On Libby: Fitz is a fanatic, the juries are all idiots, and the judge is a hanging judge

[alcibiades_mystery]

Oh, and the CIA are partisans.

Everybody in the whole system is wrong but the right wing pundits!

:sarcasm:

The arrogance is truly ridiculous. Look at the various levels of checks that have been involved in this investigation:

1) The CIA referred the leak to Justice. ("They're in a partisan battle with Cheney!")
2) Ashcroft recused himself and turned it over to Comey. ("It should have never gotten to DOJ in the first place!")
3) Comey assigns Fitzgerald, one of the most accomplished federal prosecutors in the country. ("He's a fanatic! A partisan! A maniac! An egomaniac!")
4) Fitzgerald duly investigates, only to be foiled by Libby's criminal actions. In consultation with his staff, none of whom resigned or made even the slightest noise about the fairness of it all, Fitzgerald decides to submit Libby's actions to a federal grand jury, comprised of ordinary citizens. They indict Libby. ("Grand jury in DC is all 'Demon'crat! They're stupid, and probably black! They're influenced by the press! You could indict a ham sandwich!")
5) Through several preliminary hearings and other reviews, Walton - a G.W. Bush appointee, decides the case has merit to proceed. ("It's purely formal! Judges never throw out an indictment at this stage!")
6) In a fair trial during which he receives monumentally expensive representation of counsel, Libby is convicted on the evidence by a jury of his peers. ("They're too stupid to understand the statute! No underlying crime!")
7) During sentencing, Judge Walton utterly dismisses the 'no underlying crime' argument, noting that the federal government should not be in the business of REWARDING criminals for having SUCCESSFULLY OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE. There has been no further action on the underlying crime because Libby obstructed justice, is his point. He sentences Libby under the guidelines after careful review. ("He's a hanging judge! Irrational! Doesn't understand the case! Unfair!")

So, for a Tucker Carlson or a Victoria Toensig to be right, the CIA, the Deputy Attorney General, A United States attorney, a duly empaneled grand jury, a learned and accomplished judge, and a jury of citizens having duly considered the evidence must all be wrong together. At what point do these pundits hit the wall? At what point do they have to admit that for the case to go through all those steps, there has to have been significant and even pressing evidence of wrongdoing? At what point?.

[BuyingThyme]

1. I hope Ambassador Joe stirs this pot better than Fitz did.

[Phredicles]

2. If everyone IS against the Shrub Bunch, have their apologists

ever stopped to wonder why?

That's a rhetorical question; of course they haven't.