Quote:
Originally Posted by Alphagamuga
The conviction apparently, and I'm going by quotes from jurors, is based on their belief that he must have remembered conversations that he said he forgot.
|
I got the impression that it was more that Tim Russert flatly denied the conversation that Libby claimed to have had with him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alphagamuga
But you realize that Clinton fired ALL the US attorneys when he took office, right?
|
Sure. Most presidents do. US Attorneys serve at the will of the president, and most new presidents want people of their choice in the position.
The issue right now is not the fact that US Attorneys serve at the will of the president. It's a combination of the
allegation that these particular US Attorneys were fired essentially as retribution for not being political enough and the use of a provision of the Patriot Act to replace them with interim US Attorneys, which bypasses the need for Senate confirmation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shinerbock
I hope Bush pardons him soon.
|
I don't see that happening until December '08 or January '09. That's why Libby will need to stretch the request for a new trial/appeal process out as long as possible, and try to get a court to stay the judgment pending appeal.
Quote:
|
I just don't like the idea of someone getting in trouble for lying about an investigation that yielded no substantive wrongdoing.
|
It's tradition. That's always what gets people in trouble in Washington -- it's not the deed itself, it's the cover-up and lying afterward.