Actual Crime
If she feels that way, maybe she should have thought about jury nullification. Dingbat juror wants to have it both ways:
Saying “I don’t want him to go to jail,” a member of the jury that convicted I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby of perjury and obstruction of justice in the CIA leak case called Wednesday for President Bush to pardon Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff.
The woman, Ann Redington, said in an interview on MSNBC’s “Hardball” that she cried when the verdicts against Libby were read Tuesday. She said Libby seemed to be “a really nice guy.”
Redington said “it was very difficult — it was hard” to vote to convict Libby.
Here’s something the lawyers may want to look at in their request for a new trial. Someone gave Solomon here the impression there was an “actual crime” that Libby wasn’t charged with.
“I would like him to get” a pardon from Bush, Redington said. “It kind of bothers me that there was this whole big crime being investigated and he got caught up in the investigation as opposed to in the actual crime that was supposedly committed.”
You’d think she’d been reading the Associated Press versions of this trial. Maybe Firedoglake. Now that it’s over, maybe she should read this from the Washington Post: ”The serious consequences of a pointless Washington scandal.”
Then she’ll really cry, when she figured out she’s been used, and just wasted seven weeks.
Topics: pols
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 11:42 pm Comments (8) on Wednesday, March 7, 2007
8 Responses to “Actual Crime”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
March 8th, 2007 at 2:05 am
This speaks to how much of a kangaroo court that was. No justice was served by not allowing the fact that no crime was committed to be heard and considered by the jury, but a great injustice was perpetrated. Outrageous.
March 8th, 2007 at 6:38 am
I like this WaPo quote:
Maybe these dopes should spend more time thinking about the consequences when they pimp B.S. cases like this and continue to pimp them even when it has become readily apparent the there is nothing there.
The WaPo of all publications, was in a position to throw non-stop front page wet blankets on the whole thing and embarrass Fitzgerald into quiting…but didn’t. They were enjoying watching Libby, Cheney etc squirm.
They sold their souls for a cheap shot, and now they have to live with the consequences. Too freaking bad.
March 8th, 2007 at 6:40 am
Ahhh yes an impartial jury of Mr. Libby’s piers(spelled the way I want). I expect that for even suggesting a “pardon”, this juror, will be pilloried by Denis (with one N) Collins, in a post at Huffington (as he did re: Libby) in his showing of impartiality at Huffington it was an exclusive, “where’s Cheney”) or even better at Daily Kos.
March 8th, 2007 at 9:42 am
Saltydog says “no crime was committed.”
A crime was committed. It is a felony (perjury) to lie to a grand jury. Libby told the grand jury that he learned from Tim Russert that Wilson’s wife was a secret CIA agent. The evidence showed that he had learned this information from Cheney, discussed this repeatedly with Cheney, and that Cheney had directed him to talk to reporters about that. The defense had no defense because Cheney was afraid to take the stand to deny that he had done this.
March 8th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
It is a felony (perjury) to lie to a grand jury.
Yes, ok, so stipulated. The jury has spoken on that.
But it sticks in my craw that the lie was to a grand jury convened for a crime that was not a crime,and the perpetrator of said non-crime had already come forward with a confession, facts know to the prosecutor. That, corndog, is prosecutorial abuse of the highest order.
March 9th, 2007 at 8:46 am
Hogarth, why do you say there was no crime? It is a felony to disclose the identity of a covert agent. 50 U.S.C. 426. The law does not say that, once a covert agent’s identity is disclosed by someone else, then everyone else gets a free pass.
March 9th, 2007 at 8:58 am
Corndog, that’s a wonderful, and I’m sure supremely accurate, citation of 50 U.S.C. 426, but I’m left wondering why, if that is applicable to Scooter Libby, neither the CIA or the prosecutor got an indictment on those charges. The CIA has never stated that Plame was actually covered under the terms of the statute. They have not stated that for one simple reason: she wasn’t. Fitz knew that. He knew it from day one. He proceeded anyway in what could only be a called a political witch hunt.
Libby was caught lying in front of a grand jury that had absolutely no reason to have ever been convened. Fitz got his scalp. And frankly, for what we spent for him to get his trophy, nothing more than a formerly nearly anonymous office drone, I have to say that we didn’t get much for our money.
March 9th, 2007 at 10:20 am
The CIA has not actually stated in public, this is true, but it was the CIA that requested that the DOJ investigate a potential violation of the covert identity law. We also know from the trial that Cheney told Libby that Plame worked in the Counterproliferation Division of the CIA, an office in which every person is classified as covert. There were also a number of documents offered before trial that showed Plame was undercover. The judge held these back because they were irrelevant to a perjury case.
Why didn’t Fitzgerald charge someone with exposure of an undercover agent? Conservative by nature (and to some extent by politics), Fitzgerald was undershooting, keeping the charges reined in close to those that were no-brainers. I think he does owe the public an explanation as to the rest of the investigation, but he has said he will only do so if called by Congress because he cannot reveal the proceedings of an investigation that did not result in indictments.