CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 6, 2007 Author Share Posted March 6, 2007 did you read that on the dailykos? libby lied because FBI agents and DOJ prosecutors were coming after him for blabbing about wilson...i'm sure he looked back on conversations he had and assumed he WAS guilty of a crime. so he lied to cover his ass. it's a lot like the martha stewart case. they were coming after her for insider trading, so she lied to protect herself. turns out what she did couldn't quite be prosecuted as insider trading, but they still charged her with the lying. fitzgerald charged libby with lying about what he told, i think, 3 different reporters. fiztgerald knows everything about what libby actually knew at the time, what the reporters notes say he actually told them, and so on. you make it sound like libby's lies to the FBI about what he told matthew cooper are holding up some wall obscuring all of the true dastardly facts from coming to light, and anyone familiar with even the most basic facts of the case know that is an absurd argument. armitage told novak and bob woodward all about plame...if that is a crime, how does libby lying about what he told mathew cooper and judy smith prevent fitzgerald from prosecuting that crime? bottom line: fitzgerald (and, now, everyone else) knows EXACTLY how information about joe wilson's wife at the CIA went from classified state department memos, to white house politicos, to reporter gossip, to public knowledge. very little about that whole process remains obscured. if it were a crime, fitzgerald would have an open-and-shut case against at least armitage, and probably rove and libby as well. but he isn't charging them. I'm sure I've posted this before, but the facts regarding Armitage and how his role did not exonerate Libby/Rove as some would like to spin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 I'm sure I've posted this before, but the facts regarding Armitage and how his role did not exonerate Libby/Rove as some would like to spin. who said it exonerated libby (or rove), capn non-sequitur? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 6, 2007 Author Share Posted March 6, 2007 who said it exonerated libby (or rove), capn non-sequitur? It seemed you were trying to start down the Armitage road and I merely wanted to offer up some info to clear up any confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spain Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 But, but. but they are Republicans! Evil, evil men, who must be guilty of something! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 It seemed you were trying to start down the Armitage road and I merely wanted to offer up some info to clear up any confusion. well let me ask you this... 1) if revealing valerie plame's identity was a crime, was armitage guilty or not guilty? 2) if guilty, why do you think fitzgerald has no intention of charging him (or, libby, rove, or anyone else) with said crime? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 6, 2007 Author Share Posted March 6, 2007 (edited) when all of the facts are as well known and clear-cut as they are here against several potential defendants, yes, i think it is a safe assumption that if the prosecutor doesn't proceed, it's because he knows he has a very weak (or non-existant) case under the relevant law. Is it not safe to assume that your assumption that "all facts are well known and clear cut" is a weak one, given that someone was charged with and convicted of not just perjury, but also obstruction of justice? You're obviously free to make up your own mind whether or not a crime underlies all of this, but the facts for anyone that connected the dots A to Z can't hardly lead to any other conclusion. 1) Rumors of Niger involvement with Iraq acquisition of nuke material. 2) Wilson goes to Niger to investigate on request from CIA. 3) Wilson reports back that no evidence to support such an assertion. 4) Bush speech includes unsubstantied claim of Iraq seeking Nuke material from Niger. 5) Wilson contacts administration and says they must retract and is ignored. 6) Wilson writes his op-ed piece, "What I didn't find in Niger". 7) Administration goes after Wilson for writing his article. Starts leaking that Wilson's wife, a covert agent, sent him to Niger. 8) Plame and her entire covert company Brewster Jennings are outed. Who knows how many lost their lives thanks to this political retribution, not to mention how many years of the gaining of trust in contacts in the middle east including in Iran were lost in the effort to keep an eye on and prevent the acquisition of WMD by the bad guys. But hey, if you can't put together the detailed evidence to prove the intent while being obstructed by someone like Libby who resorts to perjury, then no harm no foul, right? Edited March 6, 2007 by CaP'N GRuNGe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spain Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Scooter Be Hittin dat Pile for the Next 25 Years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 But, but. but they are Republicans! Evil, evil men, who must be guilty of something! Why do you insist on gobbling the salty spoo of the Republicans who killed online poker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Scooter Be Hittin dat Pile for the Next 25 Years lets get cons to be as strong as we can..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 when all of the facts are as well known and clear-cut as they are here against several potential defendants, yes, i think it is a safe assumption that if the prosecutor doesn't proceed, it's because he knows he has a very weak (or non-existant) case under the relevant law. You do realize the difference between that and no crime being committed, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliaz Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 I'm offended. Please lock this thread before I sue the huddle on grounds of racial profiling, violation of my constitutional rights, prejudice against my religion, my races, my choices of sexuality, my choice of life partner, my choice of hair products and my right to vote or not vote along with my choice of seasonal holiday celebrations, the right to say or not say “Under G*d”, my rights to masturbate or not to masturbate in public, my choice of pron, meat, vegetable products, boxers or briefs, tennis shoes or flip flops, pants or slacks and not substituting a appropriate alternative to Pepsi since I do not like Coke products. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 6, 2007 Author Share Posted March 6, 2007 This is classic. Just caught the tail end of it, but of course reporters were trying to get the reaction from the White House on the verdict. Dana Perino, the spokeswoman, goes into how Libby's people are going to try get the verdict thrown out and then if that doesn't work go for an appeal. And then she says that they are going to carry on their policy of not commenting on an ongoing investigation. Unbelievable! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 The negativity is strong in this thread. Please lock or delete immediately so we can be free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 You do realize the difference between that and no crime being committed, right? no, not really. if the prosecutor knows the facts, but doesn't have a statute whereby he can charge that a crime was committed...that pretty much tells you that no crime was committed. but hey, i'm game....point me to the criminal statute any purported leaker of valerie wilson's identity might be found guilty under. i guess you may want to be sure to CC fitzgerald as well, since he hasn't been able to find it yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 6, 2007 Author Share Posted March 6, 2007 Libby Found Guilty in CIA Leak Trial MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN and MATT APUZZO | AP | March 6, 2007 02:10 PM EST WASHINGTON — Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was convicted Tuesday of lying and obstructing a leak investigation that reached into the highest levels of the Bush administration. Libby is the highest-ranking White House official to be convicted of a felony since the Iran-Contra scandal of the mid-1980s. The case brought new attention to the Bush administration's much-criticized handling of weapons of mass destruction intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war. The verdict culminated a nearly four-year investigation into how CIA official Valerie Plame's name was leaked to reporters in 2003. The trial revealed how top members of the administration were eager to discredit Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who accused the administration of doctoring prewar intelligence on Iraq. Libby, who was once Cheney's most trusted adviser and an assistant to President Bush, was expressionless as the jury verdict was announced on the 10th day of deliberations. His wife, Harriet Grant, choked out a sob and sank her head. "We have every confidence Mr. Libby ultimately will be vindicated," defense attorney Theodore Wells told a throng of reporters. "We believe Mr. Libby is totally innocent and that he didn't do anything wrong." Libby did not speak to reporters. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who has led the leak investigation, said no additional charges would be filed. That means nobody will be charged with the leak and Libby, who was not the source for the original column outing Plame, will be the only one to face trial. "The results are actually sad," Fitzgerald said. "It's sad that we had a situation where a high-level official person who worked in the office of the vice president obstructed justice and lied under oath. We wish that it had not happened, but it did." White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said Bush watched news of the verdict on TV in the Oval Office. Perino said the president respected the jury's verdict but "was saddened for Scooter Libby and his family." Perino said "I would not agree" with any characterization of the verdict as embarrassing for the White House. "I think that any administration that has to go through a prolonged news story that is unpleasant and one that is difficult _ when you're under the constraints and the policy of not commenting on an ongoing criminal matter _ that can be very frustrating," she said. Libby was convicted of one count of obstruction, two counts of perjury and one count of lying to the FBI about how he learned Plame's identity and whom he told. Prosecutors said he learned about Plame from Cheney and others, discussed her name with reporters and, fearing prosecution, made up a story to make those discussions seem innocuous. Libby said he told investigators his honest recollections and blamed any misstatements on a faulty memory. He was acquitted of one count of lying to the FBI about his conversation with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper. One juror who spoke to reporters outside court said the jury had 34 poster-size pages filled with information they distilled from the trial testimony. They discerned that Libby was told about Plame at least nine times and they didn't buy the argument that he forgot all about it. "Even if he forgot that someone told him about Mrs. Wilson, who had told him, it seemed very unlikely he would not have remembered about Mrs. Wilson," the juror, Denis Collins, said. Collins, a former Washington Post reporter, said jurors wanted to hear from others involved in the case, including Bush political adviser Karl Rove, who was one of two sources for the original leak. Defense attorneys originally said both Libby and Cheney would be witnesses and Rove was on the potential witness list. "I will say there was a tremendous amount of sympathy for Mr. Libby on the jury. It was said a number of times, 'What are we doing with this guy here? Where's Rove? Where are these other guys?' " Collins said. "I'm not saying we didn't think Mr. Libby was guilty of the things we found him guilty of. It seemed like he was, as Mr. Wells put it, he was the fall guy." Though the case never proved a White House conspiracy to out Plame as retribution for Wilson's criticism, Fitzgerald showed how adamant some members of the Bush administration were to discredit Wilson. Fitzgerald provided a parade of senior administration officials and top journalists as government witnesses. Reaction to the conviction on Capitol Hill was swift. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid welcomed the jury's verdict and called on Bush to pledge not to pardon Libby. Before the trial began, the Justice Department had said that it had no pardon file active for Libby. "It's about time someone in the Bush Administration has been held accountable for the campaign to manipulate intelligence and discredit war critics," Reid said. Perino would not discuss Reid's pardon concerns. Wilson and Plame have sued Libby, Cheney and several other administration officials in federal court. Attorneys at the liberal watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, which brought the lawsuit, praised the conviction and Fitzgerald's team. "Their prosecution of a senior White House official illustrates that we are a nation of laws and that no man is above the law," attorneys said in a prepared statement. U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton ordered a pre-sentencing report be completed by May 15. Judges use such reports to help determine sentences. Libby will be allowed to remain free while awaiting sentencing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 "I will say there was a tremendous amount of sympathy for Mr. Libby on the jury. It was said a number of times, 'What are we doing with this guy here? Where's Rove? Where are these other guys?' " Collins said. "I'm not saying we didn't think Mr. Libby was guilty of the things we found him guilty of. It seemed like he was, as Mr. Wells put it, he was the fall guy." ya know, they ought to take that up with fitzgerald, as the only one who could determine who was in the courtroom facing what charges. and i guess fitzgerald would probably tell them, these were the only charges, against the only individual, which we thought we could make stick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 no, not really. if the prosecutor knows the facts, but doesn't have a statute whereby he can charge that a crime was committed...that pretty much tells you that no crime was committed. You work... where, again? The department of... what? Lets take a recent high-profile example. Darrent Williams was shot by someone driving a punk gangster's car. To date, nobody has been charged with shooting Darrent Williams despite the facts being known. We know what happened, and we know the people involved with it. According to your logic... no crime was committed. So... it must have been a suicide? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 You work... where, again? The department of... what? Lets take a recent high-profile example. Darrent Williams was shot by someone driving a punk gangster's car. To date, nobody has been charged with shooting Darrent Williams despite the facts being known. We know what happened, and we know the people involved with it. According to your logic... no crime was committed. So... it must have been a suicide? are you...serious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 6, 2007 Author Share Posted March 6, 2007 are you...serious? The correct response is you can't comment on an ongoing investigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spain Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 The correct response is you can't comment on an ongoing investigation. Now that is pure gold! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Where is Sandy Burglar for stealing and destroying top secret documents? I expected this much earlier than post #25. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 The proof of what was found in Niger is what Sandy Burgler stole and destroyed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 The proof of what was found in Niger is what Sandy Burgler stole and destroyed. B8bucket - what color sky is the planet you live on? From your favorite news channel. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126249,00.html However, some drafts of a sensitive after-action report on the Clinton administration's handling of Al Qaeda terror threats during the December 1999 millennium celebration are still missing, officials and lawyers said. Officials said the missing documents also identified America's terror vulnerabilities at airports to seaports. Berger and his lawyer said Monday night he knowingly removed the handwritten notes by placing them in his jacket, pants and socks, and also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio. Burglar's act had nothing to do with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 The correct response is you can't comment on an ongoing investigation. that's pretty good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 cant wait for the presidential pardon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts