Mudcat Café message #1991847 The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #99660   Message #1991847
Posted By: Arne
09-Mar-07 - 03:52 PM
Thread Name: BS: Libby convicted
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted
BeardedBruce quotes the rabid "Dr." Krauthammer:

There are lies and there are memory lapses. Bill Clinton denied under oath having sex with Monica Lewinsky....

WFT cares? But FWIW, Clinton did this under the very strange and contrted definition of "sexual relations" that the judge approved after objection to the original definition by Clinton's lawyer. And under that asymmetric definition, it is arguable whether there was "sexual relations" as defined.

... Unless you're Wilt Chamberlain, sex is not the kind of thing you forget easily....

Irrelevant.

... Sandy Berger denied stuffing classified documents in his pants, an act not quite as elaborate as sex, but still involving a lot of muscle memory and unlikely to have been honestly forgotten....

Nor did he. That was RW Smear Machine lies. But FWIW, Berger did acknowledge mishandling of classified information, and pleaded quilty to such.

Scooter Libby has just been convicted of four felonies that could theoretically give him 25 years in jail for . . . what? Misstating when he first heard a certain piece of information, namely the identity of Joe Wilson's wife.

"Misstating". Such a polite word for lying. There were four separate counts (for perjury, lying to an FBI agent, and obstruction of justice), all proved beyond reasonable doubt to a unanimous jury. Libby's "my memory just failed me" was contradicted by so many pieces of evidence (including that Cheney's office was in the thick of things, and Libby was tasked by Cheney with tearing down Wilson for his impudence) that the jury basically laughed at it.

This demonstration of Russert's fallibility was never shown to the jury. The judge did not allow it. He was upset with the defense because it would not put Libby on the stand -- his perfect Fifth Amendment right -- after hinting in the opening statement that it might. He therefore denied the defense a straightforward demonstration of the fallibility of the witness whose testimony was most decisive.

Toensing thinks this might be the basis for overturning the verdict upon appeal. I hope so.


Toensing is such a bought-and-paid-for Republican flack that no one ought to listen to a word she says, law degree or not. I'll bet money with whoever wants to here that Toensing is just full'o'it here. Here's your chance to make a fortune, Brucie....

Cheers,