"I think what we see here today, when a vice president's chief of staff is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice, it does show the world that this is a country that takes its law seriously; that all citizens are bound by the law. But what we need to also show the world is that we can also apply the same safeguards to all our citizens, including high officials. Much as they must be bound by the law, they must follow the same rules."
– Independent Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, Friday, Oct. 28, 2005
Those were stirring words from Patrick Fitzgerald.
And, I believe, he means them.
His presentation to the nation Friday was professional and persuasive.
Personally, I am not at all concerned about the CIA leak case.
I don't believe anyone was hurt by the leaks.
Valerie Plame was no covert CIA agent, in my book. She had not been working overseas since 1996 and appeared unlikely to take any covert assignments abroad in the future.
Had Lewis Libby not lied under oath to investigators, I doubt very seriously he would be under indictment right now. Because no other crime appears to have been committed.
Nevertheless, Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, is now facing 30 years in jail for a cover-up of what he leaked to reporters.
While I like to see the high and mighty brought low as much as the next guy, the possible sentence seems a little excessive.
Where was this guy Fitzgerald when we really needed him?
Where was he when former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger was caught red-handed stealing highly classified documents from the National Archives, destroying some and then lying about it to investigators?
If ever there was a crime that warranted 30 years in the slammer, it was that theft from the people and the ensuing cover-up.
But Sandy Berger walked. He got away with a modest fine and a prohibition against taking another national security job in the federal government until at least 2009. Big deal. His party is out of the White House until then.
Is anyone else struck with the contrast between these two prosecutions?
While I appreciate that independent counsels want to send signals to the people that even high officials can be brought down for violating the law, we also have a concept in this country of "equal justice under the law."
Can anyone honestly look at these two cases – Libby and Berger – and tell me they were treated equally?
I don't think so.
Now, I don't have any love for the Bush administration. In fact, it was the Bush Justice Department that let Berger walk. I don't know Scooter Libby – wouldn't know him if I tripped over him. I never heard of him until the Valerie Plame case.
But 30 years for lying under oath?
Does anyone remember another high official who lied under oath?
I seem to remember a former president.
And what was his sentence?
Zip. Zilch. Nada.
His defenders say he was only lying about sex in the White House with an intern.
Well, heck, Libby was only lying about what he told reporters.
What's a worse crime? Lying about abusive sexual behavior in a sexual harassment case, or lying about what you told some reporters?
I'm a reporter and I tell you the former is a much worse offense.
So where, for heaven's sake, is the proportionality?
Where is the equal justice under the law?
Is it fair and just to throw the book at one official and let others skate for more serious crimes?
posted on October 31, 2005 10:40:26 AM new
Oh now bear, I know you know others have LONG recognized the unequal treatment under the law when it comes to the crimes that liberals break. But many were indicted during the clinton administration....the worst of the worst. berger escaped quite nicely...with a slap on the wrist.
So now yes, they're whining at the top of their lungs again when Libby wasn't even indicted on the charges they so loosely threw his way.
Is anyone else struck with the contrast between these two prosecutions? This WILL help come the next set of elections....many won't forget how easily berger got off....and how they'd like to hang a republican for much less even BEFORE he's been found guilty.
While I appreciate that independent counsels want to send signals to the people that even high officials can be brought down for violating the law, we also have a concept in this country of "equal justice under the law." See.....even voters who don't like this President....can still be fair and honest enough to point out the hyprocisy from the left.
Can anyone honestly look at these two cases – Libby and Berger – and tell me they were treated equally? I don't think so.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on October 31, 2005 10:59:18 AM new
Berger plead out on a single charge. Libby is facing 5. Consensus seems to be that if he were to plead out he probably would not get more that a year. But then I guess those realities are not nearly as dramatic.
What I don't understand and no conservative seems to be interested in trying to provide an answer to is... If nothing was done wrong, why all the lies? You guys act as if this is a persecution. HE LIED TO A GRAND JURY, or is that allowed now under the Bush administration?
You cannot have it both ways. You either believe that he was wrong for lying to a grand jury and he must take legal responsibility for his actions or you believe that the law does not apply to members of this administration.
Which is it?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
[ edited by fenix03 on Oct 31, 2005 11:00 AM ]
posted on October 31, 2005 11:33:09 AM new
Yes Linda - it does show exactly that. All you and Bear have done since the indictments came down is say that they are a trivial witch hunt.
Come on Linda - take a stand. Was the grand jury correct in indicting him for lying and should he have to take responsibility for that or do you think it's ok to lie to the FBI and a grand jury?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on October 31, 2005 11:44:01 AM newBut wait... haven't you repeated held Clinton responsible for lying about an act that was not illegal?
fenix you are becoming quite predictable.
Doesnt the story go: It was wrong clinton lied, but okay,look why he lied, and what he what he lied about? Somehow that is only mitigated for democrats? lol!
You still havent said if you think the publisher of the story holds any liability for the actual public outing that has caused the actual harm to this womans position?
beat the drum, fenix, beat that drum....
.
[ edited by dblfugger9 on Oct 31, 2005 11:45 AM ]
when Libby wasn't even indicted on the charges they so loosely threw his way.
