You Mean Lewis Libby?

By  | 

(Stolen from TMV.)

  • bob in fl

    Sounds like the author of the article just might be very right wing when he says juries are untrained in law. Juries don’t have to know law. They base their decisions on facts, or lack thereof. Our author of the link doesn’t seem to understand the right of having a jury trial is guaranteed in the Constitution. But who cares about the Constitution? Emperer Bush & vice Emperor Cheney have scrapped it anyway

    The jury did their job very well. They were able to separate the counts & decide he was not guilty on one of them, in spite of their feelings about the case.

  • http://stubbornfacts.us PatHMV

    I don’t get this at all. The Vice President has been very open about his support for Libby. He testified on his behalf, admitted frankly that he had given the information about Plame’s status to Libby. He spoke up on Libby’s behalf in public more than once. It’s one of the stupider political cartoons I’ve seen of late.

    Now, if you had a cartoon like that of Tom DeLay’s office going “Abramoff who?”, that would be funny.

  • http://www.donklephant.com Justin Gardner

    Pat, you’ve gotta look at this in the context of post-conviction, not pre.

    Libby’s conviction is bad news for Cheney’s credibility, and people are saying, “Libby was the fall guy, where were the other guys?” I guess I just thought this one was pretty clear.

  • http://stubbornfacts.us PatHMV

    I guess I see where you’re coming from Justin, but I still don’t see it that way. The usual thing in Washington, upon happening of a scandal, is for all the victim’s former friends and colleagues to shy away from him, distance themselves, to avoid being tainted by association.

    And Libby’s conviction has no rational connection to Cheney’s credibility. Cheney testified, told the truth about things which one would expect to be lied about if a cover-up was going on. Libby was not convicted of leaking the names, just of lying about it. Everybody already knew, there was no dispute that Libby actually did discuss Plame with Miller and Cooper (maybe, that count was dropped) and Russert. Libby’s defense was never to claim that it was Miller and Russert who were lying. The verdict only hurt the credibility of Libby’s claim of a bad memory. That’s it.

    And Libby’s lies did not gloss over the Vice-President’s role. He admitted when and how he found out about Plame’s status. The Vice-President admitted telling all that to Libby. Other than guilt by association, I don’t see why the verdict tells us a single new thing about Cheney.

  • http://www.donklephant.com Justin Gardner

    Fair enough Pat. I see your point.

    I still think the cartoon is humorous since it’s after the conviction. Libby was still the fall guy in all of this, but maybe you’re right. Cheney simply doesn’t care about the whole thing, and thinks history will ultimately be his judge.

    I guess we’ll see.