Libby indicted - five counts

so says cnn (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/10/28/friday/index.html)...

"Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, was indicted today by a grand jury on one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of making false statements and two counts of perjury in the CIA leak probe. The indictments are the first in a nearly two-year investigation into the public unmasking of an undercover CIA operative."

[AngryCola]

Two counts each of perjury and making false statements, and one count of obstruction of justice.

EDIT-

I see you already edited that into your post. Nevermind!

[AngryCola]

Libby resigns.

Expected.

[anatta]

I wonder why, after 2 years, he can't either indite Rove or let him off the hook. As I understand it, he is keeping the investigation into Rove open, maybe even extending the Grand Jury. Perhaps Rove really is off the hook.

[vulturesrow]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
I wonder why, after 2 years, he can't either indite Rove or let him off the hook. As I understand it, he is keeping the investigation into Rove open, maybe even extending the Grand Jury. Perhaps Rove really is off the hook.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Rove is guilty of anything, he is way too savvy to have done it in such a way for it to ever stick.

[MoreWineII]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wonder why, after 2 years, he can't either indite Rove or let him off the hook. As I understand it, he is keeping the investigation into Rove open, maybe even extending the Grand Jury. Perhaps Rove really is off the hook.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Rove is guilty of anything, he is way too savvy to have done it in such a way for it to ever stick.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're contradicting yourself. Rove's a scumbag and I believe he'll be indicted eventually.

[vulturesrow]

How am I contradicting myself?

Indictment available here. (http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/images/10/28/indictment.pdf)

Prediction: plea or pardon (or both). No way this goes to trial, since the WH will not be able to avoid having Cheney testify.

/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[MoreWineII]

Misread your post, sorry bout that.

Rove's still a scumbag though and saavy has nothing to do with him getting off. Crony-ism and an American public that doesn't care might though.

[phlup]

What I think is interesting in this is that he wasn't charged with anything directly related to slipping Plame's name. The charges center on what he did once the probe started.

So does anyone think that perhaps this verifies what the republicans have been saying all along that no crime was actually committed?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
What I think is interesting in this is that he wasn't charged with anything directly related to slipping Plame's name. The charges center on what he did once the probe started.

So does anyone think that perhaps this verifies what the republicans have been saying all along that no crime was actually committed?

[/ QUOTE ]

How about the Kenneth Starr investigation? He did bring indictments to certain folks if memory serves regarding Whitewater but never could pin anything on Bill or Hillary yet Bill gets impeached for lying to a grand jury about Monica and such. There's no way these special prosecuters are going to spend millions of $ on an investigation and not come up with at least some indictments. I don't know but I see some similarities between the Starr episode and this one. Clinton apparently had no involvment in a crime until he lied about his dalliances which weren't related to the possible crime being investigated. SOP for inside the beltway politics.

[anatta]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wonder why, after 2 years, he can't either indite Rove or let him off the hook. As I understand it, he is keeping the investigation into Rove open, maybe even extending the Grand Jury. Perhaps Rove really is off the hook.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Rove is guilty of anything, he is way too savvy to have done it in such a way for it to ever stick.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yeah, Fitzgerald just said nobody else is going to be indited. Republicans were right, this was a bunch of hooey. What a horrible Fitzmas! /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[ QUOTE ]
What a horrible Fitzmas!

[/ QUOTE ]

Speak for yourself! Today makes me want to break out in Fitzmas carols!

/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wonder why, after 2 years, he can't either indite Rove or let him off the hook. As I understand it, he is keeping the investigation into Rove open, maybe even extending the Grand Jury. Perhaps Rove really is off the hook.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Rove is guilty of anything, he is way too savvy to have done it in such a way for it to ever stick.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yeah, Fitzgerald just said nobody else is going to be indited. Republicans were right, this was a bunch of hooey. What a horrible Fitzmas! /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not so into this case and have no idea who is guilty or not, but how can he say that somebody will not be indicted but still keep them under investigation? Doesn't being under investigation mean that there is a possibility that you will be indicted, if not there would not be grounds for investigation?

[anatta]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wonder why, after 2 years, he can't either indite Rove or let him off the hook. As I understand it, he is keeping the investigation into Rove open, maybe even extending the Grand Jury. Perhaps Rove really is off the hook.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Rove is guilty of anything, he is way too savvy to have done it in such a way for it to ever stick.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yeah, Fitzgerald just said nobody else is going to be indited. Republicans were right, this was a bunch of hooey. What a horrible Fitzmas! /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not so into this case and have no idea who is guilty or not, but how can he say that somebody will not be indicted but still keep them under investigation? Doesn't being under investigation mean that there is a possibility that you will be indicted, if not there would not be grounds for investigation?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well he didn't exactly say "no more inditements". But he said "it would be rare", and the Grand Jury furture availablity was just a normal course of action. Reading between the lines, this is it. No Rove, let alone Cheney or investigation into the lies that led us to war.

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I think is interesting in this is that he wasn't charged with anything directly related to slipping Plame's name. The charges center on what he did once the probe started.

So does anyone think that perhaps this verifies what the republicans have been saying all along that no crime was actually committed?

[/ QUOTE ]

How about the Kenneth Starr investigation? He did bring indictments to certain folks if memory serves regarding Whitewater but never could pin anything on Bill or Hillary yet Bill gets impeached for lying to a grand jury about Monica and such. There's no way these special prosecuters are going to spend millions of $ on an investigation and not come up with at least some indictments. I don't know but I see some similarities between the Starr episode and this one. Clinton apparently had no involvment in a crime until he lied about his dalliances which weren't related to the possible crime being investigated. SOP for inside the beltway politics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good post.

I look forward to seeing the Repulican politicians and pundits making a fool of themselves with their hypocritical rantings.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wonder why, after 2 years, he can't either indite Rove or let him off the hook. As I understand it, he is keeping the investigation into Rove open, maybe even extending the Grand Jury. Perhaps Rove really is off the hook.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Rove is guilty of anything, he is way too savvy to have done it in such a way for it to ever stick.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're contradicting yourself. Rove's a scumbag and I believe he'll be indicted eventually.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you think hes a scumbag and you want him to be indicted.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What a horrible Fitzmas!

[/ QUOTE ]

Speak for yourself! Today makes me want to break out in Fitzmas carols!

/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? You have failed. Everything you people try fails. It's just another example of your inability to do ANYTHING right.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
So does anyone think that perhaps this verifies what the republicans have been saying all along that no crime was actually committed?

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt we will ever know if the orignial reason this all started was actually a crime. If Libby had told the truth from the beginning, it might have been easier to discern. But, in my opinion, if he hadn't tried to obstruct the investigation, he probably wouldn't have been charged with anything. Still, he did commit several crimes by lying, IMO.

That law is weird. It seems to be based on the person's intent rather than their actions. Determining that is always a difficult thing to do legally, especially when the facts are clouded by a few lies.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
No Rove, let alone Cheney or investigation into the lies that led us to war.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again with this nonsense. If Bush lied, then so did Clinton. So did France. So did the UN. So did Russia. Is this a vast rightwing/leftwing/socialist/ignorant/semidemocratic conspiracy to make Haliburton money?

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
Indictment available here. (http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/images/10/28/indictment.pdf)

Prediction: plea or pardon (or both). No way this goes to trial, since the WH will not be able to avoid having Cheney testify.

/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you talking about. Cheney is basically 100% cleared of any wrong doing with this indictment. The dude even said that Libby started the disemination of infomation about Plame. Even if Cheney told him, there is NOTHING wrong with it.

[AngryCola]

I don't know what you're talking about.

"You people"

Who are you talking about? To suggest that liberals had anything to do with some guy lying is really sad.

You better come up with better spin than that.

[giddyyup]

[ QUOTE ]
What I think is interesting in this is that he wasn't charged with anything directly related to slipping Plame's name. The charges center on what he did once the probe started.


So does anyone think that perhaps this verifies what the republicans have been saying all along that no crime was actually committed?


[/ QUOTE ]

Based upon Fitz's press conference, it can't be argued they are clear of not having outed Plame. To commit a crime takes an act and intent. What the prosecutor said was there WAS disclosure of a covert agent's identity (the act), but because of the alleged lying and the cover up, he was unable to tell whether the intent requirement (in this case a knowing or reckless violation) was satisfied.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I think is interesting in this is that he wasn't charged with anything directly related to slipping Plame's name. The charges center on what he did once the probe started.

So does anyone think that perhaps this verifies what the republicans have been saying all along that no crime was actually committed?

[/ QUOTE ]

How about the Kenneth Starr investigation? He did bring indictments to certain folks if memory serves regarding Whitewater but never could pin anything on Bill or Hillary yet Bill gets impeached for lying to a grand jury about Monica and such. There's no way these special prosecuters are going to spend millions of $ on an investigation and not come up with at least some indictments. I don't know but I see some similarities between the Starr episode and this one. Clinton apparently had no involvment in a crime until he lied about his dalliances which weren't related to the possible crime being investigated. SOP for inside the beltway politics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Way to not answer the question.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Indictment available here. (http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/images/10/28/indictment.pdf)

Prediction: plea or pardon (or both). No way this goes to trial, since the WH will not be able to avoid having Cheney testify.

/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you talking about. Cheney is basically 100% cleared of any wrong doing with this indictment. The dude even said that Libby started the disemination of infomation about Plame. Even if Cheney told him, there is NOTHING wrong with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you talking about?

He is talking about Cheney being a probable witness.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know what you're talking about.

"You people"

Who are you talking about? To suggest that liberals had anything to do with some guy lying is really sad.

You better come up with better spin than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dont think for a second that this was not politically motivated. This was a failed political attack on Carl Rove. To think otherwise is just plain ignorant. The Libs failed, yet again. Perhaps if they actually had a message people would vote for them. Instead, its all character assassination and lies and complaints. No talk about what to actually do about issues, just a litany of complaints with no offer of solution other than, "Vote for us, we wont kill the elderly, enslave blacks, or banish homosexuals".

The Democratic party has been taken over by idiots. Typical Democrats are NOT represented by the party as it is today. It's a shame too, because I don't mind Democrats, I simply can't stand liberal/socialists.

[AngryCola]

You're pretty sad, but sometimes humorus.

Give me facts, not your own silly insinuations.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Indictment available here. (http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/images/10/28/indictment.pdf)

Prediction: plea or pardon (or both). No way this goes to trial, since the WH will not be able to avoid having Cheney testify.

/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you talking about. Cheney is basically 100% cleared of any wrong doing with this indictment. The dude even said that Libby started the disemination of infomation about Plame. Even if Cheney told him, there is NOTHING wrong with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you talking about?

He is talking about Cheney being a probable witness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all what was insinuated. What was insinuated was that the WH didn't want Cheney to testify because he had something to hide. Why else would the WH not want Cheney to testify?

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
You're pretty sad, but sometimes humorus.

Give me facts, not your own silly insinuations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Give me complete thoughts with some depth and substance, not typical Cyrusesque responses.

What facts do you want?

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]

Not at all what was insinuated. What was insinuated was that the WH didn't want Cheney to testify because he had something to hide.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure he does, but who knows if it's anything that could be considered a crime.

To suggest that he doesn't have anything to hide is pretty funny, though. All people, especially politicians, have something to hide.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
What facts do you want?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that I was perfectly clear. Give me facts to back up your claims.

[giddyyup]

Example A (re: attempt to assert Cheney cleared). From the indictment (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf), page 5 item 9:

[ QUOTE ]
On or about June 12, 2003 LIBBY was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Division. LIBBY understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA.

[/ QUOTE ]

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Not at all what was insinuated. What was insinuated was that the WH didn't want Cheney to testify because he had something to hide.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure he does, but who knows if it's anything that could be considered a crime.

To suggest that he doesn't have anything to hide is pretty funny, though. All people, especially politicians, have something to hide.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I meant to infer that I was speaking in relation to the issue at hand. I am unfortunately going to have to let you in on a secret. I have nothing to hide. I have done nothing in my life that I am ashamed of or unwilling to discuss.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What facts do you want?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that I was perfectly clear. Give me facts to back up your claims.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, ok. How about you just go read the way this issue was covered in the press. Why is it that Rove's name was always involved? Why was his name always first? You want me to prove a conspiracy without the power to call people to testify? Can't do it. Give me power, I will do my best to prove my claims. I am speaking mainly through circumstantial evidence that is widely available if you wish to look for it as opposed to ignore it. As for the stuff about the Dem. party, I will submit for exibit A Cindy Sheehan B Howard Dean C George Soros D CBS E the guy who actually faked the Natl. Guard stuff. There is way more stuff out there, but the fact is that the Dems that run the party are WAY out of touch with the typical Dem voter, but right in goose stepping line with the Dem base. As for my assertion that they never offer solutions, only a litany of complaints I submit the fact that I can't find any information from the Dems on how to fix just about anything.

[anatta]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No Rove, let alone Cheney or investigation into the lies that led us to war.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again with this nonsense. If Bush lied, then so did Clinton. So did France. So did the UN. So did Russia. Is this a vast rightwing/leftwing/socialist/ignorant/semidemocratic conspiracy to make Haliburton money?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have all the facts. I don't have all the answers. We know a lot. We know that Cheney said "no doubt" there are nukes, but CIA said no. We know that Colin Powell feels mislead. We know that Neo-cons had planned the invasion well before 9-11. We know that there were no weapons. We know that Hans Blix had inspected over 1/2 the suspected sites, but Bush stopped him and invaded without a vote from the UN which Bush said he would have.

I love how Pat Buchanan criticizes Congress for not investigating this. There was an investigation. Pat Roberts (R - Kansas) chaired it. The idea was to investigate the intelligence gathering prior to the election. Then investigate the use of intel post election. Well they did the first part. Then it was killed, Roberts saying well we had the election so why do we need to do this?

[AngryCola]

Thanks. That was an enoyable read.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks. That was an enoyable read.

[/ QUOTE ]

A perfectly predictable response.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thanks. That was an enoyable read.

[/ QUOTE ]

A perfectly predictable response.

[/ QUOTE ]

As was yours, and I thanked you for it. I see no reason to continue. Do you?

[phlup]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What facts do you want?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that I was perfectly clear. Give me facts to back up your claims.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, ok. How about you just go read the way this issue was covered in the press. Why is it that Rove's name was always involved? Why was his name always first? You want me to prove a conspiracy without the power to call people to testify? Can't do it. Give me power, I will do my best to prove my claims. I am speaking mainly through circumstantial evidence that is widely available if you wish to look for it as opposed to ignore it. As for the stuff about the Dem. party, I will submit for exibit A Cindy Sheehan B Howard Dean C George Soros D CBS E the guy who actually faked the Natl. Guard stuff. There is way more stuff out there, but the fact is that the Dems that run the party are WAY out of touch with the typical Dem voter, but right in goose stepping line with the Dem base. As for my assertion that they never offer solutions, only a litany of complaints I submit the fact that I can't find any information from the Dems on how to fix just about anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since Angry didn't respond that much to this, I'll take a shot.

You made this post in order to provide facts for your earlier statement that the Plame thing was a politically motivated attack by the Dems.

So you start off by using the media. I guess I missed when the "media" was elected to political office. But anywho, you say that since the media always says Rove first, they are bias. How about this: Rove is the bigger name, more people know him. Therefore the media will list Rove first since more people know who he is.

Then you go on to say that Cindy Sheehan, Howard Dean, George Soros, CBS and the guy who actually faked the Natl. Guard stuff are somehow the Democratic party. Yes Howard Dean is part, but Sheehan...nice stretch. CBS? Hi, that's part of the media. Soros? The guy who faked the National Guard papers? Wow, they are such big parts of the Democratic party.

Keep trying.

Lastly you say that "I submit the fact that I can't find any information from the Dems on how to fix just about anything".

Funny, the republican have been in office for the past 5 years and I can't find any information on how they've done anything right.

Perhaps where and how you look influences that.

[Dotson]

It amazes me how some can't understand what's going on. Basically Fitz believes the underlying crime was committed but thinks that Libby's lying is preventing him from figuring out who to charge. This perjury charge is just the beginning of a long process. He didn't comment on anyone else but said that his investigation would continue. When Scooter realizes the trouble he is in I would not be surprised if he flips and future charges are brought against now unknown people or Rove.

[Jedster]

[ QUOTE ]
It amazes me how some can't understand what's going on. Basically Fitz believes the underlying crime was committed but thinks that Libby's lying is preventing him from figuring out who to charge. This perjury charge is just the beginning of a long process. He didn't comment on anyone else but said that his investigation would continue. When Scooter realizes the trouble he is in I would not be surprised if he flips and future charges are brought against now unknown people or Rove.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, very good post. Also, he made it very clear that indicting someone for leaking classified information is something that needs to be taken very seriously for fear of turning the espionage act into the American equivalent of UK's Official Secrets act. I actually think Fitzgerald may have made a good move here by avoiding wading into that thorny issue yet at the same time making sure the public interest is represented by nailing the initial leaker's ass to the wall.

[ QUOTE ]
As for my assertion that they never offer solutions, only a litany of complaints I submit the fact that I can't find any information from the Dems on how to fix just about anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. I swear to god this sounds like you cut and pasted straight from a Hannity and Colmes or O'Reilly Factor transcript. If you honestly believe that the Dems (I am not a Dem, mind you) don't offer solutions and that you can't "find any information" you either are 1) Not looking anywhere 2) Are only looking to right-wing sources, or 3) You are unbiasedly looking but are a mentally retarded 8 year old orphan that needs nice parents to look over you and cradle you during times of confusion.

Quit regurgitating partisan bullshit you heard somewhere. If you want me to prove you completely wrong on not having solutions I absofuckinglutely will.

[giddyyup]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, very good post

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, except that this:

[ QUOTE ]
Basically Fitz believes the underlying crime was committed but thinks that Libby's lying is preventing him from figuring out who to charge.

[/ QUOTE ]

While seemingly logical, is speculation. Fitzgerald did not say whether he believed a criminal "outing" occurred. While he found that conduct was taken that satisfied the act element of the statute ("outing" Plame), the lying and the cover up made it impossible to determine whether the perpetrator had criminal intent (knowledge or reckless disregard).

[Dotson]

Your post is right. Good clarification

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]


So does anyone think that perhaps this verifies what the republicans have been saying all along that no crime was actually committed?

[/ QUOTE ]

The crime is that we have government officials on both sides of the political spectrum spending an inordinate amount of time engaged in petty politics, partisan bickering, dirty tricks, cover-ups, scheming, and legal battles.

These people are stealing tax money by not earning their salaries, and by wasting the time of lawyers, judges, etc., who could be doing real work if they weren't tied up with this crap.

[Jedster]

[ QUOTE ]
So does anyone think that perhaps this verifies what the republicans have been saying all along that no crime was actually committed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Generally, five count indictments with penalties totalling 30 years mean the prosecutor believes no crime was actually committed.

[Felix_Nietsche]

I heard several troubling statements by Patrick Fitz.
(1) He made a long speech implying that Libby blew Valerie Plame's cover....YET....he did not have the evidence to charge him for this. But this did not stop him from painting Libby as guilty of blowing her cover. I think this stinks of grandstanding and he was over-the-top in implying this when NO ONE has been indicted for doing so. If he had evidence that a law was broken about revealing a covert CIA agents cover, THEN INDICT SOMEONE FOR DOING SO. If you don’t have the evidence to indict (much less prove), then ethically Fitz should have kept his mouth shut.

(2) He lectured the press of the dangers of blowing the cover of a CLASSIFIED CIA agent and that this hurts us all. All CIA employees are classified but not all COVERT. The law that Libby was being invested for was blowing the cover of a COVERT CIA agent. I think Fitz was being a little cute with his language and deceptive. What he failed to say was that she was NO LONGER covert and therefore the law did not apply.

(3) After extensive investigation, Libby is being charged for a lying about a crime that he did not commit. To go one step further, Fitz could not even find enough evidence to determine if even if a crime of a revealing a covert agent was even committed. Fitz has spent two years of tax payer’s money and he was running up against a deadline of the grand jury being dismissed and at the last moment he makes these charges. Something is rotten in Denmark….

(4) He failed to give closure to the investigation but did concede that the bulk of the investigative work was complete. I suspect he will take a crack at Libby to see if he will rat out others to avoid an indictment. This will not happen.


I don't know whether Libby tried to deceive the grand jury/prosecution or not. What I do know is that Libby left a million dollar law practice to take a $100K govt job. I do know is VERY strange that he would deliberately perjure himself while giving notes to the investigators that contradicted himself. To believe that he did this intentionally is to believe that an experience lawyer who was well versed in the laws of perjury and obstruction of justice would:
(1) Perjure himself.
(2) Give notes to the prosecution that contracted his own testimony.

If I’m a smart successful lawyer that is going to perjure myself, I’m going to DESTROY MY PERSONAL NOTES that would contradict my sworn testimony. A more likely explanation is that his recollection of two-year-old conversations was faulty. JEEZ…..Don’t ask me about conversations that are TWO WEEKS old much less conversations that are two YEARS old.


Predictions:
*Libby that left a million dollar law practice to take a $100K govt job will be in court for the next several years.
*Karl Rove is pretty much exonerated of blowing the cover of a CIA agent. The standard of indicting someone is not high (HENCE the old joke that a prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich). Fitz conceded that the investigation portion is pretty much over but he will empanel another grand jury. He may think that he can persuade Libby to rat out others but I this will NOT happen.
*Libby is pissed. A faulty memory of conversations that are two years old will cost him a lot of time and money in court. He will no longer voluntarily cooperate with Fitz.
*The Dems will try to make political hay of this and as usually they will overplay their hand. Despite several attempts, Bush43 will not be affected. No one even heard of Libby before this. He is easily replaced.
*Indictments are a dime-a-dozen. Proving indictments are tough. Libby will get a smart defense attorney that will conduct a harsh cross examination and it will be revealed that certain members of the press will be caught lying to the grand jury (Judy Miller for one). The prosecution’s case will fall apart and Libby will be acquitted.
*Robert Novak source that started this feeding frenzy was neither Rove nor Libby. THIS WILL BE A HUGE REVELATION.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
A faulty memory of conversations that are two years old

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, this isn't going to fly.

I find your post troubling.

[Nepa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A faulty memory of conversations that are two years old

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, this isn't going to fly.

I find your post troubling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Judge Bork said the same thing yesterday on Hannity. It was kinda funny because Sean kept trying to change the question after he didn't like the answer.

[Jedster]

[ QUOTE ]
I heard several troubling statements by Patrick Fitz.
(1) He made a long speech implying that Libby blew Valerie Plame's cover

[/ QUOTE ]

He didn't imply this. He stated it as fact.

[ QUOTE ]
The law that Libby was being invested for was blowing the cover of a COVERT CIA agent.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you actually listened, you know this isn't true. I won't explain, go figure it out for yourself if you're interested.

[ QUOTE ]
(3) After extensive investigation, Libby is being charged for a lying about a crime that he did not commit.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't know that. But it's irrelevant whether he committed it or not.

[ QUOTE ]
(4) He failed to give closure to the investigation but did concede that the bulk of the investigative work was complete. I suspect he will take a crack at Libby to see if he will rat out others to avoid an indictment. This will not happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did Libby tell you this between the sheets last night?

[ QUOTE ]
What I do know is that Libby left a million dollar law practice defending Marc Rich to take a $100K govt job.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[ QUOTE ]
I do know is VERY strange that he would deliberately perjure himself while giving notes to the investigators that contradicted himself. To believe that he did this intentionally is to believe that an experience lawyer who was well versed in the laws of perjury and obstruction of justice would:
(1) Perjure himself.
(2) Give notes to the prosecution that contracted his own testimony.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is strange. He must have thought reporters would not reveal their sources.

[ QUOTE ]
*Libby is pissed. A faulty memory of conversations that are two years old will cost him a lot of time and money in court. He will no longer voluntarily cooperate with Fitz.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he hadn't "voluntarily" made up a BS story he wouldn't be in this fix. For example, if he didn't lie and say that Tim Russert told him who Valeria Wilson was when he actually learned it from Cheney weeks earlier AND when Russert said the topic didn't come up, then he wouldn't be in trouble now.

[ QUOTE ]
*Indictments are a dime-a-dozen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dimes must be worth a lot because this is the first indictment of a sitting WH aide in 130 years.

[ QUOTE ]
*Robert Novak source that started this feeding frenzy was neither Rove nor Libby. THIS WILL BE A HUGE REVELATION.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, going back to the first point, Fitzgerald declared that Libby was the first to reveal to the press Valerie Wilson's identity, NOT whomever told Novak.

Felix, as always, you don't fail to amuse. Keep it up, good ol' boy! And please, middle that Tom DeLay bet. After all, we're all gamblers first, and political hacks second.

I *knew* that one of the best things about staring this thread would be the Felix post. My only (slight) dissapointment is his failure to once again use the phrase "scumbag Democrat DA" to descibe Fitzgerald. But I'll bet I won't have to wait too long. /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]

*** You are ignoring this user ***

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, you were on ignore in my prior incarnation, and you're on ignore now. Have a Merry Fitzmas!!!! /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Felix_Nietsche]

My only (slight) dissapointment is his failure to once again use the phrase "scumbag Democrat DA" to descibe Fitzgerald.
************************************************** ************
I don't have a high opinion of most prosecutors/DAs. It seems it is the rare prosecutor that does not abuse his power. Like the old saying goes; 'Power corrupts..absolute power corrupts absolutely.' I wish the USA had some of the features of the English legal system where you could pay to have a privately financed prosecution. Giving the DAs a monopoly on this power is a mistake.

I think Rudy Giuliani was a scumbag DA. He indicted a bunch of stock brokers, had them arrested and handcuffed at work in front of there coworkers, AND........there was press that coincidently were present to video the whole scene. Oh yes....and these brokers were eventually no billed. Rudy G. loved having cameras around....

I think Patrick Fitz is a typical prosecutor. And I do NOT mean this as a compliment. He had to justify two years of spending tax payer money and he has FAILED to indict anyone on blowing Valerie Plames cover. End-of-Story. This can not be spinned away. He knows he does not have a case on the Valerie Plame matter yet he had to show something after two years. I would not call him a scumbag but I would call him a typical 'Rudy Giuianni' grandstanding DA..... I did not think it was appropriate or ethical of Fitz to publically lambast Libby for supposedly blowing Valerie Plame's cover when he did not even have the evidence to prosecute Libby for doing so. He should either INDICT or shutup.....

I fault him for the numerous press leaks around this case. The information that was leaked was information that only the DA or grand jury would know.

Ronnie Earle is a special case. Being a Texan I have been exposed to Earle's shenanigans for years in the local newspaper and yes, I consider him a scumbag partisan DA. I have a $1000 bet with another poster on the DeLay case and i feel VERY confident I will win the bet.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
The crime is that we have government officials on both sides of the political spectrum spending an inordinate amount of time engaged in petty politics, partisan bickering, dirty tricks, cover-ups, scheming, and legal battles.

These people are stealing tax money by not earning their salaries, and by wasting the time of lawyers, judges, etc., who could be doing real work if they weren't tied up with this crap.

[/ QUOTE ]

very well said, but, how to fix it? ...cost of doing business, imo.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]

I wonder why, after 2 years, he can't either indite Rove or let him off the hook. As I understand it, he is keeping the investigation into Rove open, maybe even extending the Grand Jury. Perhaps Rove really is off the hook.

[/ QUOTE ]

he's continuing hoping scooter will flip and implicate bigger fish... rove, cheney, etc...

[richie]

[/ QUOTE ]
The Democratic party has been taken over by idiots. Typical Democrats are NOT represented by the party as it is today. It's a shame too, because I don't mind Democrats, I simply can't stand liberal/socialists.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would agree with this. I would also state that conservatives are NOT represented by the Republican party as it is today. I'm a conservative/libertarian, but this administration has clearly abandoned the conservative philosophy.

[richie]

[ QUOTE ]
I heard several troubling statements by Patrick Fitz.
(1) He made a long speech implying that Libby blew Valerie Plame's cover....YET....he did not have the evidence to charge him for this. But this did not stop him from painting Libby as guilty of blowing her cover. I think this stinks of grandstanding and he was over-the-top in implying this when NO ONE has been indicted for doing so. If he had evidence that a law was broken about revealing a covert CIA agents cover, THEN INDICT SOMEONE FOR DOING SO. If you don’t have the evidence to indict (much less prove), then ethically Fitz should have kept his mouth shut.

(2) He lectured the press of the dangers of blowing the cover of a CLASSIFIED CIA agent and that this hurts us all. All CIA employees are classified but not all COVERT. The law that Libby was being invested for was blowing the cover of a COVERT CIA agent. I think Fitz was being a little cute with his language and deceptive. What he failed to say was that she was NO LONGER covert and therefore the law did not apply.

(3) After extensive investigation, Libby is being charged for a lying about a crime that he did not commit. To go one step further, Fitz could not even find enough evidence to determine if even if a crime of a revealing a covert agent was even committed. Fitz has spent two years of tax payer’s money and he was running up against a deadline of the grand jury being dismissed and at the last moment he makes these charges. Something is rotten in Denmark….

(4) He failed to give closure to the investigation but did concede that the bulk of the investigative work was complete. I suspect he will take a crack at Libby to see if he will rat out others to avoid an indictment. This will not happen.


I don't know whether Libby tried to deceive the grand jury/prosecution or not. What I do know is that Libby left a million dollar law practice to take a $100K govt job. I do know is VERY strange that he would deliberately perjure himself while giving notes to the investigators that contradicted himself. To believe that he did this intentionally is to believe that an experience lawyer who was well versed in the laws of perjury and obstruction of justice would:
(1) Perjure himself.
(2) Give notes to the prosecution that contracted his own testimony.

If I’m a smart successful lawyer that is going to perjure myself, I’m going to DESTROY MY PERSONAL NOTES that would contradict my sworn testimony. A more likely explanation is that his recollection of two-year-old conversations was faulty. JEEZ…..Don’t ask me about conversations that are TWO WEEKS old much less conversations that are two YEARS old.


Predictions:
*Libby that left a million dollar law practice to take a $100K govt job will be in court for the next several years.
*Karl Rove is pretty much exonerated of blowing the cover of a CIA agent. The standard of indicting someone is not high (HENCE the old joke that a prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich). Fitz conceded that the investigation portion is pretty much over but he will empanel another grand jury. He may think that he can persuade Libby to rat out others but I this will NOT happen.
*Libby is pissed. A faulty memory of conversations that are two years old will cost him a lot of time and money in court. He will no longer voluntarily cooperate with Fitz.
*The Dems will try to make political hay of this and as usually they will overplay their hand. Despite several attempts, Bush43 will not be affected. No one even heard of Libby before this. He is easily replaced.
*Indictments are a dime-a-dozen. Proving indictments are tough. Libby will get a smart defense attorney that will conduct a harsh cross examination and it will be revealed that certain members of the press will be caught lying to the grand jury (Judy Miller for one). The prosecution’s case will fall apart and Libby will be acquitted.
*Robert Novak source that started this feeding frenzy was neither Rove nor Libby. THIS WILL BE A HUGE REVELATION.

[/ QUOTE ]

WOW, I guess I didn't need to spend time listening to Sean Hannity today. I could've just read this post instead. Good job, Sean, er, Felix /images/graemlins/grin.gif