home

Perjury Trap?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Lewis Libby Trial Coverage
Posted on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 12:26:33 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Steve Benen says:

I suppose there might be a less compelling argument [in favor of Scooter Libby]than Peretz's out there, but I haven't seen it. I open the floor to nominations.

Here is my nomination:

I feel that [Libby] should not have had to face a perjury trap: the choice between prison for lying, or prison for his role in a set of transactions that the press regards as not merely O.K. but sacrosanct. In fact, if journalists had a more reasonable view about this, the reporters whom Mr. Libby tried to peddle this story to would have said, “Look, outing C.I.A. agents is bad and we are not going to help you do it anonymously.” I bet that today, commuted sentence and all, Mr. Libby wishes they had done just that.

Say huh? Steve, I think I have the winner here.

< Gen. Odom: Use The Spending Power To End the Iraq Debacle | Libby, the Marc Rich Pardon and Congressional Hearings >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Perjury Trap? | 22 comments (22 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Wrong Pardon (1.00 / 1) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 08:06:33 AM EST
    Everytime I start to think that maybe the WH is actually involved in conspiracies, they do something dumb enough to prove me wrong. The Marc Rich pardon was about money. His wife contributed a $1,000,000 to Clinton's Presidential Library. That's pretty plain selling and buying, eh?

    But the commutations of the PR terrorists was politics, something the Demos accuse the Repubs of. And many claimed that Bill did it to help Hillary with the PR vote:

    The commutation was opposed by U.S. Attorney's Office, the FBI, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons and criticized by many including former victims of FALN terrorist activities, the Fraternal Order of Police,[4] members of Congress, and Hillary Clinton in her campaign for Senator.[5] Congress condemned the action, with a vote of 95-2 in the Senate and 311-41 in the House.[6][7] The U.S. House Committee on Government Reform held an investigation on the matter, but the Justice Department prevented FBI officials from testifying.[8] President Clinton cited executive privilege for his refusal to turn over some documents to Congress related to his decision to offer clemency to members of the FALN terrorist group

    Now, what will Conyer say if Bush claims executive privilege and the DOJ  prevents anyone, much less the FBI from testifying??

    Link

    Not very interesting (none / 0) (#7)
    by manys on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 10:54:54 AM EST
    Clinton waived executive privilege for his entire staff in the Rich hearings. I think the germane question to your post is "What will you say when Bush claims executive privilege?"

    Parent
    Sorry, wrong thread.... (1.00 / 1) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 08:08:09 AM EST
    Sorry, wrong thread....

    What do you mean wrong thread? (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by Edger on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 11:05:31 AM EST
    Nothing you've said in this thread is any different than anything you've ever said in any other thread, any other time. It's all upside down backwards and inside out wingnut thinking.

    Parent
    Kingsley has it. (1.00 / 1) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 09:43:08 AM EST
    In fact, if journalists had a more reasonable view about this, the reporters whom Mr. Libby tried to peddle this story to would have said, "Look, outing C.I.A. agents is bad and we are not going to help you do it anonymously"

    If the claim is true that Wilson was engaged in an attack on the war, and if the claim is true that Cheney directed his staff to try and counter Wilson and placing all the partisan nonsense by both sides over in the corner, Kingsley has a solid, viable point. Why should newspapers help anyone break the law? There are too many "anonymous sources" used by both sides.

    Good grief (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Light Emitting Pickle on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 10:39:41 AM EST
    Even if the reporters shouldn't have reported, Libby STILL TOLD THEM. You even stated:

    Why should newspapers help anyone break the law?

    I don't comment much here and I typically avoid your posts, knowing that it's completely useless to point out the obvious to you. But I can't help myself this time.

    Parent

    Its a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it. (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 10:56:47 AM EST


    Parent
    MB (1.00 / 1) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 11:29:42 AM EST
    So is driving the car in a bank roberry...

    In your case I know you can't, but try and lay down your parisanship and just think.

    Parent

    Luke 6:42 (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 11:40:22 AM EST
    how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.



    Parent

    Libby drove the getaway car. (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Edger on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 11:49:34 AM EST
    Glad you understand.

    Maybe you really are just pretending to be intellectually compromised.

    I thought I was was wrong by trying to convince everyone you are.

    Maybe I was wrong twice. Or maybe just I'm wrong to think that maybe I was wrong twice.

    Parent

    edger (1.00 / 1) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 03:34:13 PM EST
    No.

    Parent
    I wasn't wrong? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Edger on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 03:38:15 PM EST
    You really are just pretending to be intellectually compromised?

    Parent
    edger (1.00 / 1) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 04:24:30 PM EST
    No. I really don't understand your inability to understand. But I do understand your basic method of operation.

    First of all, (none / 0) (#67)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 03:18:25 PM EST

    Do we offer them respect? Absolutely not. We do our best to marginalize and get rid of them.



    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 04:33:07 PM EST
    It's really not that complex a question, ppj.

    You either are or you aren't pretending to be intellectually compromised. So help me to understand, ppj. Which is it? Was I wrong, or was I right, in trying to convince everyone you are pretending?

    Parent

    Love your moniker (1.00 / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 11:28:03 AM EST
    Put some of that light on the comment.

    I didn't defend Libby, or Cheney, or Wilson...or anyone.

    My point was simple. I agree with Kingsley's point that reporters should not help someone break the law.

    Parent

    Right (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by manys on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 10:56:56 AM EST
    ...an attack on the war...

    Really, is this even possible?

    Parent

    Weeping FOr Judy (none / 0) (#1)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 12:50:14 AM EST
    Stellar, still defending honor and principle, and obliquely arguing for a shield law.

    Short version:

    Important people, who also happen to be criminals, shouldn't be questioned in criminal investigations if they are party to the crime.

    They are too important.

    pay the man the 25 cents shirley! (none / 0) (#2)
    by cpinva on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 04:13:08 AM EST
    has this guy actually been conscious for the past 4 years?

    Uh huh (none / 0) (#15)
    by Light Emitting Pickle on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 12:07:23 PM EST
    Do you also think Libby shouldn't have to face a "Perjury Trap"?

    Meant to be a reply to jimakaPPJ (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Light Emitting Pickle on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 12:08:25 PM EST
    but something tells me that I hardly need to point this out.

    Parent
    Light Emitting.. (1.00 / 1) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 03:37:56 PM EST
    Do you believe everything "something" tells you??

    I belive that this whole thing was a political prosecution pushed by the Demos, and that Bush was dumb as dirt for ever letting them fake him into going the SP route.

    That's what I think.

    I trust that is plain enough.

    BTW - Are you a diode? Laser? Single Mode? Multimode? Red band???

    Parent

    PPJ so SILLY! (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 03:45:54 PM EST
    I belive that this whole thing was a political prosecution pushed by the Demos,

    And the fact that every important individual prosecuting the case was a Republican, several appointed by GWB himself, will not dissuade you, because facts and logic do not have a place on your planet.

    But tell us, how did the Demos get all these Republicans to do their dirty work for them, without leaving a trace?

    Parent

    Perjury Trap? | 22 comments (22 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment