one was outed. So to say without a doubt that he consciously lied about it I don't believe can be done. Certainly a very weak thing to go to jail over and I hope George pardons him straight away.
Thanks Cliff and Marshall.Actually, I hope Bush does NOT pardon Libby. I would much rather see the conviction overturned on appeal.I'm still not buying the idea that Libby was convicted for mis-remembering something. I can buy into almost every other argument Libby's supporters are making - especially the argument that the investigation should have halted when it was clear that no crime had been committed concerning the very reason for the existence of the special investigation in the first place. But I can't buy into the idea that a jury convicted Libby for lying when he really only had a faulty memory.I do believe that cases can be mismanaged by defense lawyers and presiding judges. But I still have enough faith in our judicial system to believe that a jury knows the difference between forgetfulness and deceit.I may change my mind, though, as I check out the link Cliff provided. But for now I'm satisfied with the notion that Libby was convicted of perjury. That's simply the fact. There's a lot to be said regarding the integrity of the investigation and prosecution. But a verdict has been reached.Let's watch with pity while the left childishly tries to paint this as a repudiation for all things Bush. Then let's watch with giddiness as they scream in terror when the conviction is overturned.
Post a Comment