Posted on 10/29/2005 5:58:46 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
I don't think Libby should get a pardon..I didn't think it was right that Clinton did it, and it will only make Bush look like Clinton...a person who "rewards" a Susan McDougal for lying and protecting his a@@. Bush did NOT know or approve of Libby's lies....so why give a pardon suggesting that he did?
Libby should get a quick trial and call the reporters that have "selective" memories...he should get "discovery" of all of the contacts between Wilson and Russert and the rest. They will find that Wilson/Plame had MANY contacts with reporters on a social basis as well as professional...showing that Russert had the info too.
I think LIbby can come out on top and maybe..just maybe Wilson's part in all this will come out.
What crime? The crime of exposing Plame? Even Fitz acknowledges between the lines that this was not a crime. He must mean the crime of perjury, which was the crime he solicited and has been investigating since very early on. What a ridiculous circus this ringleader is conducting.
But on an other subject why weren't these so called reporters brought before the Grand Jury? It's more the obvious that they are abusing their privilege.
It's too bad Zell Miller didn't give credit for it other than "it has been said"... The quote is attributed to Sgt. Denis Edward O'Brien, a Roman Catholic chaplain in the U.S.M.C. (Also, Zell changed "campus organizer" to "agitator.")
The reporters created, groomed, and then reveled in the alleged crime.
Drat! "Sgt. Denis Edward O'Brien" won't fit in my tagline!
Yes. And Val was a journalism major.
Not what he argued before the SC.
Can read it here. Near the bottom of the page.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/legal_proceedings.html
Under the heading
Brief of the United States in Opposition to Petitions for Writ of Certiorari
You mean like the ones that sent up these utterly stupid indictments? Come on and face reality. Fritz threw up anything he could in a desperate attempt to find something to divert the press. If he had come out and said "Nope no crime here" the media would be giving him a total ream job today.
Re Russert:
I want to see if he indeed taped Libby's conversation and then has to say it on the stand.
Hope this ends his career.
Perhaps "Fr. Denis E. O'Brien, USMC"?
Reporters will make for unbelievably poor witness.
The sentiment's great, but Zell Miller was only quoting it.
Here is the whole thing, with proper credit:
It Is The Soldier
It is the Soldier, not the minister
Who has given us freedom of religion.
It is the Soldier, not the reporter
Who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the Soldier, not the poet
Who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the Soldier, not the campus organizer
Who has given us freedom to protest.
It is the Soldier, not the lawyer
Who has given us the right to a fair trial.
It is the Soldier, not the politician
Who has given us the right to vote.
It is the Soldier who salutes the flag,
Who serves beneath the flag,
And whose coffin is draped by the flag,
Who allows the protester to burn the flag.
Charles Michael Province, U.S. Army
Copyright Charles M. Province, 1970, 2005
Russert should recuse himself from this story because he will be called as a witness which will make the cross very interesting. He better not be lying.
Pray for W and Our Troops
At least you know he's only got one agenda.
Thatis it. On the O'Reilly factor the other night O'Reilly couldn't understand why Libby lied when he knew that he didn't break the law. So now that he has lied to the grand jury they indicted him. But maybe he is smarter than we think. Now that his lawyer can get full disclosure and find out who was after them in the first place. Like Soros or whomever. Then at the end of Bushs' term he can give Libby a pardon. Heck they could keep this thing going to trial till the end of Presidents term of office. Now that being said who knows but it could get very interesting.
Yes..the credit is in dispute.
O'Brien is commonly credited, but then there's the claim by Province.
This is exactly why no effort was made to prosecute the Clintons after they left office. Unless you could figure out a way to try them in Indiana or Texas or Utah (and I don't think there is a way to move those types of trials) you were going to draw from the DC jury pool, and they would have been declared "not guilty" and gone around the nation for the rest of their lives talking about how they were innocent but the Republicans were persecuting them.
I fail to see why ANY politically charged trial should be held in DC. They should all be held in a 50/50 state, with the added benefit that the reporters would have to traipse to somewhere like Wisconsin.
As an ex-journalist I've been saying that over and over with all the power I can muster! A shield law would create a new elitist overclass who could write anything, truth or not, without any fear of being held to account. Things are bad enough as they are. Yet there are many on this board who think it's the right thing to do. They need to have their IQ dipsticks checked -- they're running a little low.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.