I could not agree more. The Judicial System is so corrupt that it may be too late ever to reform what has happened.

Federal prosecutors are creating a police state in this country and nobody is watching the store.

Look at what Johnny Sutton has done.Look at Nifong.

Malicious prosecutions using paid informants are the rule of the day

Justice in America is dead.

The liberal courts killed it a long, long time ago.

doingwhatican on March 6, 2007 at 2:48 PM

Ding!

The whole judicial branch and the so-called criminal justice system has about as much credibility as the MSM. It is now nothing more than a Barnum and Bailey circus freak show. The O.J. trial showed the system for what it is, quite some time ago. The Libby conviction and the Anna-Nicole Smith sideshow are simply icing on the cake.

The fact that Berger is being given a pass means Libby should be given a pass?

honora on March 7, 2007 at 10:01 AM

Justice itself was passed-over in this country a long time ago. Only a fool would continue to try to make sense of it.

There is more to this, count on it.

honora on March 7, 2007 at 8:49 AM

There is, but only from the Left. There never is ‘more to it’ on the Clintons, Bergers…but heh, strawberries, remember…

I understand your frustration on this, but think about this for a minute: the CIA asked for an investigation; Fitzgerald is a non-partisan nominated by a Republican Senator and confirmed by a Republican Congress; Libby was given a jury trial. So the group of people who have a hand in this–all left wing political operatives? Good grief.

Ask yourself why Libby did not take the stand and why the defense didn’t call Cheney or Rove.

honora on March 7, 2007 at 9:58 AM

First, Fitzgerald is not a non partisan, he is a Democratic hack working for former Clinton appointees at the Justice Department.

Perjury is intentionally swearing to something you know to be untrue – not misremembering what later appears, on balance, not to be the truth.

There is no underlying crime, Valarie Plame was outed by Aldridge Aims to the Soviets. That is why she was recalled from her undercover position to work at Langley. Translation-she was no longer a covered person,covert operative my ass. She walked in the front door of the CIA everyday something covert agents never do because foreign agents photograph everyone to keep track of who works there.

It was Richard Armitage that told Novack about Plame and Fitzgerald knew all about it before he started his phony investigation. That my friend, is called a malicious prosecution. Investigating a non crime is a violation of judicial ethics.

It is Patrick Fitzgerald that should be on trial for violating his oath of office and running a political hit operation.

The question; why would Libby, by all accounts a brilliant man, put himself in jeopardy by lying about all of this?

There is more to this, count on it.

honora on March 7, 2007 at 8:49 AM

honora, you’re distorting everything – the crime was perjury (nothing more), not leaking. You want to hope and pray that somehow, someway, this goes to the top of the mountain, be my guest – even Fitzgerald’s done with this case.

Also, who the hell cares about Wilson and Plame?? seriously. The moron went and had lemonade with his contacts and was told what they wanted to tell him. The guy is no spy – he had no idea how to go about finding the necessary information.

You want to concern yourself about someone who lied about something important – try Sandy Berger. That has more to it than what we’ve been told – and what we know so far should sure as hell raise some eye brows. But, all quiet – hmmm…wonder why?

How so?

honora on March 7, 2007 at 8:34 AM

For starters, it wasn’t Cheney’s request that initiated Wilson’s trip to Africa. This was already established in the summer of 2004 in the Senate Intelligence Committee Report.

Second, Plame wasn’t “brought into this”, she thrust herself into the middle of it by recommending her husband for the trip.

Third, you seem to insinuate in the post I referenced that Wilson produced some kind of report for Cheney. He did not. He did nothing but give an oral report.

Again, all these things were established as fact more than 2.5 years ago when the Senate Intelligence Committee report on this affair was release. Somehow I guess you missed that. Unsuprisingly.

These harpies need to take their show to France. What a bunch of morons…

W.T.F?????

J22: Obviously you’re making good point!! That usually is what gets the “troll” calling going.

honora on March 7, 2007 at 8:37 AM

Hey, honora, shutty! Jatroll22 was obsessing over “but what about what you guys did to Clinton”, etc. What a child!? This isn’t “tit for tat”, this is about right and wrong. He kept talking about the first penis versus disclosing a covert op’s identity. Again NO EVIDENCE SHE WAS COVERT OR THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGES!!! ALL EVIDENCE SAYS SHE WASN’T. And that wasn’t what these charges were about Ja is as bad as the libs at Kos and HuffPo. Hey, by the way Honora, what did you have for lunch two Sunday’s ago?

According to a jury, Sandy Berger li ….. Oh, that’s right he wasn’t tried before a jury, or indicted, or sentenced to prison for committing a crime.

Makes perfect sense though when you think about it. All Berger did was steal top secret documents from the National Archives, was caught on camera doing it, hid them under a construction trailer and then lied about it.

Libby: Go directly to jail, do not pass GO
Berger: Go to your time-out corner

This country is in BIG TROUBLE.

fogw on March 6, 2007 at 7:56 PM

This logic befuddles me. The fact that Berger is being given a pass means Libby should be given a pass?

In what judicial system? Two wrongs etc.

Russert is right in the middle of this case and of course left winged former DNC political operatives masquerading as journalists never lie.

ScottyDog on March 7, 2007 at 9:50 AM

I understand your frustration on this, but think about this for a minute: the CIA asked for an investigation; Fitzgerald is a non-partisan nominated by a Republican Senator and confirmed by a Republican Congress; Libby was given a jury trial. So the group of people who have a hand in this–all left wing political operatives? Good grief.

Ask yourself why Libby did not take the stand and why the defense didn’t call Cheney or Rove.

Of course, Russert also sends little gifts to Imus’s son.
If that fat bastard sent any gifts to my son I would report it to the police. But I’m not Imus!

Your understanding of the case is flawed from the beginning then.

thirteen28 on March 6, 2007 at 1:15 PM
How so?

honora on March 7, 2007 at 8:34 AM

I must defend honora on this, seldom is she flawed when she copies her talking points from her DNC sites. She just cuts and pastes from various sites. The poor girl gets hammered when she strays from the DNC talking points.

Non-lawyer disclaimer, but wasn’t it that he was guilty of perjury but the Senate voted to not remove him from office for it?

eeyore on March 6, 2007 at 1:58 PM

As one non-lawyer to another, his guilt/non-guilt was up to the Senate to decide. He was guilty of perjury IMO but he was not found guilty by the Senate. (The House impeaches, which is the rough equivalent of indicting).

The difference that matters again, IMO, is that impeachment is inherently a political procudure and Clinton was riding a 60% approval rating and a real distaste for Starr’s antics. Libby was facing a “real” jury.

There’s an old saying in criminal defense law , if you’re innocent go for a bench trial, if you’re guilty go with a jury. Meaning juries are unpredictable.

I feel sorry for Libby, but really, what was he thinking?

Your “understanding” is in sharp contrast to public statements that Cheney did no such thing. For a CIA staffer to promote her husband for a CIA contract is considered nepotism. For a guy who dithered around Niger twenty years ago in a entry-level State Department assignment, with no known expertise on weapons, nuclear secret trade, sources, and not know anyone currently in the Niger government, seems to be an incredibly “curious” choice when the CIA is supposed have experts who do know these things. WHy did Wilson get the job? It’s “curious” all right. Course, I wouldn’t use that word to describe this “thing” that resembles a fraud and a cheat.
It’s also “curious” that a Washington Post contributing writer got on the jury. He really convinced the court that he didn’t know anything about the case. Wow! What a news hound. Curious.

naliaka on March 6, 2007 at 1:45 PM

No it’s not. Cheney daily was briefed by the CIA, he wanted them to provide more info on the Niger thing, the CIA decided to send someone to investigate. That much is on the record, look it up.

Now the fact that Plame was in the loop, or insinuated herself into the loop, and Wilson ended up being the guy sent–hey, it is absolutely nepotism. It looks very fishy. HOWEVER, I really, really doubt Plame made this decision on her own.

A quick review:
1) Libby claimed he first heard about P from Russert.
2) Russert denies this.
3) Nine witnesses testifies that Libby had called them and told them about P prior to the date Libby and Russert talked. Nine.
4) Libby’s own handwritten notes verify that he heard about P from the VP.

If you seriously think Libby went into the grand jury and his FBI interview without reviewing his notes and actions, well, good luck with that.

The question I have: whether or not P was protected under the statue (which is an odd statue–you have to prove the outer had intent to harm), there was clearly an effort to discredit Wilson by giving away her identity and the fact that she had been key in sending her hubby on this mission. I believe the latter part of that sentence is what Libby et al wanted to get into the press. So at the end of the day, all Libby et al really did, was play hard ball politics.

The question; why would Libby, by all accounts a brilliant man, put himself in jeopardy by lying about all of this?

There is more to this, count on it.

Jeherer22, you are such a worthless diverting troll.

RightWinged on March 6, 2007 at 1:26 PM

J22: Obviously you’re making good point!! That usually is what gets the “troll” calling going.

Your understanding of the case is flawed from the beginning then.

thirteen28 on March 6, 2007 at 1:15 PM

How so?

Novak was caught between a rock and a hard place on this one. But Armitage wasn’t – all he had to do is the right thing

Even if Armitage wouldn’t let Novak release his name, Novak, knowing the he had info that would exonerate the Administration, should have immediately written a column revealing that his source was not from within the WH, but was instead a State Dept anti-Bush operative, who btw is easily identified by his bull neck and head.

Says it all.

I blame NOVAK for not coming forward and releasing Armitage’s name as his source from the getgo. He KNEW that an innocent man was under investigation and yet he did nothing and still held his “confidential” source a secret. I no longer care on whit for journalists and their so-called ‘confidential sources’.
If Russert had a source that would clear a Clinton in a similar case, does anyone believe he wouldn’t release his source in a NY minute?

auzerais on March 6, 2007 at 10:27 PM

Novak was caught between a rock and a hard place on this one. But Armitage wasn’t – all he had to do is the right thing.

Still, I blame both the DOJ for letting this investigation go forward when they knew Armitage was the original leaker (which utterly destroyed the left’s narrative regarding the case) as well as Fitzgerald for continuing when he knew he couldn’t ever establish that the original crime he was appointed to investigate was ever committed.

He knew of the leak almost from the very beginning of the investigation. Armitage told investigators that he had leaked Plame’s name to Novak before the grand jury was even empaneled. Yet he still went forward.

thirteen28 on March 6, 2007 at 9:33 PM

I blame NOVAK for not coming forward and releasing Armitage’s name as his source from the getgo. He KNEW that an innocent man was under investigation and yet he did nothing and still held his “confidential” source a secret. I no longer care on whit for journalists and their so-called ‘confidential sources’.
If Russert had a source that would clear a Clinton in a similar case, does anyone believe he wouldn’t release his source in a NY minute?

That didn’t happen…so he uses the trumped charges and gets him by default (media)

My real question???

When did the DA KNOW who had done the leak?

And did he question Libby AFTER he had that piece of information???

Romeo13 on March 6, 2007 at 8:43 PM

He knew of the leak almost from the very beginning of the investigation. Armitage told investigators that he had leaked Plame’s name to Novak before the grand jury was even empaneled. Yet he still went forward.

When did the DA KNOW who had done the leak?

And did he question Libby AFTER he had that piece of information???