Scooter lynch mob should be ashamed

[dorbie 0]

Hitchens sums it up nicely.

http://www.slate.com/id/2168642/

All the liars and left wing sheep who THINK they know what the case was about should be ashamed over this debacle of a prosecution.

The judges comment which Hitchens quotes is one aspect I wasn't aware of before now and is frankly utterly disgusting and goes beyond bias. I was already aware of other quirks in the proceedings.

This whole situation makes a joke of American justice and those who lick their chops over Libby's misfortune drag it through the mire for their own gratfication.

[Gawain 0]

I agree for the most part. I find it interesting that the real wild card in this situation was the "Special Prosecutor". The same thing can argued about the whole thing that Ken Starr put together too. His final report had nothing to do with the "what and why" he was appointed, etc.

This case had little to nothing to do with Fitzgerald's "purpose" either...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kallend 1,541]

Quote

This whole situation makes a joke of American justice... .

Since you mention lynchings, still there are those who think the American justice system is capable of making correct decisions 100% of the time in death penalty cases.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

This whole situation makes a joke of American justice... .

Since you mention lynchings, still there are those who think the American justice system is capable of making correct decisions 100% of the time in death penalty cases.

Here, I pulled the links print for you since you must not have read it. given your abstract thread hyjacking reply.

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby
If Scooter Libby goes to jail, it will be because he made a telephone call to Tim Russert and because Tim Russert has a different recollection of the conversation. Can this really be the case? And why is such a nugatory issue a legal matter in the first place?

Before savoring the full absurdity of the thing, please purge your mind of any preconceptions or confusions.

Mr. Libby was not charged with breaking the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
Nobody was ever charged with breaking that law, designed to shield the names of covert agents. Indeed, the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, determined that the law had not been broken in the first place.
The identity of the person who disclosed the name of Valerie Plame to Robert Novak—his name is Richard Armitage, incidentally—was known to those investigating the non-illegal leak before the full-dress inquiry began to grind its way through the system, incidentally imprisoning one reporter and consuming thousands of man hours of government time (and in time of war, at that).
In the other two "counts" in the case, both involving conversations with reporters (Judith Miller of the New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time), Judge Reggie Walton threw out the Miller count while the jury found for Libby on the Cooper count.
The call to Russert was not about Plame in any case; it was a complaint from the vice president's office about Chris Matthews, who was felt by some to have been overstressing the Jewish names associated with the removal of Saddam Hussein. Russert was called in his capacity as bureau chief; any chitchat about Wilson and Plame was secondary.
The call was made after Robert Novak had put his fateful column (generated by Richard Armitage) on the wire, and after he had mentioned Plame's identity to Karl Rove.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does it not seem extraordinary that a man can be prosecuted, and now be condemned to a long term of imprisonment, because of an alleged minor inconsistency of testimony in a case where it is admitted that there was no crime and no victim?

I know of a senior lawyer in Washington who is betting very good money that if the case is heard again on appeal, the conviction will be reversed. This is for three further reasons, which I call to your attention.

1) There is an important constitutional question regarding Fitzgerald's original jurisdiction. It is a rather nice legal question, having to do with whether, as U.S. attorney for the northern district of Illinois, Fitzgerald is a "principal" or "inferior" officer under the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. A dozen senior legal scholars have filed an amicus brief, arguing that the authority under which the original prosecutorial investigation was conducted was itself dubious. I have no expertise in this very important matter, but in granting them leave to file, Judge Walton made the following hair-raising comment, which I reproduce in full because it is longer than his order and needs to be read in full:

It is an impressive show of public service when twelve prominent and distinguished current and former law professors of well-respected schools are able to amass their collective wisdom in the course of only several days to provide their legal expertise to the Court on behalf of a criminal defendant. The Court trusts that this is a reflection of these eminent academics' willingness in the future to step to the plate and provide like assistance in cases involving any of the numerous litigants, both in this Court and throughout the courts of our nation, who lack the financial means to fully and properly articulate the merits of their legal positions even in instances where failure to do so could result in monetary penalties, incarceration, or worse. The Court will certainly not hesitate to call for such assistance from these luminaries, as necessary in the interests of justice and equity, whenever similar questions arise in the cases that come before it.

2) This low sarcasm displays not so much bias against the defendant, but actual animus. What does the number of days have to do with it? In how many cases involving poor defendants is an issue of constitutional law involved? Does the judge not know that Libby has already been almost ruined financially and faces incarceration? Would he have adopted the same tone if 12 experts ranging politically from Robert Bork to Alan Dershowitz had filed a brief arguing the opposite position? It's difficult to see how an appeals court can avoid these questions.

3) The judge refused to let the jury hear from a memory expert and would not admit much of the evidence about Libby's extremely heavy workload on matters of pressing national security. An amazing collection of testimonials has been prepared, from all points of the political compass, regarding particularly Libby's concern about inadequate troop levels in Iraq and his work in strengthening the country's defense against bio-warfare terrorism. It seems to some legal observers that the judge's exclusion of some of this exculpatory evidence was a payback for Libby's decision not to take the stand, which is his constitutionally protected right.

The rush to prejudge the case and pack Libby off to prison seems near universal. (Patrick Fitzgerald has denounced him for failing to show remorse; a strange charge to make against a man who has announced that he intends to appeal.) Given the unsoundness of the verdict, the extraordinary number of other witnesses who admitted to confusion over dates and times, and the essential triviality of the original matter (an apparently purposeless coverup of a nonleak, in private and legal conversations, involving common knowledge of information that was not known to be classified), it is unlikely that the verdict at present can stand scrutiny, let alone the sentence. But why go through all this irrelevant and secondhand hearsay again? Those who want to "get" someone for "lying us into war" have picked the wrong man and failed to identify a crime. Let them try to impeach the president, who should in the meantime step in to avoid any more waste of public money and time and pardon Libby without further ado.

back to top
PRINT DISCUSS E-MAIL RECOMMENDDigg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia.com
Sphere
CLOSERelated in SlateChristopher Hitchens noted a "creepy populism" in both the Scooter Libby and Paris Hilton trials. John Dickerson calculated the chances of Libby going to prison. Dickerson, Dahlia Lithwick, and Seth Stevenson exchanged dispatches from the trial here and here. In January, Slate chronicled its complete coverage of the trial and the Plame investigation.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,541]

Quote

Quote

Quote

This whole situation makes a joke of American justice... .

Since you mention lynchings, still there are those who think the American justice system is capable of making correct decisions 100% of the time in death penalty cases.

Here, I pulled the links print for you since you must not have read it. given your abstract thread hyjacking reply.

.

Whoosh.

If you don't like the way the justice system works when it "lynches" (shitty analogy) one of your heros, how come you approve when it actually really kills people.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

This whole situation makes a joke of American justice... .

Since you mention lynchings, still there are those who think the American justice system is capable of making correct decisions 100% of the time in death penalty cases.

It rained here today. Did you know that?

Here, I pulled the links print for you since you must not have read it. given your abstract thread hyjacking reply.

.

Whoosh.

If you don't like the way the justice system works when it "lynches" (shitty analogy) one of your heros, how come you approve when it actually really kills people.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,232]

> I agree for the most part. I find it interesting that the real wild card in
>this situation was the "Special Prosecutor". The same thing can argued
>about the whole thing that Ken Starr put together too.

Yep. But that's the standard that we've set. I will have little patience for the people crying "unfair! shameful!" given that they were generally the same people cheering on Starr. You can't let the genie out of the bottle just for "your guy."

[Amazon 7]

Quote

You can't let the genie out of the bottle just for "your guy."

Hey how did Evil_Jeanne get into this

[Trent 0]

Quote

I will have little patience for the people crying "unfair! shameful!" given that they were generally the same people cheering on Starr. You can't let the genie out of the bottle just for "your guy."

But being the "high road" kinda guy you are... you'll not support Libby's conviction because wrong is wrong no matter who's side it's on, right?

Oh, hello again!

[billvon 2,232]

>you'll not support Libby's conviction because wrong is wrong no
>matter who's side it's on, right?

I support Libby's conviction because the justice system that we all support determined that he was guilty of the crime of perjury. That's the only "final word" on the subject.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

This whole situation makes a joke of American justice... .

Since you mention lynchings, still there are those who think the American justice system is capable of making correct decisions 100% of the time in death penalty cases.

Here, I pulled the links print for you since you must not have read it. given your abstract thread hyjacking reply.

.

Whoosh.

If you don't like the way the justice system works when it "lynches" (shitty analogy) one of your heros, how come you approve when it actually really kills people.

He's nobody's hero, he was an obscure bureaucrat who's life got destroyed in the cause of your political heroes, as a bankrupt 4th estate did nothing about it, worse did their level best to misrepresent it to the public so it would happen.

Even now that he's well known he's still nobody's hero, just a victim of a very dubious political prosecution.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

> I agree for the most part. I find it interesting that the real wild card in
>this situation was the "Special Prosecutor". The same thing can argued
>about the whole thing that Ken Starr put together too.

Yep. But that's the standard that we've set. I will have little patience for the people crying "unfair! shameful!" given that they were generally the same people cheering on Starr. You can't let the genie out of the bottle just for "your guy."

Bullshit, and your statement just demonstrates that when it comes to politics you're utterly corrupt. I don't give a shit what you have patience for. Your post demonstrates that your interest in justice lies on one side of the political fence.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

I will have little patience for the people crying "unfair! shameful!" given that they were generally the same people cheering on Starr. You can't let the genie out of the bottle just for "your guy."

But being the "high road" kinda guy you are... you'll not support Libby's conviction because wrong is wrong no matter who's side it's on, right?

No, his post informs the reader of the opposite on all counts.

[billvon 2,232]

>Bullshit, and your statement just demonstrates that when it comes to
>politics you're utterly corrupt.

Right - because I think the justice system rather than public opinion should try people. How corrupt can you get? Now, if I could only find it in my heart to condemn only people on the other side - then I would no doubt meet your high moral standards.

>I don't give a shit what you have patience for.

Which is why you didn't even bother replying? Something tells me you give enough of a shit to argue about it for the next 30 posts or so.

[dorbie 0]

There are innumerable systems of justice that are better than your & your allies "Two wrong's make a right".

You appear unaware of the concept of blind justice and worse you & others explicitly seek to link very different cases motivated only by politics of various kinds.

Can the left sink any lower than this?

You're not even arguing the merits of the case anymore just saying screw him, Clinton got prosecuted.

Posting on a topic means I care about the topic, it's pathetic that I have to point this out. Jesus it's a like kindergarten pushing match. Now stick to the topic.

[billvon 2,232]

> There are innumerable systems of justice that are better than your &
>your allies "Two wrong's make a right".

I don't think two wrongs make a right. I do think that our justice system should be the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong - and I hope "you and your allies" fail to change that. Even if the criminal is a hero to "your side."

>You're not even arguing the merits of the case anymore just saying
>screw him, Clinton got prosecuted.

What are you talking about? Both got prosecuted. One was found guilty. Both prosecutors were way more sensationalist than they needed to be. Fortunately, our justice system does not rely on prosecutors to determine guilt or innocence - it relies on judges, juries and (in rare cases) the legislature. Which is how it should be.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>you'll not support Libby's conviction because wrong is wrong no
>matter who's side it's on, right?

I support Libby's conviction because the justice system that we all support determined that he was guilty of the crime of perjury. That's the only "final word" on the subject.

Then you should have , of course, supported Clintons impeachment. He was and has admitted to being guilty. Do you believe the justice system failed?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

> There are innumerable systems of justice that are better than your &
>your allies "Two wrong's make a right".

I don't think two wrongs make a right. I do think that our justice system should be the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong - and I hope "you and your allies" fail to change that. Even if the criminal is a hero to "your side."The left uses the courts to make law. period, The examples are many. You can't find that number from the right

>You're not even arguing the merits of the case anymore just saying
>screw him, Clinton got prosecuted.

What are you talking about? Both got prosecuted. One was found guilty. Both prosecutors were way more sensationalist than they needed to be. Fortunately, our justice system does not rely on prosecutors to determine guilt or innocence - it relies on judges, juries and (in rare cases) the legislature. Which is how it should be.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>You're not even arguing the merits of the case anymore just saying
>screw him, Clinton got prosecuted.

What are you talking about? Both got prosecuted. One was found guilty. Both prosecutors were way more sensationalist than they needed to be. Fortunately, our justice system does not rely on prosecutors to determine guilt or innocence - it relies on judges, juries and (in rare cases) the legislature. Which is how it should be.

This doesn't seem like a fair analogy. Clinton was tried by the Senate with a vote threshold that was not achievable given the political constraints. It was hardly a real trial, and there was no question of whether or not he did it, but rather was removal a punishment that his own party was willing to dish out.

Scooter clearly became the fall guy for an incident that was fairly insignificant. Again, no doubt he did what he did, and in his case a unanimous group of jurors confirmed.

Obviously the Senate would have failed to convict him, too.

[billvon 2,232]

> He was and has admitted to being guilty. Do you believe the justice system failed?

?? No. He was not found guilty of crimes sufficient to remove him from office. He was later disbarred in Arkansas and fined for lying under oath.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

> He was and has admitted to being guilty. Do you believe the justice system failed?

?? No. He was not found guilty of crimes sufficient to remove him from office. He was later disbarred in Arkansas and fined for lying under oath.

and the REASON given by the Senators was what????

Public opinion! they were scared of public opinion. The "opinion was driven by a politically motivated media.

So much for your "blind" justice. But I know you supported this on huh?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,232]

>This doesn't seem like a fair analogy. Clinton was tried by the Senate
>with a vote threshold that was not achievable given the political
>constraints. It was hardly a real trial . . .

. . . but it was what our constitution calls for when it comes to convicting a president of serious crimes. That's the way our system of government works. He was later disbarred for lying under oath.

>Scooter clearly became the fall guy for an incident that was fairly
>insignificant. Again, no doubt he did what he did, and in his case a
>unanimous group of jurors confirmed.

Agreed. But he was not convicted of being a fall guy; he was convicted of perjury and obstructing justice.

[billvon 2,232]

>and the REASON given by the Senators was what????

Doesn't really matter, does it? If a jory gave the same reason, the verdict would still stand. It is their vote, not their reasons for their vote, that matters - whether you are a senator or a juror.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>and the REASON given by the Senators was what????

Doesn't really matter, does it? If a jory gave the same reason, the verdict would still stand. It is their vote, not their reasons for their vote, that matters - whether you are a senator or a juror.

No, that's not true. The judge has some some ability to disregard the jury decision if their reasons were illegitimate.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>and the REASON given by the Senators was what????

Doesn't really matter, does it? If a jory gave the same reason, the verdict would still stand. It is their vote, not their reasons for their vote, that matters - whether you are a senator or a juror.

Hey, your the one that said blind justice is what counts. Obviously you don't believe that.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln