Infinite MonkeysThe legal woes of Scooter Libby drag on, and on, and on. Inspector Javert insists that Libby deserves three years in jail for, well he can say it:
Libby "lied repeatedly and blatantly about matters at the heart of a criminal investigation concerning the disclosure of a covert intelligence officer's identity," Fitzgerald wrote. "He has shown no regret for his actions, which significantly impeded the investigation."
Libby shouldn't feel sorry about anything. The "heart" of Fitz's criminal investigation evaporated before the prosecutor even hired his staff. That would be when the Justice Department told Fitzy that the "leaker" of the worst "undercover" CIA employee ever was Richard Armitage (and that he didn't leak her name on purpose as a form of retaliation against Joe Wilson....indeed, Armitage was a Wilson sympathizer who opposed the Iraq War from the start).
And Libby's provable "lies" amounted to a combination of failing to remember the timeline and details of conversations -- among thousands -- a year earlier, and the conflicting memories of a few heavy-hitting reporters. These heavy hitters, mind you, also couldn't keep their stories straight.
Add to this the moronic jury, which expressed regret that they couldn't find Libby not-guilty and wish him to not be punished at all.
If I were Libby, I'd have no regrets either -- save, of course, the regret of working for an administration that has bankrupted him, soiled his reputation and has sat on its hands while an out-of-control prosecutor wants to put him behind bars for the biggest non-crime in Washington history.
Oh, and I'd also regret entering the prison with the name of "Scooter." He'd better bring some Vaseline with him to the er ... pokey.
Justice? Only if Bush pardons him...about 35 seconds after this unjust sentencing of a bogus prosecution.
Posted by Dr. Zaius at May 25, 2007 05:17 PM"the moronic jury, which expressed regret that they couldn't find Libby not-guilty and wish him to not be punished at all."
Jury members really, really need to be informed on their rights. Jury nullification is one of the true safeguards that citizens have against government. Sadly, it's virtually lost today.
(No, this really isn't RobbL.)
Posted by: Monkey Brad at May 25, 2007 07:53 PMAmen to that.
I'm no fan of Libby, as I'm sure you could guess, but I agree with Laurence O'Donnell that from a legal (not moral - that's another issue) standpoint, people (and defendants in particular) should pretty much be able to lie to anyone at any time, including and perhaps especially the government.
Whether you're talking about Bill Clinton, Martha Stewart, or Scooter Libby, you're talking about someone who lied (ostensibly) to prosecutors during the investigation of a "crime" that was never itself brought to trial. Insanity!
Posted by: Monkey RobbL at May 25, 2007 09:57 PMOh, and I was "Amen-ing" the bit about the jury nullification. That was not intended to be a passive-aggressive insult to my dear friend and fellow monkey, Brad.
Posted by: Monkey RobbL at May 25, 2007 09:58 PMAmen (again) on jury nullification. I'm amazed that jurors interviewed after the trial said they wished they could have thrown the whole case out. They had no idea that they had the power to laugh this case right back in Fitzy's face.
The OJ jury can let an obvious murderer go because "I don't believe in all that DNA stuff" (actual quote, sadly) or that "A black man never gets a fair shake from the cops." But a weak case for a non-crime...and the jury listens to Fitzy (he's a smart prosecutor, after all!) and decide he must be right. The case is stupid, but Libby's "guilty" and his life must be ruined.
My greatest fear (seriously) is ever having my freedom in the hands of a jury of my "peers."
Posted by: Dr. Zaius at May 26, 2007 12:22 AM
