Berger & Libby: A Tale of Two Crimes(Michael Barone)

Real Clear Politics ^ | March 12, 2007 | Michael Barone

[kellynla]

"History will be kind to me," Winston Churchill once said, "for I intend to write it."

Indeed, he did. His multiple-volume histories of the two world wars are still widely read, though discounted by professional historians as incomplete and in some ways misleading.

Churchill is not the only politician who has wanted to write the history of his times; most politicians and political operatives want at least to shape the way history views their actions.

Some are better at this than others. In the previous century, Democrats did much better at this than Republicans.

Most of us still see the events of the first two-thirds of the 20th century through the words of gifted New Deal historians like the late Arthur Schlesinger Jr., who told the story as Franklin Roosevelt hoped and expected it to be told. And, to judge from the response to two recent criminal proceedings, Democrats are doing it better in this century, too.

The first of these criminal proceedings, not much noticed, was the plea bargain of former national security adviser Sandy Berger for removing classified documents from the National Archives, where he had been reviewing them under the authorization of Bill Clinton in preparation for testimony about 9/11.

What he admitted to doing, after first denying it, is extraordinary. On multiple occasions he removed documents from the room where he was reading them, concealed them in his pants and socks, hid them at a construction site outside the building, took them home, and, in some cases, destroyed them.

[kellynla]

I didn't see this already posted...so here it is.

[sgtbono2002]

Much has been said and much has been written about this apparent travesty of Justice.

The jury itself came out and for all practical purposes admitted they found Libby guilty becasue they wanted to send a message to Cheney and George Bush. The jury should be forever ashamed of their verdict.

Fitzgerald should be prosecuted for fraud in keeping his investigation going for months after he already knew the answers to his queries. Had Fitz closed the investigation when he discovered the truth, he would have never gotten the chance to even speak to Libby.

This whole shameful episode in American Jurisprudence has been directed and forced upon the American public by the democrat party and their slimy dirty dealings.

[kellynla]

Problem is; history books are predominantly written by Leftists!
So unless you read the "Politically Incorrect..." books on any subject; you are likely to get the socialist slant on anything!

[Western Phil]

Berger committed a crime and thus had a bargaining chip.

Libby did not commit a crime and had nothing to trade.

[kellynla]

I have been saying for years that the Clintonistas have no fear of serving any time behind bars because the Clintons have a "J.Edgar Hoover" insurance policy.
"Honey, I knew those copies of F.B.I. files would come in handy."

As for Libby, the moral of the story;
if one is ever questioned; always "plead the fifth."
If they can impeach a POTUS; they can indict anyone!

Of course, Fitzgerald ran a game on the American Taxpayers for MILLIONS because any beat cop in America could have determined in a day that Plame was nothing more than a C.I.A. desk jockey at the time of her "outing."

I don't know who did the jury voidir but they certainly dropped the ball. With a former WA Compost employee on the jury, the best Libby could have hoped for was a hung jury.

I expect a reversal on appeal and worse case scenario,
a presidential pardon in 1/2009.

[Mr. K]

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr I will NOT allow another G@##D@!#M RINO take office again...


I won't

I won't

I won't

[Obadiah]

Most of us still see the events of the first two-thirds of the 20th century through the words of gifted New Deal historians like the late Arthur Schlesinger Jr., who told the story as Franklin Roosevelt hoped and expected it to be told. And, to judge from the response to two recent criminal proceedings, Democrats are doing it better in this century, too.

Clearly Democrats are "better" at this. And is it any wonder why under the circumstances of a wholly dishonest and lying MSM?

[kellynla]

problem is, it is difficult to spot the RINO until he/she is already in office and then it becomes a monumental task to remove them...as I found out when we recalled the Dimwit Gov. Davis in CA...and what did we get...a RINO that we couldn't or haven't been able to remove...yet.

[RedEyeJack]

It was my understanding the Berger was supposed to undergo a lie-detector test to get the complete story on what he did and did not do. This was apparently part of his agreement. It looks like the justice department is going to give him a "pass" on this also. Republicans just don't know how to fight...

[sgtbono2002]

There is the Fifth Amendment ,but then there is the Hillary Amendment.

What is your name? I cant remember
What happened to Billing records? I cant recall
How did you get FBI files? I dont remember.
Did your brother get paid for pardons?. I cant remember.
Did Babs Streisand really give Bill a Hummer? I dont recall.

Then after you dont recall anything you can get paid 8 million dollars for a book on your recollections,and the ethics Committee of the Senate looks the other way.

The Clintons are probably the most corrupt and untruthful individuals to ever get into politics, This isnt surprising. What is surprising is that thousands of Americans with their heads up their rectums want to put them back in the White House, and that thousands of New York citizens with the IQ's of turnips DID place her back in the Senate.

[Rakkasan1]

fullyinformedjuries

[Steve_Seattle]

I made essentially the same points as Barone in a letter published in yesterday's Seattle Times. It is appalling that the vast majority of the MSM have avoided that Senate intelligence report like the plague. It exonerated the Bush admin from any wrongdoing, and contradicted Wilson on every key point.

[Steve_Seattle]

You really have to question Fitz's integrity for using unfounded insinuations of high crimes and misdemeanors in his closing argument. He prejudiced the jury by suggesting that Libby's crimes were just the tip of the iceberg; then after the trial, he announced there would be no more indictments. Basically, then, he lied in his closing argument. There was no other crime; it was a smear.