Notable:
"The defense might have been better off taking on Mr. Fitzgerald for criminalizing political differences.
For that, in essence, is what this case is really all about. We learned long ago--and Mr. Fitzgerald knew from the start of his probe in 2003--that Mr. Libby was not the source of the leak to columnist Robert Novak that started all this. Mr. Libby thus had no real motive to cover up this non-crime. What he did have strong cause to do was rebut the lies that Mr. Wilson was telling about the Administration and Mr. Cheney--lies confirmed as lies by a bipartisan report of the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2004."
"
Several things bother me about this verdict.
ReplyDeleteThe interview with the juror yesterday (a journalist, no less...on a political-trial jury!)seemed to indicate that the jury thought they had a mission to punish somebody. They said they were sympathetic to Libby, and wondered "Where's Rove, where's the other guys?" So, given that Libby was the only screwee offered to them by the prosecutor, they proceeded to screw Libby as a message to the rest of the Administration. That's not justice, that's a political statement.
Also, the juror's comments indicated that they misunderstood the facts of the case; they apparently thought they were finding someone guilty for leaking Plame's identity, even though that's NOT what the trial was about. The prosecutor succeeded in misleading them in a classic "jury nullification" situation.
This verdict had as much relevance to the truth as the OJ verdict.
"This verdict had as much relevance to the truth as the OJ verdict."
ReplyDeleteMost likely it will be overturned on appeal. If not, odds are pretty good he gets a new trial.
The "Get Rove/Cheney/Bush" agenda is NEVER going to be over for these people.
I agree, the appeal process may well conclude with a very different outcome. This will be an interesting case to watch as it winds it's way through the system.
ReplyDeleteOf course, that will not assuage those afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome, they judged Libby/Cheney/Rove/Bush guilty years ago!
Taranto, as usual, gets it right on the Libby case.
ReplyDeleteExcerpt:
"But it remains a travesty that Libby was ever prosecuted to begin with.
This was a political show trial, and partisans of Joe Wilson will use the guilty verdict to declare vindication. But along the way we learned that virtually all the claims Wilson and his supporters made were false:
* On his trip to Niger, Wilson found no evidence that contradicted the famous "16 words" in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address, contrary to his New York Times op-ed claim.
* Plame, his wife, who worked for the CIA, did recommend him for the Niger junket, contrary to Wilson's denials.
* Plame was not a covert agent under the definition of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, contrary to Wilson's insinuations, which many of his backers, including in the press, presented as fact.
* No one from the White House "leaked" Plame's identity as a CIA functionary to Robert Novak, who received the information from Richard Armitage at the State Department.
Libby stands convicted of lying in the course of Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation of the Valerie Plame kerfuffle--but that investigation was undertaken on the basis of a tissue of lies. When Fitzgerald began the case, in 2003, no one had committed any crime in connection with the kerfuffle, and that was fairly easy to ascertain, given that Plame was not a covert agent and Armitage had already owned up to the so-called leak. Fitzgerald looks like an overzealous prosecutor, one who was more interested in getting a scalp than in getting to the truth of the matter."
Jack,
ReplyDeleteJudge Walton made no such finding.
And please read what the WaPo had to say today.
The Verdict
Jack, your comments have so many lies in it that you could be indicted and convicted as well. There are too many to rebute, but:
ReplyDelete1) Libby was not the person who leaked Plame's indentity. Armatage did, and the prosecutor knew that before he was appointed. He also knew it when he sent Judith Miller to jail for three months for not revealing her source. Libby was tried for perjury in a case that should never have been tried.
2) This mess started because Wilson said that Cheyney sent him to Niger to get intel. That was a lie, and the Senate said it was. Wilson is a lier.
3) If Plame had been a covert agent, then the prosecutor was remiss in not prosecuting Armatage who leaked it. In fact, many people knew that she worked at the CIA. If she had been covert, the prosecutor would have been prosecuting people for the leak, not perjury. Perjury on a matter that was not a crime was all that he had. This prosecutor was running a "gotcha" investigation. Libby should have gone to the grand jury and said that he didn't remember to every question. He would have never been on trial. Fitzgerald is no better than Mike Nifong.
4) With this jury, the prosecutor easily got a conviction. They jury would have found anyone from the Bush Administration guilty if they had been charged. A jury member coming out and making the statement wanting to know where the other members of the Administration were was telling about the mind set of this jury. They wanted to punish some and every one for a crime, and they onlly had poor Libby to punish.
5) I wish that people like you would stop talking about getting Bush and Cheyney for war crimes, and just go for it. It's getting mighty old. If you'be got the proof, go for the conviction. Otherwise, shut-up.
Jack, your claim of "false intell" is opinion, not fact. You're entitled to your opinion, though, no matter how swayed you may be by the mainstream media and the Bush-haters out there.
ReplyDeleteIntelligence information is a funny animal. It can be interpreted in many ways, and a government agency is morally bound to act as if the worst case scenario will occur. It's more "based on what we know this or that is LIKELY to happen" rather than "based on what we know this WILL happen."
Failure to act on credible intelligence might endanger the citizens the government is legally and morally bound to protect. This holds true for the local police basing their actions on intelligence to protect the local citizens as well as the federal government doing the same to protect U.S. citizens.
Think of it this way: You're a policeman and you stop a car. The driver jumps out and points a gun at a citizen standing next to you on the sidewalk. Based on what you know (intel) you believe a life is in danger and you take appropriate action. Later you find out that the suspect's gun, though realistic, is a toy. Should you be prosecuted and thrown in prison because you relied on "faulty intel??" No, you assessed the intelligence available to you and made a decision intended to protect life.
Intel is rarely an indisputable fact, it's more an educated prediction of what will happen in the future given the information you have today. A government that fails to act on what it perceives as a threat to it's citizens is not fulfilling the obligation we demand of it.
Let's all sing the chorus to jack's (and the Usual Suspects') theme song when it comes to the Plame Game:
ReplyDelete"You go back jack, do it again.
Wheel turnin round and round.
You go back jack do it again...."
And indeed, they keep going BACK, and BACK, and BACK......when will they get it through their thick heads that they will NEVER get this nonsense to turn out like they want?
Pitiful.
Very convenient, Jack. You find those whose opinions mirror yours and point to them as vindication for your own opinions.
ReplyDeleteIf you only listen to those with whom you agree then you're right all the time, correct?
Nice try.
Jack:
ReplyDelete"Oh, how well you parrot the right wing spin machine, conservative talking points, and Faux News. "
SSDD.
To describe your little babblefest as amateurish would be generous. "Childish" would be more accurate. "Irrelevant" would also apply.
Try again.
Jack, opinions are just that, OPINIONS. They are neither right nor wrong, they're just someone's feelings and thoughts on any given subject.
ReplyDeleteJust because someone else has the same opinion as you does not make it a FACT. Even if that *someone* is famous, a news anchor, or a politician.
You need to learn the difference between *opinion* and *fact* or you'll go through life in denial about what's real and what isn't.
One must learn to question the sources for information with which one forms opinions. For example, if you turn on the TV and every news show says the world is flat does that make it a fact?
Nope.
If President Bush makes a statement and 5 major news outlets put on dissenters for day after day and they all say the President is wrong, does that make it wrong?
Nope.