Scooter Convicted

[Bry]

"I'm pretty much going to stay out of it until the course -- the case has finally run its final -- the course it's going to take,"

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...07/03/08/pressure_on_bush_for_a_libby_pardon/

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Did it ever come out in the trial that she was actually an undercover operative - or did the jury NOT get to hear any of that?

Don't be silly. Of course she was undercover. Why else would she have been wearing those dark glasses in that GQ photo spread?

 

[red states rule]

Bush Should Pardon Libby Now
By Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- There are lies and there are memory lapses. Bill Clinton denied under oath having sex with Monica Lewinsky. Unless you're Wilt Chamberlain, sex is not the kind of thing that you forget easily. Sandy Berger denied stuffing classified documents in his pants, an act not quite as elaborate as sex, but still involving a lot of muscle memory, and unlikely to have been honestly forgotten.

Scooter Libby has just been convicted for four felonies that could theoretically give him 25 years in jail for ... what? Misstating when he first heard a certain piece of information, namely the identity of Joe Wilson's wife.

Think about that. Can you remember when was the first time you heard the name Joe Wilson or Valerie Plame? OK, so it is not a preoccupation of yours. But it was a preoccupation of many Washington journalists and government officials called to testify at the Libby trial, and their memories were all over the lot. Former presidential press secretary Ari Fleischer testified under oath that he had not told Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus about Mrs. Wilson. Pincus testified under oath that Fleischer definitely had.

Obviously, one is not telling the truth. But there is no reason to believe that either one is deliberately lying. Pincus and Fleischer are as fallible as any of us. They spend their days receiving and giving information. They can't possibly be expected to remember not only every piece, but precisely when they received every piece.

Should Scooter Libby? He was famously multitasking a large number of national security and domestic issues, receiving hundreds of pieces of information every day from dozens of sources. Yet special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald chose to make Libby's misstatements about the timing of the receipt of one piece of information -- Mrs. Wilson's identity -- the great white whale of his multimillion-dollar prosecutorial juggernaut.

Why? Because on his essential charge as special prosecutor -- find and punish who had leaked Valerie Plame's name -- he had nothing. No conspiracy, no felony, no crime, not even the claim that she was a covert agent covered by the nondisclosure law. Fitzgerald knew the leaker from the very beginning. It was not Libby, but Richard Armitage. He also knew that the "leak'' by the State Department's No. 2 official -- a fierce bureaucratic opponent of the White House and especially the vice president's office -- was an innocent offhand disclosure made to explain how the CIA had improbably chosen Wilson for a WMD mission. (He was recommended by his CIA wife.)

Everyone agrees that Fitzgerald's perjury case against Libby hung on the testimony of NBC's Tim Russert. Libby said that he heard about Plame from Russert. Russert said he had never discussed it. The jury members who have spoken said they believed Russert.

And why should they not? Russert is a perfectly honest man who would not lie. He was undoubtedly giving his best recollection.

But he is not the pope. Given that so many journalists and administration figures were shown to have extremely fallible memories, is it possible that Russert's memory could have been faulty?

I have no idea. But we do know that Russert once denied calling up a Buffalo News reporter to complain about a story. Russert later apologized for the error when he was shown the evidence of a call he had genuinely and completely forgotten.

There is a second instance of Russert innocently misremembering. He stated under oath that he did not know that one may not be accompanied by a lawyer to a grand jury hearing. This fact, in and of itself, is irrelevant to the case, except that, as former prosecutor Victoria Toensing points out, the defense had tapes showing Russert saying on television three times that lawyers are barred from grand jury proceedings.

This demonstration of Russert's fallibility was never shown to the jury. The judge did not allow it. He was upset with the defense because it would not put Libby on the stand -- his perfect Fifth Amendment right -- after hinting in the opening statement that it might. He therefore denied the defense a straightforward demonstration of the fallibility of the witness whose testimony was most decisive.

Toensing thinks this might be the basis for overturning the verdict upon appeal. I hope so. This is a case that never should have been brought, originating in the scandal that never was, in search of a crime -- violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act -- that even the prosecutor never alleged. That's the basis for a presidential pardon. It should have been granted long before this egregious case came to trial. It should be granted now without any further delay.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Why did 'Scooter' lie?

In October of 2003, the FBI sent a letter detailing their reasons for believing that 'Scooter' was falsifying his statements to its investigators in the matter of the release of classified information, as in the name of Valerie Plame.

In a <a href=http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/ag_letter_december_30_2003.pdf>letter</a> delivered to Patrick Fiztgerald, the acting USAG appointed Fitzgerald as special prosecutor in the investigation into the disclosure of Valerie Plame's identity. Another <a href=>letter</a> dated February 6th, 2004, specifically enumerates Fitzgerald's authority in this matter.

The authority Fitzgerald had was, and I quote:

<blockquote>"...the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity" is plenary and includes the authority to investigate and prosecute violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as <b>perjury</b>, <b>obstruction of justice</b>, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses...</blockquote>

You will note that 'Scooter' was convicted on two counts of perjury, one count of obstruction of justice and one count of giving false statements to FBI investigators. All of which were covered under the Ashcroft DoJ's blanket authority. The reason no one was indicted for the release of Valerie Plame's identity was:

1. 'Scooter' lied to FBI investigators.

2. 'Scooter' perjured himself, twice, before a Grand Jury.

3. In the commission of of the previous crimes, he obstructed the pursuit of a federal investigation into the unauthorized disclosure of the identity of a CIA asset.

Why did 'Scooter' lie? A question supporters of the Bush administration and its policies fear to have answered.

 

[Avatar4321]

To be fair he should stay in jail just as long as Clinton had to.

I dont think he should be in jail that long. The fact that he was convicted of not remembering everything is a travesty.

 

[Avatar4321]

Why did 'Scooter' lie?

In October of 2003, the FBI sent a letter detailing their reasons for believing that 'Scooter' was falsifying his statements to its investigators in the matter of the release of classified information, as in the name of Valerie Plame.

In a <a href=http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/ag_letter_december_30_2003.pdf>letter</a> delivered to Patrick Fiztgerald, the acting USAG appointed Fitzgerald as special prosecutor in the investigation into the disclosure of Valerie Plame's identity. Another <a href=>letter</a> dated February 6th, 2004, specifically enumerates Fitzgerald's authority in this matter.

The authority Fitzgerald had was, and I quote:

<blockquote>"...the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity" is plenary and includes the authority to investigate and prosecute violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as <b>perjury</b>, <b>obstruction of justice</b>, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses...</blockquote>

You will note that 'Scooter' was convicted on two counts of perjury, one count of obstruction of justice and one count of giving false statements to FBI investigators. All of which were covered under the Ashcroft DoJ's blanket authority. The reason no one was indicted for the release of Valerie Plame's identity was:

1. 'Scooter' lied to FBI investigators.

2. 'Scooter' perjured himself, twice, before a Grand Jury.

3. In the commission of of the previous crimes, he obstructed the pursuit of a federal investigation into the unauthorized disclosure of the identity of a CIA asset.

Why did 'Scooter' lie? A question supporters of the Bush administration and its policies fear to have answered.

You seem to miss the inherent injustice of it all:

There was no crime. The prosecutor new long before he brought people in to be questioned that there was no crime. He was on a fishing expedition and you know it.

And despite your claims you have still not shown anyone that he intended to lie. Intent is pretty damn important in any crime. There is more than enough reasonable doubt in this case. The only crime Libby is guilty of is being conservative in front of a jury of DC liberals.

 

[Bullypulpit]

You seem to miss the inherent injustice of it all:

There was no crime. The prosecutor new long before he brought people in to be questioned that there was no crime. He was on a fishing expedition and you know it.

And despite your claims you have still not shown anyone that he intended to lie. Intent is pretty damn important in any crime. There is more than enough reasonable doubt in this case. The only crime Libby is guilty of is being conservative in front of a jury of DC liberals.

You just keeeeep on wearin' those rose colored glasses, old son. The fact are that he perjured himself and made false statements to FBI investigators. Which goes back to the question, "Why?" Had he not lied, it would likely have been Rove, Cheney and others in the dock along with 'Scooter'.

The facts aren't going to change because you are unwilling to accept them.

 

[BATMAN]

It seems he did tell that on the form he filled out. What the defense was thinking? Perhaps with the jury pool in DC, he was the best they could hope for?

I caught a bit of Rush explaining this - apparently the jury pool was so heavily loaded with moveon.org types that the defense had used all of it's vetoes by the time they got to this guy.

 

[Annie]

I caught a bit of Rush explaining this - apparently the jury pool was so heavily loaded with moveon.org types that the defense had used all of it's vetoes by the time they got to this guy.

That makes sense. It will be interesting to see how this plays out with appeals or pardon.

 

[Bullypulpit]

I caught a bit of Rush explaining this - apparently the jury pool was so heavily loaded with moveon.org types that the defense had used all of it's vetoes by the time they got to this guy.

That being the case, why didn't Scooter's defense attorneys challenge said jurors? Another bit of right wing-nut apocrypha created as they cannot accept the fact that he was tried by a jury of his peers and convicted. After, all, he was a member of the Bush administration, and they are above the law, at least they thought they were.

But to take Rush Limbaugh's word for anything as fact is akin to buying this wonderful bridge I have to sell you in Brooklyn.

 

[red states rule]

That being the case, why didn't Scooter's defense attorneys challenge said jurors? Another bit of right wing-nut apocrypha created as they cannot accept the fact that he was tried by a jury of his peers and convicted. After, all, he was a member of the Bush administration, and they are above the law, at least they thought they were.

But to take Rush Limbaugh's word for anything as fact is akin to buying this wonderful bridge I have to sell you in Brooklyn.

There is a limit to how many they can dismiss. The trial was in DC. A solid moonbat left city. Hell, the idiots reelected Marion Barry the Coke King, and now tax cheat, again and again

 

[BATMAN]

That being the case, why didn't Scooter's defense attorneys challenge said jurors?

Bully, I answered your question in the part you quoted me on:

...apparently the jury pool was so heavily loaded with moveon.org types that the defense had used all of it's vetoes by the time they got to this guy

Try to keep up there champ.

 

[Avatar4321]

You just keeeeep on wearin' those rose colored glasses, old son. The fact are that he perjured himself and made false statements to FBI investigators. Which goes back to the question, "Why?" Had he not lied, it would likely have been Rove, Cheney and others in the dock along with 'Scooter'.

The facts aren't going to change because you are unwilling to accept them.

So i guess you have no problem if the Feds and Prosecutors in your region start interrogating you before a grand jury when there is no crime and for the sole purpose of tripping you up and throwing you in prison.

And again you completely ignore the fact that in order to perjure yourself, you have to intentionally do so. There is absolutely no evidence that he intended to do so. There is absolutely no reason to do so.

Finally, we know exactly what Libby supposedly lied about. How exactly does anything he said protect Rove or Cheney? The simple fact is they don't. They don't do anything to Rove and Cheney. Because Rove and Cheney weren't the leak!. Armitage was. Fitzgerald knew this within two weeks of his investigation. He knew there was no crime. He was on a fishing expedition trying to trip people up so he could prosecute someone. If you don't find this inherently evil then you have some serious problems.

 

[boedicca]

Anyone who supports Libby's conviction should also believe that Clinton deserved to be impeached.

Just sayin'.

 

[red states rule]

Anyone who supports Libby's conviction should also believe that Clinton deserved to be impeached.

Just sayin'.

Hey, stop right there. You know better then to confuse libs with facts. They will suffer from increased blood pressure and have a stroke

 

[boedicca]

This unseemly mess reminds me of Nifong and the false accusations towards the Duke Lacrosse players. IOW, it's a political hatchet job in which an individual is sacrified. Disgusting.

 

[red states rule]

This unseemly mess reminds me of Nifong and the false accusations towards the Duke Lacrosse players. IOW, it's a political hatchet job in which an individual is sacrified. Disgusting.

True, The liberal media there, like here, ignored the facts, the false evidence, the conflicting testimony of the all the witnesses. The liberal media reports what they want the stroy to be, not what the story is

 

[boedicca]

I suspect that Bush will pardon Libby in January '09 - but until then he and his family will go through hell.

 

[red states rule]

I suspect that Bush will pardon Libby in January '09 - but until then he and his family will go through hell.

Or, as I believe, the conviction will be tossed out on several grounds

 

[boedicca]

It's really a shame that the agent provacateur of this abomination of justice cannot be prosecuted by lying about the results of his trip to Niger.