Should Libby's conviction be overturned?

Question

Because someone 15 years ago didn't pay for their crime? I keep reading questions about Sandy Burgher and was wondering if this is the 'personal accountability' that cons speak of? Blaming a dem, instead of blaming the person who committed the crime?

dojoman, are you talking about the witchhunt for CLinton? I completely agree...

Answer 1

No, and Berger shouldn't have been pardoned either. All politicians should be held accountable to their actions, regardless of their political party. The whole pardon system needs to have some sort of oversight to assure it is not being abused. I agree Libby will probably be pardoned, but by then the damage will already be done.

Answer 2

My "armchair analysis" is that there was sufficient evidence to convict him. Appellate courts are very reluctant to overturn a jury verdict. Even if a judge thinks they just got the facts wrong, they won't substitute their judgment for the people who actually saw the whole trial. If there is ANY basis on which the jury could have reached their verdict, the appellate courts will let it stand.

BUT, if the appellate courts consider certain rulings regarding what evidence was let in, and what was left out, to be erroneous, the appellate court could overturn the verdict and order a new trial. The same if the appellate judges believe the prosecution committed "reversible error." My guess is that such a ruling is indeed more likely, although I'm not sure what odds I'd give.

SHOULD the verdict be overturned? (The original question!) I honestly don't know. I wasn't there. There seems to be enough evidence of wrongdoing to support this verdict. That's not what troubles me, as I mentioned before (at nauseating length). So let the courts work it out.

I don't care what rule is applied nearly as much as I care that the same rule is applied to all. It's how I make a living! I hope the partisan tempers cool (my own included) and the law works as it should. At least some of the disappointment of the Bush supporters (myself included) has to be aimed at Libby himself.

I thought Burger was treated too lightly.

Interesting thought about Clinton. You are right that the "gravamen" of the underlying case - alleged sexual harassment, etc. - was not in the same category as the subject matter of the Libby investigation - the Plame "leak." But the nature of the facts underlying the perjury and the obstruction charges was different for each case too. Arguably, it is easier to believe someone "misremembered" the timing and content of conversations than whether or not one has received oral sex. Looking JUST at that aspect, one might say the Clinton case was a "bigger lie" about what was ultimately a "smaller matter." Although it seems from what little I've read that Libby was not convicted for saying "I don't remember," but for giving a detailed version which didn't comport with anyone else's facts. I wasn't there to hear the case; I could be wrong.

What matters to prosecutors, etc. is not the importance of the facts at hand but the lengths to which one has gone to conceal them. They take it personally! That's not really a bad thing.

I wanna be a law professor for a while. I used to be a teacher, for a short time. I like my job but there are days when it bores the **** out of me. And only law students find this interesting anyway. Are there all-female law schools? TMI !!!

Answer 3

Probably his conviction will be overturned. He still has appeals. Mr. Bush might also pardon him. However, I feel Libby did what he was told to do, by someone higher-up. Whatever the case, I believe he did what he did, for a cause he thought was just. Time will tell.

Answer 4

if you cant see the difference between a government official who steals documents from the national archives - a felony - and who is then let off basically with a slap on the wrist and a witch hunt designed to take down an administration and prosecuted in a case with no crime committed, then you are actually eligible to be hired by any democrat leader in the house or senate. congratulations!

Answer 5

He was convicted. I know it was a sham ,but he could have just said i don't remember 100 times like the Clinton's. I think instead of pardoning Scooter, the two border patrol agents deserve one.

Answer 6

Pardon coming sometime down the road. If not, Bush should be held accountable. I'm all for it. Libby wasn't even convicted in doing anything illegal regarding the spy leak. Just not quite forthcoming or accurate in what he remembered. Probably like most of us. Now I know you libs are the most honest folk around. You'd never mislead anyone. (wink)

Answer 7

did you actual write what I observed you write in the different question??? you wrote: "heavily nevertheless, Hitler replaced right into a extra perfect chief. No different individual ought to do what he did. the situation isn't undesirable management, it is blind sheep." Uneffingbelievable.

Answer 8

Sure democrats have establish that obstruction of justice and lieing under oath is a personal thing and we shouldn't hold anyone accountable for that.

That what someone does is personal and nobody's business.

Also why aren't liberals outraged at the cost of this whole thing to being with I though that if cost more than a couple of buck or lasted more than a couple of days it was a waste of tax payers' money.

Answer 9

No, and it won't be. Bush will pardon him, because he has a moral obligation to.

Libby lied under oath because he was doing his job. That doesn't make it any less illegal, and he should be punished for it. But he wouldn't have been in a position where his job required him to obstruct justice unless there was a reason.

Bush (or Cheney, or both) got him into this mess, so it is Bush's moral obligation to get him out. And who knows, maybe that's part of the deal for taking the fall.

Answer 10

What's the difference? He'll be pardoned on 1/19/09.