Free Scooter Libby

Scooter Libby got caught lying. The penalty for lying is a bit much but then again he should have come clean. The difference between him and Richard Armitage is that Armitage was cooperative from the get-go. He probably pointed fingers at Libby.

Also, Libby's character witness list was atrocious. His lawyer should have been disbarred for even submitting the list to the court. Team Libby wasn't able to convince anyone involved in his trial that he was innocent. We'll just have to see how his appeals goes.

I would hate to see the President pardon him as that would set a very bad precedence. I mean, he wouldn't pardon a mentally retarded dude while he was governor (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17670) so what makes Libby so special?
Did you even read the article? Exactly where did he lie? The man got convicted of having a different recollection of ONE phone call about a completely different subject. There was no evidence anywhere that he actually lied. It was simply a he said-he said issue.

Did you even read the article? Exactly where did he lie? The man got convicted of having a different recollection of ONE phone call about a completely different subject. There was no evidence anywhere that he actually lied. It was simply a he said-he said issue.


Exactly. Try to remember the exact contents or even the general thrust of something you typed a thousand posts ago. But the Judge wouldn't let a memory expert testify.

I don't see any reason to assume Russert was telling the truth. He seems an amiable fellow, a good Irish Catholic, but he could well be lying. Before he went into television he worked for Mario Cuomo and D.P. Moynihan. Make Libby a Democrat and change Cuomo and Moybihan to Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich and ask yourself if there isn't just the slightest possibility that he's not telling the truth. And even if Russert's version is true, it shouldn't be a crime to have a faulty memory.

Scooter Libby got caught lying. The penalty for lying is a bit much but then again he should have come clean. The difference between him and Richard Armitage is that Armitage was cooperative from the get-go. He probably pointed fingers at Libby.

Also, Libby's character witness list was atrocious. His lawyer should have been disbarred for even submitting the list to the court. Team Libby wasn't able to convince anyone involved in his trial that he was innocent. We'll just have to see how his appeals goes.

I would hate to see the President pardon him as that would set a very bad precedence. I mean, he wouldn't pardon a mentally retarded dude while he was governor (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17670) so what makes Libby so special?


From your link:

"But Washington's plea for clemency raised substantial issues, which called for thoughtful, fair-minded consideration, not the least of which was the fact that Washington's mental handicap had never been presented to the jury that condemned him to death."

If he were retarded in the way most people think of that term then the jury wouldn't have had to have it explained to them. It would have been obvious. Anyone can score really low on an IQ test. At any rate, Bill Clinton was executing retarded people when Bush was just a baseball owner:

Ricky Ray Rector - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Ray_Rector)

If Libby would have just donated some money like these guy's.
Judicial Watch (http://www.judicialwatch.org/pgate.shtml)

I did read the article. Memory expert? Get out here...he had ample time to prepare for the grand jury, and no, you can't answer every question with I don't remember.

I'm so sick and tired of people playing the "I don't remember" card. It's a great way to lie without lying.

I did read the article. Memory expert? Get out here...he had ample time to prepare for the grand jury, and no, you can't answer every question with I don't remember.

I'm so sick and tired of people playing the "I don't remember" card. It's a great way to lie without lying.


"I don't remember" is not a shield from perjury. People went to jail in Watergate for saying "I don't remember". It is more difficult to prove. You would need supporting evidence. Anyways, I don't think Libby answered any questions with "I don't remember".

Of course, you would think that you would need supporting evidence when your whole case depends on the word of a journalist who used to be a partisan Democrat and may well be still.

Update: It seems that about 90% of his colleagues are as well:

Journalists give campaign cash - Politics - MSNBC.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485)

A complete list of who gave to which party:

List of journalists taking sides - Politics - MSNBC.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113455)

Make sure you scroll down to read the lame explanations. Many of the donations were given in violation of their employers policies so they're trying to lay the donations on their spouces or other family members. I think Patrick Fitzgerald and Judge Walton should convene a tribunal.

From your link:

"But Washington's plea for clemency raised substantial issues, which called for thoughtful, fair-minded consideration, not the least of which was the fact that Washington's mental handicap had never been presented to the jury that condemned him to death."

If he were retarded in the way most people think of that term then the jury wouldn't have had to have it explained to them. It would have been obvious. Anyone can score really low on an IQ test. At any rate, Bill Clinton was executing retarded people when Bush was just a baseball owner:

Ricky Ray Rector - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Ray_Rector)

I don't understand what your point is. I guess the same principle that applied to Washington applies to Libby as well. His defense team sucked and a jury convicted him. Again, why should Libby get special treatment?

As for Clinton and Rector fiasco, the whole thing was a disgusting display of a self preservation on Clinton's part. It's cruel.

"I don't remember" is not a shield from perjury. People went to jail in Watergate for saying "I don't remember". It is more difficult to prove. You would need supporting evidence. Anyways, I don't think Libby answered any questions with "I don't remember".

Of course, you would think that you would need supporting evidence when your whole case depends on the word of a journalist who used to be a partisan Democrat and may well be still.

Update: It seems that about 90% of his colleagues are as well:

Journalists give campaign cash - Politics - MSNBC.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485)

A complete list of who gave to which party:

List of journalists taking sides - Politics - MSNBC.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113455)

Make sure you scroll down to read the lame explanations. Many of the donations were given in violation of their employers policies so they're trying to lay the donations on their spouces or other family members. I think Patrick Fitzgerald and Judge Walton should convene a tribunal.


To be honest, I don't know all the details about the case to personally make judgment about his guilt. I do however know that he was convicted by a jury of his peers. Do you think all these free Libby advocates have looked at the the case in it's entirety (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7262723)?

I don't understand what your point is. I guess the same principle that applied to Washington applies to Libby as well. His defense team sucked and a jury convicted him. Again, why should Libby get special treatment?

As for Clinton and Rector fiasco, the whole thing was a disgusting display of a self preservation on Clinton's part. It's cruel.

1. I think one of Hitchens points is that Libby is getting special treatment in the negative sense. Nobody else would have been prosecuted for this or sentenced so harshly.

2. When I hear the word retarded, I think special olympics. These guys are just really dim and they probably weren't exactly going all out to do their best on those IQ tests either. Also, I respect Sister Helen and her devotion to her cause, but she would be opposed to the death penalty for someone who had an IQ over 200 as well, wouldn't she?

3. The ironic thing about Clinton is that he stil got the same 43% of the vote that Dukakis got and Dukakis would have never signed anyone's death warrant. If he actually went against his consiense in that case, which I would question the existence of one as far as he goes, he ultimately did it for nothing.

Libby's lawyer should have tried this:

YouTube - Lionel Hutz (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9ykXQRmnCI)