Video: Chris Matthews asks Edwards, “Should the Vice President resign?”
posted at 11:21 pm on March 6, 2007 by Ian
Edwards, of course, answered “I don’t know.” With a response like that, he did not score many much-needed nutroots points.
Matthews makes reference to Karl Rove’s involvement in Libby’s crimes. Did Matthews listen to Patrick Fitzgerald, the man he has glorified since the indictment of Scooter Libby? Fitzgerald has made it clear: There will be no more indictments.
Matthews followed that whammy with a Hardball-esque question: “Should Libby be pardoned?” Gasp. How do these politicians survive when they come on Hardball?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Let’s see. No charges. No guilty verdict.
But – Republican.
Yup, I guess he ought to resign.
Every woman who anything to say about Bill Clinton was audited by the IRS.
(silence)
Janet Reno fires 93 US attornies.
(silence)
Marc Rich
(silence)
Sandy Burglar
(silence)
(silence)
drjohn on March 6, 2007 at 11:28 PM
Edwards is a wuss. The nutroots know it but keep hoping…
Entelechy on March 6, 2007 at 11:30 PM
Edwards, if he wouldn’t be such a pompous primadona, could have turned the question on Chrissie with “No, he should not resign, unless his doctor orders him to”.
Entelechy on March 6, 2007 at 11:35 PM
Well of course Libby shouldn’t be pardoned. After all, that would be so Clintonesque wouldn’t it?
thedecider on March 6, 2007 at 11:39 PM
Would it be ok for me to ask, if that studio got blown up with those two in it, the world would be a better place?
R D on March 6, 2007 at 11:39 PM
Bill Maher disapproves.
thedecider on March 6, 2007 at 11:41 PM
He should be there too!
R D on March 6, 2007 at 11:42 PM
Edwards is a MINO – man in name only.
thirteen28 on March 6, 2007 at 11:43 PM
That’s because he’s a
faggot….silk pony.Tim Burton on March 6, 2007 at 11:43 PM
>Edwards is a wuss.
Watch out! The PC Police (both Demokrat and Republikan) will get you for that!
Doghouse on March 6, 2007 at 11:44 PM
I love how members of the media put Edwards opinion on Bush being “impeached” or Cheney “resigning” in their moonbat worlds:
http://www.exposetheleft.com/old/2006/05/21/edwards-tw/
angryamerican on March 6, 2007 at 11:57 PM
The truth will come out soon enough…the jury was totally confused as to what the whole case was about. They actually convicted Libby of having an imperfect memory. As the left pointed out with Bush, there were no
provenWMDs, and Bush said there were, so it was a LIE! (Of course, the word lie had to be redefined mid-sentence for that line of “reasoning” to work, but that’s how the left does it.)That’s how the jury voted. Libby’s testimony conflicted with sworn-in witness testimony, and they were pretty much instructed to take prosecutor witness testimony as proven fact. Hardly a fair trial, but what are you going to do?
stonemeister on March 6, 2007 at 11:58 PM
You know………. I never watch Chris Matthews other than the clips on Hot Air…….. this just gets so tiresome.
I know, I will change the way I look at it, since what they are saying is a bunch of crap, and Matthews has the expression, I will, now and for the end of time, imagine him on the toilet, taking a crap, while interviewing ………. yeah, that explains a lot.
As for “Silky Pony?……. What’s that saying about living in a glass house and throwing stones?
Laugh it up, Rush had a great premonition,…… “…they are poking the sleeping bear…”
As the truth to this “witch hunt” comes out… I think we will see…………
“Well, I never agreed with the judgement……….” (Democrats)
I’ll put $20 down, payable after the ’08 elections……
PinkyBigglesworth on March 7, 2007 at 12:00 AM
If the jury spokesman/attention whore who’s video is in the other Libby thread is any indication, the jurors weren’t at all confused regarding what this trial was about. They simply conducted jury nullification in reverse.
thirteen28 on March 7, 2007 at 12:07 AM
Maybe Edwards can promise a miracle recovery through stem cel research.
Coyote D. on March 7, 2007 at 12:16 AM
Edwards is a wussie, part wimp, part kitty. G-rated just in case.
Chris Mathews, a walking talking lump of fertilize. G-rated again!
Kini on March 7, 2007 at 12:22 AM
He just gave us a lesson on how to show Ann whose (michelles bleeped word here) are bigger
EricPWJohnson on March 7, 2007 at 12:29 AM
Faggot.
x95b10 on March 7, 2007 at 12:41 AM
Obviously, he suffers from CRS. Otherwise he would remember the Peanut Farmer that is not only the worst president we’ve ever had, but also the worst EX president we’ve ever had. And this swishy little nancy boy wants to be president. Hell, France would bitchslap him for being a pussy.
R D on March 7, 2007 at 1:17 AM
If only Novak had immediately revealed Armitage as his source, and not allowed the BDS/MSM BSers try to pin “plamegate” all on the WH, then all this would have been avoided, and Libby would never have had to testify before a grand jury.
If Armitage wouldn’t allow Novak to reveal his name, Bob should identified him as a State Dept flak well-known for his bull neck/head.
Story over.
auzerais on March 7, 2007 at 1:50 AM
Please, please, please help out a Brit, here. There’s things I just can’t understand about this case.
From what I can see, Libby was found guilty of obstruction, one count of making a false statement and two counts of perjury.
1) I can understand obstruction and ONE count of perjury (if they relate to making a false statement). As Libby was found innocent of the second “false statement” charge, I can’t understand him being found guilty of the second count of perjury.
The vital “making a false statement” guilty verdict relates to a phone conversation between Libby & Hassert. Since there were no other witnesses and no recordings, it was just one man’s word against another. Either could have been lying. Either could have been mistaken.
2) With such a huge area of doubt and lack of evidence, how could a jury possibly justify “beyond reasonable doubt”?
Any help gratefully received
uptight on March 7, 2007 at 3:53 AM
Uptight asks: “2) With such a huge area of doubt and lack of evidence, how could a jury possibly justify “beyond reasonable doubt”?”
One would think so.
But given that the jury seems to have been deciding a DIFFERENT case than the one charged to them (if the “former journalist’s” comments are accurate), and given the number of potential trial errors (which defendants attorney pointed out as the trial progressed), there is a reasonable chance that Libby’s convictions will be overturned.
The comments made by the “former journalist” lead me to believe that jury considered facts not entered into evidence during the trial. Specifically, the reference to Karl Rove, who was not on trial here, as a factor concerning the guilt or innocence of Libby or his being sacrificed as a scapegoat. If even one juror truly believed that Libby was a scapegoat, then this should have been a mistrial. If they all believe it, it should have been an acquital.
Or, as thirteen28 put it above, this may have been an instance of jury nullification in reverse. If this is what actually happened, the convictions will be tossed out.
Fitzgerald now has two cases where the behavior of the judge and jury during and after the trial may cause the convictions to be tossed out. The other is in Illinois and the conviction of former Governor of Illinois, George Ryan.
It is possible that reversal of either of these two high profile cases could cause Fitzgerald’s removal as a US Attorney.
georgej on March 7, 2007 at 4:59 AM
I don’t follow. Clinton pardoned anyone (and everyone) who could afford it. I don’t see how pardoning one falsly accused guy is Clintonesque.
Basically, what I get from this whole thing is that this case is an instance of a rabid attack dog of a special prosecutor trying anyone he could get his hands on in an attempt to give meaning to the years he wasted investigating the Plame crap.
Wolfman on March 7, 2007 at 6:29 AM
Matthews looks like he caught a “bad icecube”.
mountainmanbob on March 7, 2007 at 7:49 AM
What’s the big deal? It’s Chris Matthews….he asks EVERY guest whether Cheney should resign. He has an unnatural and borderline psychotic obsession with Cheney–even to the point Woodward flat out asked him why he was so obsessed with Cheney during THEIR interview…
Faith1 on March 7, 2007 at 7:54 AM
The bias, the agenda, the predictions in general and over-the-top statements over the years — it’s amazing that Matthews even has a job. He is one of the best examples of what is wrong with the media in this country today.
tomk59 on March 7, 2007 at 9:05 AM
The Democrats and the media make me want to puke, I can’t even begin to go in to everything that is wrong with both men in this interview.
RightWinged on March 7, 2007 at 9:54 AM
Mathews wants Ann Coulter to resign?
What’d I miss??
seejanemom on March 7, 2007 at 10:53 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUGuy-iTYL8&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fhotair%2Ecom%2Farchives%2F2007%2F03%2F04%2Fvideo%2Dchris%2Dmatthews%2Ddrunk%2Don%2Dhardball%2F
Texyank on March 7, 2007 at 11:10 AM
Doghouse, thank you for looking out for the lady who proudly wears the Skarlet Letter (my ‘K’ loves your ‘Ks’).
Entelechy on March 7, 2007 at 1:27 PM
Matthews should sober up.
JackM on March 7, 2007 at 2:21 PM
Let me get this straight, the loony left thinks that since Karl rove is somehow implicated in the Libby conviction, V.P. Cheney should resign? (They left out Condi and President Bush, but I’m sure they will get around to them soon.)
Nether Rove or Cheney has been indicted or charged in ANY crime, let alone found guilty, so where’s the justification for a demand for him to resign?
RedinBlueCounty on March 7, 2007 at 9:30 PM
reply to georgej
Thanks – I hope the defense team are much more vocal from now on. They need to be banging these points home – loudly and publicly.
uptight on March 8, 2007 at 5:22 AM