Via Talking Points Memo: Rep. Chris Cannon explains why he thinks the Scooter Libby case completes the task left undone by the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, i.e. proving that there are serious penalties for perjury and obstruction of justice.
Go to the link above for a brief but thoroughly nonsensical clip.
UPDATE: Aramis on Wasatch Watcher sums up Cannon: “Clinton lied and we never got to throw him in jail, so that makes this perfectly OK.”
UPDATE: In the same interview, Rep. Cannon says US Attorney David Iglesias in New Mexico “was fired because he’s an idiot.” Maybe Cannon ought to look in the mirror.
UPDATE: Just for the record, in case anybody has forgotten, President Clinton was acquitted of all charges and Scooter Libby was convicted. As I recall, President Clinton apologized to the nation for his own unjust impeachment because it undermined trust in the executive branch. When can we expect an apology from Libby for putting us through a years-long investigation and coverup?
#1 by Ken Bingham on July 9, 2007 - 12:24 pm
Scooter Libby not only deserved to have his sentence commuted but should get a full pardon. He was the victim of a rogue unethical prosecutor in the same vein as the disgraced Durham County D.A. Michael Nifong. Patrick Fitzgerald knew early on in his “investigation” the identity of the person, Richard Armitage, who leaked the name of Valerie Plame to the media. The moment the facts became known that no criminal activity had been committed; Fitzgerald had the ethical and legal responsibility to close his case. However, he failed to live up to his obligations and began a political witch hunt, using tax payer money, to snare senior Bush administration officials. Scooter Libby became a victim of Fitzgerald’s unethical behavior. Patrick Fitzgerald deserves the same fate as Michael Nifong. They are cut from the same cloth. Both abused their authority by pursuing their own personal agendas at the expense of good people and millions in tax payer funds.
#2 by Richard Warnick on July 9, 2007 - 12:58 pm
The verdict was that Scooter Libby lied to the grand jury. That’s perjury and obstruction of justice. Unless Libby is willing to finger somebody higher up in the administration (guess who), he ought to go to jail for a long time.
Of course, the possibility that Libby might talk may have had something to do with his sentence being commuted. George W. Bush is not a man ordinarily known for clemency.
#3 by JM Bell on July 9, 2007 - 1:08 pm
Ken, that’s complete horseshit and you know it. He lied to a Federal Grand jury. That is a crime. Fitzgerald was further unable to prove or disprove that a criminal act took place in regards to the Plame matter because he was lied to by Scooter Libby. That’s obstruction.
In addition, with no pardon, Libby is still working on his appeal and therefore can’t be called to testify (with the truth this time, we would hope) on the Plame matter until that is resolved.
#4 by Bush's Brain on July 9, 2007 - 1:11 pm
Why Ken Bingham, you lifted that nearly word for word from National Review Online. You shameless hussy, you’d better say an extra dozen Hail Mary’s tonight before going to bed.
#5 by Nephi on July 9, 2007 - 3:35 pm
Ken,
Your comments (plagiarized as they are) evidence a disturbing lack of understanding of the crime committed by Libby. While Rush and Hannity may preach their desire that the case be concluded absent an underlying crime, such is not what the law requires and demands.
Scooter lied to a grand jury and to the FBI. That’s right, Ken, Scooter lied! In doing so, he committed perjury and obstruction of justice. These are crimes for which an individual can be appropriately sentenced to 30 months in prison (or longer).
How you can come to the aid of a proven liar, Ken, calls into question your motives. Further, the now proven fact that you are a plagiarist calls into question your personal integrity.
You are no better than the BushCo criminals, Ken! You freely sacrifice your personal integrity to carry out your impure motive – which is to advance a legal theory that is plain incorrect because your guy’s guy got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
Ken … think to your self how many lives might not have been lost had folks listened to Joe Wilson – i.e., had Valerie Plame not been outed by the criminal bunch that comprises BushCo. Your blind support for this arrogant and inept administration has blood running from your hands.
#6 by Ken Bingham on July 9, 2007 - 10:45 pm
I haven’t even read the National Review online article so I am no plagerer. Thanks for the complement. I am thrilled that you would put my writing on par with theirs.
So then you agree that it was right to impeach Bill Clinton for lying under oath? Or did you excuse him back then, but now see the light that it is wrong to lie when it is a Republican involved.
#7 by Ken Bingham on July 9, 2007 - 10:52 pm
Bush’s Brain
You could have at least put a link to the actual article in question instead of NRO’s main page. I can’t even find the article your talking about. Shame on you Nephi for slandering me without even checking the facts.
#8 by Nephi on July 10, 2007 - 8:33 am
As several of my comments indicate, Ken, I remain outraged at Bill Clinton for lying under oath. Further, notwithstanding whether you copied someone else’s comment or not, I note that you forgot to respond to the substantive points of my comment. What’s up with that, Ken? Give it a try, if you can!
#9 by Bush's Brain on July 10, 2007 - 10:30 am
Oh my goodness gracious Ken darling, don’t get your polka-dot panties all twisted up in a knot. Of course it was not NRO that your delightful comment reminded me of, it was that simply delicious Ben Stein writing in American Spectator.
Ben Stein:
Ken Bingham:
#10 by Richard Warnick on July 10, 2007 - 2:48 pm
Boy, it’s incredible that anyone could claim Fitzgerald is a rogue prosecutor or a publicity hound. He ran what might be the most understated, leakproof investigation ever. He only brought charges against one individual involved in the conspiracy/coverup, the one case that was virtually a sure thing. He passed up the opportunity to look for more wrongdoing in the White House. Then he closed shop and went back to Illinois.
Compare Fitzgerald to Kenneth Starr, who investigated the Clintons for five years without bringing charges against any member of the administration. But his investigation created a stink with a continuous supply of leaks to the media.
#11 by Ken Bingham on July 10, 2007 - 11:31 pm
Bush’s Brain
If I was going to plagiarize Ben Stein I would have started with “Bueller? Bueller?”.
#12 by glenn on July 11, 2007 - 1:57 am
It’s ok,..it’s alright…
#13 by Cliff Lyon on July 11, 2007 - 6:56 am
Ken,
Don’t lower yourself to the comparison to Clinton. Only the most desperate do.
Clinton’s lie did not obstruct an investigation into a MAJOR federal criminal investigation of possible treason.
Where is your patriotism?
btw: If intimate genital contact is “sex” (i.e. Clinton lied when he said, “I did not have sex with that woman”) then a whole lot of our brothers and sisters have been lying in their TR interviews for decades.
#14 by Ken Bingham on July 11, 2007 - 10:15 am
Cliff
I only bring up Clinton to illustrate hypocrisy and selective indignation.
Also if the Plame matter was a “Major federal criminal investigation of possible treason” then why isn’t Richard Armitage, the person who actually leaked her name, not facing charges of treason? Patrick “Nifong” Fitzgerald, found very early on that no senior Bush administration official was responsible for the leak. Therefore his investigation should have concluded, but instead he chose to continue it for nefarious reasons.
btw any kind of sexual contact including light touching over the clothes can keep you from getting a “TR”. However, the nice thing about repentance is it need not keep you out for good.
#15 by Richard Warnick on July 11, 2007 - 10:24 am
No senior Bush administration official was responsible for the leak? Hah. We’ve known since October 2005 that President Bush and VP Cheney were directly involved.
#16 by glenn on July 11, 2007 - 10:57 am
Where clintons’ treason comes to play is in the part where he signed nafta. They are all no good criminals, and both parties will soon find out what their propensity to do the bidding other than the People will get them.
Fired, and looking for a new job, though most just revolve from gummint, to the private sector, in the old revolving door story.
clinton deserved what he got, and he was too stupid to live about lying about sex under Oath. What kind of idiot lies about that? Makes one wonder what he does when he makes big decisions.
#17 by ginny on July 25, 2007 - 10:56 pm
Rep. Cannon rides on in unclueful majesty even now; apparently he voted against his own amendment in a voice vote.
#18 by Cliff Lyon on July 26, 2007 - 7:09 am
Ginny, I love the last line in the article, “When Senator Arlen Specter, the top Republican on the panel, asked Gonzales whether the President has the right to prohibit the Department of Justice from pursuing Congressional charges of contempt, Gonzales had a short lawyerly response. “I am recused of speaking on that matter due to the ongoing investigation,” he said.”
#19 by ginny on July 26, 2007 - 8:05 pm
Follow-Up Question We’d Most Like To Hear:
“What does that mean, Mr Gonzales?”
“I don’t know.”
#20 by Caveat on July 26, 2007 - 9:30 pm
Follow up ? I’d most like to hear: Is one hour enough time for you to get your belongings out of our Justice Department?: )