Libby indicted - five counts

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

[ 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]

[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! [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?

[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! [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.

[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!

[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.

[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?