No Bond for Libby

The American Thinker ^ | June 14, 2007 | Clarice Feldman

[libstripper]

Judge Walton denied the application of Lewis Libby to remain free on bond pending appeal. Tom Maguire cites to a live blogging of today's hearing and reflects the views of the JOM plamemaniacs when he says:

"Well. Walton's ruling is no surprise. A greater surprise will be if an appeals court does not grant Libby relief pending a full review of his appeal." MORE FOR THE LAUGHTRACK: Walton's explanation of his [Andrea]Mitchell ruling is comedy gold (punchline emphasized): Walton: Problem was asking the jury to draw inference upon inference upon inference that would have, in my view, been rank speculation absent evidence. She would have testified her statement on Imus was off the wall and she would disavow it, and then she would have been impeached. Then your client wanted to say jury should conclude maybe she's not being truthful, maybe she did know about Plame. If she did, it's conceivable she would have told Russert. Therefore Russert could have heard as your client supposed. If that's the chain of inferences then we may as well throw out rules of evidence. That cannot be the law. If the government had tried to make this kind of case it clearly would be reversible.

[libstripper]

Th,e most important part of tghis article appears at the end where Clarice writes:

I anticipate that the defense will quickly file a request for an expedited appeal to the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Columbia. Should that fail, Libby can try the U.S. Supreme Court.

And if that is unavailing--which I do not believe it should be--the President can respite his sentence (hold it in abeyance pending appeal); substantially commute it, reducing the outrageous sentence but leaving him enough to appeal the conviction, or pardon him altogether and put this outrage to bed.

If Bush wants to prevent this injustice and let the case run its course, a respite of the sentence would be the thing to do.

[Elle Bee]

>I>And if that is unavailing--which I do not believe it should be--the President can respite his sentence (hold it in abeyance pending appeal); substantially commute it, reducing the outrageous sentence but leaving him enough to appeal the conviction, or pardon him altogether and put this outrage to bed.

Libby and Amnisty ... and not enough stones to appoint judges when we had a majority of both houses of congress is how I will always remember W.

and that will not be a fond memory

.

[Gritty]

[Verginius Rufus]

I was in a Barnes & Noble bookstore the other day and they were displaying a new book edited by Murray Waas, The United States vs. I. Lewis Libby with the transcript of the court proceedings and maybe other material--Waas is obviously a BDS sufferer (out to make a bit of money from the anti-Bush crowd).