<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Thursday, January 25, 2007

Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby 

By Cardinalpark at 1/25/2007 10:00:00 AM
have a lot in common. They were high profile elements of a government investigation and prosecution. They both were in a position to hire excellent, world class legal counsel. They were both innocent of the core claims that prosecutors were investigating. They both had the benefit of that legal counsel when they sat down with prosecutors.

And they both screwed up, and got screwed.

When young, ambitious government prosecutors decide to come after you, you are in deep doodoo folks. They aren't seeking truth, justice and the American Way. They are seeking scalps. So don't be a moron, commit a process booboo and hand them yours. In a competitive endeavor, you don't have to win pretty. Fumbles, mud, weather...anything that gets you the W is ok. And its pretty clear that litigation --prosecution and defense -- is viewed by the participants as exactly that.

One other thing I guess they have in common -- they were both too "smart" for their own good.

When asked if he wanted a fair trial, a guilty man said, "no, I'd prefer to win."

Permalink - - Main

4 Comments:

By Blogger TigerHawk, at Thu Jan 25, 12:32:00 PM:

Scooter's behavior is more baffling. They nailed Martha Stewart on a single false statement, I believe, made in haste and outside the presence of her lawyers. Scooter went out of his way to recount "memories" that turned out not to be true on several different occasions, including in the presence of his lawyers. Indeed, Libby is himself a lawyer.

I know that I have been deposed under oath and even given testimony on any number of occasions. If I do not remember the facts that are exactly responsive to the precise question asked, I just tell the truth: "I don't remember." I can't remember what I ate for breakfast, and I certainly wouldn't remember a telephone conversation that I had months or a year previously. Why Scooter did not just say "I really can't remember where I learned that Valerie Plame was Joe Wilson's wife" and leave it at that is totally beyond me, especially since he undoubtedly could have said that much truthfully.  

By Blogger Cardinalpark, at Thu Jan 25, 02:11:00 PM:

She did worse that your recollection...there was a phone call record which she changed and then changed back and one other gaffe.

I don't get what goes through the arrogant heads of these people. I cannot recall. I cannot recall. I cannot recall. Unless you really, really, really can...you can't.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Fri Jan 26, 04:48:00 AM:

We have to look at Fitzgerald's allegiances here. By Day 3 he knew he had no case, because of the 5-year rule in the law, and Wilson had disclosed all in his 1997 book. The case had clocked out.

Not to mention, what an original spy cover, The Ambassador's Main Squeeze? What a cover story; who'd have guessed?

So, we have the question: who is Fitzgerald working for here?  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sat Jan 27, 09:40:00 PM:

There is some prior history here. Fitzgerald wanted to prosecute Marc Rich, and Libby was his lawyer. There is a WSJ article to which I don't have a link, but one blog discusses it here.
http://www.liberallyconservative.com/?p=1604  

Post a Comment


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?