Hannity interview on the scandal

Here's an interview with Al Gore's attorney that argued his case before the Supreme Court:

DAVID BOIES, FORMER GORE COUNSEL: Whether or not she was covert, I think that's an open question. But I think the prosecutor did understand early on that there was not an underlying crime here. From the outside, that's the way it looks.

HANNITY: Right.

BOIES: And under those circumstances, I think it's very troubling to use the criminal justice system to proceed in what is essentially a political case. I thought that way in the Clinton case.

HANNITY: Well, you were wrong then, but you're right here.

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: I don't mean to make a joke.

BOIES: This is the same thing. This is the same thing. This is criminalizing the political process. And it's wrong, whether it's done on one side or on the other.

HANNITY: I want you to expand on this, though. When you say criminalize the political process here, I mean, literally no crime was committed until after the investigation began. I mean, is it the type of thing where -- anybody, if you don't have a correct memory on 100 different levels, that you're really...

BOIES: Well, see, that's the problem. That's exactly the problem. People can't remember everything. Now, people have got to tell the truth in front of a grand jury. That's very important.

HANNITY: Sure.

BOIES: And if you're conducting an investigation where you really need to get people's testimony, and they lie, they need to be prosecuted, even if you ultimately conclude there was no underlying crime.

But that's not really the situation here, as I see it, because, from the outside, it looks like the prosecutor knew before some of this testimony was taken that there was not an underlying crime. And then to go forward and try to get people maybe to slip up, make a mistake, so you can bring a perjury or obstruction charge, I think that is what's troubling here.

Another right wing nut I guess that doesn't support the left wing belief that a prosecuter should be able to haul anyone they want to in front of grand jury for any reason the prosecuter chooses to try and get someone to lie under oath about anything.

The irony of the left

I'm actually finding it hilarious how all the left wingers are such zealots for law and order. It would be interesting to note how they felt about illegals doing jail time in the United States.

I'd consider the reactions of folks like Pelosi and Reid to be muted on this. There's good reason, the next time the Democrats win the presidency they know that the same thing can happen. Libby was charged with lying about where he learned about Plame's being a CIA agent. Fitzgerald claimed he learned it from government officials, Libby claimed he learned it from reporters, that information was readily available on the internet. Why does it matter where Libby learned it? It's not.

One last thought from me on this, if it's irrelevant that a special prosecuter actually investigate a crime then why don't we just appoint a boat load of special prosecuters to find out who's willing to lie under oath to a grand jury under any circumstances and weed them out of the government by throwing them in jail.

Scooter Libby Scandal

Plame was neither covert nor did he hide anything about Armitage's linking of the name. Fitzgerald knew Armitage had leaked the name to Novak before he asked Libby quesiton uno. I'm sure you'll dredge up some links stating that Plame was indeed covert. Funny that Armitage didn't get changed with any crime in fact Libby was the only person charged. It was a perjery trap pure and simple. Here's an article that states the issue better than I:

Fitzgerald never had any reason to believe that there was a crime to be solved in the "CIA leak case." Nothing in the U.S. code purports to make talking about Valerie Plame a crime. Fitzgerald never had any legitimate grounds for pursuing a criminal investigation because he never had even the theoretical possibility of a crime to investigate.


His own conduct strongly suggests that he knew this from the beginning. If Fitzgerald really believed that there was something criminal about revealing Valerie Plame's identity he would have filed charges against at least two defendants on the day he took over the case. Richard Armitage and Robert Novak were both guilty of discussing Plame and Fitzgerald knew it on day one. But he filed no charges. Why not? Probably because he knew that neither Armitage nor Novak nor anyone else had violated any law by talking about Valerie Plame.


Since Fitzgerald had no crime to investigate, the sole purpose of his investigation, even before it became his, was to keep asking questions until discrepancies in the testimony made it possible to convince a bent jury that somebody important lied under oath. This despicable game is a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment and it cannot result in a lawful conviction for perjury.

On solving crime

Where those in a position to do so actually in favour of reducing crime it would be possible but our leaders do not attempt to proactively seek solutions by rethinking policy but simply reactively handle crisis after crisis, desperate above all not to rock the boat and lose their prosperous position. It is perhaps one of the great failings of democracy that it tends to nullify and fight against decisive action still when you consider the great mediocrity of man it is perhaps the ideal system for us at the moment.

The solution to solving crime is simple; stop allowing people who participate in crime to participate in society. Either put them to death or deport them. Locking people in cages like animals is inhumane as is allowing those who seek to harm others free in society. Deportation is the ideal solution; send them to a war torn, genocidal african country and allow them to experience what a society where their action are replicated wholesale is like. If we're lucky, they'll die while they're learning this question.