Posted on 03/28/2007 1:27:00 AM PDT by CutePuppy
The Libby Precedent
Why government officials prefer to take the Fifth.
If Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy wants to investigate the Bush Administration's dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys, that's certainly his prerogative. But he and other Democrats determined to play up this faux scandal shouldn't be surprised if government officials decide they'd rather not step into this obvious perjury trap.
The Judiciary Committee is seeking testimony from, among others, Monica Goodling, the Justice Department's liaison to the White House. Democrats want to quiz Ms. Goodling on her communications with other Justice officials such as Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, who testified about the firings before the Senate committee in February. This week Ms. Goodling indicated she will exercise her Constitutional right to keep mum.
Sad to say, this is one more unfortunate result of the Beltway's modern habit of criminalizing political differences, a la the Scooter Libby travesty.
...
But Ms. Goodling has been around, and she can see Democrats don't really want to know the truth; they want to shout "liar, liar" and set the stage to accuse Justice officials of criminal behavior. In a statement to the committee explaining her decision, Ms. Goodling said, "I have read public remarks by members of both the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary in which those members have drawn conclusions about the subject matter and the testimony now under investigation by the Committee." We've read them, too.
...
In a joint press conference, Senators Charles Schumer and Dianne Feinstein characterized Justice's testimony as "misleading statement after misleading statement--deliberate misleading statements." Mr. Schumer is also a lawyer, and we reckon he deliberately chose that word "deliberate" as a prelude to charging criminal deception and keeping the issue alive long enough to help elect more Senate Democrats next year.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Interesting. Thanx for posting it.
The exact same message applies to Judge Walton, who allowed this travesty to go forward. Her lawyer should add that fact. Walton would NOT allow Libby to put on the defense he wanted/needed. So, Ms. Goodling is right to plead the 5th and her lawyer should not only mention the LIbby precedent of perjury trap, but also the fact that a republican can not receive a fair trial in front of a DC judge. Walton should hang his head in shame for what he allowed. We already know that Fitzy was an out of control prosecutor, and now we know that Walton was in Fitzy's pocket all along.
FREE SCOOTER
I really don't mean to be provocative, but I have wondered for about a year, when the first "I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna' take it anymore" death will occur.
Why not send that message to Jim Webb, or his aide, for carrying a loaded gun into the capitol? If someone is going to lose it, it will be someone on the left. Their BDS levels are growing higher and higher each day. Just look what they did yesterday -- voting with AQ rather than with our troops. Look at what they did in Washington State with burning a soldier in effigy(sp) and literally crapping on the flag.
They disgrace a nation, who knows what they will do next. But whatever it is they do, you can bet your bottom dollar that Fat Dim Russert (who filed a false affidavit in the Libby case) will praise their hateful actions.
Whoever coined the phrase "enemedia" had it spot on. The media are pushing someone to do something desparate and when /if it happens, they will bask in the glory of their impact.
Next time Webb is on Meet The Press, will Timmy's first question be: are you packing today, Senator?
HA! Russert is not that brave, when/if Webb goes on MTP, you can be sure that fat dim will have him strip-searched before he is allowed on the set!
Russert is a liar -- FREE SCOOTER
I'm sure when "tater head" has Webb on the show he will prearrainge the questions to Webb in such a way as to clear him from any wrongdoing. It's a shame a senator feels the need to "carry" even though he has that right.
I would add or change to "cases related to political issues cannot receive a fair trial in criminal court in DC and in front of a DC jury".
That's a big point, and should be driven home often as a precedent for future venue changes requests or, better yet, a law mandating a venue change - can a political/tribal jury trial be "fair" in a place when one political party/tribe outnumbers another by 10 to 1?
Re Walton, his "mistakes", along with Fitz's and jury's behavior during and after trial showing prejudice in the case, are possibly the best things that can assure Libby's successful appeal. I don't think this jury cared a wit about witnesses produced or memory experts or anything else, except the chance to vicariously "convict" "Rove and the other guys" using Libby as a proxy, and they proved it shortly after trial was over and they got their 15 minutes of infamy. That did, in essence, what Fitzgerald asked for in his closing and rebuttal.
Fitz got Libby on technicalities, and technicalities will be used to overturn this "unfair trial", by a jury consisting of one's political enemies, not "peers".
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.