Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Well on Perry Mason, people would get vindicated all the time. At the last moment, someone would usually tearfully confess right there in the courtroom out of a sense of shame, usually. And that's the way things ought to work, darn it. And the Perry Mason theme should be piped into courtrooms when the judge walks in, you know? Might set people's moral compasses in order.
Originally Posted By TALL Disney Guy I prefer the "L.A. Law" theme, myself. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVhf9zZ5fJI" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =mVhf9zZ5fJI</a>
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan No, no, no. Listen to this... <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHqebO8aAc4" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =EHqebO8aAc4</a> By gum, you know that JUSTICE is about to be dished out when you hear that music. Or maybe I'm thinking of this... <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G92R9WPEiGo" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =G92R9WPEiGo</a>
Originally Posted By TALL Disney Guy Justice culminates in one word: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSy9Nydzqzc" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =lSy9Nydzqzc</a>
Originally Posted By DlandDug As usual, the sfgate "analysis" provides little analysis, but a good roundup of liberal talking points. >>Testimony showed that President Bush either was lying about the White House's role in outing a CIA officer at the center of the scandal or was kept in the dark by top aides who defied his orders to come forward.<< If this were true, the verdict would have been a bit more than four counts against a single assistant. What did come out actually exonerated the top members of the administration, leaving only charges of obstruction along the way. >>"I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information,'' Bush declared in September 2003. "If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know about it, and we'll take the appropriate action. ... I want to know who the leakers are.''<< And we now know who that was-- former deputy secretary Richard Armitage, a critic of the administration and one who had a vested interest in bringing them down. >>Testimony at the trial made plain that when Bush spoke those words, Karl Rove, his top political aide; Ari Fleischer, his press secretary; Richard Armitage, the No. 2 man at the State Department; and Libby had each discussed the matter, on background, with reporters.<< Yes, but not that Bush was aware of this. But don't take my word for it. Here's what that liberal bastion, the Washington Post had to say about it: >>...all those who have opined on this affair ought to take note of the not-so-surprising disclosure that the primary source of the newspaper column in which Ms. Plame's cover as an agent was purportedly blown in 2003 was former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage. Mr. Armitage was one of the Bush administration officials who supported the invasion of Iraq only reluctantly. He was a political rival of the White House and Pentagon officials who championed the war and whom Mr. Wilson accused of twisting intelligence about Iraq and then plotting to destroy him. Unaware that Ms. Plame's identity was classified information, Mr. Armitage reportedly passed it along to columnist Robert D. Novak "in an offhand manner, virtually as gossip," according to a story this week by the Post's R. Jeffrey... It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue.<< Libby was, indeed, the fall guy. And people up and down this story lied. But the "all Republicans are corrupt" mantra is simplistic and wrong. It's about as meaningful as saying "all liberals are loons," "all conservatives are heartless," or "all Democrats are evil."
Originally Posted By jonvn I like the Perry Mason theme, but could never ever watch it. I always thought it was just so awful. But I find it interesting the theme of the show, if you think about it. Innocent people being prosecuted by an inept government, with only a wily lawyer there to help the innocent. Kind of an anti-government show. Most prosecutions don't occur unless they are pretty darned certain that the individual in question committed the crime and they have enough evidence to show that they did. This does not mean that it always happens. There are incompetent people in every job. But really, a lot of people who are guilty don't ever go to trial, even if it is pretty obvious they've done the crime, because the DA does not think they can get a conviction.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "If this were true, the verdict would have been a bit more than four counts against a single assistant. What did come out actually exonerated the top members of the administration, leaving only charges of obstruction along the way." How do you figure? One of the main concepts behind an obstruction charge, and this one in particular, is that the prosecuotr was prevented from getting at the truth. No one higher up than Libby was exonerated. Fitzgerald couldn't tell either way due to the roadbloacks/obstructions Libby threw out there. Hence the charge against.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Exonerated may have been too strong a term. The consensus among the non-partisans is that Armitage was the source of the leak. Staunch defenders of the administration can now pretend that the whole investigation was a waste of time, and that it was somehow OK for Libby to lie to the grand jury. Those who hate Bush and, by extension, all Republicans, can maintain that Libby's conviction is proof that the GOP really is a nexus of evil. So it's a win all around. (Unless, of course, you're Scooter Libby.)
Originally Posted By DlandDug As far as Fitzgerald not getting to the truth of who leaked Plame's identity, I could hardly improve on the Post's assessment: >>It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue. The partisan clamor that followed the raising of that allegation by Mr. Wilson in the summer of 2003 led to the appointment of a special prosecutor, a costly and prolonged investigation, and the indictment of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on charges of perjury. All of that might have been avoided had Mr. Armitage's identity been known three years ago.<< <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083101460_pf.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083101460_pf.html</a>
Originally Posted By jonvn "consensus among the non-partisans is that Armitage was the source of the leak." Even assuming that is true, it does not excuse anyone from obstructing justice. And the question remains: Why? Why did this individual feel he needed to do this.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> If this were true, the verdict would have been a bit more than four counts against a single assistant. << No - actually it wouldn't. The scope of the questions put to the jury were limited only to libby. And yes - the trial did reveal that rove, fleischer, libby and armitage had all spoken about plame to the media - on 'background' - at the time of bush's comments. So which is it? Was bush lying to the public, or were his top inner circle lying to him? It's got to be one of the two.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Even assuming that is true, it does not excuse anyone from obstructing justice. And the question remains: Why? Why did this individual feel he needed to do this." And this is really the big question here. And from experience, we all know one doesn't lie unless either there's something to hide or one is psychopathic.
Originally Posted By retlawfan I don't know if he lied or forgot, but why do jurors keep coming out and saying that they openly wondered why Carl Rove wasn't charged in the leak? They we're not there to judge what he lied about, or even who may have influenced those lies. They were there to determine if he lied to investigators/grand jury or not. Period. Carl Rove wasn't being charged with anything. It sounds like they (the jury) bought into the idea that this was about the leak, not the lies. That being said, if Libby lied, than he should have been convicted. So, don't take this observation as some sort of an excuse for him. I just want the integrity of the judicial system to remain in tact. A COURT OF LAW IS NO PLACE FOR POLITICS. (Ok, let me have it.)
