Libby indicted - five counts
 

so says cnn...

"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."

Re: Libby indicted - five counts
 

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!

Re: Libby indicted - five counts
 

Libby resigns.

Expected.

Re: Libby indicted - five counts
 

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.

Re: Libby indicted - five counts
 

</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.

Re: Libby indicted - five counts
 

[ 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.

Re: Libby indicted - five counts
 

How am I contradicting myself?

Re: Libby indicted - five counts
 

Indictment available here.

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

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Libby indicted - five counts
 

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.

Re: Libby indicted - five counts
 

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?

Re: Libby indicted - five counts
 

[ 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.

Re: Libby indicted - five counts
 

[ 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! [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Re: Libby indicted - five counts
 

[ QUOTE ]
What a horrible Fitzmas!

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Re: Libby indicted - five counts
 

[ 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! [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ 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?

Re: Libby indicted - five counts
 

[ 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! [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ 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.

Re: Libby indicted - five counts
 

[ 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.

Re: Libby indicted - five counts
 

[ 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.

Re: Libby indicted - five counts
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What a horrible Fitzmas!

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Re: Libby indicted - five counts
 

[ 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.

Re: Libby indicted - five counts
 

[ 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?

Re: Libby indicted - five counts
 

[ QUOTE ]
Indictment available here.

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

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ 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.

Re: Libby indicted - five counts
 

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.

Re: Libby indicted - five counts
 

[ 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.

Re: Libby indicted - five counts
 

[ 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.

Re: Libby indicted - five counts
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Indictment available here.

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

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ 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.

Re: Libby indicted - five counts
 

[ 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.

Re: Libby indicted - five counts
 

You're pretty sad, but sometimes humorus.

Give me facts, not your own silly insinuations.

Re: Libby indicted - five counts
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Indictment available here.

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

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ 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?

Re: Libby indicted - five counts
 

[ 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?

Re: Libby indicted - five counts
 

[ 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.

Re: Libby indicted - five counts
 

[ QUOTE ]
What facts do you want?

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Re: Libby indicted - five counts
 

Example A (re: attempt to assert Cheney cleared). From the indictment, 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 ]

Re: Libby indicted - five counts
 

[ 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.

Re: Libby indicted - five counts
 

[ 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.

Re: Libby indicted - five counts
 

[ 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?

Re: Libby indicted - five counts
 

Thanks. That was an enoyable read.

Re: Libby indicted - five counts
 

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks. That was an enoyable read.

[/ QUOTE ]

A perfectly predictable response.

Re: Libby indicted - five counts
 

[ 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?

Re: Libby indicted - five counts
 

[ 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.

Re: Libby indicted - five counts
 

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.