Hello:

The last time I talked to my friends at AW, they were ardent Bushies. Certainly, two years time has cleared their heads. I mean, even Brit Hume hates him now.

Ok, let's get serious. I know YOU wrongwingers think Scooter Libby should be pardoned... Why?? Aren't YOU the law and order party?? Do you think prosecutors across the country agree with you?? Lying to a prosecutor is pretty bad. I think, dare I say it, that it's worse than smokin reefer, and I never heard you guys tell me I should be pardoned...

By the way, if there wasn't a crime waiting to be discovered, why did he lie??

excon

No, I do not think Scooter should be pardoned. I think he should spend his time in prison, with Cheney as his cellmate.

I know you better than to believe you support the actions of rogue over-zealous prosecutors . What is this ? A case where it is OK because of political disagreement ?

You know as well as I do that the case he was investigating was solved long before he even began questioning Libby . Then to further the miscarriage he used in the trial witnesses with faulty memories to accuse Libby (who's defense was a faulty memory ) that he lied. Why should I believe that Libby lied and not Tim Russert ?

If you purger yourself, you deserve to go to jail. Too bad he won't be serving time with Sandy "is that a classified document in your pants or are you happy to see me?" Berger.

Hello again, tom:

And, I know you better than to disagree with a verdict of your peers. They found him guilty - not me or Tim Russert. I don't know if he is or not, but if 12 of my neighbors think he is, who am I to argue??

Do you think your's and Bush's judgment should take the place of a jury because of political considerations?? Bush is going to pardon him, isn't he?

excon

PS> By the way, why is he a rogue over zealous prosecutor? Because he's investigating Republicans?? He was appointed by Bush - so he must be a righty. And he didn't get fired by Bush - so FOR SURE he's a righty.

I assure you I am no fan of how the Bush Adm handled the case . He was overzealous because he knew BEFORE he even started the investigation who the leaker was... Richard Armitage . Everything else was politically motivated .

Bush did not hire him ;nor could he fire him after he was appointed . You remember the last time a prosecutor was fired investigating the Presidency . Bush's Att Gen did not even hire him ;Ashcroft recused himself. His assistant hired him because Fitgerald was his good buddy . Then Fitgerald went off on a crusade like Inspector Javert of Les Miseables .

There is no justice in the verdict. Jury of his peers ? Read accounts of the jury foreman. He just happened to get on the case even though his profession is journalist and he has a long standing relationship with people like Russert and Woodward. Gimme a break .

Ex,

Here is a portion of what tom was referring to:


"Denis Collins, a Washington resident and self-described registered Democrat," who is a journalist and former reporter at The Washington Post and the author of a book on espionage and a novel––"said he and fellow jurors found that passing judgment on Libby was 'unpleasant.' But in the final analysis, he said jurors found Libby's story just too hard to believe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Libby): 'We're not saying we didn't think Mr. Libby was guilty of the things we found him guilty of, but it seemed like... he was the fall guy'. Collins said the jury believed Libby was 'tasked by the vice president to go and talk to reporters.'"

Having served on a number of criminal juries I remember distinctly the emphasis on being able to find someone guilty if it was "beyond a reasonable doubt." The jurors even had to ask the judge for clarification on what that meant - "just too hard to believe" is not "beyond a reasonable doubt." And I assure you also as tom did it wasn't exacty a jury of his 'peers' in a case that was more politically charged than any of this attorney firings nonsense.

That said, they found him guilty, OK, but it was nothing more than a witch hunt seeing as how Fitzgerald already knew who the leaker was, which is what the case was about and what the jury was gung-ho for digging their teeth into. Said Collins:


“What we’re in court deciding seems to be a level or two down from what, before we went into the jury, we supposed the trial was about, or had been initially about, which was who leaked” Plame’s identity.

This guy Fitzgerald was a prosecutor in the Marc Rich scandal and Libby was one of Rich's attorneys, so if Fitzgerald already knew who the leaker was what was this all about? How was justice served?

Thanks, Steve. I liked it better here when my opposition didn't know so much... Besides, a guy named Scooter ain't going to do too well in the slam.

LOL! I know what you mean, but why "opposition"? Let's just call it a rivalry, whaddya say? :D