Wednesday, March 07, 2007

Libby Trial a Disgrace

I'll just give you a link to LMC's post on the topic as she covers all the facts needed here.


Little Miss Chatterbox said...

Thanks for the link. I can't begin to tell you how upset I was about this yesterday.

The leftist southpaw said...

Ah yes, the bastion of neutrality known as the National Review.

Shall we counter?

Slate magazine reports:

"Libby was able to recollect with precision when he wanted to. About some matters, his testimony to the grand jury was more accurate than that of other witnesses. But when it came to the identity of administration critic Joseph Wilson's wife, his memory took on magical qualities. Prosecutors presented evidence that Libby had nine different discussions about Plame with colleagues and reporters, all of which he claimed to have forgotten."

Mother Jones reports:

"Where the prosecution's case was straightforward and concise, Libby's defense was dense and often circuitous, laced with conspiracy theories that seemed primarily intended to confuse the jury. Producing notes written in the vice president’s hand, which Wells referred to yesterday as "one of the most important pieces of evidence in this case," the defense suggested early on that Libby had been scapegoated by the White House, which was desperate to protect Karl Rove, the "lifeblood" of the Republican Party and the real culprit in the Plame leak. "Not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the guy that was asked to stick his head in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others," the vice president's notes read.

Over the course of the trial, the defense also offered a handful of sometimes contradictory theories to explain Libby's account of his conversation with Russert. At one point, Libby's lawyers floated the possibility that he had confused Russert with Novak, who, according to the defense, Libby had also spoken with during the week of July 6, 2003. Reversing itself, the defense later raised the possibility that the conversation in question had indeed taken place as Libby remembered it, suggesting that one of Russert's NBC colleagues, either David Gregory or Andrea Mitchell, had told him about Plame prior to his July 10 conversation with Libby."

Libby's defense was never "I did not do it." If you want to see a witch hunt, look at Libby's defense theories.

In our judicial system, the jury is the finder of fact. They are the sole determinants of who is "lying" and whose memory is to be deemed faulty.

When Presidnet Clinton appeared before a grand jury investigating perjury charges, all was well and good with the world, right?

It does not matter who the "real" leak source was. A law was broken. End of story.

By the way, if this trial was a "sham" or "miscarriage" or whatever you want to call it, it happened under the watch of a GOP administration and GOP attorney general.

Go whine to the DOJ.

Cajun Tiger said...

Southpaw...If this was just about Libby lying then why did the jurors all rush to say they felt bad for Libby and they really wish that Rove or Cheney had been on trial. Also nice job in ignoring every single point about Wilson.

And the difference with Clinton is that he admitted he straight up lied to the grand jury thus committing a federal offense.

The leftist southpaw said...

nah nah nah nah...nah nah nah nah...hey hey...good bye...

Scooter, say hello to Bob Ney, David Safavian, Jack A., and Duke Cunningham for us!

Ron said...

I beg your PARDON, Southpaw!

Cajun Tiger said...

Southpaw...very mature argument there...I'll let you slide this time as I'm sure you have been spending a lot of time with your newborn, so adult conversations have not been as frequent.

Anonymous said...

Libby reflects the Bush Administration. Neo-cons are no different from Dems. They are both corrupt.

Cajun Tiger said...

Very interesting...Dems and neo-cons grouped together...I'm sure they both would love to see that.