Scooter does a little time, then upon release as a convicted felon, he gets a job with Fox News as one of their talking heads, and appears on Hannity and O'Idiots show constantly as an example of a great American.... What are the odds...
Z, you are a fair guy. Honestly, do you think this guy deserves prison for this? He "obstructed" an investigation of something that was not a crime and the prosecutor knew all along who had leaked the information? How can you obstruct if they already knew the answer? I have problems with the whole Martha Stewart type prosecution, where there is no underlying crime, but this case is just outrageous.
Call me a law and order guy, but he got a fair trial and a jury convicted him. What more do you want? Change the laws then.... Libby must have been promised a lot not to rat out Dick and company, so like others before him, Ollie North, Colin Powell, he gets his sentence... And he will get his job on Fox News as a "fair and balanced" analyst...
He committed perjury in front of a grand jury. Same crime as the prior president. The original indictment is here: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf
Which do you think is more likely to stick in your mind? Getting a hummer in the Oval Office or a dozen conversations with dirtbags like Tim Russert? People Libby's age begin to forget things and get them confused. My point is simply that it is not totally incredible that he just got confused. When you look at the transcript of what he actually said, he was pretty equivocal about it all. I guess he should have been more equivocal. Frankly, i can't understand how anything he said was relevant to the prosecutor's investigation. The prosecutor already knew who had leaked the information to Novak. This was just an example of the Bush administration throwing someone off the back of the wagon to slow the wolves down. They picked an incompetent moron prosecutor, who they knew would do whatever he was told.
Who cares? If the POTUS is required to tell the truth under oath, then surely everybody else should be as well.
Bob Novak, whose column revealed that Joe Wilson had been sent on his African boondoggle by his wife Valerie Plame, called for Libby's pardon and offered other interesting items. *************************************** A Verdict on the Wilson Affair By Robert D. Novak Thursday, March 8, 2007; A23 Denis Collins, a Washington journalist on the Scooter Libby jury, described sentiments in the jury room reflecting those in the Senate Democratic cloakroom: "It was said a number of times. . . . Where's Rove? Where are these other guys?" Besides presidential adviser Karl Rove, he surely meant Vice President Cheney and maybe President Bush. Oddly, the jurors appeared uninterested in hearing from Richard Armitage, the source of the CIA leak. "It's about time," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, rejoicing in the guilty verdicts against Libby, that "someone in the Bush administration has been held accountable for the campaign to manipulate intelligence and discredit war critics." But Libby was found guilty only of lying about how he learned of Valerie Plame's identity. Reid and Democratic colleagues were after much bigger game than Cheney's chief of staff. Democrats had been slow to react to my column of July 14, 2003, which reported that former diplomat Joseph Wilson's mission to Niger was suggested by his CIA employee wife, Valerie Plame Wilson. By September, when the Justice Department began investigating the CIA leak, Democrats smelled another Iran-contra affair or Watergate. They were wrong. The Libby trial uncovered no plot hatched in the White House. The worst news Tuesday for firebrand Democrats was that Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald was going back to his "day job" (as U.S. attorney in Chicago). With no underlying crime even claimed, the only question was whether Libby had consciously and purposefully lied to FBI agents and the grand jury about how he learned of Mrs. Wilson's identity. While my column on Wilson's mission triggered Libby's misery, I played but a minor role in his trial. Subpoenaed by his defense team, I testified that I had phoned him in reporting the Wilson column and that he had said nothing about Wilson's wife. Other journalists said the same thing under oath, but we apparently made no impression on the jury. The trial provided no information whatsoever about Valerie Plame's status at the CIA at the time I revealed her role in her husband's mission. No hard evidence was produced that Libby was ever told she was undercover. Fitzgerald had argued that whether or not she was covert was not material to this trial, and U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton had so ruled. Yet in his closing argument, Fitzgerald referred to Mrs. Wilson's secret status, and in answer to a reporter's question after the verdict, he said she was "classified." In fact, her being classified -- that is, that her work was a government secret -- did not in itself meet the standard required for prosecution of the leaker (former deputy secretary of state Armitage) under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. That statute limits prosecution to exposers of covert intelligence activities overseas, whose revelation would undermine U.S. intelligence. That is why Fitzgerald did not move against Armitage. Some questions I was asked in television and radio interviews after the verdict implied that I had revealed Armitage's name to Fitzgerald. Actually, in my first interview with Fitzgerald after he was named special prosecutor, he indicated that he knew Armitage was my leaker. I assumed that was the product of detective work by the FBI. In fact, Armitage had turned himself in to the Justice Department three months before Fitzgerald entered the case, without notifying the White House or releasing me from my requirement of confidentiality. On Fox's "Hannity & Colmes" Tuesday night, superlawyer David Boies said Fitzgerald never should have prosecuted Libby because there was no underlying criminal violation. Boies scoffed at Fitzgerald's contention that Libby had obstructed him from exposing criminal activity. Boies, who represented Al Gore in the 2000 election dispute, is hardly a Bush sympathizer. But neither is he a Democratic partisan trying to milk this obscure scandal. George W. Bush lost control of this issue when he permitted a special prosecutor to make decisions that, unlike going after a drug dealer or Mafia kingpin, turned out to be inherently political. It would have taken courage for the president to have aborted this process. It would require even more courage for him to pardon Scooter Libby now, and not while he is walking out of the White House in January 2009. ©
Two items jumped out of the Novak column at me. One, one of the jurors was a journalist. I would have thought that would be inherently prejudicial, since the case basically turned on a credibility contest between Libby and journalist Tim Russert, a bitter enemy of the White House. Two, the judge barred testimony that Plame was in fact not covert, yet he allowed Fitzgerald to argue to the jury that she was "secret". Coupled with the prosecutor's out of court statements that it was an outrage to reveal her identity, there was a real possibility that jurors thought Libby was somehow involved in revealing her identity and should be punished for it. This whole prosecution was fraudulent and unfair. Even Gore lawyer David Boies thought so. As a logical matter, Libby could not obstruct an investigation when the investigators already knew what he was supposed to have obstructed, ie who leaked to Novak. Look for a reversal and retrial. I don't expect Bush to pardon him, at least anytime soon. If he wouldn't do anything for those Border Patrol agents, how can he justify rescuing Libby?