Skip to comments.Pardon Libby
Posted on 06/22/2007 5:45:36 PM PDT by STARWISE
click here to read article
She's since retracted it after her remarks seemingly implicated her NBC colleague Tim Russert. The prosecution also does not want Mitchell to testify as Clarice Feldman notes:
Yet Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald is fighting hard to make sure reporter Andrea Mitchell's testimony is not heard, and is asking the jury to buy some highly implausible notions about a key FBI interview with NBC's Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert.
The prosecution is still trying hard to keep Andrea Mitchell from being called as a defense witness. In a pleading Friday, the defense is trying just as hard to get court permission to call her. The prosecution argues that the defense cannot call a witness just to impeach her, and the defense says that is not their only reason to call her, that she has other evidence to provide, and that a fair trial cannot be had without her being called and questioned by the defense."
I suspect karma will be Hell for these charlatans... and, FatTimmy: how DO you sleep at night?
Why hasn’t Bush pardoned Libby?
Maybe he doesnt want to hurt his chances at reelection oh, wait never mind.
because he is George the Wuss (GW)
Fits filed his response to Libby’s petition to the Ct of Appeals this afternoon. It is here http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/files/070622_govt_reply.pdf
Every day that passes without a pardon is just one more reason I’ll never send a dollar to the GOP.
while he is at it, how about the other Libby, G. Gordon, Chuck Colson, and any one else that tweaks the left....
Here’s a question.. if you are gonna pardon a guy, why wait until after the government has spent millions prosecuting him and he has spent millions defending himslef? Why not just pardon him up front?
G. Gordon Liddy....
I believe you have to be convicted to be pardoned?
Well, at least it wasn't a Mexican drug runner whose word they took over an American Border Patrol agent's word.
One could argue the prudence of allowing our system of justice to officially play out fully, and that a defendant have every opportunity to pursue the system’s remedies to clear his name until every legal recourse is exhausted.
A totally irrelevant analogy, and disingenuous immigration insertion.
Well is so, that answers my question!
I think it’s because that he is hoping that by not pardoning Libby it will provide some kind of “closure” on the whole stupid Palme affair.
He hopes, and I think in vain, that by giving them Libby they will stop harrassing him with other spurious investigations and he will be able to spend the rest of his presidency in relative peace.
A pardon, he reasons, will infuriate the dems again and they will redouble their efforts to drag down any other member of the administration they can sink their teeth into.
But that’s stupid. Nothing he could do short of suicide on the White House lawn would satisfy the dems. He should realize that by now.
Oh heck — I just don’t know anymore. I am so disgusted with Bush these days, on so many levels, I have given up on the idea that any good at all will come from the remainder of this administration.
The conviction of Scooter Libby proves that Justice does not live in a DC Court. Everyone from the prosecutor,the Judge ,the Jury were under the shadow of the DNC who cooked up this scheme.
If I were Mr. Bush , Fitzgerald would be explaining why he tossed away millions of dollars on this farce.
No. Ford pardoned Nixon before any charges were filed.
I would normally agree with that, but the fact that this judge has decided to incarcerate Libby during the appeals process is an outrage and purely vindictive. Libby is neither a flight risk nor a threat to others. Bush should pardon him now. Otherwise, I would agree that the appeal process should be allowed to play out.
See post #18
Nixon was never convicted of anything...Ford still pardoned him. Bush’s refusal to pardon Libby is indecent.
Bush has at his disposal the legal ârespiteâ, which is a delay in imposition of sentence. Woodrow Wilson used this effectively to delay sentence of a subordinate until the end of his term, when the underling was pardoned.
From what I understand Libby has ecellent prospects on appeal. It would be so much better if the conviction were overturned than if the Prsident pardoned him. It’s worth the wait to see if he can be vindicated on appeal as opposed to a pardon.
Well, OK, except his name is G Gordon Liddy.
That is why my response ended with a question mark. Didnt know for sure. Thanks for the info.
He’s not in jail yet, so .... I think there are more options that are yet to play out.
Because Libby can and will win his case on appeal.
If Bush pardons Libby, then Libby can no longer clear his name. He will be tarnished for eternity.
A pardon suggests guilt. He has the appeal process to handle the injustice that has been done to him. To pardon him now, before the appeal has run its course, would short circuit the system. The only way a pardon would be good at this point is if the judge does not let him remain free pending the appeal. This judge has been anything but fair to Libby from day one and the only reason I can think of that he would not let Libby remain free pending appeal is that he has it out for Libby and knows if he’s going to get him it’s got to be before the appeal can wipe out the conviction.
This has got to be the single worst example of injustice that I have ever seen. It was never even proved that there was crime to begin with and yet Fitzgerald pushed on for two years or more and finally charged Libby with something that came down to absolutely nothing more than the two people remembered a phone conversation two years earlier. A conversation during which neither party took notes.
“and, FatTimmy: how DO you sleep at night?”
Probably like a baby (that he is), on his big, oversized pillow.
Boy, if Sandy Berger is still running around free after stealing from the National Archive, admitting it, etc ... how can Libby ever be put in jail ... this is absolutely amazing.
"III. Exclusion of the Testimony of Andrea Mitchell
At trial, defendant sought to impeach Tim Russert's testimony that he did not tell defendant that Mr. Wilson's wife worked at the CIA (2/7/07 PMTr.22,26) purportedly by showing that Ms. Mitchell knew of Ms. Wilson's CIA-employment prior to the publication of Robert Novak's column and may have conveyed that information to Mr. Russert.
Ms. Mitchell had made an out-of-court-statement which defendant argued indicated that she knew that Mrs. Wilson worked at the CIa prior to the publication of Mr. Novak's column, and prior to defendant's conversation with Mr. Russert.
As the district court found, however, the prior statement was at best ambiguous, and the interpretation defendant was pressing had been publicly refuted by Ms. Mitchell on numerous occasions (((WHEN SHE THEN LIED TO COVER UP HER PREVIOUS STATEMENTS!!!).
Thus, it was clear defendant's sold purpose in calling Ms. Mitchell was to put the October 3, 2003 statement before the jury.
As the district court correctly held, the October 3, 2003 statement was not admissible as substantive evidence, and calling Ms. Mitchell as subterfuge to place her otherwise-inadmissible statement before the jury violated not only well-settled authority in the D.C. Circuit, but also authority from other jurisdictions. .................
fifi, I don't understand this footnote .. that defense turned down the option of questioning Mitchell?:
The defense requested and was granted an opportunity to question ms. Mitchell; however, defense counsel declined the court's offer to allow questioning under oath and outside the presence of the jury. 2/13/07 AM Tr. 18-23. See also 475 F. Supp. 2d at 82, n.8. Defendant thus waived the claim that Ms. Mitchell's account would differ from her attorney's representation had she been placed under oath.
The district court's evidentiary determination that the probative value of ms. Mitchell's testimony was minimal at best (as the jury would be asked to draw a string of speculative inferences), and was substantially outweighed by the risk of confusion and unfair prejudice, is entitled to substantial deference.
Moreover, any error in excluding Ms. Mitchell's testimony is harmless, especially in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt.
HORSE PUCKEY !!!
Since Bush is notoriously loyal to his cronies, the question is somewhat problematic. Based on his history, though, I can make one guess and that is that Libby is significantly more competent at what he does than is George. Bush’s loyalties are strongest toward those that can’t make that claim — i.e. Gonzalez, “Brownie”, Mineta (now there was a REAL jewel) Chertoff, Miers, etc.
I thought that Mrs. Greenspan had written an article, under her name Andrea Mitchell, where she mentioned that the ambassador was sent on the mission by CIA operatives (or some such thing). That article was published prior to Novak’s. I’m curious why the defense didn’t introduce it, or discuss it, as it was also relevant to Andrea’s (aka the drunk, due to her IMUS statemet) knowledge of what was going on.
NBC in the names of the spitter (Matthews), the crybaby (Gregory), the fat dim one (Russert) and the drunk (Mitchell) are all intimately involved in this. Not to mention, their great reporter (Schuster, or is it Scheister?) who got more of this story wrong than anyone else.
This whole case is NBC against the White House; to this day when this subject is discussed on NBC, they somehow forget to mention that the LEAKER WAS RICHARD ARMITAGE.
I will look forward to reading the take on Fitzy’s filing at JOM. I think Team Libby’s response to this filing is due on Tuesday, next week. The I guess a date will be set for a hearing?
What a lie. Do they think we can't see this. How does one obstruct an investigation where they already know the answers. I've been a lawyer for many years. When you hear anyone ssy we are a nation of laws, not of men, throw eggs, boo and hiss, realize it is not true and we only pay lip service to it.
The judge was going to permit limited questioning outside the jury’s presence. Not quite the same thing as a full examination before the jury.(At least not in this country.)
Karma has begun!
NBC News is turning into a joke- first the anti-American crap, and especially since this million dollar/Paris Hilton nonsense.
It also gives me great pause in my faith that the justice system works as the Founding Fathers intended it to. If a person at that level and with that access to excellent legal services can be convicted in a case where no crime was committed in the first place and then be incarcerated before even his first level of appeal then what chance do you and I stand?
...Now, an odd burp of a story is floating around the Internet about a question from Andrea Mitchell to James Risen on the possibility that CNN reporter Christiane Amanpour was the subject of a government wiretap. The place to start here in The Moderate Voice, where Joe Gandelman has some good analysis and lots of links to get you around. Be prepared for the typical responses in the comments from the usual suspects. Bush backers will say something on the order of, "Well, there must have been a good reason," while anti-Bush people will be throwing I-told-you-sos amidst the predictions or hope of an early impeachment. And let's not forgo the obvious Nixon parallels. In a nut shell, Mitchell, in interviewing Risen, gave the impression that she was aware that the administration was bugging Amanpour's communications. NBC killed the transcript and issued an oddly phrased statement that implied that NBC thought that the charge was credible but wasn't ready to break the story, which, whether this ends up being true or hooey, is the right thing to do. 39 posted on 01/06/2006 9:39:46 AM PST by Cboldt | To 1...
* Jamie Rubin (former State Department Clintonista) and Christiane Amanpour (CNN war slut) [are married]-- 51 posted on 05/22/2004 1:31:22 PM PDT by Miss Marple
* Tim Russert & Andrea Mitchell : 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 went to work and began to ask people I was working with what we knew about what, why we didnt have the story, because to me it was a significant development in the story.
NBC's Andrea Mitchell reported three days before the Novak column that Wilson was sent to Africa by the CIA according to a CIA informant. I wonder why no one ever asked Mitchell who her informant was. Obviously, Russert is lying here.---------32 posted on 02/08/2007 6:47:24 PM PST by Hoodat | To 1
* Andrea Mitchell : A question for you or anyone else who might know. When was the Vanity Fair spread on the Wilson's released? When was the interview and photo shoot for this spread? It was mentioned last week that [Tim] Russert's wife works for Vanity Fair. In addition, Andrea Mitchell said that those reporters who cover the CIA knew about Plame before Novak's column. If Andrea Mitchell knew, the suggestion was that her Bureau Chief - Russert - also knew about Plame. How does the Vanity Fair article on the Wilson's fit into the timeline? Or is this just a red herring? 38 posted on 11/07/2005 7:49:02 AM PST by pieces of time | To 23
It was mentioned last week that [Tim] Russert's wife works for Vanity Fair.----38 posted on 11/07/2005 7:49:02 AM PST by pieces of time | To 23
A respite would let him stay out of jail pending the appeal.
I'm fed up with Bush too. I would vote for him again--today--if he ran against Gore, Clinton, Kerry--any of the Democrats--but if his refusal to close the Border and halt Illegal Immigration leads to serious catastrophe, I won't be able to say that.
But why put him through all this? And where is that Bush loyalty?
Okay. That makes sense.
Aren’t there similarities between Libby’s prosecution and the Duke lacrosse players’ prosecution? Could the outcomes be similar?
From what I’ve seen of Chertoff he wins the Bush Freakshow Prize.
Actually, if it was you or I, since we're not 'trophy scalps', we would not have even been indicted. FitzFong/Comfy had a personal vendetta against Libby.
“Everyone from the prosecutor,the Judge ,the Jury were under the shadow of the DNC who cooked up this scheme.”
A preview of the American legal system once the democrat party is entirely in control. Criminalization of political differences. Stalin is looking up through the flames and smiling at this.
I suspect he will get pardoned but if Libby has excellent grounds for getting the verdict overturnd wouldn’t you rather that happen? Can you imagine what a slap in the face of Fitz and his persecution, I mean prosecution, that would be? A tremendous victory for the administration as well. If the pardon is issued before the appeal Bush will face the standard drubbing in the press and the aura of the conviction will always hang over Libby. I think it’s worth the wait.