In the Libby case, no one remembers what happened

The Hill ^ | 02/01/07 | Byron York

[Wolfstar]

Yep, you're correct: reasonable doubt has been firmly established.

Unfortunately, the DC jury undoubtedly reflectes the party registration of that city -- 90% Democrat. They probably all hate Republicans and have already convicted Libby if for no other reason than to score one against the hated Bush and Cheney. As with the OJ Simpson jury, the evidence means nothing.

If they actually do the right thing and acquit an innocent man, I will be absolutely floored.

[4woodenboats]

What have now is the end (prosecution) justifying the means (prosecution).

It doesn't matter that there was not a crime comitted in the 1st place.

All that ever mattered was Bush's Cabinet = Indicted, much as the 80+ ethics charges against Newt that all proved false.

[RetSignman]

[...no one remembers what happened]

Truth is easily remembered, when someone lie's, they have to try to member what the lie was and why they lied and who they lied to.

[Yo-Yo]

When the dust settles, Libby will end up asking the same question that Reagan Labor Secretary Ray Donovan asked so long ago: "Where do I go to get my reputation back?"

It sure won't be from Perky Katie.

[dforest]

Its hard to remember what happened when nothing happened. Money and time spent trying to remember a non event. This is so ridiculous. This is what happens when a trial was brought for partisan political reasons rather than wrong doing.

[norwaypinesavage]

"Yes why was Armitage not indicted?"

Because its not a crime to tell someone that a bureaucrat who has commuted to work every day for the past six years to CIA headquarters in Langely VA, works for the CIA.

[CutePuppy]

I think there is overwhelming case for appeal to be successful if there is conviction, even partisan judges understand what's happening here.

If it's overturned on appeal Libby could recover legal expenses, if it's a pardon he can't.

I'd wait for an appeal, but at least big part of the real story (the media part) is being told on the record. "They" will still spin it, but at least it can be counteracted by facts.

If all else fails, pardon should be immediate.

[CutePuppy]

Because its not a crime to tell someone that ...

Exactly, so what was "investigated" to begin with? Good question to ask at the trial, if allowed - yet another appellate matter.

[maryz]

Remember this is a DC jury...

I can't imagine that any jury could sit through day after day after day of "I don't remember" and all its variations without finally wondering "What the &*%# am I doing here?"

[Steve_Seattle]

"It's hard to remember what happened when nothing happened."

Actually, this is very pertinent. Both Robert Novak and Judith Miller testified that their sources (Richard Armitage and Scooter Libby, respectively) mentioned Wilson's wife only in passing, "offhandedly," according to Miller, and "in the middle of a long, rambling conversation," according to Novak. In other words, neither source placed much emphasis on Wilson's wife; it was mere background explaining how Wilson was chosen for the trip. It wasn't part of a plot to "get" Wilson by "outing" his wife. It was considered so incidental that even the reporters had trouble remembering it. This in itself undermines the whole Wilson/media lie that Plame was "outed" to "punish" Wilson.