Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Avatar4321 said:Well it happened. so lets see the reaction.
Libbys indictment is a political embarrassment for the president, paving the way for a possible trial renewing the focus on the administrations faulty rationale for going to war against Iraq the erroneous assertion that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.
At a brief news conference, President Bush said that while he was saddened by todays news, the indictment would not keep the White House from its work. Weve got a job to protect the American people, and thats what well continue to do, he said.
Bush referred to Libby as someone who worked tirelessly for Americans. He served the vice president and me through extraordinary times in our nations history, Bush said.
The indictment could also mean that Cheney, who prizes secrecy, will be called upon as a witness to explain why the administration launched a campaign against Plames husband, diplomat Joseph Wilson, a critic of the war who questioned Bushs assertion that Iraq had sought nuclear material.
The indictment said the vice president advised Libby that Wilsons wife worked at the CIA but the vice president was not the first administration official to tell him about it.
Its not over, Fitzgerald says
At a news conference, Fitzgerald said the inquiry was substantially complete, though he added ominously, Its not over. He declined to comment about Roves involvement. Asked about Cheney, he said: Im not making allegations about anyone not charged in the indictment. FACT FILE Summary of indictment
The five charges against I. Lewis Scooter Libby Jr. carry a total maximum penalty of 30 years in prison and $1.25 million in fines. A look at the charges as outlined in a 22-page indictment released Friday:
Count one: obstruction of justice
The grand jury charges that Libby did knowingly and corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice... by misleading and deceiving the grand jury about when and how he learned that covert operative Valerie Plame worked for the CIA. He is also accused of misleading the grand jury about how he disclosed that information to the media.
Count two: false statement
The grand jury charges that Libby did knowingly and willfully make a materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statement in an FBI investigation. Specifically, the indictment says Libby misled FBI agents in response to questions about a conversation with Tim Russert of NBC News in July 2003.
Count three: false statement
Libby is charged with misleading FBI agents about his July 2003 conversation with another reporter, Matt Cooper of Time Magazine.
Count four: perjury
After taking an oath to testify truthfully, Libby knowingly made a false material declaration about his conversation with Russert, the grand jury alleges.
Count five: perjury
Also under oath, Libby is accused of knowingly making a false material declaration about his conversation with Cooper.
The grand jury indictment charged Libby with one count of obstruction of justice, two of perjury and two of making false statements. If convicted on all five, he could face as much as 30 years in prison and $1.25 million in fines.
Democrats suggested the indictment was just the tip of the iceberg. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the case was larger than Libby and about how the Bush White House manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to bolster its case for the war in Iraq and to discredit anyone who dared to challenge the president.
Cheney and several other officials were mentioned by title in the 22-page indictment, but no one besides Libby was charged.
Libby is considered Cheneys alter ego, a chief architect of the war with Iraq. A trial would give the public a rare glimpse into Cheneys influential role in the West Wing and his behind-the-scenes lobbying for war.
Bush ordered U.S. troops to war in March 2003, saying Saddams weapons of mass destruction program posed a grave and immediate threat to the United States. No such weapons were found.
After the indictment was announced, Libby submitted his resignation to White House chief of staff Andy Card. It was accepted and Libby left the grounds. Card notified Bush.
B]Not accused of outing CIA agent
In his charges, Fitzgerald accused Libby of lying about his conversations with reporters, not outing a spy.[/B]
Bonnie said:Avatar Im confused about this...Is Libby being charged with lying to reporters?? And how come this case was supposed to be about purposefully outing a CIA agent but is now about anything but that???
theim said:The Left's theory in a nutshell: The chief of staff to the vice president is accused of lying about a crime that was never committed but he lied about anyway, so the President is about to be impeached or forced to resign.
It doesn't make much sense to me either, but in all fairnes, very little that comes out of their mouths ever does.
Making the Case
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby -- Vice President Cheney's chief of staff -- had a number of conversations in the spring of 2003 with government officials about CIA agent Valerie Plame, according to Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald. That summer, Mr. Libby discussed Ms. Plame, the wife of former ambassador Joseph Wilson, with three journalists. In the fall of 2003 and March 2004, Mr. Fitzgerald alleges in his statement and indictment, Mr. Libby made false statements about these conversations to the FBI and to a grand jury investigating the disclosure of Ms. Plame's CIA affiliation....
UPDATED: Word to the White House Dont Make The Mistake Of Defending Libby
Filed under:
The White House will make another political mistake if it decides to try to defend Lewis Libby. Fortunately for the country, for the health of Americas governmental institutions the Bush White House hasnt pulled a Clinton and trashed the prosecutor. By and large the Bush Administration has respected the judicial process. A Clintonesque trash-the-prosecutor tactic probably wouldnt work, anyway, given the national press corps pro-Democrat bias. Clinton could rely on the national press to amplify his tawdry demonization of Ken Starr. The national press hates the Bush Administration.
If Libby committed perjury he did so out of arrogance. The most likely scenario is this both simple and sad: Libby thought he could get away with it. But then so did Clinton. Clinton lied to a federal judge and lost his bar license for five years. Its time to give the Beltway Culture a kick. If hes convicted, Libby should serve time. No one is above the law. If Libby is judged innocent, then hell continue to practice law in Washington. As I recall, one of his former clients was Marc Rich (the mega-felon pardoned by Clinton in the waning days of Clintons administration)...
manu1959 said:ok....in order to charge someone with obstruction of justice and perjury.....then one would have to know the truth......if one knows the truth and does not charge anyone with outing a secrete CIA operative, which is what the investigation was all about....then it stand to reason that.....no one committed the crime, outing a secrete CIA operative, that was alleged.
so if not for the investigation into a crime that they knew by their own admission could not have happened because they knew the truth (the special prosector said she was not covert during his press confernce) there would have been no perjury or obstuction of justice charge.....
in plame english.....entrapment....
manu1959 said:ok....in order to charge someone with obstruction of justice and perjury.....then one would have to know the truth......if one knows the truth and does not charge anyone with outing a secrete CIA operative, which is what the investigation was all about....then it stand to reason that.....no one committed the crime, outing a secrete CIA operative, that was alleged.
so if not for the investigation into a crime that they knew by their own admission could not have happened because they knew the truth (the special prosector said she was not covert during his press confernce) there would have been no perjury or obstuction of justice charge.....
in plame english.....entrapment....
Kathianne said:I might be wrong here, perhaps Avatar or WJ can help out. The very fact that there was an investigation and a grand jury was called, means that if one testifies and may have lied, then one may be guilty of perjury, in spite of the fact that the original charges cannot be proven.
Avatar4321 said:Yeah perjury can occur even if the original crime did not.
I am not so sure about obstruction of justice. I mean how does one obstruct justice with no crime..
The Wall Street Journal
October 29, 2005
Novak's Role Is Still Largely Unknown
By JULIA ANGWIN
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
October 29, 2005; Page A5
The suspense ended Friday for I. Lewis Libby, but one of the case's biggest questions remained unanswered: What was the exact role of Robert Novak, the journalist whose column unmasked CIA operative Valerie Plame?
While it is now clear that the testimony of reporters Tim Russert, Matt Cooper and Judith Miller was crucial to Patrick Fitzgerald's leak investigation, it still isn't known who was Mr. Novak's primary source.
The 74-year-old syndicated columnist and frequent television commentator hasn't revealed the sources for his July 2003 column, or said whether he talked to the grand jury. Mr. Novak has said he would tell his story after the investigation is concluded.
There is only one mention of Mr. Novak in the indictment, when prosecutors allege Mr. Libby spoke to "Official A" about a conversation the official had with Mr. Novak. "Libby was advised by Official A that Novak would be writing a story about Wilson's wife," the indictment states. It doesn't say that Official A was Mr. Novak's source. The indictment says "Wilson's wife was discussed as a CIA employee" during this conversation. The indictment doesn't address if Official A was Mr. Novak's original source or a secondary source.
People briefed on the matter confirmed that Official A is White House adviser Karl Rove. Mr. Rove hasn't been charged. No one knows what Mr. Novak told the grand jury, if anything, or what Mr. Rove said about this possible conversation. Reached yesterday, Mr. Novak's attorney declined to comment.
In a follow-up column in October 2003, Mr. Novak wrote that he talked to two administration officials about Ms. Wilson. The first of these sources was not a "partisan gunslinger," Mr. Novak wrote, and provided the information as an "offhand revelation." The columnist also emphasized that he never thought unmasking Ms. Plame would endanger anyone or that he was the recipient of a planned leak. Mr. Novak added that he later talked to a CIA official about Ms. Wilson.
The indictment is otherwise silent on Mr. Novak, whose July 2003 column unmasking Ms. Wilson sparked the investigation. Instead, prosecutors allege that Mr. Libby lied to federal investigators and a grand jury about his conversations with Time magazine's Mr. Cooper, Ms. Miller of the New York Times and Mr. Russert of NBC News.
The three journalists who testified about Mr. Libby are likely to be called to testify in any trial, but it isn't known what other journalists might be called or if Mr. Novak could be one of them. Ms. Miller's testimony about what Mr. Libby told her will be watched especially closely because she has been in a public spat with her editors at the New York Times about the degree to which she kept them informed about her news gathering.
In a news conference Friday, Mr. Fitzgerald declined to comment about the conversation between Official A and Mr. Novak.
Mr. Fitzgerald also addressed fears that his aggressive pursuit of testimony from journalists was a threat to media freedoms. "I do not think that reporters should be subpoenaed anything close to routinely," Mr. Fitzgerald said. "It should be an extraordinary case."
Mr. Fitzgerald said this case had different elements than the usual reporter-source exchanges. "This was a situation where the conversation between the official and the reporter may have been a crime itself. It wasn't someone saying 'Hey, so and so is doing something really, really awful down the hall, but I'm going to get fired if I tell you,' " referring to whistle-blowers who seek protection through anonymity.
Mr. Novak has been writing a syndicated column "Inside Report" about Washington politics since 1963. The column runs in more than 300 newspapers across the country.
The controversy revolves around one of the pieces of evidence that the Bush administration used to promote the war with Iraq. In January 2003, Mr. Bush claimed that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium -- a key ingredient in nuclear weapons -- from Niger.
On July 6, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson wrote a New York Times commentary stating that he had found it "highly doubtful" that Iraq had purchased uranium from Niger. Mr. Wilson said he conducted a fact-finding mission to investigate the uranium claim in 2002, and submitted a report to the CIA and the White House stating that the claim wasn't true.
On July 14, 2003, Mr. Novak wrote a column about Mr. Wilson's trip to Africa that disputed White House involvement in the trip. Mr. Novak's column claimed that the president never saw Mr. Wilson's report and that it was "doubtful" that CIA Director George Tenet saw it either.
"Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction," Mr. Novak wrote. "Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. 'I will not answer any question about my wife,' Wilson told me."
Note:
In January, 2003, President Bush claimed that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium -- a key ingredient in nuclear weapons -- from Niger. This article incorrectly stated that Mr. Bush claimed Iraq had purchased uranium from Niger.
Kathianne said:I might be wrong here, perhaps Avatar or WJ can help out. The very fact that there was an investigation and a grand jury was called, means that if one testifies and may have lied, then one may be guilty of perjury, in spite of the fact that the original charges cannot be proven.
manu1959 said:you are correct .... he perjured his own notes....he should have just taken the 5th and moved on
Kathianne said:Yup, arrogance.
manu1959 said:or just that he didn't remember things that happened two years ago....
Well unlike Clinton, at least it wasn't Bush. So I guess Bush can pardon him. At the same time, kinda interesting how the right wishes to say 'nothing here other than perjury, move along...'dilloduck said:Bush should just pre-emptively pardon him and move on. To hell with this silly ass non-story.
Kathianne said:Well unlike Clinton, at least it wasn't Bush. So I guess Bush can pardon him. At the same time, kinda interesting how the right wishes to say 'nothing here other than perjury, move along...'
dilloduck said:It's called street fighting. Trying to be above it all with these idiots is a losing proposition.
