Hannity Live Thread: Friday 10/28

[t2buckeye]

Tim Russert should be a reporter that absolutely NO White House employee of ANY KIND talks to...dry up his and all sources! Hopefully, that's what the White House and all Republicans will do.
Of course, if they DO that, the media will just make things up like they ususally do

[Arizona Carolyn]

I'd love to be able to be there.. like you, too far. Support them in spirit.

[LS]

Libby will have his day in court. He made incredible strategic errors, even admitted by Mark Levin, in not pleading the 5th or saying "I don't recall." Instead, he tried to piece together a story about the timeline. Perhaps he believes it, and perhaps it is the truth, but there are enough questions that he has screwed himself. And just for your peace of mind, in my scenario, say in the court trial of the robber he lied. He would now be under a perjury rap to a charge that had "nothing to do" with the original case. This is a VERY weak line of defense for conservatives---typical of Hannity to pull it out. Rush today was much more intellectually honest saying that he did not condone lying or breaking the law and (in so many words) if Libby was guilty, and proven so, he should be punished.

The real question is why Libby stuck to a story that (apparently) was so easily punctured by Fitzy. FOUR sources is a significant number. That's how many harassed women we had on Clinton!!

[LS]

Yah, and Fitzy owed it to the public, then, to (if not name names) at least GENERICALLY explain those circumstances. This was, IMHO, the absolute weakest part of his news conference. All he had to do was to say, "We think Libby lied, here's why, and perjury is a crime. He had nothing to do with the actual leak." PERIOD.

[LS]

What? That lying to a grand jury, even over what you had for breakfast, is a crime? It is. Levin says so. Even Levin said Libby was an idiot for not pleading the 5th or for not using the Clinton defense of "I can't recall." Instead, he gave answers that CONTRADICTED his own notebooks!!! How dumb is that? He could have reviewed them before the GJ testimony!

[LS]

I agree they are a bad idea. But this was exactly what Ken Starr did (and I supported it). He called Clinton to testify about one matter, and caught him in a lie about another matter.

There are two simple solutions for someone like Libby and Clinton: 1) tell the damn truth; or, if you a) can't remember the truth or aren't sure, 2) say "I don't recall." The worst thing you can do is be VERY specific as Libby was when his own notes contradicted his story. That's beyond dumb.

[LS]

I think he's screwed. Fitzy has Libby's own notes that show he said something different than what he testified to. We are almost back to that guy who said he "lied to his notebook??!"

He might want to plead out.

However, if his lawyer thinks he can completely reconcile these--and we HAVE NOT heard his side of the story yet---and keep a jury focused (which will be the tough part), he might want to roll the dice and go to trial.

Remember, though, you will have 12 possibly not-so-bright people trying to follow convoluted stories of who said what to what reporter and then it's a crap shoot.

[spectre]

We bought our unit at Best Buy for around $99. I'm NOT sure if they make one for Sirrus, but you can check it out either on line or call Best Buy.

Good luck!

sw

[Arizona Carolyn]

Thanks, I'll check it out.