Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pardon Libby
American Spectator ^ | 6-21-07 | R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.

Posted on 06/22/2007 5:45:36 PM PDT by STARWISE

I find myself in unusual company, and I am always so careful about the company I keep. Nonetheless, here I am arguing on the same side as Washington Post columnist and ritualistic liberal Richard Cohen and Christopher Hitchens.

At least Hitchens, a columnist for Vanity Fair and Slate, is an independent man of the left. Yet here I am on their side arguing for leniency for Vice President Richard Cheney's former chief of staff, Scooter Libby.

Having been found guilty of lying under oath, he is about to be sent to prison before his appeal is considered. In fact his prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, has urged he be sent to prison immediately because of his failure to express remorse; though if he were to express remorse what grounds would he have for an appeal?

Fitzgerald is what is called a "tough" prosecutor. I would call him something else, either a failed logician or a brute.

*snip*

Yet we doubt that Libby lied. In fact, I have long doubted that Libby is stupid enough to tell the particular lie that he has been found guilty of. It meant he lied about a long-ago telephone call with the journalist Tim Russert. What is more, it meant that Libby assumed Russert would somehow pick up on the lie and repeat it when asked about the conversation in court, thus making himself a perjurer.

What actually happened is that Russert remembered the conversation differently, said so in court, and cooked Libby's goose. As Hitchens puts it, "If Scooter Libby goes to jail, it will be because he made a telephone call to Tim Russert and because Tim Russert has a different recollection of the conversation."

*snip*

Well, thought I, the jury will sort things out. Unfortunately the brute prevailed, faulty logic and all.

(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: cialeak; fitzgerald; hitchens; pardons; remmetttyrrelljr; russert; scooterlibby
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-60 last
To: saganite

I think you’re right. ~S


51 posted on 06/23/2007 6:02:20 AM PDT by Savage Beast (If you think like the Roman Empire you'll act like the Roman Empire--and fall like the Roman Empire!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE
When the RNC calls me later today to ask for a donation (and they will) along with telling them to pass a message to GWB telling him NO AMNESTY, I am going to include PARDON LIBBY!
52 posted on 06/23/2007 6:09:47 AM PDT by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

Pardon Libby!

Then Nifong Fitzy!


53 posted on 06/23/2007 6:17:58 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (Why do liberals thrive on bad news for America?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE
IMHO screw Libby and all the other crooks in DC

How about a pardon for the 2 cops in prison for shooting that Mexican illegal alien / drug smuggling turd

54 posted on 06/23/2007 6:32:13 AM PDT by SERE_DOC ("People shouldn't fear the governments, governments should fear it's people!" "V")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited

Is there a mechanism that would permit him to be free pending appeal other than for the sentencing judge to agree, or to have his order to report stayed by a higher court?


55 posted on 06/23/2007 9:31:19 PM PDT by jwpjr (Sigh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE
I'm not sure whose words you were quoting in your post (Fitz's?), but the argument about Mitchell's testimony requiring the jurors to make a series of "speculative inferences" is hooey. Fitz's own closing remarks were a series of speculative inferences that departed from the actual testimony and evidence.

Mitchell's testimony should have been allowed, not as proof that Plame's identity was widely known, but that the CLAIM had been made by an associate of Russert. And, yes, they should have admitted into evidence her later denial. While not conclusive, this touches on the credibility of Russert and Mitchell.
56 posted on 06/25/2007 2:22:54 PM PDT by Steve_Seattle ("Above all, shake your bum at Burton.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: piasa
"Russert clearly remembered first reading about Mrs. Wilson in the Novak column. “I said, Wow, look at this, this is really significant, this is big,” he testified."

I'm convinced that Russert is wrong about this. Ari Fleischer and several reporters testified that the news about Plame was not initially considered particularly significant, an interesting sidelight, but immaterial to Wilson's basic claims.

Plame's role only became a big deal AFTER reporters and Wilson concocted the "outing" theory, and hence raised the possibility that a deliberate crime had been committed in revealing her identity.

So I think Russert is projecting a later realization back into his first reading of the Novak story. Based on what else we know of his memory, I think this is highly likely.
57 posted on 06/25/2007 2:33:31 PM PDT by Steve_Seattle ("Above all, shake your bum at Burton.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle

My words are in caps and parentheses.

Damn right it should’ve been allowed .. it goes right to her boss, Russert’s testimony. To believe that Mitchell wouldn’t pass along this gossip to her boss is sheer lunacy. The jaws were locked of Russert, Mitchell and Gregory .. and a stealth conspiracy is what I suspect occurred. I despise them and Fitz AND Walton .. none of them have the professional integrity of a gnat.


58 posted on 06/25/2007 3:02:48 PM PDT by STARWISE (They (Rats) think of this WOT as Bush's war, not America's war-RichardMiniter, respected OBL author)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

I;m with you on this starwise. Furthermore, recall that Fat Dim Russert filed a false affidavit, with the knowledge of Fitzy, and Judge Walton was OK with that (he didn’t throw out the evidence...). Walton also allowed Fitzy to enter into evidence news papers articles that were found in a file of one of Libby’s aides for .....”state of mind evidence” but not for truth. So the judge allowed inference after inference after inference evidence from the prosecutor, but stated that the defendent could not question Mrs. Greenspan because her testimony would have led to inference, after inference after inference.

The double standard applyed by Judge Walton leaves us to only one conclusion — he was rooting for Fitzy and allowed Fitzy to go wild in the courtroom while hamstringing Team Libby.

The whole case was a disgrace, I hope the appeals court tell s LIbby you are free on bail, and then when the whole case is heard on appeal the apellets tell Libby......the verdict is overturned due to the outrageous behavior of the prosecutor and the lower court judge. Then, Fitzy gets frogmarched out of the court room straight to jail (HA! in my dreams).


59 posted on 06/25/2007 3:11:02 PM PDT by Laverne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Laverne

My dreams, too ... ;)


60 posted on 06/25/2007 6:26:06 PM PDT by STARWISE (They (Rats) think of this WOT as Bush's war, not America's war-RichardMiniter, respected OBL author)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-60 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson