Peter Mulhern thinks that the president should fire Patrick Fitzgerald:

The President has ample grounds for such action. Fitzgerald repeatedly lied, both in court and out, about the nature of his investigation in a successful effort to convince the jury that Libby had something to hide. Worse yet he pursued a criminal investigation when he had no reason even to suspect that any crime had been committed. This is the core of horrible prosecutorial abuse. In this situation there can be no legally sufficient conviction for perjury or false statements.

He may be right on the merits, but if he were to do what's recommended here, it would set off a political firestorm that would make the Tokyo bombing look like a fall bonfire. Because he's let people undermine him, and continue to do so without consequence, ever since he came into office, the president is now in a no-win position.

[Update in the afternoon]

Tom Maguire (who has been the go-to guy for all things Libbygate from the beginning) writes about Fitzi's Dishonor.

Funny,

If Fitzgerald Lied in Court, Why didn't Ted Wells, who was
the defense counsel raise hell?

If Fitzgerald lied in Court, why didn't Judge Walton,
who was a Bush Appointee, sanction him?

Why would Pat Fitzgerald, a Bush Appointee, lie in court?

I think the neo-cons have been telling so many
lies, they lost track of the truth.

If Fitzgerald Lied in Court, Why didn't Ted Wells, who was the defense counsel raise hell?

He did, Anonymous Moron. It's called "raising an objection." It was overruled. Repeatedly.

Lying about the nature of the investigation is something it's rather hard to do anything about - especially until it's over, o anonymous twit.

And why does being a Bush appointee matter? Unless, of course, you take the obviously false line that anyone the President appoints is his lackey and ideological servant more than he is whatever the job he was appointed to.

Which you do, implicitly... and thus end up with a ludicrous argument. You can't even examine your own assumptions.

(PS. Before you jump to another false conclusion, I'm not a Republican, and while I did vote for Mr. Bush - thinking him the best available candidate - I also voted for a pair of Democrats for Governor and Senator in the 2006 election ... for the exact same reason.)

Regardless of "if" a crime was committed or not, regardless of who else lied, Scooter Libby was convicted of lying. Nobody else was on trial. If you are being talked to by the FBI, local cops or a Dog Catcher doing his appointed official rounds, you don't lie. Especially if you have no reason to lie! He also, evidently, lied to the Grand Jury. This guy is a lawyer right? Even street thugs know to take the 5th, as opposed to lying to the Grand Jury.

I think it was a big witch hunt, but you don't lie to officially sanctioned witch hunters either. Libby screwed the pooch.

I would guess, that Bush should, at minumum, find and appoint a special prosecutor who's actually going to prosecute the leaker (and we know who he is) instead of going off on tangents for whatever reason. And maybe sue Fitzgerald and make him pay for the new investigation.

First, Rand:
Because he's let people undermine him, and continue to do so without consequence, ever since he came into office, the president is now in a no-win position.
Definitely, and this started from Day 1 of his administration. He continuously let Democrats get away with all sorts of crime in an effort to end "partisan politics", and it has resulted in a situation in which if he changes his position, it is reactionary.

Also, I agree with everything Steve wrote above, yet I suspect Robert Oler still won't get it.

Gee, maybe a special prosecutor should be appointed to look into this whole sordid Fitzgerald business (snicker).

George Bush is only doing what the voters said he should do. His problem is actually that he's too conscientious, too much trying to do The Right Thing. If he were more two-faced he would make a better leader. I suppose I'm saying he would need a little transfusion of Clintonian cynicism, ugh.

anonymous's comment makes perfect sense from the viewpoint of a liberal: judges are presumed to be always correct because that is their preferred mode of imposing law. Since by definition an activist judge is not conservative, that means only liberal judges are always correct.

When someone has no reason to lie, yet makes inconsistent statements, the reasonable conclusion is that the error was unintentional, and not a lie. The prosecution instead manufactured a "motive" by suggesting a cover-up of a crime, when there was no crime, and no underlying harm had even occurred.

The entire case was political, and our judicial system can no more be trusted than that of a dictatorship or banana republic. Fair trial? Unbiased judge? Impartial jury? Forget about it. If the powers that be want to punish you, then they will manufacture charges, find a political judge and a malleable jury, and they will ruin you. And if they can't get you, they'll get someone you know and make you watch while they do it. Police-state tactics right here in the good old U.S.of A.

I'm very ashamed of what this country has become, and it's frightening that you liberals refuse to see it. But then you're all about power, and you don't give a damn about truth, or right and wrong, or about actual flesh-and-blood human beings.

if Ted Wells felt he had critical objections, why didn't he
go to the appeals court right then?

And if the Judge Overruled Ted Wells, isn't that a
finding of law, that is presumably correct?

Or is your theory that Fitz was a terrible liar and
the Judge in cahoots with Fitzgerald to crucify poor
scooter?

If the powers that be want to punish you, then they will manufacture charges, find a political judge and a malleable jury, and they will ruin you.

Who do you suppose are the "powers" in this case, that wanted to ruin Scooter Libby? Can't be Bush, Cheney, and Haliburton this time, of course.

So who were they?

It's called "raising an objection." It was overruled. Repeatedly.

Posted by at March 8, 2007 09:57 AM

there is a reason objections are overrulled...it is because they are without merit.

LOL

Robert

George Bush is only doing what the voters said he should do. His problem is actually that he's too conscientious, too much trying to do The Right Thing.

Posted by Carl Pham at March 8, 2007 12:53 PM..

do you really believe that?

Oh my goodness.

Robert

What's funny is how the autistic right wingers want to
accuse Judge Walton of playing politics.

Judge Walton was appointed by GW Bush.
He's as conservative as they come.

do you really believe that?

Yep.

Oh my goodness.

Drunk quite a lot of the BDS Kool-Aid, have you? My condolences. I remember what that's like, having done so when younger. (There's a vote for Mondale/Ferraro and another for Carol Moseley Braun that plague my conscience.) One has such a mental hangover when you finally realize what an incredible smug and clueless ass you've been all those years.

If he were more two-faced he would make a better leader.

In many ways, he is too faced. I think Libby was wrong to perjure himself. It was stupid and unethical at best, and obviously illegal. As a member of the government, he should face tough legal review.

However, his guilt would be easier to swallow if the President also pursued the abuses of Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson. The former is a bureaucrat who gave a contract to her husband, incouraged him to do less than due diligence in his work, and then allowed him to sell the information collect using taxpayer's dollars to the NY Times.

The President should also have an investigation going on Sandy Berger. Sandy should be worried about living out his days in Leavenworth rather than what he will do when he gets his clearances back.

Yet the President has decided to hold his own party accountable and give the opposition a pass. This may be noble, but it is dangerous in a time of war.

too two faced, even.