Say Anything Blog

I like the way he went about it. 

This still gives the justice system a chance to right the wrong. 

But justice would not be served to have him sit in jail waiting to be cleared. 

If it works out the way I think I will it will be the best for the country.

Plus the President can look at the appellate decision before he makes up his mind whether to issue a pardon.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

I’m with Whistler.  We all should want Libby to go through (and win) the appeals process.  If the SCOTUS overturns the conviction then we will have precedent that should make it harder for future prosecutors to abuse the system as Fitzpatrick did.

I don’t like how he’s doing this.  More or less, Scooter Libby is losing a large portion of his life’s savings on an investigation that should never have continued past the “oops, there was no crime committed, and Mr. Armitage was the leaker” stage.  Moreover, the evidence against him is “he said/she said"--not exactly the highest standard of evidence.  It’s certainly not like DNA on a blue dress, when that DNA is material evidence in a civil lawsuit!

Let’s think about this; in any investigation, especially one that goes on for years, you are going to get some contradictions between witnesses--even if everyone talking is an Eagle Scout who can say the Scout motto faithfully. So what this does is to criminalize the natural contradictions that always occur in the process of obtaining evidence in any criminal case--but in a case where there is no reason for a criminal investigation.

Sorry, but this is a really scary precedent.  Bush should have pardoned him as soon as it was clear that Fitzgerald had no case otherwise.

I don’t like how he’s doing this.  More or less, Scooter Libby is losing a large portion of his life’s savings on an investigation that should never have continued

I don’t like it either, but you can’t establish precedent and settle matters of law with out a defendant or complainant.  If Bush pardoned Libby, then the matter will remain unsettled until the next overzealous prosecutor takes years to investigate and puts a witness on the stand seven times until they screw up and contradict themselves.  Somebody has to take this through the appeals process.

I don’t see how the appeals courts can fix this, either.  Is there a law that prohibits prosecutors from investigating people even when they have found no evidence of a crime?  There would have to be some sort of precedent or law for such an appeal to gain any traction in court, and I don’t know if there is.

Seems to me that this is Exhibit A. for the separation of powers, and the man with the bully pulpit really needs to step forward and tell rogue prosecutors that he is NOT going to tolerate endless investigations where it is proven that no crime occurred--and push for legislation allowing for the removal and disbarment of those who do the same.

It’s all part of the plan. Don’t worry. Scooter will be taken care of.

Scooter should go back to work
in the whitehouse.

The existence of an “overzealous” prosecutor isn’t an appealable issue.  Robert Perry is right: the only answer was the political process, and that was settled once the special prosecutor was appointed.

AFAIK, the only issue that can be appealed is the denial of Libby’s expert witness on memory, and that’s a serious long shot.  Exclusion for relevance is the heart of the trial judge’s job, and an appeals court won’t overturn for something like that unless two things are present: 1) it had to have been totally crazy for the judge to have excluded it (the standard is “abuse of discretion"); and 2) it’s clear that Libby would’ve been exonerated had the expert testimony been admitted (the “harmless error” doctrine).

These are both really, really tough standards on appeal, since they’re both designed to protect the trial court’s discretion.

ews48 “opines”

It’s all part of the plan. Don’t worry. Scooter will be taken care of.

Restock to the tinfoil aisle.  Restock to the tinfoil aisle.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”

The existence of an “overzealous” prosecutor isn’t an appealable issue.

No, but prosecutorial misconduct is.  Alas, that is not what Libby is asserting in his appeal. 

and that was settled once the special prosecutor was appointed.

Actually, that is one of the items that is being appealed.  Libby’s attorneys are arguing that the special prosecutor appointment was not legal.  I don’t know whether that has any merit, but if his conviction is overturned on that point then it will be harder to appoint a special prosecutor in the future.

No, but prosecutorial misconduct is.

In an appeals context, prosecutorial misconduct is stuff like neglecting to turn over exculpative evidence, evidence that tends to prove innocence.  Being zealous isn’t misconduct: it’s exactly how lawyers are supposed to act.

My memory is pretty hazy about special prosecutors and the law - my constitutional law class was a morning class, and my eyes were frequently glazed over, but I’m reasonably sure that special prosecutors are constitutional, and that there are no problems with an SP having a broad scope of duty.

The Libby Legal Defense Trust already has raised $3.5 million to $4 million to pay for legal bills, according to a source familiar with the operations of the private organization, which is not required by law to disclose its donors.

Back to work in the whitehouse?
Why not let Scoot draw a salary so he can pony up part towards his fine. probation officer some

For the legally minded, here‘s a post on talkleft that gets into the issues at bar re: the constitutionality of the special prosecutor.  It’s talkleft, so it’s obviously leaning left, but Jeralyn, the proprietress, is a staunch defense attorney (opposing Nifong, for example), and more importantly it’s the only page I found that lays out the arguments.

woof,

So tell us, will you be demanding that the Clintons (now estimated to have a net worth of about $50,000,000) return all the monies their legal defense fund raised to their donors?

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”

All the Democrat Presidential candidates came out against the commutation of Scooter Libby’s sentence—as required. If Hillary Clinton really wants to make a point about how outraged she is by the injustice, though, she can demand that her husband be prosecuted and jailed for his perjury.

Frank J at IMAO

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

Bush wept crocodile tears at the 250K fine.

His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation.The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect.

And all these Democrats were outraged by the long list of pardons issued at the end of Willie Jeff’s Presidency! Weren’t they?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

I thought Clinton was a scumbag for pardoning Mark Rich. (Scooter Libby negotiated that pardon I hear??) .and some of the others…

I think GW is a scumbag for commuting this sentence.

perjury is a crime.  “Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time”....

(c minor chord)
...or were they worried that scooter might start to “sing” whilst waiting for his appeal....hmmmmm

perjury is wrong no matter who does or for what…
you raise your hand you take an oath..it should mean something to someone…

The idea that a “wrong has been righted” is such a farce...we have a judicial system that the rest of humanity uses.  We say it is one of the best on the planet.

We put that idiot paris hilton in the can for a month, why not someone who lied to a grand jury???

IMHO both sides of the aisle are out of touch with the people.

Why should Libby go to jail while Berger continues to work in the government?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Berger continues to work in the government?

He shredding socuments in the whitehouse?
What’s his job?

He gets his security rating back in just over 4 years. That means he is still a USG employee. Don’t know where he is working, I would dearly love to find out!

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

"socuments” Thats a good one! I just caught that, you have your moments woofie.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

He shredding socuments in the whitehouse?

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Follow the money…

Six years ago Hillary Clinton’s career in the US Senate was marred by allegations that her brothers had received payments from people pardoned by President Bill Clinton in the waning months of his presidency.

...follow the money…

Senator Clinton’s brother Tony is now battling an order to repay more than $100,000 he received from a couple pardoned by President Clinton. Also, Hugh Rodham received $400,000 from two people, one of whom was pardoned and one whose sentence was commuted.

...follow the money…

In addition to the people who paid her brothers, those receiving pardons included commodities trader Marc Rich, a fugitive who was prosecuted for tax evasion by then-US Attorney Rudolph Giuliani and fled to Switzerland. Rich was pardoned after his former wife, Denise Rich, contributed heavily to Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaign.

...follow the money…

Before Rich received the pardon in January 2001, his former wife, Denise Rich, contributed $70,000 to a fund supporting Hillary Clinton’s Senate bid, and also made a large contribution to the Clinton presidential library.

...follow the money…

Hillary Clinton should answer questions about her brothers’ and her own involvement in the pardons because the stench of the Marc Rich pardon still stinks and it has never been adequately explained.

...follow the money…

Now that’s a culture of corruption. Just follow the money.

Restock to the tinfoil aisle, restock to the tinfoil aisle.  Hmmm.... who just wrote that? Thanks.

puzzled one regurgitates:

Restock to the tinfoil aisle, restock to the tinfoil aisle.  Hmmm.... who just wrote that? Thanks.

That would be a paraphrase of my response to ews48, who offered (completely un-supported of course), this gem of conspiracy:

It’s all part of the plan. Don’t worry. Scooter will be taken care of.

to which I replied:

Restock to the tinfoil aisle.  Restock to the tinfoil aisle.

An examination of Mickey’s post shows that he’s at least setting out the outlines for an investigation quite likely to show a quid pro quo with regard to pardons and clemency.

A distinction you are obviously unable or unwilling to make.

None so blind, puzzled one…

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”

Brad, I agree that people who lie to a grand jury should be put in prison.  Does Chataqua NY count?

Personally, I’m not persuaded that Libby’s “conflict of witness” qualifies as perjury, though.  Again, you question people for five years, you are going to get conflicting testimony.  You’ve got to establish things a bit more clearly than this to establish perjury.