« Bang, Bang, Your Gun Ban Is Dead | Main | Run Of The Mill Liberal Topic »
Tuesday
Mar062007

Scooter Libby - Guilty, Round One

Who would have ever guessed that would happen?


Wait! It was me back on February 13, 2007:


“But for me this gets better. I think Libby, who has committed no crime, will be found guilty by any DC jury. This will lead to an appeal by Libby and that appeal will hinge partly on the inability of his defense team, because of the judge, to grill the NBC media stars about when they found out about the secret agent that wasn't.”


Will Libby get an appeal based on the trial which was mis-managed by Judge Reggie Walton from the get-go? THAT will be the big question. I think it is possible based alone on the trial not addressing motive. The judge refused to allow the status of Valerie Plame's position as an office worker into the case. Of course he could not allow that fact in because it would have blown the MEDIA aspect of this political trial. If the general public ever finds out Ms. Plame is not a secret agent this prosecutor looks like Mike Nifong.


But like I said before. For me, a political trial and conviction of Scooter Libby is a strange opportunity to see the former lawyer for Marc Rich, the international criminal President Clinton pardoned in his last days in office, get dragged through the same criminal nightmare most often reserved exclusively for conservatives like Ollie North. Sometimes they feed on themselves is seems.


Did you notice: The 11 member jury, we find out, had a former Washington Post reporter and spy novel author named Dennis Collins on it. Now THAT sounds like an impartial guy.


I wondered why it took nine days to come to the preordained verdict. Were they waiting for Anna Nicole Smith to be buried so they could grab the biggest headlines? Let's see how long Mr. Collins takes to write a novel about his jury duty.




Reader Comments (9)

Ed I heard an interesting story on NPR during my lunch hour today that fit right into what your saying, and oddly enough it was a democrat stating it.

He admitted that the whole Libby case is political and he said he and other democrats see this as their way of showing the Bush administration to be liars and helps build the democrats case that Bush lied to get us into Iraq.

This is of course absurd but never the less this was the argument this person was making. and I suspect the way some democrats see this trial.
March 7, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterR Barnes
Rick:

This is exactly what the purpose of the special prosecutor was EXCEPT that Fitzpatric, Judge Walton, and the former Washington Post employee juror, among others, thought they would get Cheney in a perjury trap as well. Or at least make hay out of a show trial.

Remember how stunned the prosecutors were when attporney Webb pulled Libby and Cheney from the witness list? They howeled like apes.

My take is different than anyone else's in that I think this helps send a message to liberal activists, lawyers, and consultants who work their way into a Republican administrations.

They themselves could wind up being Scooterized by a jury interested in politically damaging the administration. No safer have for spies any longer.

Plame and Wilson were politically motivated in an effort to "get Bush". Wilson is a liar and opportunist who used a phony trip to Niger to stake a media claim for himself.


They sort of win this with the help of the media for a while but any appeal by Libby that generates a new trial poses a big problem for them and NBC news activists like Russert.

But then, I have been saying this for a year or so.

All this could have been avoided if the Republicans in the White House and all government for that matter took the CNHT Pledge - unless is is totally safe, NEVER TALK TO THE PRESS. It only leads to disaster.

And remember: the so-called conservative reporter Bob Novack started all this garbage.
March 7, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterEd Naile
One other thing I am hearing is the call from those on the right for Bush to pardon Libby. Personally I think that would be a HUGE mistake if he does it before any appeals etc. Republicans should hold back and let this play out in court. What Ed is saying may very well hold true but if Bush pardons Libby it's going to look very bad.
March 7, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterR Barnes
instead of fooling around with Libby lets go to the next case
maybe you can get the two or three taxpayers that you are chairman of and sign and send this to our congressional delegations

IMPEACHMENT RESOLUTION


Whereas George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have:

1. deliberately misled the nation about the threat from Iraq in order to justify a war,
2. condoned the torture of prisoners in violation of the Geneva Convention and US law,
3. approved illegal electronic surveillance of American citizens without a warrant, and,

Whereas these actions have undermined our Constitutional system of government, damaged our world reputation of America, and threatened our national security,..

Therefore, the taxpayers of the state of New Hampshire call upon the U.S. House of Representatives to investigate these charges, and if the investigation supports the charges, vote to impeach George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney as provided in the Constitution of the United States of America

March 7, 2007 | Unregistered Commenterhurryupharry
Rick:

They OWE it to Libby to NOT pardon him. This never should have had a special prosecutor. Ashcroft blew it by passing it off.

Now the moonbats will repeat their talking points about the run-up to war like the good little parrots they are. But I think the major media will try to forget this asap. Each one of the reporters questioned lied under oath.

The sad part of this is, that for now, poor Scooter Libby is a convicted perjurer just like....


Bill Clinton.

Stay tuned, we will have two years of this.
March 7, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterEd Naile
a guilty verdict is never a guilty verdict - it's always a conspiracy. a-mazing.
March 8, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterAmazed
Amazed:

Its a guilty verdict. Who said it wasn't.

There is an appeal process. Or is there not?

An appeal is based on the actions of the trial judge and the fairness of the trial.

If you think having only 11 jurors after kicking one off for who knows what YET is an example of good justice, or one juror who worked for the Washington Post is fair then you should be a happy liberal progressive.

I am not amazed.
March 8, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterEd Naile
This was a great outcome.

Not only will we eventually reveal the lies and deceit of the Bush Administration with the crack in the door that this was, but we also got another Naile rant.
March 11, 2007 | Registered CommenterAndrew Sylvia
Careful what you pretend to wish for and don't understand.

Another "great outcome"?

America's biased news media stars finally on witness stands!!!!!! Under oath!

Gotta love the outcome. I can live with a regular dose of that.

Did you ponder what may happen to their sheen of credibility? Its part of YOUR team.

You may lose them next time around.

I RATHER like that.
March 11, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterEd Naile

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.