More on Libby
Investors Business Daily does a good job of summing up the case against Scooter Libby, such as it was:
Nor could Fitzgerald prove the underlying charges he promised in 2005 when he first went after Libby.
At the time, he said he would prove Libby had violated the law by revealing Plame's identity. He didn't. But he did the next best thing: He took some of Libby's poorly remembered testimony and crafted around it a sham case of obstruction and lying.
There was simply no underlying crime -- Fitzgerald had the information he was appointed to uncover long before he even talked with Lewis Libby, and Libby was not involved in the initial leak of Plame's name.
No doubt perjury and obstruction of justice are serious crimes. Even so, here, it's hard to see how misremembering some facts (or remembering them differently than some journalists did) about a non-crime outside the purview of what the independent counsel was appointed to investigate really merits all the expense, time and effort Fitzgerald put into it. That is, until one learns that Fitzgerald was trying (ultimately unsuccessfully) to prove that the apparently legal alleged "leaks" about Valerie Plame were sanction by the vice president.
What is that, by the way, but an admittedly political prosecution? It strikes me that if the Democrats are as horrified as they 've claimed to be about the supposed politics in the US attorneys' offices across the nation, they should be screaming bloody murder about this. (Not likely.)
Finally, it's worth noting the contrast between the way that Fitzgerald has been treated by Republicans and the way that Ken Starr was treated by Democrats -- even though Ken Starr tried to turn down the assignment of the Monica Lewinsky case (he was forced by Janet Reno to take it on against his wishes), rather than embracing the opportunity to extend his mandate in the hopes of "getting" a public official, a la Fitzgerald.
Finally, as James Taranto points out, Nancy Pelosi had no problem with President Clinton pardoning FALN terrorists . . . but she's awfully unhappy about President Bush commuting Scooter Libby's sentence. What is wrong with these people?
Nor could Fitzgerald prove the underlying charges he promised in 2005 when he first went after Libby.
At the time, he said he would prove Libby had violated the law by revealing Plame's identity. He didn't. But he did the next best thing: He took some of Libby's poorly remembered testimony and crafted around it a sham case of obstruction and lying.
There was simply no underlying crime -- Fitzgerald had the information he was appointed to uncover long before he even talked with Lewis Libby, and Libby was not involved in the initial leak of Plame's name.
No doubt perjury and obstruction of justice are serious crimes. Even so, here, it's hard to see how misremembering some facts (or remembering them differently than some journalists did) about a non-crime outside the purview of what the independent counsel was appointed to investigate really merits all the expense, time and effort Fitzgerald put into it. That is, until one learns that Fitzgerald was trying (ultimately unsuccessfully) to prove that the apparently legal alleged "leaks" about Valerie Plame were sanction by the vice president.
What is that, by the way, but an admittedly political prosecution? It strikes me that if the Democrats are as horrified as they 've claimed to be about the supposed politics in the US attorneys' offices across the nation, they should be screaming bloody murder about this. (Not likely.)
Finally, it's worth noting the contrast between the way that Fitzgerald has been treated by Republicans and the way that Ken Starr was treated by Democrats -- even though Ken Starr tried to turn down the assignment of the Monica Lewinsky case (he was forced by Janet Reno to take it on against his wishes), rather than embracing the opportunity to extend his mandate in the hopes of "getting" a public official, a la Fitzgerald.
Finally, as James Taranto points out, Nancy Pelosi had no problem with President Clinton pardoning FALN terrorists . . . but she's awfully unhappy about President Bush commuting Scooter Libby's sentence. What is wrong with these people?
posted by LadybugUSA at 8:39 PM
12 Comments:
Scooter is a convicted felon and even Bush agrees.
It's so typical of Republicans to redefine what law and order means when it comes to politics.
The guy lied and covered up a crime. This was no small event. He deserved the slammer for it, along with others in the White House who lied about Iraq and have caused the deaths of thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
"This guy lied and covered up a crime"? What crime? If there was a crime, why didn't Patrick Fitzgerald prosecute anyone for it?
ETC, the appeal is pending. The fat lady hasn't sung her last aria yet. It remains to be seen who laughs longest and hardest.
OSO, do the words, "It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is..." ring a bell? Or "Listen to me, I'm going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."
Hillary Clinton once responded to a House Committee's questions with "I don't recall" (or an equivalent phrase) 50 times.
Both she and Bill are still walking around.
"Redefining" things was such a Clinton specialty that even MSM reporters, no friends of conservatives, started talking about "parsing" the Clintons' words every time they spoke.
Is there any relation between Nifong and Fitzgerald?
Bachbone, LOL, how true!
Carol,
It's perfectly lawful for a president to commute the sentence of a convicted felon. The president should have this ability.
But don't you think that this power should be withheld when there is the possibility that the felony was committed for the president or his administration?
Clinton lied when he said that he did not engage in sexual behaviour with Monica Lewinsky.
Libby lied when he covered up the Plame leak.
In one case, the action that was lied about was not a criminal act (adultery). In the other case, the action that was lied about was a criminal act (leaking the name of an undercover CIA agent).
Perjury is always against the law, but it is more damning when the lie covers up a criminal act. That's what Libby did, and that is what differentiates him from Clinton.
If there was a crime, why didn't Patrick Fitzgerald prosecute anyone for it?
Because he was obstructed by the White House and by Libby's lie. Had Libby told the truth, someone would have been convicted by now.
Probably Cheney.
The Very Sane Woman Who Points Out the Obvious said,
"It's perfectly lawful for a president to commute the sentence of a convicted felon. The president should have this ability.
But don't you think that this power should be withheld when there is the possibility that the felony was committed for the president or his administration?
Do you mean all of the more that 400 FELONS that clinton pardoned?
Many of them contributed to his campaign. What about them?
One Salient Oversight said...
"If there was a crime, why didn't Patrick Fitzgerald prosecute anyone for it?"
"Because he was obstructed by the White House and by Libby's lie. Had Libby told the truth, someone would have been convicted by now."
So in your mind, the White House committed a crime, then covered it up, and now because Libby lied, fitzfong can't prosecute? Do you realize how stupid your theory sounds, and how weak that makes the prosecution seem? How in the world could Bush, a doofus from Texas, as some lefties label him,
be so clever as to concoct such a brilliant scheme? Furthermore, how could hilary and other dems claim
that they also were duped by this "Hick Cowboy" from Texas who caused them to vote incorrectly to go to war with Iraq? Do they deserve to be president some day if they were hoodwinked by such a lamo (not my word) like Bush?
Salient, you look pathetic and should be embarrased by your own
foolish statement!!!!
That's baloney OSO. They knew who did the leaking and they did nothing but continue persuing Libby. Though Fitz had the mandate to prosecute anything illegal he found without checking in with the admin, according to one version of the story I've heard, he still went in to uncover the leaker and knew Armitage was that person right up front. And if at all possible, I'd like for someone to tell me just how they can prove without any shadow of doubt whether or not someone can or cannot recall a brief discussion of even just a few months previous. I've heard nothing that suggests there is proof he lied when he said he couldn't recall.
ETC,
I didn't hear Bush say he agrees that Libby's a convicted felon. All I heard was that he doesn't want to interfere with the process, that he thought the jury did a good job (which can be true even if the testimony and evidence is crap), and that the sentence was excessive.
Marshall Art,
Bush didn't pardon him. He just didn't think little Scooter should do the time for the crimes.
Scooter is a convicted felon. He has already paid his $250,000 fine. He has lost his license to practice law. He will be on 2 yrs probations.
Post a Comment
<< Home