« So Many Kagans | Main | Mysterious Character »

March 11, 2007

Dogs lying with cats, toads from the sky, etc.

(Posted by John.)

It must be a cold day in hell -- I actually agree with Bill Kristol on something:

In this week’s Weekly Standard, editor Bill Kristol writes that Bush must pardon Libby immediately. “If the president does intend to pardon Libby, there is no reason to wait,” he writes.

I'm a big, big fan of this idea.  If possible, Bush should pardon Scooter sometime in the last few weeks before Election Day 2008.  I think this would be good for his White House, and especially good for America.  Almost as good for America as waiting to fire Don Rumsfeld.

March 11, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

From a comment left at Jurassic Pork: The Dark Wraith has an interesting comment on a potential pardon for Scooter: such a pardon would remove Libby's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, but would leave intact possible jeopardy for contempt of court and/or new charges of perjury. The result is that Libby could be required to testify under oath -- and under penalty of perjury and contempt -- about what others in the administration knew and when they knew it.

So while a pardon would protect Libby from imprisonment, and reward him for his services to the bush regime, it could also open a whole different set of problems that the bush junta would prefer to keep under wraps.

The Wraith's conclusion, obviously, is that bush SHOULD pardon Libby, and the sooner the better.

Posted by: terryinaz | Mar 11, 2007 2:08:18 PM

The result is that Libby could be required to testify under oath -- and under penalty of perjury and contempt -- about what others in the administration knew and when they knew it.

What's new about that? Libby didn't claim any Fifth Amendment protection on that before, not that I've heard of. If he had, every liberal would be making an issue of it.

Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 11, 2007 2:44:31 PM

Libby didn't claim any Fifth Amendment protection on that before, not that I've heard of.

Libby implicitly took advantage of his 5th Amendment rights by not testifying in his own defense. Fitzgerald did not call him to the stand himself because he knew that Libby was not obligated to answer any questions. Just because there's no magic moment where a defendant declares, "I refuse to answer on 5th Amendment grounds" doesn't mean that his right against self-incrimination didn't come into play in terms of the way the trial and investigation were organized.

Posted by: Constantine | Mar 11, 2007 4:28:56 PM

Fitzgerald did not call him to the stand himself because he knew that Libby was not obligated to answer any questions.

I doubt this very much. Nothing would have made Fitzgerald's case better than having Libby take the Fifth. I'm sure Fitzgerald was happy that Libby didn't testify because the common wisdom is that in a perjury trial, where the jury is asked to trust the defendant, the jury needs to hear the defendant himself. The defense, which had said Libby would testify, apparently thought the trial had gone well enough that they might actually make it worse by having him testify. But the Fifth Amendment didn't have any role in this, as far as I can see.

Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 11, 2007 5:09:55 PM

"I doubt this very much. Nothing would have made Fitzgerald's case better than having Libby take the Fifth. I'm sure Fitzgerald was happy that Libby didn't testify because the common wisdom is that in a perjury trial, where the jury is asked to trust the defendant, the jury needs to hear the defendant himself. The defense, which had said Libby would testify, apparently thought the trial had gone well enough that they might actually make it worse by having him testify. But the Fifth Amendment didn't have any role in this, as far as I can see."

1. Can the prosecution call the defendant as a witness without his concent? In all my years of watching Law and Order I can't recall it ever happening, any people with actual legal knowledge know that for a fact?

2. I don't see how Libby's lawyer could have thought that they didn't need him to testify if they sincerely believed that he was innocent. You had the Grad Jury testimony of Libby saying one thing, and then a bunch of people contradicting him. In what way was the trial going well for Libby at that point? How could they have realistically thought that they could refute the testimony of Russert et al without Libby giving his account?

Posted by: Vermin Jones | Mar 11, 2007 6:03:01 PM

In what way was the trial going well for Libby at that point?

They had managed to show that just about everyone who testified, including Russert, had misremembered things either in their testimony or in what they regarded as similar situations, and they had presented evidence of Libby's own spotty memory. They apparently thought they have laid plenty of ground for reasonable doubt. That the jury took so long suggests that it may have been a close call.

I don't know about the first question.

Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 11, 2007 6:25:15 PM

1. Can the prosecution call the defendant as a witness without his consent? In all my years of watching Law and Order I can't recall it ever happening, any people with actual legal knowledge know that for a fact?

No. That's what the "protection against self-incrimination" thing means. You can't be forced to testify against yourself - and that certainly applies if you are on trial. But, obviously, it may affect a jury's thinking if a defendant refuses to testify.

Posted by: ajay | Mar 12, 2007 7:12:23 AM

托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
钢托盘
木托盘
钢制托盘
托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
杭州托盘
成都托盘
武汉托盘
长沙托盘
合肥托盘
苏州托盘
无锡托盘
昆山托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
南京钢制托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘

托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
塑料托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
木托盘
塑料托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘


托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
托盘
塑料托盘

Posted by: judy | Sep 27, 2007 8:16:52 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.