What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Libby gets 2 and a half years.

Superlative

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
109
Points
48
ASHINGTON, June 5 — I. Lewis Libby Jr., once one of the most powerful men in government as Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, was sentenced today to two and a half years in prison for lying to a grand jury and F.B.I. agents who were investigating the unmasking of a C.I.A. operative during a fierce debate over the war in Iraq.

Federal Judge Reggie B. Walton also fined Mr. Libby $250,000 after declaring that there had been “overwhelming evidence” of Mr. Libby’s guilt on the four counts — one each of obstruction of justice and giving false statements, and two of perjury. He was convicted on March 6...........

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/05/us/05cnd-libby.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
 

Truthmatters

Diamond Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,265
Points
1,283
Probably wont seve a day of it
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
50,622
Reaction score
12,531
Points
2,190
Location
North Carolina
ASHINGTON, June 5 — I. Lewis Libby Jr., once one of the most powerful men in government as Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, was sentenced today to two and a half years in prison for lying to a grand jury and F.B.I. agents who were investigating the unmasking of a C.I.A. operative during a fierce debate over the war in Iraq.

Federal Judge Reggie B. Walton also fined Mr. Libby $250,000 after declaring that there had been “overwhelming evidence” of Mr. Libby’s guilt on the four counts — one each of obstruction of justice and giving false statements, and two of perjury. He was convicted on March 6...........

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/05/us/05cnd-libby.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Remind me again? Which one of those charges has anything to do with "outing" Plume? Your buddies Care and Truthmatters are insisting not only did he out her, he specifically outed her covert status. Also show me where Cheney or Rove have been charged with anything related to Plume? Another claim by these two individuals is that Cheney Ordered it and the conviction of Libby proves it.

Using the logic and criteria supplied by Care I am happy to announce President Clinton and His wife Hillary are guilty of every charge ever made against them because Mc Dougal went to jail rather then testify.
 
OP
Superlative

Superlative

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
109
Points
48
Remind me again? Which one of those charges has anything to do with "outing" Plume? Your buddies Care and Truthmatters are insisting not only did he out her, he specifically outed her covert status. Also show me where Cheney or Rove have been charged with anything related to Plume? Another claim by these two individuals is that Cheney Ordered it and the conviction of Libby proves it.

Using the logic and criteria supplied by Care I am happy to announce President Clinton and His wife Hillary are guilty of every charge ever made against them because Mc Dougal went to jail rather then testify.

The basic understanding is that someone needs to go down for this.

Its a joke and a waste of time, most likely, the whole thing up to divert attention from something else more important.

It is sure as hell not going to be Rove or Cheney that go down, thats how it works. call it a conspiracy theory, but if someone you work for does something illegal, you may be held responsible, unless you are Karl Rove or Dick Cheney.
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
50,622
Reaction score
12,531
Points
2,190
Location
North Carolina
The basic understanding is that someone needs to go down for this.

Its a joke and a waste of time, most likely, the whole thing up to divert attention from something else more important.

It is sure as hell not going to be Rove or Cheney that go down, thats how it works. call it a conspiracy theory, but if someone you work for does something illegal, you may be held responsible, unless you are Karl Rove or Dick Cheney.

Ahh so your claim is if someone that works for you breaks the law and there is ZERO evidence to tie you to the "crime" your still guilty? It does NOT work like that and either you know it or need to take a class on our legal system and our Government.

Thanks for admitting it was a political trial designed from start to finish to "catch" someone else.
 

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
Remind me again? Which one of those charges has anything to do with "outing" Plume? Your buddies Care and Truthmatters are insisting not only did he out her, he specifically outed her covert status. Also show me where Cheney or Rove have been charged with anything related to Plume? Another claim by these two individuals is that Cheney Ordered it and the conviction of Libby proves it.

Using the logic and criteria supplied by Care I am happy to announce President Clinton and His wife Hillary are guilty of every charge ever made against them because Mc Dougal went to jail rather then testify.

Libby, as a result of his perjury and misleading statements to FBI agents, made it impossible to make a determination as to the nature of the outing of Ms. Plame and the existence of a conspiracy to do so. 'Scooter', in short, fell on his sword for this administration.
 
OP
Superlative

Superlative

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
109
Points
48

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
50,622
Reaction score
12,531
Points
2,190
Location
North Carolina
Libby, as a result of his perjury and misleading statements to FBI agents, made it impossible to make a determination as to the nature of the outing of Ms. Plame and the existence of a conspiracy to do so. 'Scooter', in short, fell on his sword for this administration.

And MC Dougal's refusal to testify made it impossible to make a determination as to the crimes the Clinton's did or did not commit. I submit that since she had immunity to testify her stance was much more apparently damaging.
 

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
And MC Dougal's refusal to testify made it impossible to make a determination as to the crimes the Clinton's did or did not commit. I submit that since she had immunity to testify her stance was much more apparently damaging.

Could it possibly be that the Clinton's hadn't actually done anything wrong? Of course THAT thought never crossed your mind.
 

CockySOB

VIP Member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
709
Reaction score
108
Points
78
Location
Midwest USA
Could it possibly be that the Clinton's hadn't actually done anything wrong? Of course THAT thought never crossed your mind.

Cannot the same thing be said of GWB and Cheney in this case? And I can see several people here for whom that thought NEVER crossed their minds.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,854
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
Cannot the same thing be said of GWB and Cheney in this case? And I can see several people here for whom that thought NEVER crossed their minds.

You're expecting objectivity and applying the same standard to one as the other from BULLY?:rolleyes:
 
OP
Superlative

Superlative

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
109
Points
48
Bush will pardon Libby before he serves one day.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,854
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
Bush will pardon Libby before he serves one day.

He shouldn't have to be pardoned, and that isn't the point. I think the chief investigator in these proceedings should be the subject of an investigation himself. This whole fiasco has been a joke from Day One.
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
50,622
Reaction score
12,531
Points
2,190
Location
North Carolina
It is AGAINST the law to purposefully try to get someone on perjury. I believe that the ENTIRE intent of this Prosecutor was JUST that, he wanted leverage on Libby to scare him into implicating someone else.
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
61,246
Reaction score
18,924
Points
2,290
Location
Maine
It is AGAINST the law to purposefully try to get someone on perjury. I believe that the ENTIRE intent of this Prosecutor was JUST that, he wanted leverage on Libby to scare him into implicating someone else.

Obstructing Justice is a pretty serious crime.

I can't believe you guys are disparaging Patrick fitzgerald the way you are with absolutely NO GROUNDS to do such. You eat your own kin. Man, you guys are scum....equal to those that outed Plame, you will do ANYTHING, to cover your own asses....Even if it means ruining another person's career and life when they have done nothing but served this country of ours well..:clap2: Bravo!
 

Diuretic

Permanently confused
Joined
Apr 26, 2006
Messages
12,653
Reaction score
1,410
Points
48
Location
South Australia est 1836
Yes, it says much about the power of close-minded partisanship and how destructive it can be. Libby was given a fair trial. He can appeal. But calling for an attack on Fitzgerald isn't on. You've seen the Bush Administration's efforts at putting in politicised lawyers into federal prosecutor position, is that accceptable? Is political prosecution okay if it's your side that's doing it? * Are you that partisan?



*and that shouldn't be read as a suggestion that Fitzgerald was political. He wasn't.
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
61,246
Reaction score
18,924
Points
2,290
Location
Maine
the trial notes are in pdf format and NONE of you are willing to read THEM and view the exhibits and evidence as I have suggested, sooooo here is an OPINION :razz: piece, going over the closing arguments of Libby's trial....

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=167836

...Then it was Fitzgerald's turn. After three years of working on this case, he, as is customary for prosecutors in a criminal case, would have the last word. "Madness," he exclaimed. "Madness. Outrageous....The government brought a case about two phone calls." He was mocking Wells. This was not a case of he-said/she-said, he explained; it was a case of he-said/he-said/he-said/she-said/he-said/he-said/he-said/she-said/he-said and he-said. "Is this the world's greatest coincidence?" he asked, contending that there could not be nine conversations with everyone remembering the wrong thing. And forget about Russert, he said. If Russert had been "run over by a bus and gone to the great news desk in the sky," the prosecution's case would stand: Libby learned about Wilson from Cheney and others yet claimed he had not.

Valerie Wilson and her CIA affiliation was no trivial matter for Libby and Cheney, Fitzgerald insisted. For Libby and Cheney, Fitzgerald said, Valerie Wilson "wasn't a person...she was an argument...a fact to use against Joe Wilson." He pointed out that there is physical evidence. According to the notes of Libby's CIA briefer, Libby told the briefer about Wilson and his wife a full month before Novak's column--and Libby did so during a briefing that covered heavy-duty national security issues, such as terrorist plots and the war in Iraq. This document, Fitzgerald said, "is a fingerprint of the defendant's brain."

Fitzgerald called the jury's attention to other documents that showed Libby and Cheney were nearly obsessed with the Wilson matter. He demonstrated that Cheney himself had helped create a set of talking points in early July about the Wilson imbroglio that began, "It is not clear who authorized Joe Wilson's 2002 trip to Niger." This showed, Fitzgerald argued, that the boss was concerned with the origins of Wilson's trip. (Cheney and Libby believed the media accounts made it appear that Cheney had directly dispatched Wilson, though Wilson had only been sent by the CIA in response to a question Cheney had put to his intelligence briefer.) Fitzgerald recounted how prosecution witnesses had testified that when Libby talked about Wilson's wife he did so in an unusual manner, as if Libby knew the subject was sensitive.

Fitzgerald came to the rescue of Judith Miller, whom he had sent to jail for 85 days before she agreed to cooperate with his investigation. The defense had had easy work in undermining her credibility--especially because she had forgotten in her first grand jury appearance to recall an entire meeting with Libby. But Fitzgerald walked the jurors through key portions of a memo on the Wilson trip that was sent to Libby on June 9, 2003. He then showed the jury portions of Miller's grand jury testimony in which she noted that Libby had shared these same specifics with her during a July 8 meeting at the St. Regis Hotel. This exercise was a twofer for Fitzgerald. He demonstrated that Miller could be a reliable witness and that Libby had been quite interested in and able to recall details about the Wilson matter. It seemed Libby did have a good memory on this topic.

Fitzgerald chugged along. He undercut the defense team's contention that Cooper's notes back up Libby's claim that he only shared scuttlebutt with Cooper. Fitzgerald scored points in rebutting the defense attorney's attacks on Russert. And he took on Wells' charge that the prosecution had throughout the trial attempted "to put a cloud over" Cheney. "There is a cloud on the vice president," Fitzgerald replied, explaining that Cheney had written notes indicating he was interested in the Valerie Wilson connection and that Cheney had sent Libby to the meeting with Judy Miller where Libby (according to Miller) told her that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. "And that cloud remains," Fitzgerald declared, "because this defendant obstructed justice....That cloud was there. It was not something we put there." Cheney and Libby, Fitzgerald noted, could have held in July 2003 a press conference to reveal information they believed would undermine Joseph Wilson's attack on the White House. Instead, they went with a leak to Miller. But why would Libby rely on a Russert-told-me cover story that could not withstand close scrutiny? "The sad truth is that sometimes when people lie it looks dumb when they get caught," Fitzgerald said.

The prosecutor brushed aside the argument that Libby merely failed to remember what he had known and discussed about Valerie Wilson. Use your common sense, Fitzgerald asked the jury. Wells had earlier said that prosecuting Libby for not accurately recalling in October 2003 details of conversations he had in June and July 2003 was akin to asking a college student, who had spent a summer on a beach, to remember in the fall the specifics of a conversation he or she had the previous semester. That's nonsense, Fitzgerald retorted, noting that memories are dependent on "uniqueness, importance, and anger." Valerie Wilson's CIA connection was certainly unique, he maintained, and the vice president's office believed the Wilson trip was a significant topic. And Libby, according to the testimony of several prosecution witnesses, was angry about Wilson's claim that the White House and the vice president had manipulated the prewar intelligence. "When you think it's important, when you're focused on it, when you're angry about it--those are the things you remember," the prosecutor said. And, Fitzgerald added, Libby's CIA briefer had testified that he told Libby and Cheney that the disclosure of a clandestine CIA officer could lead to the harassment, torture or death of others. Even a 21-year-old, Fitzgerald said, would consider that important.

Winding up, Fitzgerald aimed at the entire Bush crew. "There's a cloud over the White House as to what happened" in the leak affair, he told the jury. There were questions as to whether the law was broken when Valerie Wilson's CIA cover was blown and "what role the defendant played...what role the vice president played." Looking straight at the jury, Fitzgerald asked, "Don't you think the FBI and the grand jury is entitled to straight answers." Instead, he said, Libby made up a story and obstructed justice. Echoing Wells' last lines, Fitzgerald declared of Libby, "He stole the truth from the judicial system. Give truth back." With that, Fitzgerald was done.

cont.
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
50,622
Reaction score
12,531
Points
2,190
Location
North Carolina
Obstructing Justice is a pretty serious crime.

I can't believe you guys are disparaging Patrick fitzgerald the way you are with absolutely NO GROUNDS to do such. You eat your own kin. Man, you guys are scum....equal to those that outed Plame, you will do ANYTHING, to cover your own asses....Even if it means ruining another person's career and life when they have done nothing but served this country of ours well..:clap2: Bravo!

You simply ignore the fact he DID NOT out Plume. If he had he would have been charged with it. You have made a claim that not only did he out her but that he STATED she was a covert agent when he did it. Either prove the claim or admit you are wrong. You INSIST that there are numerous witnesses to testify he outed her AS a covert agent. Answer the question, if he did and all these witnesses are about, WHY wasn't he charged with that?

Remind me again how Sandy Burger got no jail time and a paltry 50k fine for STEALING classified documents but Libby got 30 months and 250k fine and this is fair? Burger might have stolen documents that were NOT recorded in the system and were source documents with NO copies.

No one even cares what he took or why. Meanwhile Libby gets hounded for 3 years illegally by a prosecutor that couldn't even charge him with the crime the investigation was supposed to be about.

And you insist no evidence is proof Vice President Cheney is a traitor.

Explain again how even IF Libby lied that would prevent HIM from being charged with outing Plume. Read the law, you can NOT conduct an investigation with the intent to trap someone with Perjury charges. Which is exactly what this prosecutor did. No perjury, NO obstruction. Libby was a victim of a Prosecutor that couldn't accept he had no case. He charged him for the sole purpose of scaring him into testifying against someone else.

Explain again how one obstructs an investigation into outing a CIA operative and NEVER gets charged with actually outing her. In fact the person that did it was already known and had NOTHING to do with Libby or the Vice President. Did Libby cover for Armitage? Libby committed no crime except not being able to remember exactly what he said over 3 years. Hell he should have done the Clinton dance and just answered every question with " I do not recall" He tries to answer and is set up for it.
 

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
You're expecting objectivity and applying the same standard to one as the other from BULLY?:rolleyes:

The facts speak for themselves. 'Scooter' was convicted, the Clintons were not. And let us not forget that it was a Bush appointed US attorney who prosecuted Libby. It was Bush appointed judge who presided over the case. It was a defense selected jury that convicted him.

Given the squeals (like stuck pigs)of outraged indignation from the right-wing pundits, and other administration boot-lickers, across the country for Bush to pardon 'Scooter', one can only wonder what has become of their love of law-and-order. It would seem that the rule of law is pertinent and applicable only to someone other than themselves or a member of the Bush administration.

It was, however amusing to watch these heretofore unflinching supporters of Bush throw him under the bus for not pardoning Libby immediately and forthwith. Ho...hum...just another episode of "Republicans Eating Their Own".
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
50,622
Reaction score
12,531
Points
2,190
Location
North Carolina
Who here thinks OJ Simpson killed his wife?

Remind me again of the number of wrongly convicted people exonerated every year and then continue to insist YOUR right AND not because of politics and everyone that disagrees with you is wrong and BECAUSE of politics.

As to Clinton, simple question, DID he lie to a Judge under Oath? Did McDougal go to prison after being given immunity to testify in the matters about the Clintons rather than testify?
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$295.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top