Posted on 07/05/2007 2:01:30 PM PDT by Graybeard58
Is it too much to ask that U.S. attorneys stop prosecuting people for imperfect recollections of actions that were not criminal? By commuting former vice-presidential adviser I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's prison sentence, President Bush reminded America's crusading prosecutors there's more than enough actual crime to keep them busy.
Mr. Libby was tried for being less than forthcoming about the "outing" of CIA employee Valerie Plame, who was not a covert agent and therefore not subject to a federal law protecting her identity. The leak supposedly was intended to discredit Ms. Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, who wrote a column for The New York Times in July 2003 that challenged the Bush administration's allegations that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had sent a trade delegation to Africa to acquire nuclear-bomb-making materials.
Not only was there no underlying criminal act to warrant the Libby prosecution, but he's not the one who committed the non-crime. The leaker was Richard Armitage, a State Department official. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald knew the truth before he filed charges against anyone. And Mr. Libby was going to serve 30 months in prison for this?
Barring a successful appeal, Mr. Libby will have to pay a $250,000 fine and will lose his license to practice law. By commuting the prison sentence rather than issuing a pardon, the president threaded the political needle, re-establishing his intolerance of national-security leaks and standing up for the federal jury that convicted Mr. Libby.
Now that "Plamegate" is resolved, far more serious leaks await a special prosecutor's attention. In 2005, someone in the administration told The Boston Globe about the National Security Agency's communications-intercept program, effectively warning al-Qaida and other enemies to find more secure ways to contact each other. The article appeared in December of that year. Six months later, The New York Times exposed a government operation that monitored financial transactions by suspected terrorists. These leaks could prove catastrophic.
Of course, Congress never will order an investigation because the Libby prosecution, persecution? was always about raw partisanship, not national security. It was about nailing presidential campaign guru and adviser Karl Rove or Vice President Cheney, and settling for the head of Scooter Libby. It also was about distracting the Bush administration. In this environment, it would be proper for President Bush to issue an entirely partisan pardon in the event Mr. Libby's appeal fails.
Ping to a Republican-American Editorial.
If you want on or off this ping list, let me know.
Libby was convicted because the Jury believed Tim Russert’s version of his conversation with LIbby. Well why wouldn’t they? Russert’s good friend and neighbor Denis Collins was the Jury Foreman.
Didn't know that.. isn't that enough to challenge this and get a mistrial?
“Libby was convicted because the Jury believed Tim Russert’s version of his conversation with LIbby. Well why wouldn’t they? Russert’s good friend and neighbor Denis Collins was the Jury Foreman.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1796312/posts
Vanity! Did the CIA get a mole on the Libby jury.
http://www.amazon.com/SPYING-Secret-History-Denis-Collins/dp/1579123953/ref=sr_1_3/102-7588602-9384907?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173221001&sr=1-3 ^
Posted on 03/06/2007 3:06:48 PM PST by bw17
There has been a lot written about the Libby ordeal being a covert op run by certain elements in the CIA who were out to undermine the Bush administration’s case for war. Zell Miller wrote an op-ed piece in the Atlanta Journal and Constitution about it. So did a Washington Post journalist named Jim Hoagland (http://www.amazon.com/SPYING-Secret-History-Denis-Collins/dp/1579123953/ref=sr_1_3/102-7588602-9384907?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173221001&sr=1-3)
The thing that strikes me as odd about this Libby trial, is that the spokesman for the jury is a Washington Post journalist, Denis Collins. Since the entire trial essentially boiled down to Libby’s words vs. Russert’s words, how can a fellow journalist be allowed to sit on and have so much influence over a jury, when journalists are the key witnesses in the trial?
I did some searching on “Denis Collins”, and what I found is a bit too coincidental. He authored a book entitled “Spying: The Secret History of History”. The link is in the source URL for this post. Wouldn’t it make sense that a Washington Post journalist writing a book on the history of spying would have contacts within the CIA who helped him author the book?
Somebody needs to look into the background on this “Denis Collins” and find out if he’s ever had contact with Plame, or Larry Johnson, or Vincent Cannistraro, or any of the other former CIA agents who worked so diligently to undermine the President’s case for war.
I smell a rat.
bookmarked
That’s pretty darned coincidental. I’d sure like to hear more if more is uncovered.
The links below will take you to some very interesting info like Dennis Collins worked for Bob Woodward.
The judge should have never allowed a member of the MSM with the connections and relations that Dennis Collins had with many who were subpoenaed.
The judge and Fitzy need to be Nifonged and lose their ability to practice law.
The Judge was a Jive-arse Turkey!
That brings about wierd mind pictures so early in the morning.
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.