Barone: Pardon Scooter
posted at 9:00 am on December 24, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Michael Barone wants George Bush to issue a full pardon to Scooter Libby, currently appealing his conviction on perjury and obstruction of justice in connection to the Wilson-Plame leak. Barone thinks that Bush should acknowledge that Patrick Fitzgerald’s probe was a political hit job, especially now that Bush risks no damage by doing so, with Congress adjourned and no more legislation coming his way:
Libby was a dedicated and hypercompetent public servant who was brought down by a prosecutor investigating a scandal that wasn’t a scandal. The investigation purportedly was an attempt to discover who had told Robert Novak that Valerie Plame was a CIA “operative” (Novak’s word). But prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald knew before the investigation began that the leaker was Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. It is astonishing that Armitage and his friend and boss Secretary of State Colin Powell didn’t inform Bush of this and allowed two of his top aides, Libby and Karl Rove, to be harassed by Fitzgerald for months and years.
Unfortunately, that’s a bit of a non-sequitur. I agree with Michael on the value of the investigation itself. It got pushed by people wanting to make martyrs out of Wilson and Plame for very obvious reasons, even though Joe Wilson misrepresented his own report and his wife’s involvement in getting him the mission to Niger in the first place. Fitzgerald finished his investigation without ever filing charges on the leak itself, and Armitage suffered no consequences at all.
However, that’s not really the point, either. One cannot lie under oath and lie to federal investigators without risking prosecution, and for good reason, especially when one works in the government. We cannot allow public officials to intentionally mislead investigators, even if they think the investigation isn’t worth conducting. That’s not their call. Otherwise, we open the door for rampant public corruption and make perjury a no-risk strategy.
I’ll put it this way. Let’s say, hypothetically, that Rahm Emanuel lied to investigators over the last couple of weeks about what he knew of Rod Blagojevich’s pay-for-play efforts, and it turns out that Fitzgerald can’t get enough on Blago to prosecute him. Should Emanuel get tried for obstruction of justice and perjury? Or should Fitzgerald let him off the hook, too? If he did get tried and convicted, would it be right for Barack Obama to pardon him?
I’m not necessarily opposed to a pardon for Libby, but I disagree that he has some greater case for clemency than others on the list. Libby got a commutation and won’t have to serve his prison sentence, which should be a sufficient show of mercy. If we don’t hold government officials accountable for their crimes and make a habit of letting well-connected people off the hook, we will deserve what follows.
Tom Maguire agrees with Barone more than I do, and be sure to read his thoughts.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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
Comment pages:
Not before Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean!!!
stefanite on December 24, 2008 at 9:06 AM
Ramos, Campean and Libby. That would chap the liberals butt. Maybe Powell should be asked to comment on Libby. After all he knew in advance Libby wasn’t the leaker. He is running his mouth a lot now that his candidate is body surfing into the W.H.
sheriff246 on December 24, 2008 at 9:16 AM
^^^^^^^^ what he said!!!!^^^^^^^^
grapeknutz on December 24, 2008 at 9:24 AM
I absolutely agree that people cannot be allowed to lie to investigators lest we make perjury and obstruction of justice a “no-risk strategy;” but shouldn’t there at least be probable cause of an underlying crime before a person can be dragged into court or forced to talk to police?
What if Libby had told Fitzgerald, “I don’t think there is a crime here; go away and take your subpoena with you”? He would have been factually correct but still criminally liable anytime any prosecutor wanted to ask him something no matter how invasive or possibly contradicotry to somebody else’s recollection? It seems to me a subpoena and a warrant go hand-in-hand in the 4th amendment category: we obey them despite their intrusiveness only because they have been duly sworn before a judge to be based on probable cause of an underlying crime.
Mr Snuggle Bunny on December 24, 2008 at 9:27 AM
This was a political hit job. Investigate and get testimony until somebody screws up and then prosecute for perjury. All this on top of the fact that no crime was originally committed and the prosecutor knew that! Give me a break Ed, and if Rahm does lie on an investigation of a crime that was committed then you can’t equate the two.
conservnut on December 24, 2008 at 9:30 AM
Tom Maguire agrees with Barone more than I do…
Tom Maguire is much smarter than you.
Chuck145 on December 24, 2008 at 9:41 AM
But a crime WAS committed. Libby lied to the grand jury. It was a small lie about something unrelated to the case at hand (like “I did not have sex”) but it was still perjury.
Bush got him off for jail time and I’m sure has some under the table way of getting him money to pay off the damages. But the stain on his record was all his.
Skywise on December 24, 2008 at 9:42 AM
The investigation was pushed by the CIA because one of its agents was outed by people at the white house. The investigation showed that three people leaked or confirmed with the press that Plame worked for the CIA — Armitage, Libby and Rove.
It also showed that Cheney was the one who instigated using Plame as a target. And that’s been further corroborated by this recent report.
Also, before any of you claim that Plame was not covert, read this.
And the reason no one was convicted of outing her is that the prosecution had to prove that the men who outed her knew she was covert and revealed her name to the press in an attempt to out her. Fitzgerald said in his press conference announcing Libby’s conviction that Libby’s lying hindered him from determining this.
Tom_Shipley on December 24, 2008 at 9:43 AM
What if Libby had told Fitzgerald, “I don’t think there is a crime here; go away and take your subpoena with you”?
He wouldn’t have been charged with perjury and obstruction of justice, for one thing. Libby had that option all along. He chose to lie and commit perjury instead. He might have been fired for not cooperating, but people don’t have to talk to investigators. They can invoke the Fifth Amendment and they have a Constitutional right to remain silent.
Ed Morrissey on December 24, 2008 at 9:47 AM
And don’t forget the preemptive pardons to his entire staff in order to derail the coming investigations and special councils.
Religious_Zealot on December 24, 2008 at 9:47 AM
But aren’t there very serious questions as to whether Libby actually did break the law, his conviction notwithstanding? If I recall the facts, he was convicted of “lying” because he said he didn’t remember a conversation with Tim Russert, and Tim Russert asserted the conversation happened (and may have had reporter’s notes or some other documentary evidence to back his claim). And I also recall jurors after the verdict saying they were so confused by the jury instructions and the facts that they weren’t entirely sure what they were convicting him of, but felt he had done something wrong.
The whole thing smelled like a political hit job. Without knowing any better, my guess is that Fitzgerald thought that by bringing a weak indictment against Libby, that Libby would somehow “roll over” on Cheney or Rove. When that didn’t happen (most probably because neither Cheney nor Rove did anything wrong), he was stuck and plowed forward with the prosecution of Libby. But that’s just a guess.
Either way, I should think a pardon is appropriate. I also think Bush needs to pardon the people involved in GTMO and warrantless wiretapping.
Outlander on December 24, 2008 at 9:48 AM
You’d have a point except that Scooter didn’t lie. Yesterday, the WSJ completely destroyed the entire case against him and he was convicted by a D.C. jury, one of whom said immediately after (paraphrasing) “We wanted to punish the Bush Administration and Libby was the head we got.”
Libby was a political scalp, nothing more.
Rogue on December 24, 2008 at 9:49 AM
Here’s a link to that WSJ article:
http://sec.online.wsj.com/article/SB122999816293629195.html
Rogue on December 24, 2008 at 9:51 AM
Tom_Shipley on December 24, 2008 at 9:43 AM….
..and Crooks and Liars is your source for this “recent report”? Really?
Chuck145 on December 24, 2008 at 9:56 AM
makes you wonder.
wise_man on December 24, 2008 at 9:58 AM
This was a hit job by the dems all the way, fitzgerald is a joke. And with the election of obama and his cronies the true crimes against America and it people will begin.
Alex Martinez on December 24, 2008 at 10:01 AM
The hell with Scooter! Pardon the border guards! Bush is a major disappointment!
sabbott on December 24, 2008 at 10:08 AM
..and Crooks and Liars is your source for this “recent report”? Really?
Well sure. I don’t take it as gospel, but if there is an FBI report on this, it’ll come out. But, the reason why I cited it because it is recent and because it corroborates what is already known. See this Byron York article. York questions why the note by Cheney was relevant when Libby testified he didn’t see it until the FBI told him of it. But Libby was convicted for lying about the fact that he learned about Plame from Russert, not Cheney. So keep that in mind.
Libby’s lie was a big deal because there COULD HAVE BEEN an underlying crime. If it had been shown that Cheney, Libby, Armitage or Rove knew Plame was a CIA agent, one or all of them could have been convicted of outing Plame. The defense of Libby is that there was no underlying crime… that may be the case, but not necessarily and his lack of cooperation hindered fitzgerald’s ability to determine that.
Tom_Shipley on December 24, 2008 at 10:08 AM
I don’t think Bush should pardon Libby especially since Fitzgerald has indicted Blago. No one should taint Fitz’s credibility at THIS time. Libby won’t have to go to prison so perhaps the NEXT GOP POTUS can pardon him.
Surely to GOD, GWB will pardon Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean!!! I expect that to happen on the last day of his presidency.
Oink on December 24, 2008 at 10:23 AM
I don’t know if Libby made up parts of his testimony or not but the odds given the context are only in the 50-50 range based on my reasons explained here and here at Maguire’s.
If there had been a real crime and pretty Val undercover in Damascus was taken out by the KGB with Libby as the only source, then a properly conducted investigation on what Libby really remembered might be understandable, but here there was no crime, Val was not undercover, Fitz knew who the leaker was etc etc etc, and a travesty transpired.
boris on December 24, 2008 at 10:28 AM
But what he lied about wasn’t even related to the crime. He claimed he told a reporter information several weeks later than he did. Information he already claimed he knew before hand. He wasn’t even accused of a cover-up, just perjury!
It wasn’t like Martha Stewart where she claimed she didn’t have prior knowledge of her insider trading.
Or Bill Clinton denying he had an affair with Monica Lewinsky.
Skywise on December 24, 2008 at 10:34 AM
He claimed he first heard about Plame from a reporter, not Cheney. That’s what he lied about.
Tom_Shipley on December 24, 2008 at 10:37 AM
Plame was not covert and in any event it was, as Fitgerald knew, Armitrage that outed her. When the prosecutor is, as here, not engaged in the investigation of an actual crime but rather a political investgation, the citizen who lies to him has not committed a crime and in fact his conduct is less egregious than the prosecutor’s.
See above. Further Libby was performing a public service above and beyond for the communications-challenged Bush presidency. In the performance of that duty, he did not have the option, which every other citizen has, of pleading the 5th and telling the prosecutor to buzz off.
Hilarious. As if Fitzgerald is going to call Emanuel in for questioning again and again and again until Emanuel slips up. And as if Emanuel won’t have access to the tapes of his conversation(s) with Blago as he tries to recall what was said.
More humour from Ed. Nice MSM audition. As if the prosecutor who initiated a premature prosecution to protect a putative president is interested in becoming the most loathed man in America- and our universe.
Basilsbest on December 24, 2008 at 10:37 AM
What credibility? Any credibility he may have once had he tainted all by himself without help from others.
Wade on December 24, 2008 at 10:40 AM
Ditto!
Disturb the Universe on December 24, 2008 at 10:40 AM
No pardons for Compean and Ramos
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081223/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_pardons
Sign the petition
http://www.grassfire.org/142/petition.asp
Dr Evil on December 24, 2008 at 10:46 AM
A big A-MEN! from here!
MrScribbler on December 24, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Ed–
You are missing a really important point here: Libby’s story would not have been a “lie” if Tim Russert had remembered his conversations differently. Tim Russert could have easily gotten his story wrong in the same way the Libby could have gotten the story wrong. To put it another way, Tim Russert could have been prosecuted for perjury if the government believed Libby and found Russert’s inconsistency as the lie. When you have two stories, one of them might be wrong. But it is beyond me how a jury in this case could have found that Libby was the lier beyond a reasonable doubt.
Now, if Libby were on a wiretap (like Emmanuel) and his story was different from his own words, that would be a different story. But that is not what we have here.
RedSoxNation on December 24, 2008 at 11:04 AM
He claimed he first heard about Plame from a reporter, not Cheney. That’s what he lied about.
Factually wrong.
Libby in his first interview provided his notes which recorded that detail in a meeting with Cheney.
Your credibility on this subject … shot.
boris on December 24, 2008 at 11:06 AM
I don,t know if Bush will pardon Scooter or not he should.He should also pardon Ramos and Compean also and give them back there jobs and a medal but he won,t because it would make his good friend Johnny Suttion the U.S.att. look bad and we can,t have that.If Bush does not pardon these 2 men then he is the jerk that the libs have said he was all these years.Mr. Presdent do the right thing by these two american heros.
thmcbb on December 24, 2008 at 11:24 AM
Ramos and Compean were prosecuted because their subsequent behavior showed that they didn’t think their shooting was justified.
If Ramos and Compean were the model Border Patrol agents their supporters make them out to be, there is no reason for them to have covered up this shooting. They picked up their casings and didn’t tell supervisors about the shooting.
wise_man on December 24, 2008 at 11:35 AM
RAMOS and CAMPEON first
ndulik on December 24, 2008 at 11:36 AM
Always a relief.. :)
DaveC on December 24, 2008 at 11:37 AM
He still lied. I’ve had enough elitist back scratching from GWB.
lodge on December 24, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Actually, why wasn’t Joseph Wilson ever prosecuted for leaking information he had nominally gathered working for the CIA? Yes, he gave *false* information to the public, and yes his wife’s boss made sure he didn’t have to sign an NDA – but this is arguably treason.
18-1 on December 24, 2008 at 11:47 AM
Right and the evidence was that he had received it in an email from Cheney one month earlier. Yippee skip, hang him for treason.
It was no secret that everybody in town knew that Wilson’s wife worked in the CIA. What was not known was that Wilson’s wife ORDERED Wilson onto the trip. So Libby might have been answering truthfully or he might not have.
Which still begs the question, why was Wilson not charged for discussing the top secret report?
Skywise on December 24, 2008 at 11:56 AM
Actually, IIRC, we know Plame suggested Wilson, though AFAIK, it is generally assumed Plame’s boss actually approved the mission. Doesn’t the CIA have regulations on nepotism – let alone agents of foreign governments as Wilson was…
18-1 on December 24, 2008 at 11:58 AM
Libby should be pardoned if for no other reason than to make the libs mad. Ramos and Compeon should have been pardoned before they went to jail and should be pardoned before President Bush leaves office. I kind of doubt that, though, because he seems to take Mexico’s word for anything.
This is not a bash-Bush comment because I miss him already. The nation will soon miss the steady hand on the ship of state. He’s made his share of mistakes, but always because he thought it was in the best interests of the country.
Pardon Libby, Ramos and Compeon. Do it today so they can be with their families for Chrismas.
Jeanette on December 24, 2008 at 12:19 PM
He lied when he did not tell the FBI or the grand jury investigating the Valerie Plame leak that he spoke to New York Times reporter Judith Miller about Plame in June 2003, before Plame’s husband, Joseph Wilson, published an Op-Ed criticizing the White House’s WMD rhetoric.
RMCS_USN on December 24, 2008 at 12:23 PM
I have written and posted a form letter that can be emailed to President Bush and even to Vice President Cheney to compel them to pardon Ramos and Compean. I have supplied the email addresses as well. Cut and paste the letter, sign it, and send it.
http://fundamentalfred.blogspot.com/2008/12/ramos-and-compean.html
Fundamental Fred on December 24, 2008 at 12:35 PM
Free Scooter Libby, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean!!!
DL13 on December 24, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Libby FIRST claimed to first hear about Plame from Tim Russert.
See here. He DID back pedal and say he had “forgotten” about conversations he had with the VP. But other testimony from White House officials show that he discussed Plame with others aside from Cheney and it was not feasible that he did not know who she was when he talked to Russert.
Then there’s also Russert’s testimony that he didn’t know Plame identity when he spoke with Libby. So, yes, he did lie about first hearing about Plame from Cheney. He lied all over the place and was convicted for it.
A little hint, it’s good to know what you’re talking about prior to accusing people of not having credibility.
Tom_Shipley on December 24, 2008 at 1:04 PM
Did he really lie or was it an issue over details? I thought he mistestified over details from a year or two when a paper trail said something slightly different.
Tim Burton on December 24, 2008 at 1:05 PM
DL13 on December 24, 2008 at 12:40 PM
what he said, but instead of “free”…PARDON
bridgetown on December 24, 2008 at 1:06 PM
That is funny, because there were a number of other BP agents there on scene. Why didn’t they get arrested to?
Tim Burton on December 24, 2008 at 1:10 PM
I say issue pardons to everyone who would cause the Dems the biggest hissie fits. Bush needs a few middle finger moments, God knows he’s earned it these last 8 years.
PC14 on December 24, 2008 at 1:14 PM
Did he really lie or was it an issue over details? I thought he mistestified over details from a year or two when a paper trail said something slightly different.
He initially said that he first heard about Plame from Tim Russert. When it was shown that Cheney wrote a note asking about “wilson’s wife” in connection with op-ed, Libby packpeddled and said he may have had conversations with Cheney about her, but that by the time he spoke to Russert, he had forgotten about them, so he thought he first heard about Plame from Russert.
But then Ari Shapiro also testified that he spoke to Libby about Plame (as well as one or two others in the white house, i believe) making it very unlikely that Libby didn’t know about plame when he spoke to Russert.
The nail in the coffin was that Russert testified that he did not know who plame was when he spoke to Libby, so he could not have told him about her.
Tom_Shipley on December 24, 2008 at 1:15 PM
Again, yippe skip. He was interviewed 3 years after the fact.
Like I said, this isn’t saying you didn’t sell stock on the advice of a company owner (Martha Stewart) or “forgot” you had sex with an intern (Bill Clinton).
This is trying to remember whom you first heard of information from.
But then I see that you have no arguments and have to resort to personal attacks.
Skywise on December 24, 2008 at 1:50 PM
Copy and paste this letter in an email to the President:
President Bush: comments@whitehouse.gov
President George W. Bush
1600 Pennsylvania AvenueNW
Washington, DC 20500
Re: Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean
Dear Mr. President,
I am writing on behalf of millions of Americans, like myself, who support executive pardons for two brave defenders of our borders, Agent Ignacio Ramos and Agent Alonso Compean. It is my opinion that, in a post- 9/11 world, these men were performing, with due diligence, at the best of their abilities to discharge their duties to defend the sovereignty of the United States of America. For such acts of bravery, it is tragic that these men are being made political martyrs for the cause of international governmental appeasement. It is troublesome that illegal aliens, who are- by definition- criminals, being caught in the act of committing another crime, are afforded civil rights while the defenders of our borders are not.
Since the horrible attacks of September 11, 2001, and with the initiation of military action in Iraq, you have rightly embraced a doctrine of preemption to protect the United States, its citizens, and our interests. Yet, Agents Ramos and Compean were afforded no such discretion to defend our borders or to protect themselves. It is unconscionable that these men would be imprisoned for doing their jobs in a dangerous place where a fraction of a second of indecision makes the difference between life, severe injury, or death.
President Bush, you have just a precious few days remaining to do the right thing regarding Agents Ramos and Compean. Please, do the right thing. Please, pardon these men.
Sincerely,
Cc: Vice President Dick Cheney
Fundamental Fred on December 24, 2008 at 2:02 PM
He lied when he did not tell the FBI or the grand jury investigating the Valerie Plame leak that he spoke to New York Times reporter Judith Miller about Plame in June 2003
A conversation which J Miller forgot about until she refreshed her memory after finding her lost notes. Notes which were ambiguous to say the least since there were earlier references to “Valerie Flame” and Joe Wilson’s phone number. Hardly beyond reasonable doubt. On the stand she admitted it was possible she was fishing for info on Val from Libby.
it’s good to know what you’re talking about …
As if you would know.
The notes from the meeting were discussed with investigators (Eckenrode) long long before the grand jury testimony YOU claim proves your point, which was still wrong by the way.
boris on December 24, 2008 at 2:02 PM
After throwing Michelle Bachman under the bus and now this, if anyone thinks ed is doing anything more then playing a conservative on tv and collecting a paycheck I’ve got some great tropical beachfront property in the artic to sell you.
Can Michelle get us a conservative moderator for Christmas?
peacenprosperity on December 24, 2008 at 2:15 PM
By fitzgerald’s own account Libby cooperated 100%. He thought russert first told him about plame and someone else said claimed it was them. Libby was convicted of having a bad memory. His “crime” was incidental to the investigation process and had nothing to do with what was being investigated. If armitage did not commit a crime, how could Libby be guilty of lying about it?
peacenprosperity on December 24, 2008 at 2:20 PM
No it didn’t, plain and simple.
peacenprosperity on December 24, 2008 at 2:21 PM
No. He thought russert told him about plame.
peacenprosperity on December 24, 2008 at 2:22 PM
That fundamental problem you identify is why perjury prosecutions are so rarely brought. It’s very tough to convict based on lapsed memory claims. The Bill Clinton lie (”I did not have sexual relations”) was generally considered perjurious because nobody could be expected to have “forgotten” getting repeated sexual favors from an intern. But remembing a detail from a conversation with Tim Russert when you are as busy as the VP’s chief of staff? More believable.
…unless you are a Democrat (i.e. a D.C. juror) and want to string the Bush administration up any way you can.
This was a very aggressive prosecution on Fitzgerald’s part. Since Fitzgerald has a good reputation, I’m willing to give him a pass on the charge of his prosecution being entirely a politically motivated gotcha game. More likely, Fitzgerald thought that Cheney or Rove WERE involved in illegal activities, and Fitzgerald thought that Libby would have rolled over on one or the two of them, so he used the indictment for pressure. When that didn’t pan out, he had no choice but to press forward.
Outlander on December 24, 2008 at 2:29 PM
Well, since Libby was convicted for NOT leaking something he thought he did, I think a pardon would be in order. Basically he was convicted of perjury for saying he told Russert that Plame was Wilson’s wife when he apparently never did.
So it seems very ironic to me that the Democrats were so desperate for a conviction for some organized White House campaign to “out” Plame but instead had to settle for a conviction for not “outing” Plame of someone who thought he might have in a conversation with Tim Russert.
Pardon him.
crosspatch on December 24, 2008 at 3:05 PM
The way to make a Libby pardon go down more smoothly is to simultaneously pardon Sandy Berger.
SocklessJoe on December 24, 2008 at 6:17 PM
“It is not whether it is true or false that matters, but the seriousness of the charge”.
Johan Klaus on December 24, 2008 at 10:35 PM
peacenprosperity — you are right but this is a period of bipartisean slip. Misspelling intended.
Merry Christmas to all!
IlikedAUH2O on December 24, 2008 at 11:46 PM
So, basically, like I said all along, Libby was convicted of disagreeing with Russert.
Tim Russert is consider by the court to be Infallible, and anyone who disagrees with him is a perjurer.
Does anyone have the complete list of Infallible Witnesses, so I can know who to agree with in court to avoid conviction?
Our legal system is a complete shambles.
Merovign on December 25, 2008 at 12:07 AM
No pardon .. ! Libby was instrumental in Marc Rich getting his pardon and dumping on Fitz’s investigation. Payback for Fitz.
HadaAbeche on December 25, 2008 at 12:13 AM
YES BUSH!! Pardon Scooter! He took a fall only because Fritz could not get you or Rove. He lost his career and much of his wealth simply because you were innocent! Be a MAN!
allrsn on December 25, 2008 at 1:57 AM
Indite Fritz! He is the criminal, he told the outer to shut up, he misused power, he investagated a nonexistant crime!
allrsn on December 25, 2008 at 1:58 AM
Just those two, not Libby. Some political operators need to be held accountable.
sethstorm on December 25, 2008 at 2:44 AM
RedSoxNation gets it right:
It really came down to a “he said, he said” in circumstances in which Russert only became Mr. “Simple fact” when he was speaking to the jury. It wasn’t so simple when he was first spoken to about it by investigators, but Mr. Simple fact was who jury heard, and who convicted Scooter for the “inconsistency” between his testimony and Russert’s.
It was definitely a politically motivated prosecution, the likes of which the left would still be screaming bloody murder if it had occurred earlier in our history.
Trochilus on December 25, 2008 at 2:58 PM
As a person who recently both gave a deposition and testified at an arbitration hearing over a dispute between my company and another company, I know how easy it is for your memory to lead you astray. In my case, I was trying to recall details about what happened about 18 months before. Even though I had reviewed all 150 emails or so I had relating to the matter, and had searched my memory as best I could, I still had several instances in the arbitration hearing where I realized I was wrong on a important detail in the deposition, as testimony from other witnesses and other emails they had jogged my memory.
I have a pretty good memory, so I was actually surprised that I had actually “misremembered” several details. In preparing for the deposition and arbitration hearing, and trying to reconstruct from memory as much as I could, I actually had reconstructed incorrect details. It is so easy to do.
I kept thinking about the Libby case and how easy it would have been for him to honestly “misremember” the detail (assuming that Russert was right) that Fitzgerald nailed him on (with the help of a DC Jury). In his case, he was first interviewed by FBI agents in November about details from June & July. That is a 4-5 month lag. How many people aren’t going to get details wrong about stuff that happened over 4 months ago? I think he was in front of the grand jury the next February or so, another 3 months later.
I just don’t see how it is fair to convict a guy on a he said – he said on the details of where/when/how he first learned about Plame when he is trying to remember stuff that happened 4-5 months prior to his interview/testimony, especially when the jury seems politically motivated.
I’m know this is outside the norm of the legal system, but in a case like this, shouldn’t the jury have been composed of half/half of those who voted for and against Bush? That would have removed politics as much as possible from the verdict and gave the verdict much more legitimacy if it was “bipartisan”.
willamettevalley on December 26, 2008 at 8:09 AM
Fundamental Fred…nice try but El Presidente’ Bush shall do nothing to soil his legacy with the Mexican Government. Now if these two were only drug dealers they would be out by now!!!
sabbott on December 26, 2008 at 9:45 AM
Comment pages: