Posted on 01/20/2007 3:01:04 AM PST by CutePuppy
Opening arguments begin next week in the trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and, regardless of the verdict, it is our firm belief that this is a case that should never have been brought. While a tragedy for Mr. Libby and his family in personal terms, the case is among the most egregious examples we can recall of criminalizing political differences.
In the most important sense, this is a case without a crime. Yes, Mr. Libby is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice, which are serious offenses. But this seasoned, disciplined lawyer is accused of lying to cover up a leak he didn't commit, and which has long been proven not to have been a crime at all. One early bit of drama will be to see what motive prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald comes up with to explain why Mr. Libby would lie to the FBI and a grand jury when he had essentially nothing to hide.
All the more so because one of the mysteries of this case is Mr. Fitzgerald himself. He made his reputation as a tough prosecutor in Chicago who was nonetheless scrupulous about the law. But in this case, he knew from the very first day of his appointment in December 2003 that neither Mr. Libby nor the Vice President's office had orchestrated the leak of Valerie Plame's name to columnist Robert Novak. ...
As it happens, Messrs. Fitzgerald and Libby had crossed legal paths before. Before he joined the Bush Administration, Mr. Libby had, for a number of years in the 1980s and 1990s, been a lawyer for Marc Rich. ...
Two of the prosecutors who worked on the Rich case over the years were none other than Mr. Fitzgerald and James Comey, ...
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Looks like Fitzgerald was setting up Libby from the start, and using this non-case to settle political and personal scores (Libby, Judith Miller)
Unfortunately the rest of the article is only available to subscribers.
Cindie
Pick up here. Marc Rich .. jeeze.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110009555
Excellent article in the WSJ. I'm still so mad the judge is allowing this case to go forward when it is so obvious that Fitzy is on a political witchhunt. Fitzy stood up in front of the country and the liberal media and told a flat out lie (Libby was the leaker, when he knew all along that Armitage was the leaker). Niphong also told lies to the press, and he is under an ethics investigation. Fitzy should be investigated also and Walton should dismiss the case forthwith. The whole thing is disgusting.
I have to wonder if perhaps Mr. Libby has agreed to take one for the team. Perhaps he feels that some of the sworn testimony that could come out during the trial will make up for the problems this whole unfortunate incident has caused him and his family.
I sincerely hope that is the case. Although a big part of me fears this is just another example of the Right being unable to defend themselves when attacked.
Bump
Howlin, have you seen this?
BTTT
Unfortunately Joe Louis is unavailable. No confabulation without respiration.
This was all long ago, it's true. But Mr. Libby and Mr. Comey tangled more recently as well. In 2004, as Mr. Fitzgerald was gearing up his investigation, Mr. Libby was the Administration's point man in trying to get Justice to sign off on the NSA wiretapping program. In early 2004, Mr. Comey was acting Attorney General while John Ashcroft recovered from gall bladder surgery, and Mr. Comey reportedly refused to give the NSA program the greenlight, prompting the White House to seek out Mr. Ashcroft in the hospital in a bid to circumvent Mr. Comey.
Gonzales hired him, Gonzales can fire him at any time. Why he continues to permit this farce in the wake of the Armitage nuke, is beyond me. Along with this, the border agents outrage, the "Dog" Chapman betrayal to Mexico and most of all, the Sandy Berger wrist-slap shows an Attorney General who is totally incompetent.
Thanks for providing a more usable link. I shall try to do so in the future when available.
"Libby has agreed" is a bit strong for a conclusion, more like he had no choice in the matter as he was one of the Fitz's targets from the very beginning. From this article it looks obvious that Fitz was not only on political witchhunt but also was abusing his power trying to settle personal score with people (Libby, Miller) that he felt had caused him professional grief in the past. As long as media could spin the story and use it to damage Bush administration, many of them didn't even mind too much becoming victims of collateral damage of his "investigation". Since Armitage forced "confession" they don't even want to talk about it if they can't put an old spin on it.
BTW, on the bright side, had Fitz not been waiting for almost a year for the court to dismiss New York Times and other press lawsuits to keep Judith Miller out of jail, he would have indicted Libby not in 2005, but just before election of 2004, so inadvertantly that particular coup attempt failed, unlike Lawrence Walsh's 1992 indictment of Caspar Weinberger just days before election.
Also on the bright side, as you mentioned, will be the sworn testimony of squirming members of the media who stoked the fire on this matter when they were in reality the main participant and guilty party in this political charade, possibly Wilson, Armitage, Grossman and other people who either really leaked information to the media or misrepresented information to the public.
So, the trial is a good thing, for the record, but maybe not for the self-described "paper of record". The ONLY hope Fitz has now to try and acquit himself is in DC jury, but most of the real record will be clear to anyone at the end of the trial. Even to the media, who don't like looking like foos, as they no doubt are now and will be even more then. And if jury follows their obvious bias then the verdict will be overturned on appeal, and/or Libby will get a pardon (in which case he will not be eligible to recover the legal expenses).
I do hope that after testimonies are recorded it will be so obvious to anyone in the country what Fitz and media have done that there will be a rising clamour (not just by WSJ and IBD editorials and blogosphere) to acquit Libby or summarily dismiss the case - that will be a bigger blow against media, Dems, Wilsons, Armitage/Powell and the rest of the political cabal.
This charade will eventually be over, but hopefully not until it's done the maximum damage to the very people who perpetrated it on American people.
Considering how the entire case has backfired on Fitz and Dems and media (except the most delusional amongst them), I don't think allowing Fitz to proceed with it was incompetence, more like genius... we wouldn't know about Armitage and VIPS cabal role in the "yellowcake" case just like we didn't know about UN-OFF fraud until we found documents in Iraq (apparently UN is doing something similar with NoKo Kim, too). Besides it would be politically impossible to fire Fitz, and to this day "the usual suspects" would be screaming about "CIA agent name leak" and "Bush coverup" of "politicized Iraq intellegince" etc etc.
Can't speak to other issues, but Sandy Berger matter completely confounds me unless it's a part of Bush's "new tone", which has gotten very long in the tooth very early in his presidency.
Railroad job indeed. Anybody has an idea why he quit DoJ in April 2005, as he apparently didn't have a job lined up until August of 2005?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_B._Comey
"I do hope that after testimonies are recorded it will be so obvious to anyone in the country what Fitz and media have done that there will be a rising clamour (not just by WSJ and IBD editorials and blogosphere) to acquit Libby or summarily dismiss the case - that will be a bigger blow against media, Dems, Wilsons, Armitage/Powell and the rest of the political cabal."
I hope you're right, but it should be obvious enough now, but apparently not.
It is obvious enough now... for those who followed it, rather than just hear a snippet on TV or radio with the usual bias of "accused", "leak", "White House insider" etc.
I hope for "Nifong effect".
bookmark
Yes, Mr. Libby is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice, which are serious offenses.
I would say so. Didn't President Clinton get in trouble for perjury. I don't feel sorry for Libby any more than I did President Clinton. He deserves some sort of punishment. No???
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.