Fox News Analysts: Libby Verdict Flawed, No Underlying Crime

[meegbear]

In the wake of the Libby verdict, Fox News has wheeled out a brigade of legal analysts and their usual TV hosts, all of whom are reaching oddly similar conclusions: The verdict is flawed, and there was no underlying crime. A sampling is below.

Legal Analyst Andrew Napolitano:

When you even so even so much as hint to the jury that the defendant is going to take the stand, and then he doesn't, the jury begins to wonder.

Fox News Reporter Jim Angle:

And I should say one other thing: We've talked to a lot of defense lawyers and former federal prosecutors about this case. When Scooter Libby went to the FBI and before the grand jury, he was advised by an old friend who is not a criminal lawyer. And in talking to many criminal lawyers and former prosecutors, they have all said, when you go before a grand jury and you cannot remember, do not try to help them, do not try to sort through your memory, just say you do not remember. Scooter Libby, many believe, simply went too far in trying to remember things, and did not remember them correctly. Obviously, the prosecution says he knowingly lied, but there are a number of people who said they would never let their clients go into a grand jury and start sorting through their memories and saying anything nearly as specific as he did to both the FBI and the grand jury here.

Victoria Toensing, Washington lawyer and former Barry Goldwater Senate staffer, who helped write the 1982 law governing the leaking of a CIA official's identity:

I am totally surprised, because the verdict is inconsistent. that doesn't bother the law at all; the courts don't care if verdicts are inconsistent, because they say whichever way the jury reached the decision, that's up to the jury. but practically, the verdict is inconsistent because if you're looking at this, you would either think Scooter Libby had decided to lie to the FBI and the grand jury, or he did not. and it seems to me rather strange that it's split. Oh, in the one situation talking to the FBI, he did not, and in the others, he did. It doesn't make sense.

Fox News Commentator Fred Barnes:

I would stop short of calling it politically devastating, however, because no one was charge with an underlying crime here of actually having illegally leaked the name of Valerie Plame Wilson to the press. We know who the original leaker was - Richard Armitage at the State Department - but he wasn't charged, nor was anyone else. So this is not quite as devastating as it could be if there was some underlying crime.

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/mar/06/fox_news_analysts_libby_verdict_flawed_no_underlyine_crime

[Cerridwen]

1. They must have sent the talking points out early, before the

verdict.

These same arguments were showing up on the freeper site about an hour ago.

[stevedeshazer]

4. Limbaugh is saying the same thing, too

Gotta hand it to the right wing spin machine, they're all in lockstep and prepared with their White House talking points.

Libby to them is merely a public relations problem.

[rateyes]

11. Hey Steve!

:hi:

Libby is toast. Now, I'm ready for the jam.

[stevedeshazer]

17. Howdy, Pardner

I think I'll sit a spell. Long day.

But a damn good one. Good to see ya. :hi:

[rateyes]

18. Yeah, it's been a good day for the U.S. of A....

I hope the year gets better. Hope you're doing well. :smile:

[Cerridwen]

13. Yeah, I'm so relieved that there's no

vast right wing conspiracy and it's just a bunch of conspiracy theorists who think there is.

*sigh*

[Supersedeas]

22. Inconsistent - without discussing the particulars!!!

[mcscajun]

6. Somebody was busy into the wee hours last night writing these up.

:wow: they're fast.

[POAS]

9. Nah, they probably had this

ready before Libby was even indicted. They are very good at CYA.

[Cerridwen]

15. Good point.

I've noticed they do take the long term approach - 1000 years comes to mind. *snork*

[librechik]

2. yes, maybe they can bring this up during the appeal

:rofl:

superb analysis, Vicki!

:sarcasm:


tell it to the jury!

[napi21]

3. Errr...but purgery was cause to remove a duly ELECTED President from office?

Naw, there's no double standard here!

[driver8]

5. Why don't they drop the "Fox News" name...who are they kidding?

They should just call themselves, "Office of Propaganda".

They are sickening -- how dare anyone at that place call themselves a "journalist."

[gasperc]

7. except treason, and perjury

oh and violating federal law protecting agents in the field

but underlying that...

[Dawgs]

8. UH!!! No underlying crime when CLINTON LIED!!!

And he was impeached.

Sorry for yelling, but I had to do it.

[Windy]

10. THEY COULDN'T GET TO THE UNDERLYING CRIME

BECAUSE LIBBY OBSTRUCTED THE INVESTIGATION!!!!!

ITS SIMPLE!!!!

They were prevented from proving the underlying crime becuse of the actions of Libby!!!!

My God... the distortion on the right is incredible. Unfortunately, most people just don't get it!

[underpants]

12. The law is so poorly written that it is almost impossible to break

but yet Libby lied anyway.

[underpants]

14. Then ...WHY DID HE LIE????

:shrug:

Answer me that.

[htuttle]

16. Yeah, tell that to Martha Stewart!

[Sapere aude]

19. "this is not quite as devastating as it could be" So real justice would be devastating.

Charging someone with the leak would be politically devastating. Now who's he cheering for anyway. Bush or truth justice and the American way? (I got that idea from the latest conservative love fest. Tancredo said Superman had it right.)

[Dr Fate]

20. Tell it to the judge. n/t

n/t

[Renew Deal]

21. OK, so why did he lie?

Why did he need to lie?