Letters to the Editor
Elephantman
Published Letters: 1274 Editor's Choice: 15
-
Yes, indeed, it is different!
[Read the article: The Libby lobby's pardon campaign]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Paula Jones civil suit was settled, for $850,000, while on appeal from the trial court dismissal.
Clinton was never charged with perjury for his rather bold, intentional, duplicitous lie, as exemplified by the video "I did not have sexual realtions... with that woman... Miss Lewinsky." It would have been surprising to me if Clinton had been charged with perjury. Just as surprising, and inexplicable, is the fact that Libby WAS charged with perjury. Remember that Libby wasn't charged with a clear-cut, bald faced lie in which he denied what was clearly true. The way Clinton lied. Libby was charged with essentially a faulty recollection of conversations of more than a year earlier, conversations about which even the other participants had imperfect recollections.
I would not rule out the possiblity that a Circuit Court of Appeal may think differently about the Libby trial, and the Libby sentencing. If he is not pardoned before then.
-
Sigh...
[Read the article: The Libby lobby's pardon campaign]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Y'all got me. I am prepared to eat all of my words, and admit my monstrous hypocrisy.
Just as soon as Bill Clinton serves the same amount of prison time as Scooter Libby.
-
Renegade...
[Read the article: The Libby lobby's pardon campaign]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Civics 101: Clinton was 'Impeached' by the House of Representatives, not the Senate. The articles of impeachment that you cite are, in hindsight, all true statements of Clinton's fudging with the civil justice system.
The Senate trial of Bill Clinton resulted in his 'acquittal,' not his removal from office. You'd agree with the Senate in that regard, I should think. As I would have agreed that a reasonable jury would have acquitted Libby.
And yet, Clinton did lie, as we all know. It was that sincere-Bill, lip-biting, sociopathic victimhood brand of lying for which he is so famous. As punishment for his lying, he was sanctioned by the trial court. NOT convicted of, or even charged with, a federal felony.
The charges against Libby were and are far more severe than any sanction imposed upon Clinton. All for nothing more than the political dispute that Blumenthal has identified.
Pardon Scooter Libby.
-
Barnaby -
[Read the article: The Libby lobby's pardon campaign]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I didn't bring up Clinton; the Salonsitas did!
And my point was that Clinton's bald-faced lie under oath didn't bring him a perjury charge. Whereas, Libby's faulty recollection did. So as long as anyone is engaging in Clinton-comparisons (far be it for Sidney Blumenthal to engage in any Clinton comparisons, right?), it hardly seems fair that Scooter Libby would be charged with a felony, does it?
Isn't it clear to any reader of this entire thread? The Salonistas think the same way Sidney Blumenthal does. What is the big issue in the Libby case? The fact that he worked in the Vice President's office, and that he was one of the so-called "Vulcans" who favored the overthrow of Saddam.
Tell you what, Salonistas -- why don't you all just be honest. Drop the phony perjury charge against Libby, and draft suit papers to be filed in a U.S. District Court, or the Hague, and allege that the Bush Administration is guilty of war crimes. See how far that gets you.
Wait, what is that, you say? You have no power to do that? Perhaps not. George W. Bush is the President of the United States. With the power to pardon Libby. Let's see what happens.
-
Exactly, WeikuBoy!
[Read the article: The Libby lobby's pardon campaign]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Clintons were never even charged with perjury, after lying under oath and in interviews with investigators.
But Libby was charged. And for what? I dare anyone to recount, in 25 words or less, the exact nature of what it is that Libby "lied" about. Was it a Tim Russert conversation? Was it a Matt Cooper conversation? Was it a Judy Miller conversation? What were the details? How did those details foil any effort to further the investigation? Why is it not a conclusive end that the name of Valerie Plame was publicized by Robert Novak, who got his information from Richard Armitage? With no charges whatsoever in that regard? Weird, huh?
Here's another one for the Salon faithful. No one is willing to answer this one, Fitzgerald included. Describe in detail how, exactly, Libby's supposed lying about his conversations with two reporters is supposed to have foiled the mighty Fitzgerald's investigation.
-
And on and on it goes...
[Read the article: The Libby lobby's pardon campaign]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]More Salonistas cursing Libby for his involvement in the Iraq campaign. (Not relevant to the criminal charges, expcept as a means to prejudice his defense.)
And more Salonistas applying the bromide that Libby must have covered for the President of the Vice President, without the slightest explanation as to how that occurred. (No one has, and on one can, explain how Libby's conversations with three reporters - the only subject matter at issue - served to "cover" for the Vice President.)
And the old hysteria about how a covert CIA agent was illegally outed by Libby, when that is not only untrue, but was also somehting that neither Libby nor anyone else was charged with. (A point made so often now that one wonders why the New York Times isn't pressing harder to demand of Fitzgerald his reason(s) for imprisoning one of its rporters. The only reason is that the New York Times is so anti-Bush that even its own reporters are expendable in that fight.)
This case was a bad joke from the start.