Free Scooter Libby(slate/hitchens)

[White_Male_Canada]

Free Scooter Libby

The case gets weirder by the day.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, June 18, 2007, at 11:38 AM ET

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.

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

[Oli]

LAWFUEL - The Law Newswire - "Scooter" Libby's prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, wrote an 18 page sentencing memo, requesting that Libby serve up to three years in prison.

The memo says: “He has shown no regret for his actions, which significantly impeded the investigation.”

While he acknowledges that Libby “worked long hours for the government under great stress, when he could have earned a more lucrative salary in the private practice of law.” Fitzgerald’s suggestion: “a term of imprisonment within the applicable range of 30 to 37 months.”

The memo (click the link below) also outlined that Libby had options, including telling the truth, declining to speak with FBI agents or taking the Fifth Amendment before the Grand Jury or challenging the lines of inquiry he believed to be improper.

"Regrettably, Mr Libby chose the one option the law prohibited: He lied. "

[North_of_60]

Hitchens speaking for his "temporary neocon allies"...

Yes, Libby lied. But I think the main idea behind Hitchens paper is that Scooter took the hit for this lousy Bush Administration. Imprison him and let Rove and friend wash their hands.

Joe Conason wrote in the August 1, 2005 issue of the New York Observer "Republicans Ready to Slime Fitzgerald":

"Circled in a bristling perimeter around the White House, the friends and allies of Mr. Rove can soon be expected to fire their rhetorical mortars at Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor investigating the White House exposure of C.I.A. operative Valerie Wilson. Indeed, the preparations for that assault began months ago in the editorial columns of The Wall Street Journal, which has tarred Mr. Fitzgerald as a 'loose cannon' and an 'unguided missile.'".

This article is spinning bullshit .
Patrick J. Fitzgerald is, in some way, part of the scenario ; trying to clean an awful mess.

As National Security Coordinator for the Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, he was responsible for supervising the investigation and development and prosecution of the case against Osama bin Laden. He was the chief counsel in the prosecution of those alleged to have perpetrated the bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania." He also was counsel in the prosecution of the 'blind sheik' Omar Abdel Rahman and 11 other defendants. And I say, he's got dirty hands.

This prosecution was nothing but a mascarade.

[guyone]

It's all the democrats fault. They're at the root of modern americas problems. Mainly because they are anti-american at their very core. Pretty simple really.

[trish]

It's all the democrats fault. They're at the root of modern americas problems. Mainly because they are anti-american at their very core. Pretty simple really.

Good Joke

Speaking of good laughs, a recent Galluppoll revealed that most republicans don't believe in the theory of evolution! Well over 60%!!!
At least is obvious to the world now that Americans aren't idiots, republicans are.

[White_Male_Canada]

Hitchens speaking for his "temporary neocon allies"...

Yes, Libby lied. But I think the main idea behind Hitchens paper is that Scooter took the hit for this lousy Bush Administration. Imprison him and let Rove and friend wash their hands.



This prosecution was nothing but a mascarade.

Look, even the left-wing wash. post is talking about you left-wing kooks:

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=21827

[trish]

Look, even the left-wing wash. post is talking about you left-wing kooks:

Therefore, not all left wingers (e.g. some of those writing for the post) are kooks; which is more than can be said for right wingers who are ALL one hundred percent looney.

[White_Male_Canada]

Look, even the left-wing wash. post is talking about you left-wing kooks:

Therefore, not all left wingers (e.g. some of those writing for the post) are kooks; which is more than can be said for right wingers who are ALL one hundred percent looney.

Trish, you got all your bunghole hair all in a knot again because even liberals are leaving you kooks behind?

[trish]

good, don't come back.

[trish]

you go follow those liberal now.