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”.

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

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.

World Net Daily has an online petition to President George W Bush to free the Texas Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83767
Please go and sign it.
UPDATE other pardons Hot Air
……

stefanite on December 24, 2008 at 9:06 AM

Just those two, not Libby. Some political operators need to be held accountable.

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.

Merry Christmas to all!

Tom_Shipley on December 24, 2008 at 10:08 AM
Libby’s lie was a big deal because there COULD HAVE BEEN an underlying crime

“It is not whether it is true or false that matters, but the seriousness of the charge”.

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.

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.
peacenprosperity on December 24, 2008 at 2:20 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.

He claimed he told a reporter information several weeks later than he did.

No. He thought russert told him about plame.

The investigation showed that three people leaked or confirmed with the press that Plame worked for the CIA — Armitage, Libby and Rove.

No it didn’t, plain and simple.

It was a small lie about something unrelated to the case at hand

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

That is funny, because there were a number of other BP agents there on scene. Why didn’t they get arrested to?

As previously reported by WND, the memo lists seven Border Patrol agents and two supervisors who were on the scene of the Feb. 17, 2005, shooting incident for which Ramos and Compean are now in federal prison, sentenced to 11 and 12 years respectively.

The second full paragraph of the DHS memorandum filed by agent Sanchez states:

Investigation disclosed that the following BP agents were at the location of the shooting incident, assisted in destroying evidence of the shooting, and/or knew/heard about the shooting: Oscar Juarez; Arturo Vasquez; Jose Mendoza; David Jaquez; Lance Medrano; Lorenzo Yrigoyen; Rene Mendez; Robert Arnold; and Jonathan Richards.