The Irony of Recent Posts about Libby Commutation (aka Obstruction of Justice)
This morning I am reading from one of the many online opinion sections from supposedly reputable TV stations. I come across someone who referred to a WSJ article claiming that Fitzgerald has a grudge against Libby for an earlier court encounter where Fitzgerald was going after Marc Rich and Libby was defending Rich. Its the classic, "So...we meet again!" scenario.
Now as it would be, I got lucky a few months ago watching CSPAN3 when they aired a Libbyathon if you will, and one of the things aired was the testimony of Libby before the house on the pardon of Marc Rich. Of course as usual, I taped it.
When asked
Paul Kanjorski asked, "Did you represent a crook who stole money from the United States government, was a fugitive and should never have been given or granted a pardon by the facts that you know?"
"No, sir," Libby responded. "There are no facts that I know of that support the criminality of the client based on the tax returns."
So, is Libby an incompetent lawyer who didn't know if Marc Rich's evidence showed innocence, or are the rightwing nuts suddenly picking the exact wrong case to use to attack Clinton again?
The man of the hour, Scooter Libby, sorry Paris move over, is on the record as saying the example A, Marc Rich, is innocent of tax evasion, though calling him a traitor for his business choices, and now the supporters of Libby's commutation, pardon, and damn near sainthood, are saying this terrible guy Marc Rich was just another example of how terrible Clinton was.
Perhaps has come the time for the rabid right wing to bite its own head off by the gnashing of its own teeth. Its like the old Shel Silverstein poem of Hungry Mungry, who ate up everything, "till nuthing was nuthing was nuthing was left to eat".
Amen.
Call CSPAN and ask them to air the Libby testimony about Marc Rich again...enjoy
Then call your Congress and tell your representative what you want them to do, on Cheney and CO. LLPFWCAP.
Portions of the original article
Why Fitzgerald Went After Libby
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116925916151482349.html
Why did the investigation continue beyond the point at which the “leaker’s” identity was known? What possible reason could the special investigator, Patrick Fitzgerald, have to continue the investigation for years beyond achieving that investigation’s stated objective?
Well here’s one possible reason. It turns out that Patrick Fitzgerald and Scooter Libby have butted heads before, and Fitzgerald apparently has no love for Libby
I can see you aren't even a first year law student, and apparently neither are you experienced in even high school level journalism. Your thesis truly begs the question.
Lets look at the problem with your theory in easy terms.
You assume that because two very famous lawyers, Libby and Fitzgerald were on opposite sides in a previous case, that Fitzgerald has it out for Libby. Is this correct?
You use of evidence is a previous meeting in court ironically with Marc Rich. How do you think we can work Kevin Bacon in this?
Lets assume they were even not so friendly after the event you cite from WSJ. Lets then assume that years later, they are encountering each other again, shall we then ignore the following?
1. Libby leaked to Judith Miller 3 times before Novak article.
2. Libby leaked to Mark Cooper
3. Libby falsely claimed he learned Plame's name from Tim Russert, even though Russert says its impossible, and no evidence supports this claim.
4. The White House stated explicitly thru Scott McLellan, Libby didn't leak and wasn't involved.
5. We know from Judith Millar's articles and from Marc Cooper's articles that Libby spoke with them about Plame.
6. He was convicted of perjury and obstruction by a jury, after being indicted by a grand jury, and by a Republican appointed judge.
7. President Bush lauded the professionalism of Fitzgerald (not the strongest accolade I'd be able to appreciate)
8. and of course Libby had learned of CIA operative Plame via Cheney according to evidence filed in Libby case, if you'd read it.
Now, I don't want the facts to get in the way of your nice conspiracy theory, or the theory of the WSJ if thats where you usurped it, but the case isn't about Fitzgerald like it was about Nifong, sorry. It isn't about Fitzgerald and it is an insult to the judge, the jury, the grand jury, the intelligence of the people and all your best and worst teachers.
Re-evaluate your position after you've read all the testimony in the libby case, especially the Cathrine Martin, Ari Fleischer, Judith Miller, Marc Cooper, and others, and then i'd be glad to debate you on whether Libby leaked, and then lied to prevent us all from knowing that the campaign was being run out of the Veeps office.
Falling on the sword is an old political drama, laddy. Try reading the great Greek dramas and you'll see its old as old can be. But even then the audience eventually knows its an actor doing it.
July 7, 2007 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink