Libby trial goes to jury. Any predictions?

POSTED BY: SoupCatcher
UPDATED: Tuesday, March 6, 2007 19:29
VIEWED: 4300
PAGE 2 of 3

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE

MEDFORDTIM

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 8:28 PM

Funny, huh, Rue?

They sure thought it was a crime at the end of Whitewater when it was about a B.J. - I guess THAT kind of perjury and justice obstruction is more important than using reporters to trash a political enemy by outing his wife. Where are our priorities?

Soupcatcher: Happy to do so. Too bad Freepers never click provided links...

Anyway, that's what I think...

MT

CITIZEN

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 11:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MedfordTim:
They sure thought it was a crime at the end of Whitewater when it was about a B.J. - I guess THAT kind of perjury and justice obstruction is more important than using reporters to trash a political enemy by outing his wife. Where are our priorities?

I bet you even have sex, you're disgustingly immoral!

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

RAZZA

Thursday, February 22, 2007 12:37 AM

Soupcatcher:

I, like most americans, haven't been keeping tabs on the trial, but I thought Richard Armitage was the actual source of the leak. At least according to himself and Robert Novak he was the source:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14533384/site/newsweek/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/13/AR2006
091301572.html

So why are they still focused on Libby? If he deliberately mislead the authorities, then let's throw the book at him, but if it was just a misrecollection why are we wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on the wrong guy?

-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie

"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert

MEDFORDTIM

Thursday, February 22, 2007 12:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

I bet you even have sex, you're disgustingly immoral!

You betcha! 3, 4 times a day - sometimes that's ALL I do! Why, just the other day, I was....

...waitaminnet....

Are you talking about WITH someone?

Oh.

In that case, the closest I've, uh, come in many a year was just today. A bright Orange envelope in my mailbox offered two free years of "Wood" magazine. (I wish I was joking...)Turns out it's for people who build things!

Somewhere in the last five years or so, I got philosophical about the whole thing and went with the Groucho approach: "I don't want to belong to a club that will accept me as a member!" I mean, really, if she has such horrible taste, why would I want to be with her? The only exception would be, obviously, a Helen Keller situation...

Geez...I'm not even sure I remember...is it "Tab A goes into slot B" or will that get me slapped?

Anyway, that's what I think...

MT

MEDFORDTIM

Thursday, February 22, 2007 1:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:

So why are they still focused on Libby? If he deliberately mislead the authorities, then let's throw the book at him, but if it was just a misrecollection why are we wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on the wrong guy?

They did throw the book at him and it is because he deliberately misled authorities. Thus charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.

The biggest misconception out there is that this is the 'endgame.' Fitzgerald hasn't ruled out further prosecution and it's entirely likely that more is to follow. Karl Rove should be sweating bullets with the revalation that he was given a copy of Novak's column three days before it was published, outing Valerie Wilson.

And that is the rub - As much as Right Wing World likes to tell each other that she wasn't in a Classified position, that is simply not true. The super-sticky point is that Cheney was given the power early on (he has been given more power than any previous V.P.) to declassify things on his word alone, rather than following the traditional steps in declassification of material (or people).

The argument is that Cheney "declassified" Valerie Wilson by authorizing Libby to leak the stuff to reporters. If you're going to try to wrap your head around that logic, I advise having plenty of pretzels around...

Anyway, that's what I think...

MT

RAZZA

Thursday, February 22, 2007 1:33 AM

Medfortim:

Okay, if Libby perjured himself and mislead the authorities, send him to jail!

I'm still confused though, why hasn't Richard Armitage been hauled before a grand jury and taken to task for "outing" Valerie Plame? If he is the self proclaimed leak and Novak says he's the one he got the information from, why hasn't he been prosecuted? Why is Fitzgerald only focusing on Libby? Let's not forget, Fitzgerald's job was to track down and prosecute the person that "outed" Plame, why isn't he doing it? He would have a great deal more credibility and could say he isn't on a witch hunt if he was actually focused on the witch who did the deed, Armitage! Putting his priority on Libby for lesser crime committed as a result of his investigation rather than on the actual person who committed the crime he was mandated to prosecute seems like a huge waste of time and money to me.

Wow, what a run on sentence! Sorry :)

-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie

"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert

RUE

Thursday, February 22, 2007 1:39 AM

"why hasn't Richard Armitage been hauled before a grand jury"

I haven't looked this up but what what I heard (which makes sense if true) is that it has to be 'intentional' to be prosecutable. Perhaps someone who knows about this could post.

RAZZA

Thursday, February 22, 2007 1:50 AM

Rue:

You are absolutely right! If you take a look at the amicus brief filed on behalf of Judith Miller by numerous news services. There is a great deal of question as to whether any crime was committed by Armitage, Libby, or anyone in this case. Here is the link for the brief and the relevant passages are on page 28.

http://www.bakerlaw.com/PublicDocs%5CDoc_136facfc2be64a3dbe8c6cb4b1141
179.PDF

-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie

"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert

MEDFORDTIM

Thursday, February 22, 2007 6:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
Medfortim:

Okay, if Libby perjured himself and mislead the authorities, send him to jail!

Hey, I'm with ya, but...could we wait until the jury comes back? If you're talking about the amount of time this has dragged on, when everyone knows damn well that if he'd been caught with an ounce of pot he'd already be behind bars, I know what you mean - but Fed cases have a tendency to do this - and the Defense has been doing whatever they could to put it off.

Re: your other post about "intent."

You have to remember that Fitzy is going up against the most secretive bunch of crooks who have ever been in power and they're doing the best they can to "help" him without actually helping him.

Something to consider while you're trying to sort this all out...Don't you wish YOU could put up a defense that because you were just babbling away, giving out Confidential, Secret info, it's not a crime because you didn't "intend" those consequences? "Why, yes, your honor, I DID rob the bank, but I only intended to make a slight withdrawal." Think that would fly for one of us "normies?" We already know that the VP can get away with shooting people in the face with utterly NO consequences, why should they fear a little spat over giving out state secrets?

As to "why perjury when there was no underlying 'crime'?" Doesn't matter. If an investigator is searching for a lost dog and someone lies to him under oath - even if he had nothing whatsoever to do with the dog's disappearance, he has committed a new offense. For that, he is prosecutable. Same thing here.

What I wish Fitzy would hit the whole damn administration with is a RICO charge, if for no other reason than payback for all the OTHER people who have been snared under RICO who never should have been charged with it.

It is completely obvious that at the very least, Cheney and Libby conspired to get the info our to reporters for nefarious purposes (abuse of power) and that is ALL it takes to be prosecutable under RICO. Hell, the Feds busted a small-time pot selling ring of a Granny and two of her grandsons with RICO, surely THIS would qualify.

It really IS complicated, and the Media and the Right Wing Noise Machine have done their best to obfuscate the issue whenever possible. It's no wonder people are confused.

As you can tell, I have no problem with run-ons

Anyway, that's what I think...

MT

SOUPCATCHER

Thursday, February 22, 2007 7:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MedfordTim:
That would be nice, but I think it'll be more like "Presidential pardon time" before he can be flipped to testify against Cheney.

Doesn't really matter, though. There was some speculation I read yesterday at FDL that made a lot of sense, that even if Scooter is pardoned he is tainted as a witness for Cheney. If he is convicted, whether or not he flips he will always have been found guilty of perjury (even if pardoned), and so he couldn't help much in Cheney's defense. "I'd like to remind the jury that everything you just heard was from someone convicted of perjury." And, since Scooter is the biggest firewall protecting Cheney, that raises some interesting possibilities. One of the lawyer-type commenters likened the Libby trial to clearing brush. Libby is the scrub that is getting in the way of the work you really want to do.

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
I remember hearing during the OJ trial: defense attorneys are scared to death of putting the defendant on the stand. Officially, if the defendant is under oath, he has to tell the truth. Catch him in a lie and he's up for perjury. Also messes up the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination thing: defendant is answering questions, attorney asks, " Did you do it?" , defendant says, too late, " fifth amendment." Everybody figures he's guilty.

Too many chances for a defendant to screw up.

Okay. I get that. But if I was on a jury and the defense didn't put the defendant on the stand I would think one of two things: either they think the prosecution didn't make the case or they know the defendant is guilty. Now that SHOULDN'T factor into my decision making. But I couldn't guarantee that it wouldn't, especially if the prosecution did a credible job.

Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
I, like most americans, haven't been keeping tabs on the trial, but I thought Richard Armitage was the actual source of the leak. At least according to himself and Robert Novak he was the source:

...

So why are they still focused on Libby? If he deliberately mislead the authorities, then let's throw the book at him, but if it was just a misrecollection why are we wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on the wrong guy?

Hey Razza!

There were at least three leakers: Rove, Libby and Armitage. And it wasn't just Novak that was leaked to. There were at least six reporters who were given this information. Of the three leakers, Armitage met with the investigators without an attorney and did everything in his power to help the investigation. Libby's testimony, when compared to the testimony of others, was false and designed to keep the investigation from proceeding. That's why he is being charged. The US attorneys can't complete the investigation while he is obscuring the truth.

It looks like Fitzgerald has zeroed in on Cheney as the source of Valerie Plame's outing. Marcy Wheeler, in her book Anatomy of Deceit, has an excellently sourced timeline. Cheney started gathering information for a pushback against Joe Wilson before he even wrote his op-ed. For two months, Cheney had been laying the groundwork for an attack if Wilson went public with his claims.

If Libby is found not guilty, the investigation probably stops here. If Libby is found guilty of at least some counts, then the investigation continues. I, personally, would love to see Cheney on the witness stand. Although I think that they better not make him take an oath on the Good Book. One of the two might burst into flames

.

* edited to combine two posts.

* edited one more time to add: I don't know about the rest of you, but all of a sudden notification started working for me again! It's been about two years since I got an e-mail notification that someone had responded to a post of mine. I hadn't realized how much of a difference it makes. I can actually carry on a conversation! I have a sneaking suspicion, based on a recent change in spam-filtering protocols going on at my .edu, that the problem w

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE