Powered by TypePad

« Justice For Libby | Main | Byron York On Libby - What's The Rush? »

June 07, 2007



Libby says the fooling are substantice issues he plans to raise on appeal:
The Appointment question
The Refusal to allow him to call a Memory Expert
The Substitution Issue Under CIPA
The Exclusion of the Govt's Admission of relevant facts and of the CIA briefers' restimony following Libby's decision not to testify
The Refusal to allow Libby to Call Andrea Mitchell to testify


"fooling" should be Following


I am just so glad that Andrea Mitchell, David Gregory and Tim Russert get personal mention in this appeal.


Me, too, Jane. I saw Tim on his dad last night on tv and wanted to thru a shoe at the set. I made a point on Danish tv to highlight Russert's skullduggery which the media has papered over.(The original lost statement to the FBI; Gregory's silence and the false affidavit.)


I'll go with Hugh Hewitt:

"If Judge Walton does not allow Libby to remain free pending the appeal, I expect President Bush to pardon him. It would be best for the justice system, though, that Libby be exonerated by the D.C. Circuit, but he should not serve a single day in jail or pay a dollar of the fine."


What in heck are you doing on Danish TV.


"fooling" should be Following

Posted by: clarice | June 07, 2007 at 03:36 PM

What should "substantice" be? Oh, wait, I get it: "substantive"! :-) I'm getting good at this, just wish I was better at that verification game.


So Clarice, on Point 1, Fitz's appointment, are we going to see your letter as part of the exhibits? I like this one best, but the Andrea one is great too. I'm talking about self-thrills, not necessarily the legal merits or lack thereof.


No Pardon for Libby

"No matter how much his advocates argue otherwise, he committed a crime and should pay the price."

"Advocates of a pardon can't deny that a jury found Libby guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So they are suggesting that his perjury is no big deal because Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald never charged anyone with disclosing the status of CIA employee Valerie Plame. At Tuesday's debate, Giuliani complained that "ultimately, there was no underlying crime involved." But as a lawyer he, like Libby, knows that the law is entitled to every man's evidence. Libby's lies prevented that."

"Libby's apologists also are recycling an argument from the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s, when the special prosecutor who pursued Oliver L. North was accused by defenders of the Reagan administration of "criminalizing policy differences" over Nicaragua. But Libby faces prison not because he was an architect and promoter of the war in Iraq. As a high government official, he lied to agents of that government; he did so to foil a prosecution. As he well knew, that was a crime, and one for which he deserves to go to prison."


This has been the day from hell, Jane --Just as Soylent''s brownies went into the over, I got a call workmen were coming over and they keep needing to be let in , etc.I started researching the commutation issue and then MMBA called and said Danish TV needed one of us to go on--since I was unwilling to rush to the WH for this stupidity, they interviewed me by phone and I was so outraged at the crap I was hearing, I lost my temper for 30 minutes.
"substantice" is what I meant of course.Oh, and my computer was acting up as well.

I think the defense is on solid grounds on the appointment issue unless the Ct of Appeals buys the supervision by esp argument.


Remind me -- the issue being litigated here is whether Libby has any one ground for appeal which merits serious consideration, right? So the list here is intended and understood by all parties as simply a partial list of possibilities, right? In the actual appeal, Team Libby can bring in as many arguments as they want, and everyone understands that this filing is more like a movie trailer (or 5 movie trailers) -- enough to show that they will have a substantive argument in each case, but not the actual arguments.


It's a race with the LAT--will it go out of business before the Libby case is resolved? I hope so.


anduril: 'What should "substantice" be? Oh, wait, I get it: "substantive"! :-)'

clarice: '"substantice" is what I meant of course.'

clarice, do you ever wonder if your computer hates you? LOL (Or if nothing else, has an extremely puckish sense of humor...)


Justice for Mr. Libby

"Mr. Libby's apologists are trying to make him out to be a victim of overzealous prosecution.

"Their desperate arguments go something like this: How could Mr. Libby really have obstructed justice, as Judge Walton said he almost certainly did, when no one was ever even indicted for the crime of outing Ms. Plame?

"The reality, though, is that the crimes for which Mr. Libby was convicted -- false statements, perjury and, yes, obstruction of justice -- impeded special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation of the leak that exposed Ms. Plame. . . .

"The leniency Mr. Libby's loyalists seek for him would undermine confidence in the judicial system. Respect for the law must come before empathy for the man and his painful fall from grace. Mr. Libby has to serve his time."


Just anopther damned interruption as I was posting..URGH


Scooting to jail

"The spin that Lewis "Scooter" Libby got a raw deal with prison time and a hefty fine for lying to investigators probing the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame is ludicrous. Truth is the raw material of justice. Without it there's no way to reliably convict the guilty or exonerate the innocent. Lying to authorities is serious business, something that Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, had to know. He did it anyway, so now he's a convicted felon, the same as those who never wore white collars or reported to work at the White House."


Pardon for Libby would send the wrong message

"A pardon would also say that people who work for the White House are above the law if they think they're doing the president's bidding, because the president could always let them off the hook."

"Some of those calling for a pardon are being hypocritical. The same people who believed it was right to impeach President Clinton over lies about sex now say it was wrong to prosecute a White House official for lies about irresponsibly leaking a CIA officer's name in a political fight."

"Presidential pardons are powerful tools that should be used with great caution. Bush has been stingy — his aides say careful — about granting them. He has awarded 113 in six years, compared with 396 by Clinton during eight years and 393 by Ronald Reagan."

"Libby would be an unusual beneficiary of a pardon. Bush hasn't pardoned anyone who hadn't completed his sentence. Libby hasn't even started his. Nor has he shown remorse for his actions."

"The White House says Bush won't intervene in the Libby case — for now. The pressure will grow if, as appears likely, the former aide isn't allowed to stay free pending appeals. But when Libby should be jailed and for how long are matters properly decided by judges interpreting the law, not by a president rewarding political loyalty. The best time for Bush to pardon Libby is never."


Looks like the puppets got their marching orders today.

Scooter still feeling no remorse for not remembering what the FBI said Tim Russert never told them in their lost notes?


Who would have thought that the majority of MSM editorial boards would write against pardoning Libby?

Rick Ballard

Beldar and a commenter at Patterico take a spin on the bail issue. WLS (the commenter) makes a cogent argument as to why Walton is going to deny bail. Of course, the fact that it is cogent, may, in Walton's case, be reason for confidence that he will grant bail. Just one of the many mysterys of the truly mediocre.

The idea concerning commutation sounds better and better but my concerns about the appeal process offering any hope that 'justice' will show up anywhere in the legal process appear well founded.


No Libby Pardon

"Bush is in no position to be granting a pardon for a simple reason: The White House has a big conflict of interest in this case... A pardon will assure Libby’s eternal loyalty on behalf of those who let him twist in the legal wind. A pardon would close a chapter on unseemly official behavior that remains woefully incomplete. It must not happen."

I think the defense is on solid grounds on the appointment issue unless the Ct of Appeals buys the supervision by esp argument.

What does "by esp" stand for, Clarice?

Didn't DoJ set up a special board to review and provide oversight of the SPs? Or that was the old IC? Comey actually did set a new precidence by spawning off a SP on his or her own without much oversight. Whatever Walton saw that Fitzgerald is indeed reviewed by somebody or something is not enough.


estra sensory perception--the record is clear that he was appointed outside the statute and NO ONE supervised his work. He could not point to a single communication between himself and anyone in the DoJ hierarchy from the time he was appointed and said that he and Comey had an unspoken understanding of hoe he was to work.


An AP headline writer with a sense of humor:
Judge freezes congressman’s assets


Speaking of Comey.......he gets intertwined deeper and deeper into the "get Cheney meme".

Now he's blabbing about Cheney voicing concerns over the NSA, blah blah blah

There is an awful lot of anti-Cheney sentiment in the lefty blogs and MSM since Libby's sentence. Someone has issued talking points to ramp up the anti - Cheney rhetoric. Lots of lefties crying No Pardon. A Libby pardon seemingly exhonerates the Evil Cheney.

I sense a disturbance in the force.....

JM Hanes


Actually, Comey didn't just set a new precedent, he explicitly suspended the DoJ's own regulations governing the appointment and supervision of Special Counsel. Fitzgerald's installation & subsequent mandate violated both the spirit & the letter of those regulations in almost every way -- starting with the specific requirement that the office Special Council should be filled by someone from outside the DoJ.


lurker, I disucssed the appointments issue here
http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/03/the_potemkin_prosecution_part_1.html> Make Believe


Will Libby have a new set of lawyers to handle the appeal? I sure hope so. His defense team has seemed to me woefully over lawyered by the prosecution. They don't get it at all. And I cannot see them arguing the illegality or impropriety of Fitz's appointment with any level of competence.

I am reminded of my remarks after the end of the OJ trial and the announcement of Marcia Clark's $5 million advance book deal. At that time, my opinion was that I, a lay person, would have willingly lost the case for a million or less.


Over at The Corner McCarthy raised his head finally. Allows as how Scooter got a raw deal, but he shouldn't have lied. Bad memories are what trials are all about, so (my best guess at what he means) I suppose juries are there just to make the best guess at who's most believable. Remarkable. But then he ends up by comparing Libby and Clinton:

Finally, I dread the next time — and you know there will be a next time — when a high-ranking liberal Democrat lies to investigators and obstructs justice. When the outraged grumbling starts around here, like it (rightly) did with Clinton's lying and obstruction, the media is going to have an awful lot of material to quote from, and they are going to say, with considerable force, that it's not lying that matters to us but who is doing the lying. The invective is doing us no favors, just as it is doing Libby no favors.

Mark Levin responds:

Bad Fitz [Mark R. Levin]

I must respond to my friend Andy. The argument that lying before a grand jury is a prosecutable crime is not unknown to anyone here. It's the circumstances of this case, and specifically Patrick Fitzgerald's behavior, that causes many of us concern — as did Lawrence Walsh's conduct. I am very comfortable with my position and NRO’s. When a prosecutor acts as Fitzgerald has, both in bringing this case and in the sentencing phase, he should be condemned. There are many terrific prosecutors out there who would never have acted as he has. As for comparisons to Bill Clinton, which have been made to justify the prosecution of Libby, let’s take a more lawyerly look [ouch, Andy]: Clinton had his attorney unwittingly prepare a knowingly false affidavit, which was introduced during the course of his sworn deposition. Clinton had his subordinates repeat his knowingly false statements during both a grand jury investigation and civil litigation. Clinton’s repeated lies before a grand jury and during his deposition were not only material and relevant to underlying crimes, but the conduct went to the core of the investigation and civil suit. It’s absurd to make comparisons between Clinton and Libby.

So, I am more than happy to take up Andy’s challenge, or anybody else’s for that matter. And I am certain that those here who have expressed legitimate outrage in the Libby case do so not because he is a Republican, but because it is, in fact, an outrage. I denounce what Fitzgerald has done because I believe in the system of justice.


I still think this whole mess was orchestrated by the democratic party with Shumer as the conductor. I think Walton got his orders from Shumer all through the trial. I think Fitzgerald also got his orders from Shumer but was willing because of the Marc Rich case. I think Comey got his orders from Shumber to appoint a SP the way he did. I also think Walton is still getting his orders from Shumber. There is no other reason for his ignoring the Probation Office recommendation. I pity this country with this idiot on the FISA board and I wonder at Roberts for appointing him. I think one of the reasons that this whole thing was done to get Bush to pardon Libby so that the media could go wild with Bush's favoritism and broken promises.

Make no mistake, the democratic party is running this country. They openly state that any member who deviates from their platform risks no funds for re-election and the chance they will back a strong cadidate against them. That is the fear of the republicans also and that is why they fail to buck the democrats. Every day the democrats show their agenda and it is quietly ignored by both the media and the public. They are suborning the rule of law and justice and they don't care as long as they get what they want. After all, the ends justifies the means does it not.


And the statute that Comey hung his hat on--what a joke! It was just boilerplate statute that allows the AG to delegate some of his functions to underlings, not to create an unsupervised clone of DOJ and a cloned AG!


Mark Steyn goes off on Wilson - giggly little school girl gossip with National Command Authority in his own mind.


"An AP headline writer with a sense of humor"

NYT has one too. Hot Damn!

Where Coconut Road meets the Bridge to Nowhere. Thanks Rep Turner and Sen Stevens.



Interesting that they included that juror's WaPo piece and pointed out that, during their deliberations, they had specifically wanted to hear from a memory expert. That ought to be deeply embarrassing to Walton, but it probably won't register.


History has provided, in due time, a bromide
for Gerry Ford. His pardon of Nixon was initially viewed with skepticism. Currently it was viewed as a necessary healing for the country after the debacle in SEA.

The conflict layered upon conflicts of interest re; the pardon of Libby will make
comparisons seem like those made between
a 'lightning bug' and lightning itself.

But the Plausible Denialists have no shame as long as their agenda is proffered as the only reasonable one. Good luck and good night to you all.

Rick Ballard

"That ought to be deeply embarrassing to Walton, but it probably won't register."

Isn't that totally dependent upon the person explaining the meaning to him? After all, he was perfectly clear about his need to "consult" prior to allowing his clerk to type up his (the clerk's) orders for judicial signature (review would be asking a bit much). It really might register if today's "consultant" spoke slowly and clearly, using very short words.

The problem comes in Walton's method of addressing justifiable embarassment. That's the really expensive part.


Good - Finally - don't let the door hit ya on the way out. Glenn calling ya back to the mothership? Sounds reasonable enough.


Oh brother - the New Scandal Arrives.

Fox News Apologized For Mistaking Conyers For Jefferson.

Seriously - Josh Marshall is all over it. Must be huge.

Rick Ballard

Geeez, what an error. Conyers hasn't been indicted yet.


here's more on post in the previous thread (hard to keep up with the back to back)

A former Arlington County youth sports coach who once headed the Virginia ACLU pleaded guilty yesterday to charges that he purchased child pornography so graphic that prosecutors called it "sadistic."

Charles Rust-Tierney, 51, admitted that he accessed more than 850 pornographic images of children as young as 4, including a six-minute video depicting the sexual torture of children set to a song by the band Nine Inch Nails. Authorities said Rust-Tierney used a computer in his 10-year-old son's bedroom to view the files, some of which were contained on CDs bearing an American flag logo...

.."So these were actual children under the age of 12 engaged in sexual activity?" Judge T.S. Ellis asked.

"I'm agreeing to that, yes, your honor," Rust-Tierney said.

"Well, is it true or not?" Ellis asked.

"Yes, it is," Rust-Tierney replied.

Rust-Tierney, a public defender in the District and a past president of the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, faces up to 20 years in prison when he is sentenced Sept. 7. His attorneys and prosecutors agreed to recommend a sentence of 8 to 10 years....

...Prosecutors said yesterday that they had identified at least 30 child pornography victims shown in the images and videos Rust-Tierney downloaded and that the images were created in places ranging from England and Texas to Scranton, Pa. ...

...The case has attracted national attention, with some critics and bloggers accusing the media of initially downplaying the story because of Rust-Tierney's ACLU connection. He was president of the board of directors of the ACLU's Virginia affiliate from 1993 to 2005 and resigned from the ACLU's board the day he was arrested in February...



--The case has attracted national attention, with some critics and bloggers accusing the media of initially downplaying the story because of Rust-Tierney's ACLU connection.--

Gee, I wonder why they would say such a thing?


Mark Steyn, author of the NYT bestselling America Alone, will be appearing on FOX News'“Hannity & Colmes” TONIGHT at 9:00 pm EST


"Looks like the puppets got their marching orders today".

Shouldn't tat be Muppets?


Jefferson's alleged crimes are worse than all the alleged GOP crimes combined. Do the math leftards - if he is convicted check out how much time he might do. Compare/Contrast.

Democrat's For No Corruption.


Other Tom

With a great deal of due respect for Cathyf, I disagree with her analysis in one important respect: I very seriously doubt that Walton is concerend at all about what the D.C. Circuit might do, and I also doubt that the D.C. Circuit judges will atttempt to read any signals, or be influenced by any signals they do detect, concerning whether Bush is likely to pardon Libby or not. Every federal judge I have ever known becomes entirely indifferent, very early on, to possible reversals by the appeals courts. Ditto the appeals judges (perhaps because I practiced in the Ninth Circuit).

My recommendation for Bush would be to do nothing until the free-pending-appeal issue is resolved by Walton and, if necessary, by the Circuit. If, and only if, Libby's chance of avoiding prison is ultimately exhausted, he should there and then commute the sentence to exactly what Sandy Berger got. Not only would that outcome be eminently just, it would be absolutely bullet-proof. Let Chuck Schumer or Hillary Clinton or anyone else explain why what Libby did was more harmful to the country than what Berger did. (I suspect Hillary would like that discussion to go away very quickly.)

If the conviction is reversed on appeal while Bush is still in office, end of problem. If, in his final days in the White House, the matter is still on appeal, pardon the man. If the fugitive Marc
Rich can be pardoned, anyone can be pardoned. And Bush's wife is not goint to be running for office down the road.


"Shouldn't tat be Muppets?"

Naw - I would never denigrate the Muppets in such a manner.


The offence that Charles Rust-Tierney is accused of has far more serious ramifications than simply downloading vile images. poor little Madelaine was abducted by a paedophile ring involved in this unspeakably vile trade.
Now this is one which need the book throwing at him,these aren't just images,they are pictures of real little children,alone,innocent and defenceless in the hands of monsters.

Other Tom

Because this article by Susan Estrich is so thoughtful and so soundly reasoned, I'm going to post a cite to it here, even though I did so on an earlier thread:


Perhaps some kind soul will be good enough to convert that form of citation into one of those click-on-it thingies all the computer-savvy folks are able to do in their sleep.

Ms. Estrich was the first female editor-in-chief of the Harvard Law Review, and is a liberal Democrat who managed Michael Dukakis's presidential campaign. I invite, but would be quite astonished to receive, principled commentary from the various trolls. (With the crop we seem to attract here, that is something I just can't imagine.)


Susan Estrich


"Now this is one which need the book throwing at him,these aren't just images,they are pictures of real little children,alone,innocent and defenceless in the hands of monsters."

Remember when the Lefties said Mark Foley was a child molesting pedophile?

But mum's the word on the monsters in the room.

Clearly the lefties minds are broken beyond salvagability.


"There is something troubling about prosecutors using perjury and obstruction of justice to turn into criminals people who haven't committed any other crime."

Wow! Susan Estrich knows what Fitzgerald did. He produced a criminal where there was none to be found. Alarming indeed.


PUK - it's just sick and this dude is part of a group who would like to treat terrorist better than taxpaying citizens and soldiers. Sick.

Breaks my heart about Madelaine.



One of the juror's got a mention, Denis Collins and his article in the WaPo (re: the memory expert)

I went through the filing pretty quickly, and one think that still bugs me. During the trial, Mr. Russert said he read the NYT Wilson editorial on the advance wire and they during his conversation with Libby "he did not name her [Plame-Wilson]".

On July 6 2003 Mr. Wilson was a guest on MTP. I'm sure that exploring how the show was put together, what sources and confirmation did Mitchell use to prepare would blow up the extra-special incantaions that NBC is using to throw sand in everyone's eyes.

The defense is limiting it to Mitchell's Oct 2003 "Capitol Report" appearence, but I think it would be much more interesting to also include the July 6 2003 MTP appearence. Ask the question to Andrea, was she invited to the Wilson home for the July 4 barbeque? Did she have other confirmation from (oh maybe Grossman and Armitage) re: the Wilson story? Is it practice at NBC to not confirm an editorial writers claims? How did she confirm the story and how long was the NBC team working on the story?

Tim "I did not name her" Russert is going to confess!



Libby's lawyers should just claim he's suicidal and he can do his jail time from home. Its the latest crazy out of California.


"Clearly the lefties minds are broken beyond salvagability."

"Do what thou will'st is all of the law"..except don't vote Republican.


Kind of makes you wonder how many other sick pedophile bastards are being protected by the ACLU - in their own ranks. Isn't it interesting how the ACLU and Pedophilia always seem to be holding hands?


"I wonder if my friends would feel the same way if this technique were used to indict, convict and imprison one of our friends. As it might have been, during the Clinton years."

Holy Bovine Spongiform Encephaly!

"What comes around, goes around"?

'No underlying crime'?

Can you grasp the irony of her warning
of impending retribution from Republicans
angered by the Libby conviction?

Someone, (perhaps OT) please tell me about the underlying crime of Clinton. Arrogance?
Yeah, if that's a crime. Irresponsibility?
A crime? Reckless disrespect for the WH?
If you want to make it crime, go for it.

Just let me get a breath of fresh air, before you quote someone else who has failed the smell test.


I can't even read about it,these people are betraying one of the fundamental tenets of being human.


"The role of the FBI and federal prosecutors becomes one of creating criminals instead of catching them."

Bam. Estrich article is just outstanding.

I can't wait for the lefties to just rip her a new one for straying from the talking points. Won't be able to destroy her as a hack. Her reputation precedes "hackery".


Bravo - the first moron to take a swipe at Estrich wins the Idiotarian award.

Right on schedule.

WAAHHHHbulance is required.


Uhhh, I believe Clintons underlying crinme was pretty darn clear. he was sodomizing an intern and wanted to keep it a secret - THAT'S NOT A CRIME.

But he was involved in a civil suit regarding sexual harrassment - again, no crime.

But, to win the civil suite and not allow his sodmizing the hired help to become public, he lied during his grand jury testimony (A CRIME). In addition, he sought a false affadavit (A CRIME) in order to present that false affadavit to the court (A CRIME).

Noone seriously believes that a man sodomizing a teenage intern with a cigar in the bathroom could possibly forget or have a fuzzy memory about aver being ALONE with Ms. Lewinsky. Petty cut and dry and opposed to the testimony in the Libby case.

If Libby had sodomized Plame in his bathroom and claimed he was never alone with her - I would be all for his conviction.

Other Tom

Cleo, your analysis was about at the level I expected.

There was no underlying crime in Clinton's case, and he was never charged with a crime. He received a civil penalty for lying under oath in the presence of a judge during discovery in a civil case.

He was required to answer the extremely onerous questions put to him only because of a law which he himself had signed with great fanfare, requiring males accused of sexual harrassment to answer questions relating to their sexual activity. (Now there was an irony one could really appreciate.)


I really can't stand Susan Estrich but in this article she says what I have been saying for a long time. It doesn't matter what political affiliation Libby belongs to or what color his skin is or what religion he belongs to. This is a case that should never have been brought before a jury or court. It is a case of he said/he said and could not be proved one way or another and the whole case was rather lame anyway. What did any of it matter? It was an exercise in futility. Fitzgerald is still trying to get Libby to turn on Cheney for something (anything) and is putting on the screws once more. Walton is in the pocket of the democrats and the jury was absolutely biased. It is amusing in a way to think that the lone juror who was interested in reasonable doubt was probably the museum curator who was tossed by the rest of the jury. She was probably trying to stop their miscarriage of justice.


Clinton's underlying 'crime' was sexual harrasment.


Clinton's underlying 'crime' was sexual harrasment

Which no one with a grain of sense doubted that he did it. And the hilarious thing about Clinton's sexual harassment charges is that the dems were so gung ho to make this a crime but only for republicans not democrats.


In addition to Enlightened's quote from Prof. Estrich's article on Libby's indictment, conviction and sentence, I thought these were pretty trenchant points as well:

This time it was a pro-war Republican caught in the snare, which is why many liberals are cheering. But what goes around comes around, and I wonder if my friends would feel the same way if this technique were used to indict, convict and imprison one of our friends. As it might have been, during the Clinton years.

The whole phenomenon of special prosecutors turns the usual rules of investigating on their head. Instead of focusing on crimes, special prosecutors tend to focus on people themselves. Dig deep enough, ask enough questions, particularly under oath, and only those most experienced with the criminal justice system are likely to escape unscathed. Hardened criminals know enough to shut up. For others, the human tendency is to say too much, to shade the facts, to try to protect yourself and your colleagues, not necessarily from criminality, but from embarrassment. Lewis Libby is a lawyer, but he hadn't practiced in years, and neither had his wife. Unfortunately for him, it cost him plenty.



Lordy OT - You may have exposed Estrich to talking point carpet bombing by the sweaty, zit faced puppeteers! I can sense them furiously pounding the keyboards alerting the masses to Estrich's apparent break from left think.

I hope she has the stones - she's about to be indoctrinated to Idiotarians run amok.



Your "counting coup" observation was spot on, brilliant in its imagery, hillarious in its application.

I am still chuckling.


"Clinton's underlying 'crime' was sexual harrasment."

Yeah but - Mrs. Bill Clinton had "faith" in her boy. She prayed so hard for that man.

Maybe, just maybe Mrs. Libby needs to up the prayer quotient?

I jest.


"""Other Tom: He was required to answer the extremely onerous questions """


WOW! How onerous. Could thing Starr didn't break out the big guns....have you ever slept with Hilliary?

Their didn't have to be UNDERLYING crimes in the Clinton case, the fact is his crimes during the investigation were blatant and not subject to interpretation, memory, etc.

Clinton was like shooting the judge in the head, then claiming, BUT their was no underlying crime. The underlying crime was attempting to subvert the judicial process.

Clinton was in court testifying because of a valid tort against him upheld by the courts, Libby was testifying because of political hacks were trying to find a crime that didn't exist.

He was trying to win a civil case that was going to cost him at least hundreds of thousands of dollars. We know why Clinton lied...noone can still to this day, tell us why Libby would have lied.


Walton will do whatever Fitzgerald asks.
If Fitzgerald fights against Libby being out on bail, then Libby won't be out on bail.

That's my prediction.


I don't follw the Lamestream media much, but I don't think this story got much play:

Former ACLU chief admits guilt
Sentenced to 8 years for having 'graphic and violent' child porn

Posted: June 1, 2007
5:55 p.m. Eastern

© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

A former executive for the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia has been sentenced to eight years in prison after he admitted having "graphic and violent" child pornography.

The guilty plea was entered in court in Virginia by Charles Rust-Tierney, where he was immediately sentenced, according to a report today from WJLA television.

Rust-Tierney previously had served as the president of the Virginia chapter of the ACLU, and admitted his guilt under a plea bargain. He had been in jail since his arrest earlier this year, because two separate judges in pretrial hearings had rejected his request for freedom, describing the pornography as some of the most sickening they ever had encountered.


For those of you who took the BlogAds Internet User Survey that many blogs linked to, the interesting results of that survey are HERE


Probably just as sick is his wife has given speeches where she advances the idea that women (Girls) should make their own decisions about sex, abortion, having children etc. when they start menstrating

Other Tom

Yeah, Poppy, I don't regard the question of whether he was alone with Monica as onerous. There were some questions, however, that Clinton characterized as questions "no one should have to answer," and I remember agreeing with that assessment at the time. However, because the questions were permissible under his own law, with which he curried such favor with the Feministas, I got quite a chuckle out of his discomfort.

Like Berger and Libby, he was fined and forfeited his law license. Like Berger and unlike Libby, he was never sentenced to prison.


Sorry, those were only results for Althouse. My bad.


Please forgive me for another french translation but I believe the various publications by Africa Intelligence are reputable. The translation is what worries me.

Do these">http://www.bdpgabon.org/ancien_site/bdp/revelationspol1.html&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=9&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dobiang,joe%2Bwilson%26start%3D30%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26channel%3Ds%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN">these articles, THE JACKPOT OF THE US LOBBYISTES? and FAILURE Of a VISIT IN the UNITED STATES link Wilson to Jefferson?

LA">http://www.africaintelligence.com/lc-/default.asp&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dlettre%2Bdu%2Bcontinent%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26channel%3Ds%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DG">LA LETTRE DU CONTINENT


Anyone that really is being honest will concur with Estrich. Those in law know she is right. The majority simply will keep their mouths shut - don't ask, don't tell. Others will stick to the party line talking points.

What ahappened to Scooter happens all the time in our justice system. He just happened to be a bigger prize than Johnny Public, Three Striker.

This entire charade is just the lefts tit-for-tat we finally got payback for Slick Willie.


OT sorta

I know the psychologist who was tasked to give expert testimony on behalf of the plaintiff (Paula Jones) as to what he believes to be Mr. Clinton's sexual addiction. This man is nationally recognized on the subject.

Doesn't surprise me Mr. Clinton settled. That trial could have been brutal.


OT sorta

I know the psychologist who was tasked to give expert testimony on behalf of the plaintiff (Paula Jones) as to what he believes to be Mr. Clinton's sexual addiction. This man is nationally recognized on the subject.

Doesn't surprise me Mr. Clinton settled. That trial could have been brutal.


Jeez Rocco - how you find this stuff I'll never know but this one jumped right out at me:

"Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (which “keeps a dog of its bitch to him”)."

Does this mean the French thought Albright was Bill's "bitch"???

How appropo -


Well Rocco, just glancing through, are you suggesting the link is Africa-Gabon-Wilson-Bongo-W Jefferson-B Clinton?

I'm getting a hint of that - it is hard to understand what the heck they are talking about.


Andy McCarthy (NRO)

"Not that Scooter Libby has asked for my advice, but I also must say that that the ardor of his supporters — including, I believe, NR — has hurt him, and hurt the conservative movement, in very fundamental ways. As to him personally, all this passionate rhetoric about his heroic service to the United States, how the investigation should never have happened, and how he got unfairly singled out and screwed (all of which I agree with) would be fine if it weren't obscuring something fairly important: Lying to the FBI and a grand jury is a very bad thing, even if we all think it was an unworthy investigation.

The blather about the foibles of memory is just an excuse for people who don't want to confront that inconvenient fact. Foibles of memory come up in every trial — they were particularly highlighted in the Libby trial because the defense hoped to score points with them given the nature of the charges, but they were not materially different from what happens in every trial. That's why we have juries.

snip... The evidence that Libby lied, rather than that he was confused, was compelling......snip... Libby's supporters have made it easier for him to avoid doing something that would have put him in much better stead with the sentencing judge and would position him much better for a pardon: Utter the words "I'm sorry," in a way that communicates an awareness and some real contrition over the lying. Judges who've sat on cases where the evidence of wrongdoing is compelling expect a defendant — especially a smart, accomplished defendant — to express awareness and remorse; when the defendant fails to do that, it is not at all unusual for a judge to hammer him. The message from Scooter supporters here and elsewhere that he's got nothing to apologize for is not doing him any favors."

There you have it. Very reasonable.


"That's why we have juries".

It would be more impressive if judge and juries had not sent more that a few innocents to death row. The law is administered by people,people foul up.

JM Hanes


"And the statute that Comey hung his hat on--what a joke!"

Alas, that statute is the rock upon which I see Libby's challenge to Fitzgerald's constitutional authority floundering. It's not a question of whether the statute was patently designed for other purposes, but that the remedy here is not, in fact, judicial, but legislative. In order to trump the statute so perverted by Comey, the Special Prosecutor regulations adopted by DoJ must be given the force of law (i.e. by statute) themselves. Unless the principal officer claim can be substantially expanded from the original filing in this case, I think it's a tough one to argue definitively or win on its own.

As a layman, I believe that a lot of the irregularities, if not abuses, in the prosecution of this case which ultimately affected the fairness of Libby's trial can be traced to the absence of any supervisory authority. Indeed, the political nature of the potential offenses which required the appointment of Special Council in the first place, is precisely what made review/supervision by any interested party (e.g. the President) untenable.

The recusal in this case was artificially limited to the Atty. General personally, when in fact, as an arm of the Executive Branch, that recusal should have extended to the DoJ itself. Comey's own memo declining to exercise supervision or restraint of any kind, was, in reality, a tacit acknowledgment of the necessary distance required as the guarantor of fairness. Historically (and logically) that distance and accountability were effected by appointing an officer who was not attached to the DoJ and by providing for judicial oversight. Comey's idiosyncratic, unnecessary, unexplained, and neither justified nor defended, repudiation of the Department's own controlling regulations, made a mockery of the responsible independence that both the public interest and justice require.

The specific context escapes me, but the Defense team's protest that they had nowhere to lodge a timely complaint about Prosecutorial manipulation of some kind, was an emblematic cry in the wilderness. Is there an identifiable violation of due process in that? I have no idea, but there's certainly something critically important missing. Surely, the DoJ's Office of Professional Responsibility was not intended to serve the needs of innocent accuseds, suspects under investigation, or defendants at trial!

Almost everything that was wrong about the process and the legalities from start to finish derives from the original appointment. The investigation which should have taken place would have encompassed the entire Executive Branch, from the White House, to the State Department, to the CIA and DoJ itself. What we got instead, looks like -- and may well have been -- a virtual collusion of interested parties within and amongst those several departments to promote the appearance of justice at the ultimate expense of it.

Whether or not any of the above can now come into play given the technical requirements of appeal, I do not know. I fear they don't, and therein lies the real travesty. As I started out saying, the remedy for such grievances is legislation. There can be no real redress.


Oh yeah - that's it! All convicted felons must apologize and be remorseful for not committing the crime they were convicted of prior to sentencing.

Judges! Who'da thought they were more inclined to sentence leniently based on a sorry ass remorseful defendant than the law.

I guess that should work well for our ACLU Pedophile.

The blather about the foibles of memory is just an excuse for people who don't want to confront that inconvenient fact. Foibles of memory come up in every trial

Yeah ok Andy. The McMartin preschool convictions spring to mind.

Recovered memories combined with public hysteria and bogus convictions ...

Great combination.


Because they come up every time, and indeed they did with everyone of the prosecution's own witnesses, good prosecutors do not go after purely process crimes (esp where no underlying crime exists). My distaste for Andy McCarthy grows every day.


On the good news front, the Immigration Bill is dead!


Slightly OT but the Libby injustice has been noted in the British press the Law as the continuation of politics by other means.


I guess there were no actual conviction in the McMartin preschool case (acc to wikipedia). Just a long and destructive prosecution. Pretty long list of other memory foible travesties along the same lines though.

I really believe law needs a better handle on how to treat "reconstructed" memories. In this case it seemed to me that memory reconstructions were given more weight than what little physical evidence there was.


I forget - Did Libby's defense try to rebut Russert's memory/recollection about his talk with Scooter? Did Russert have any corroborating proof that his version was the correct version?


CAptain's Quarters agree with Andy McCarthy

Jeff Dobbs


but I also must say that that the ardor of his supporters — including, I believe, NR — has hurt him

Whoa there cowboy....

how the investigation should never have happened, and how he got unfairly singled out and screwed (all of which I agree with)

Speaking of ardor. Who was the single conservative voice assuring all and sundry that Patrick J. Fitzgerald was a man of impeccable character?

Utter the words "I'm sorry," in a way that communicates an awareness and some real contrition over the lying.

You first.

Rick Ballard

"a virtual collusion of interested parties within and amongst those several departments to promote the appearance of justice at the ultimate expense of it."

Well, if he wouldn't fall on his sword without complainin' about it, what'd he expect?

I'd say that the start of the travesty was the President's requirement of a waiver of Fifth Amendment rights.


"In this case it seemed to me that memory reconstructions were given more weight than what little physical evidence there was".

This is what happens when a good proportion of your elite spent their youth dancing naked round bonfires and contacting aliens,that and the drugs.


How can Andy McCarthy support one of the most unethical prosecutors DoJ has?


They're pals.


He and Fitz and Comey all worked together in the SDNY


I believe that Patterico and Capt Ed have consistently made judgements about this case w/o knowing bupkis about the facts. I like them both as a general matter, but I think they do not know what they are talking about.

The comments to this entry are closed.