Posted on 03/07/2007 3:56:09 PM PST by kabar
Lewis Libby has now been found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice for lies that had absolutely no legal consequence.
It was not a crime to reveal Valerie Plame's name because she was not a covert agent. If it had been a crime, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald could have wrapped up his investigation with an indictment of the State Department's Richard Armitage on the first day of his investigation since it was Armitage who revealed her name and Fitzgerald knew it.
With no crime to investigate, Fitzgerald pursued a pointless investigation into nothing, getting a lot of White House officials to make statements under oath and hoping some of their recollections would end up conflicting with other witness recollections, so he could charge some Republican with "perjury" and enjoy the fawning media attention.
As a result, Libby is now a convicted felon for having a faulty memory of the person who first told him that Joe Wilson was a delusional boob who lied about his wife sending him to Niger.
This makes it official: It's illegal to be Republican.
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
Republicans are gutless appeasers.
Specifically:
FindLaw - 28 CFR Sec. 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/doj/28cfr600.1.html
If we're going to appoint these guys, we have to limit the scope of their investigation so that you don't end up with crap like this. Why we keep making this mistake over and over again is beyond me.
Appointing a Special Prosecutor is like announcing that the circus is coming to town.
You may be right.
No. No it's not.
Don't have much appreciation for irony, do you?
Ashcroft at the time was being roundly criticized by the liberal mainstream media for the egregious act of being appointed by a Republican. He evidently withered under all the accusations and, as per the normal 'Pubbie' response expected within the liberal MSM, he appointed Fitz ... so he would appear fair. Ann Coulter has it absolutely right ...
If only they could have half the eggs that Anne has.
"Rullly, Chauncie, that Ann character is starting to give us a bad name. Can't we find someone more accommodating so we don't have to feel embarrassed at the yacht club? By the way, ole bean, are you and Margeau attending the bash at the Whitcombs tomorrow night? They're celebrating their new hybrid RX."
Don't know if I rise to the level of a moron screamer, but here's what should have been done: When the first fraudulent assault was launched against the president for his "16 words," the administration should have vigorously defended the facts as they knew them. They could and should have pointed out that the statement was NOT based solely on the phoney Niger letter which formed the basis for the attack against them. There was other evidence and the Brits still stand by their other evidence. We could have too. But the bungling White House PR apparatus failed to do so. Instead they were silent.
When the Plame game began they should have attacked the premise of the issue, that some egregious crime-to-be-named- later had been committed. The administration could have lectured the media on the fact that Plame was not undercover at that point, if she ever had been, therefore no damage was done, no crime committed.
The worst failure of the administration was in allowing the premise to circulate in the media that "a crime may have been committed" even though they knew or reasonably should have known that that was not the case. Having debunked that premise, no "special counsel" should have been empowered.
But they were like the proverbial deer in the headlights and let the likes of Pissy Chrissy and Mr. Potatohead disrupt the government for partisan advantage. The only guilty party is the Bush administration, for gross negligence.
I don't worry about Libby, he's a big boy and will come out all right. I am outraged about this because it materially weakens the ability of the administration to govern; gives traction to the panoply of leftwing lies that have become common currency in the public debate; and it further undermines the credibility of republicans to follow, who have to run for office amidst this crap all over the landscape.
It didn't have to happen, but it did and for that I hold the Bush White House responsible. Don't walk obliviously into a known minefield and then blame the badguys when your leg gets blown off.
a must read!
No way on earth that someone could have been appointed with Fitzgerald's powers under a Democrat administration. They would scream their heads off.
As you say, what was outlawed was an "Independent" special counsel. But to all intents and purposes Fitz WAS independent. The Justice Department did not exert any observable control or oversight over him, and when his three years ran out his reappointment was apparently unquestioned and automatic.
My point was that Bush and Ashcroft never should have permitted this to happen. It was politically stupid and completely unnecessary.
The last line in her post -
"Bush has got to pardon Libby."
I believe that this is the key sentence in the article!
Pardon by tomorrow morning to let the world know that all this posturing and horsesh!t trial meant totally nothing; Oh, and by the way, go F yourself!
If Bush waits to pardon until the end of his term, he will have frittered away an opportunity to stick it in the eye of the RAT A-Holes!
The last line in her post -
"Bush has got to pardon Libby."
I believe that this is the key sentence in the article!
Pardon by tomorrow morning to let the world know that all this posturing and horsesh!t trial meant totally nothing; Oh, and by the way, go F yourself!
If Bush waits to pardon until the end of his term, he will have frittered away an opportunity to stick it in the eye of the RAT A-Holes!
Exactly. And when Ashcroft recused himself under pressure from the left wing press, did they ease off on him or pat him on the back? Of course not. When you show weakness to a yellow dog, a Muslim, or a Democrat, it only encourages him to attack you. Only strength works.
Thanks for posting. Very good article.
Are you saying that you weren't impressed with that brilliant "You have to ask yourself, 'Given all this, does it really rise to a standard of a State of the Union speech?'" says the source. "No. But is that sentence, knowing what we know now, factually correct? Yes."?
It's not likely that W will pardon him until the end of his term, ands that's okay. It gives Libby a chance to clear his name in court.
"My point was that Bush and Ashcroft never should have permitted this to happen. It was politically stupid and completely unnecessary."
I agree. The plug should have been pulled on the investigation on October 3, 2003, when Armitage told the DOJ he was the source for Novak's column.
That is what the investigation was supposed to be about. And that is where it should have ended.
Libby didn't talk to the FBI about Russert until a month and half later.
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.