Libby Verdict reached

[kapkomet]

A couple things are different between the President's impeachment trial and this criminal trial.

 

The first of which is that Libby's trial is a criminal trial. The second of which is that Libby testified before grand juries several times. Not only was his story different than others on his side, but they were different each time he went up to testify - and not in minor ways. Bill Clinton testified before a grand jury once.

 

The Clinton trial, although some people may feel it justified, was - at its essence - politically motivated. Articles of impeachment had been introduced by many of the same Congressmen who introduced it in 1998 as early as 1993. It is my understanding that someone who is impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors" can also be tried in criminal court for the same offenses. If there was a serious legal issue that warranted an actual conviction in this case, why didn't Starr seek out federal prosecution for Clinton after he left office in 2001? Had the statute of limitations run out? Or had Clinton's "indictment" been unable to pass the smell test in a criminal court?

 

It was absolutely politically motivated. That stunk, and this stinks as well. However, there was much more that Starr could have went after and didn't. The point is, though, Clinton perjered himself and got away with it. Libby did too, and didn't get away with it. I don't think he knows what the hell he was doing, to be honest. I know you all want to make it seem like VP Dick was puppetting this whole thing, but I don't think so, based on some of the evidence that came out.

 

BTW, there is a difference between "classified" and "covert", but that's neither here nor there anyway.

[whitesoxfan101]

He "lied" to a grand jury. It's called perjury, and he got convicted of it... something the illustrious Bill Clinton got away with. I'm sure, since this is Bush's administration or anything having to do with Bush (85 times removed), it's different.

 

I understand the charges, but I still question the guilt. And of course Clinton got away with it, he gets away with EVERYTHING, a prime example of that is the love he gets in the black community despite what his record in the state of Arkansas says in regards to how he feels about african americans (not good).

 

My biggest issue with the Libby thing is if you hear what Fitzgerald and the jurors even said, they sounded more convinced and more like they were convicting Cheney than Libby. It's just a strange case since although I don't doubt Libby perjured himself, I don't even know if Libby, Fitzgerald, or the jurors have any idea if he is guilty with how confusing the case is. His conviction to me seems more like a statement against the administration than anything, and although I don't have any problem with those, it shouldn't send somebody to jail.

[Rex Kickass]

It was absolutely politically motivated. That stunk, and this stinks as well. However, there was much more that Starr could have went after and didn't. The point is, though, Clinton perjered himself and got away with it. Libby did too, and didn't get away with it. I don't think he knows what the hell he was doing, to be honest. I know you all want to make it seem like VP Dick was puppetting this whole thing, but I don't think so, based on some of the evidence that came out.

 

BTW, there is a difference between "classified" and "covert", but that's neither here nor there anyway.

 

All I can say is, any decent lawyer makes sure that his client gets his story straight before he appears under oath. From what I understand, there were direct contradictions in his own testimony from appearance to appearance. There were also direct contradictions from other people who testified in the Grand Jury to what Libby said.

 

The truth is Libby got popped for perjury which he probably did commit. He also got popped for obstruction of justice, lying to FBI investigators and making false statements. The only thing he was found innocent of was lying to the FBI. Given that the jury took two weeks to deliberate on his guilt or innocence and went so far as to ask the judge for a definition of reasonable doubt, there is every expectation in my mind that the jury took its job seriously and that political affiliation was not a factor in its decision. Further, Fitzgerald has no official party affiliation and was appointed by a Republican. Fitzgerald sought no expansion of his powers as special prosecutor in this case.

 

The Clinton perjury charge was specifically related to one question that he answered in a deposition about whether he'd had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. He said that he had not. Under grand jury testimony, he stated that he had an inappropriate physical relationship with Lewinsky but that he also didn't consider a BJ sex. It's a lame excuse, to be sure, but I don't know that this even comes close to passing the smell test when it comes to perjury. What's more, during the impeachment trial, the Impeachment managers couldn't even get a majority of Senators to vote for conviction on the perjury trial. Ten Senators from the GOP peeled off to the Dem side to vote innocent. The only article that had a prayer was the obstruction of justice charge and that, still, fell 17 votes short.

[Damen]

I understand the charges, but I still question the guilt. And of course Clinton got away with it, he gets away with EVERYTHING, a prime example of that is the love he gets in the black community despite what his record in the state of Arkansas says in regards to how he feels about african americans (not good).

 

My biggest issue with the Libby thing is if you hear what Fitzgerald and the jurors even said, they sounded more convinced and more like they were convicting Cheney than Libby. It's just a strange case since although I don't doubt Libby perjured himself, I don't even know if Libby, Fitzgerald, or the jurors have any idea if he is guilty with how confusing the case is. His conviction to me seems more like a statement against the administration than anything, and although I don't have any problem with those, it shouldn't send somebody to jail.

 

Judging from your posts, I'm going to make a pretty safe assumption that Fitzgerald and the jurors had a very good idea that he was guilty, and a much deeper understanding of the case than your own, hence his conviction on four of the counts. That the jurors seem to think he was a fall guy for this administration, and more accurately, the VP's office, does not take away from the fact that Libby still committed crimes. Committing 2 counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements, results in jailtime. If he didn't want to go to jail, he should have cooperated, and not concocted a fake story to obstruct justice.

Edited March 8, 2007 by Damen

[longshot7]

Here's what I don't get about this whole thing.

 

"I don't remember"... that is all this man had to say. Period.

 

I mean, hey, it worked for both Clintons for years! But seriously, why did Scooter go through all the trouble of trying to remember what really happened and then why did he choose to air it all out? As I get older, I mix up stuff all the time, and no, not on purpose. I remember details a lot less clearly then I did 10 years ago. So, "I don't remember" is plausible, and there's no trial. So what the hell REALLY happened here?

 

Of course, you Dems will defend Joe Wilson because he's a HERO to you all, but that's the scumbag that needs to be drilled, but oh well.

 

What did Joe Wilson do?

[FlaSoxxJim]

What did Joe Wilson do?

 

Figured out that the Niger yellowcake story was bunk.

[NorthSideSox72]

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I actually think that it was good that Fitzgerald went after Libby, AND I think it was good that Starr went after Clinton. Any time one of our higher government officials lies under oath, they need to be nailed to a wall.

[southsider2k5]

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I actually think that it was good that Fitzgerald went after Libby, AND I think it was good that Starr went after Clinton. Any time one of our higher government officials lies under oath, they need to be nailed to a wall.

 

Thank you. Seriously.

[kapkomet]

Figured out that the Niger yellowcake story was bunk.

That's bunk as well, but it makes for a damn good story.

 

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I actually think that it was good that Fitzgerald went after Libby, AND I think it was good that Starr went after Clinton. Any time one of our higher government officials lies under oath, they need to be nailed to a wall.

You're right, but I hate the fact that each was politically motivated. That's the part that makes me sick.

[NorthSideSox72]

You're right, but I hate the fact that each was politically motivated. That's the part that makes me sick.

There are a lot of things to hate about politics. But I think its important to note when it does good things as well. If it requires politics to find a rabid dog to sick on lying politicians, then so be it. I'd be more upset if it didn't happen at all.

[Cknolls]

Figured out that the Niger yellowcake story was bunk.

 

 

That is false

 

Why did this investigation start?

 

Why did this investigation continue after Fitz found out who the leaker was?

 

He knew 3 mos. prior to talking to Libby that Libby was not the leaker, so why continue to question people?

[NorthSideSox72]

That is false

 

Why did this investigation start?

 

Why did this investigation continue after Fitz found out who the leaker was?

 

He knew 3 mos. prior to talking to Libby that Libby was not the leaker, so why continue to question people?

Its called shaking the tree. Its what investigators do.

 

Fitzgerald isn't motivated by politics, he's motivated by his own career goals. Once they let him off the leash, he'll chase down and prosecute anything he can sink his teeth into. That's what good prosecutors do. They help make the system work.

[Balta1701]

That is false

 

Why did this investigation start?

 

Why did this investigation continue after Fitz found out who the leaker was?

 

He knew 3 mos. prior to talking to Libby that Libby was not the leaker, so why continue to question people?

The indictment against Scooter Libby says that the investigation was started, at the request of the CIA, on September 26th, 2003. The first time Mr. Libby spoke with Investigators was October 14th, 2003, and again on November 26th, 2003. Both of these times, Mr. Libby lied to investigators. Patrick Fitzgerald was not appointed to the case until December 30th, 2003. Fitzgerald was not even on the case when Mr. Libby began committing his crime. He had plenty of motivation to go after Mr. Libby from the second he was appointed, because Mr. Libby had already obstructed justice at that point.

[FlaSoxxJim]

That is false

 

Why did this investigation start?

 

Why did this investigation continue after Fitz found out who the leaker was?

 

He knew 3 mos. prior to talking to Libby that Libby was not the leaker, so why continue to question people?

 

The investigation began because there was a question as to whether White House staff followed appropriate procedures for safeguarding the identity of a covert CIA agent.

 

Henry Waxman is still not sure those procedures were followed apparently:

 

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman announced he will hold a hearing on whether White House officials followed appropriate procedures for safeguarding the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson. In addition, Waxman released a letter he wrote special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, stating in part:

 

“The trial proceedings raise questions about whether senior White House officials, including the Vice President and Senior Advisor to the President Karl Rove, complied with the requirements governing the handling of classified information. They also raise questions about whether the White House took appropriate remedial action following the leak and whether the existing requirements are sufficient to protect against future leaks. Your perspective on these matters is important.”

[kapkomet]

Waxman drools over getting the mighty VP Dick and *gasp* Karl Rove!!!!!!

 

That's not political at all, now is it?

 

Look, Scooter did perjure himself. I totally agree with that. However, the desparate connection or the attempts to connect the White House gets really, really old.

[Balta1701]

Look, Scooter did perjure himself. I totally agree with that. However, the desparate connection or the attempts to connect the White House gets really, really old.

I saw a good metaphor for things like this today. If Bill Clinton had decided to start selling off pardons in exchange for campaign contributions, is there anything in the law that would actually stop him? As far as I know, no there is not anything specific that would ban such an action, or at least there are ways to get around enough laws to make that sort of action legal. However, just because no specific crime was committed by specific people doesn't mean that nothing untowared happened, and it doesn't mean that the Congress doesn't have a right to ask what exactly these people did in this case and write down the story they are told.

 

The law in terms of the leaking of a CIA agent is very, very, very specific in what it requires for people to be charged. But just because the first person who leaked the name seems to have done it by accident and thus could not be charged under a law that required malicious intent, that doesn't mean that it's 100% perfectly ok for everyone and their grandmother inside the White House to go and start sending around that name to every single person in the press who will listen for the next 2 weeks.

 

It's also worth having someone in the Congress ask exactly what sort of damage, if any, was done to national intelligence gathering efforts by having a CIA front corporation and everyone "employed" under that umbrella organization exposed as working for the CIA, especially given the rumors that Mrs. Wilson happened to be working specifically on WMD programs in the Middle East before she was outed.

 

Not every set of Congressional hearings has to end in charges, and just because something isn't Illegal doesn't mean it can't be looked into.

[kapkomet]

And the Senate committees that looked into it pretty much said that there were no violations committed. But that doesn't fit the agenda, either, now does it?

[Balta1701]

And the Senate committees that looked into it pretty much said that there were no violations committed. But that doesn't fit the agenda, either, now does it?

Did you miss my argument there? One of the things Congress does is hold hearings in order to determine whether or not there is a need for additional legislation on a particular subject, or even barring that, simply to give people an opportunity to present their side of a story. It's fully possible that Congress could hear the testimony of those involved and decide that it needs to rewrite the language of the Intelligence Professionals protection act or whatever it is called so as to make it easier to prosecute people who reveal those identities.

 

Not every hearing Congress does is done with the idea of putting someone in jail.

 

Edit: and anyway, the #2 man in the Vice President's office is now seemingly on his way to jail. If nothing else, that seems like the sort of thing that Congressmen would like to either grandstand about or talk about on the record. There is nothing wrong with holding hearings, especially on a topic of some measure of importance.

 

Edit the 2nd: And oh yeah, Back in 2005, Senator Pat Roberts, Chair of the Senate Intel. Committee, pledged that his committee would hold hearings on the matter and would call Mrs. Wilson as a witness. Since it was Senator "Investigation? What Investigation?" making the promise, of course they never happened, but even Sen. Roberts felt it appropriate (or felt like it would generate good press for him) to promise that those hearings would take place and would be public.

Edited March 9, 2007 by Balta1701

[kapkomet]

"covert" and "classified". Learn the difference.

 

The end on Valarie Plame.

[Balta1701]

"covert" and "classified". Learn the difference.

 

The end on Valarie Plame.

That's exactly the point though. The law makes a distinction between classified and covert in what it defines as a crime. It's entirely worth holding hearings now that a relevant case has appeared to determine, if nothing else, whether or not that distinction should be upheld in the law.

 

The distinction that exists within the law does not mean that the exposure of her name would have done intelligence damage in 1 case and not done any damage in the other.

 

And a little bit more From Newsweek.

Lawyers for Libby, and White House allies, have repeatedly questioned whether Plame, the wife of White House critic Joe Wilson, really had covert status when she was outed to the media in July 2003. But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion.

Edited March 9, 2007 by Balta1701

[longshot7]

I'm not sure I get the conservative argument here. Valarie Plame's CIA status was revealed to the world, endangering her, and all of her contacts', life. How is covering this up and lying to investigators to protect your boss, not a crime? How was this not a revenge scenario when Joe Wilson revealed that there was no correlation between Iraq and Niger, one of themajor cases for going to war? If this is the only way to nail the administration for taking us to war under false pretenses, what's the problem?

[Cknolls]

I'm not sure I get the conservative argument here. Valarie Plame's CIA status was revealed to the world, endangering her, and all of her contacts', life. How is covering this up and lying to investigators to protect your boss, not a crime? How was this not a revenge scenario when Joe Wilson revealed that there was no correlation between Iraq and Niger, one of themajor cases for going to war? If this is the only way to nail the administration for taking us to war under false pretenses, what's the problem?

 

 

Well he lied about the uranium part.

 

He lied about the forged Italian documents. They were not released until 8 months after he supposedly saw them.

 

He lied about his wife sending him to Niger.

[NorthSideSox72]

Well he lied about the uranium part.

 

He lied about the forged Italian documents. They were not released until 8 months after he supposedly saw them.

 

He lied about his wife sending him to Niger.

My background on this is from Bob Woodward's writings, as well as new articles in the mainstream press. Can you direct me to where there is evidence showing any of those three things you say actually happened? Because I have seen no such data.

[Cknolls]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7030602020.html

 

this deals with 1 and 3.

 

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007135.php

[Gregory Pratt]

I'd be amazed if Libby were pardoned.

If I'm reading this Bush right, he just doesn't do that.

If Libby is pardoned, it'll be at the very end.

 

Bush the First got away with pardoning a heck of a lot of the Iran Contra guys, and now half of them are back in government working for this administration.

 

That's right. A lot of them are working for Baby Bush.

But everyone pardons scummy people.

 

My favorites?

Reagan pardoning Watergate burglars.

Jimmy Carter pardoning the men who tried to kill Harry Truman with machine guns and who almost broke into his home at the time (the White House was being renovated) because he said they were Puerto Rican nationalists in there as "political prisoners" instead of real ones.

And he pardoned, if I recall correctly, the Puerto Rican nationalists who shot up the House of Representatives in the Fifties for the same reason.

 

Wonder if Jimmy would've felt that way if someone had tried to gun him down in a small house his family was in, too.