Tuesday, July 03, 2007

Who Gets It?

Well, the main stream media and the blogosphere are both about to burst into flames. Scooter Libby never wanted this type of notoriety. And he deserves so very much better.

Libby is a man whose main crime was getting caught like a deer in the headlights of an "out of control" special prosecutor. Yes, he did fail to remember certain absolutely meaningless facts before a grand jury. And technically he did lie. But so did Bill Clinton.

Yes. Please remember Clinton's crime was lying to a grand jury. There is absolutely no debate on the left or the right that Clinton lied under oath. However Clinton lied about sex which certainly seems to be OK with virtually everyone in the main stream media and the left leaning glitterati.

In fairness the real question was did Clinton's lie rise to the level demanding Impeachment. And, of course, it did not.

So what about Libby? Libby lied about three conversations with reporters, none of which had any impact at all on the revelation of facts concerning CIA agent Valerie Plame. Had Libby merely lied about having sex with Plame, it can be safely assumed all lies would be forgiven.

But here's the crux of Libby's false testimony (courtesy of
The Stromata Blog):

Let’s stipulate arguendo that the jury correctly found that Mr. Libby lied to the FBI and the grand jury. Having done so, let’s review facts that ought to be familiar. None of them is contested, but all tend to get lost in the hyperventilating whirlwind.

Mr. Libby was charged with falsely describing conversations with three reporters: Tim Russert, Matt Cooper and Judith Miller. He was not accused of illegally exposing the identity of a covert CIA agent. According to the prosecution’s version of reality –

In other words, contrary to what leftists incessantly proclaim, there is no evidence that Mr. Libby undertook to “punish” Joseph Wilson.

How would it have helped the grand jury to have heard from Scooter Libby’s lips that he (i) didn’t talk about Mrs. Wilson with Tim Russert, (ii) heard about her role from Matt Cooper and (iii) discussed the matter casually with Judith Miller?

Those admissions clearly wouldn’t have led to an indictment for disclosure of classified information or violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. We know that because Mr. Armitage was never charged with either. Nor is there any way – at least none that Mr. Fitzgerald has ever disclosed – in which learning those facts would have led to some fruitful line of inquiry.

On the reading most hostile to Lewis Libby, he did not commit a substantive crime or obstruct a criminal investigation. He was caught in a perjury trap. If Mr. Fitzgerald had asked, “What color tie did you wear when you spoke to Tim Russert?”, Mr. Libby had answered “Red” and the prosecution had thereafter proven that the tie was blue, the grounds for the indictment would have been just as strong.

I've read today several dozen blogs by all my favorite writers and several new discoveries. Opinions range demands for Bush's impeachment or resignation over on the left to demands from a full pardon for Libby over on the right.

I'll recommend you read Vigilante's very short entry at
The Vigil, but be certain to read every comment that follows the essay. Vigilante's discussion group is one of the best and brightest on the far "Impeach Bush Now" left.

Then I'll recommend you read Mary's interesting comparison of Bush's commutation of the Libby jail sentence to the left's demand for full amnesty for all illegal immigrants over at
FREEDOM EDEN. It is thought provoking.

But I fully agree with Bruce over at the Gay Patriot and recommend you read his essay,
Another Bush Half-Measure. Bruce and I are on the same page.

Then read The Gay Patriot's co-blogger Daniel and his half dissenting essay,
On the Libby Decision & the Left’s Silly Mantras. Daniel is one of the few writers who actually agrees with the President and supports his decision.

Who is right? You already know where I stand.



SAVE THIS PAGE TO del.icio.us


Vigilante said...

Thom Hartmann has discovered in the papers of 'father of the Bill of Rights' George Mason (1725-1792), Objections to This Constitution of Government that Bush's pardon of Libby was foreseen but not provided against:

"The President of the United States has the unrestrained Power of granting Pardons for Treason; which may be sometimes exercised to screen from punishment those whom he had secretly instigated to commit the Crime, & thereby prevent a Discovery of his own Guilt."

Hartmann's article The Libby Commutation: Coincidence, or Conspiracy? is recommended.

the WIZARD, fkap said...

To buy into Hartmann's conspiracy theory you have to read only his very few and sparse quotes and then virtually ingore the entire trial and testimony and comments of every witness and member of the legal team.

Stromata's argument and presentation of the FACTS is so much more compelling that Hartmann's guesses and leaps of logic leading to inuendo.

Sorry, I still see this as a major miscarriage of justice and believe the Bush should have pardoned Libby, not just commuted his sentence.

And, when Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama is elected President (as I believe one of them will be elected) let's hope there is NEVER a special prosecutor appointed for any reason.