Scooter Libby found guilty.

Guilty on 4 of 5 counts. Motions for a retrial mentioned and then there are appeals, who knows on what grounds.

Should any/all of the above fail, anyone laying odds on or agasinst a presidential pardon, intended to avoid Mr. Libby possibly singing some sad laments? Interesting material on which to speculate.
 
I'll say that Irving Libby will be promised a presidential pardon or he'll roll over on the Bush administration.

badbob
 
Kind of sadly ironic to compare the consequences suffered by the perjurer in Chief and Sandy "Socks" Berger...
 
Personally I think he is the scapegoat and I sort of feel sorry for him; but then again, it's kind of calling the kettle black... A lying politician? Is there any other kind? :confused: :p By that standard, is there anyone in office who isn't guilty to some extent?
 
Personally I think he is the scapegoat and I sort of feel sorry for him; but then again, it's kind of calling the kettle black... A lying politician? Is there any other kind? By that standard, is there anyone in office who isn't guilty to some extent?
Click to expand...

Well, there's lying and there's lying. Lying on TV or during some speech is one thing...it's bad, and such people really should stop getting re-elected, but it's not the kind of thing that should be illegal. Lying to investigators is a whole different animal. Anytime the FBI is asking you questions, there should be an assumed "No, really" appended to the front.

Still, all I can think about when looking at this case is:
fall-guy.gif
 
Personally I think he is the scapegoat and I sort of feel sorry for him; but then again, it's kind of calling the kettle black... A lying politician? Is there any other kind? By that standard, is there anyone in office who isn't guilty to some extent?


he probably is a scapegoat, but now that he's guilty and the case is about closed except for the sentencing which may take 9 months.. by the time he gets to one of those country club prisons for politions in Dec, Bush can Pardon him as planned..
 
All because someone got "outed" who wasn't even covert to begin with.
Click to expand...

That doesn't change the obstruction of Justice charge, just makes it sting more.

There should be no concern at all from the people in charge when an investigator comes a knockin'. It just hasn't happened this administration, so it was confusing.
 
Nope. Wrong-o.

All because someone got "outed" who wasn't even covert to begin with.
Click to expand...

Not only was Valerie Plame working under a Non-Offical Cover, the outfit she worked at, Brewster-Jennings, was also covert. Covered as an energy consulting firm, IIRC. When she was blown, so was everybody else she worked with, and any contacts they had overseas.

The CIA obviously thought it was an issue, since they're the ones who actually started the investigation.

Mr. Fitzgerald (who's about as non-partisan as it's possible to be, BTW) said he wasn't able to indict anyone for the inital leak, not because it wasn't a crime, but because with all of the obfuscation, he couldn't figure out who the original source was, or at least not well enough to get a conviction. Good prosecutors, which Mr. Fitzgerald clearly is, don't indict if they can't convict.

The reporters share a lot of the blame, as well. Note that publishing leaked classified information isn't illegal. Leaking it is. The story should have been "High-ranking Government official leaked classified information to me!" not "Unnamed anonymous government source says {classified stuff}."

Dude lied to a Grand Jury and the FBI. That ain't smart. In fact, it's a felony. He got caught and convicted. Sucks to be him.

--Shannon
 
According to the author of the bill that protects under cover operatives Plame wasn't covert. Forgot the lady's name but she was on Sean Hannity a while back when all this broke.

Also, I've heard them term anonymous source from the liberal media enough to make me puke.
 
Also, I've heard them term anonymous source from the liberal media enough to make me puke.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but replace anonymous source with unnamed senior official and liberal media with white house.


So if she wasn't covert, why exactly did W come out and say how angry he was?
Why did Skeeter lie to the FBI and obstruct justice? You know, the things he was convicted of.
 
So if she wasn't covert, why exactly did W come out and say how angry he was?
Why did Skeeter lie to the FBI and obstruct justice? You know, the things he was convicted of.
Click to expand...

W came out and said he was mad because he really isn't a conservative. Why did he call the Minute men vigilantes? Who knows. You'll have to ask him that one.

I don't think he did personally. Look at some of the jurors to see what's wrong. I'll say this, the defense did a lousy job with jury selection.

Dennis Collins: Journalist and blogger at the Huffington post. He was the foreman of the jury. Extreme leftist. He wrote about it while the trial proceeded. He's also written about the CIA in the past. Little conflict of interest there don't ya think?

Don't you consider it odd that a juror would ask the court during the proceedings and the media after the trial "Where's Rove at?" "Where's Cheney at?" Did they forget their place and take it upon themselves to indite people? I have read that one juror would like a pardon for Libby, can't back that up though.
If he lied then fine convict him and give him the exact same punishment as Berger. Namely, the keys to the kingdom back after a short punishment. I just can't for the life of me understand why he would lie when no crime had been committed.
 
As any good lawyer will tell you.

1. You must have a lawyer when you talk to a Federal Agent of ANY kind.

2. You should answer "Not Guilty" to any questions.

Let us assume we have an honest witness. The witness tells the FBI that he saw Senator whatsisnames mistress run down four little kids with her Jag convertible.

The Senator greases the judge, persecutor etc. and the blonde walks with a not guilty.

FBI comes back to honest witness and throws it in prison for lying. QED.

Geoff
Who has considerable objections to the current "must speak truth" laws. :barf:
 
Didn't they pretty conclusively find outside the trial that Dick Armitage was source 0?
Click to expand...

There was testimony inside the trial to that effect, too. And that Rove verified. Novak took the stand.

I have read that one juror would like a pardon for Libby, can't back that up though.
Click to expand...

I believe the exact words were she wouldn't mind if he got a pardon. But also the same "extreme lefty" foreman Denis Collins said the same thing.

The jury seemed to come away with the thought that while scooter did break the law, it was for someone else. The statements made regarding where's rove and everyone else was a direct response to "we don't understand the defense.. we like scooter, we hear that armitage was the original leaker, but if the defense is that he was TOLD to do this, then why not bring the TELLER under oath?"
 
Ann Coulter tells it like it is ... again

http://townhall.com/Columnists/AnnCoulter/2007/03/07/shooting_elephants_in_a_barrel

Shooting elephants in a barrel
By Ann Coulter
Wednesday, March 7, 2007

Lewis Libby has now been found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice for lies that had absolutely no legal consequence.

It was not a crime to reveal Valerie Plame's name because she was not a covert agent. If it had been a crime, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald could have wrapped up his investigation with an indictment of the State Department's Richard Armitage on the first day of his investigation since it was Armitage who revealed her name and Fitzgerald knew it.

With no crime to investigate, Fitzgerald pursued a pointless investigation into nothing, getting a lot of White House officials to make statements under oath and hoping some of their recollections would end up conflicting with other witness recollections, so he could charge some Republican with "perjury" and enjoy the fawning media attention.

As a result, Libby is now a convicted felon for having a faulty memory of the person who first told him that Joe Wilson was a delusional boob who lied about his wife sending him to Niger.

This makes it official: It's illegal to be Republican.

Since Teddy Kennedy walked away from a dead girl with only a wrist slap (which was knocked down to a mild talking-to, plus time served: zero), Democrats have apparently become a protected class in America, immune from criminal prosecution no matter what they do.

As a result, Democrats have run wild, accepting bribes, destroying classified information, lying under oath, molesting interns, driving under the influence, obstructing justice and engaging in sex with underage girls, among other things.

Meanwhile, conservatives of any importance constantly have to spend millions of dollars defending themselves from utterly frivolous criminal prosecutions. Everything is illegal, but only Republicans get prosecuted.

Conservative radio personality Rush Limbaugh was subjected to a three-year criminal investigation for allegedly buying prescription drugs illegally to treat chronic back pain. Despite the witch-hunt, Democrat prosecutor Barry E. Krischer never turned up a crime.

Even if he had, to quote liberal Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz: "Generally, people who illegally buy prescription drugs are not prosecuted." Unless they're Republicans.

The vindictive prosecution of Limbaugh finally ended last year with a plea bargain in which Limbaugh did not admit guilt. Gosh, don't you feel safer now? I know I do.

In another prescription drug case with a different result, last year, Rep. Patrick Kennedy (Democrat), apparently high as a kite on prescription drugs, crashed a car on Capitol Hill at 3 a.m. That's abuse of prescription drugs plus a DUI offense. Result: no charges whatsoever and one day of press on Fox News Channel.

I suppose one could argue those were different jurisdictions. How about the same jurisdiction?

In 2006, Democrat and major Clinton contributor Jeffrey Epstein was nabbed in Palm Beach in a massive police investigation into his hiring of local underage schoolgirls for sex, which I'm told used to be a violation of some kind of statute in the Palm Beach area.

The police presented Limbaugh prosecutor Krischer with boatloads of evidence, including the videotaped statements of five of Epstein's alleged victims, the procurer of the girls for Epstein and 16 other witnesses.

But the same prosecutor who spent three years maniacally investigating Limbaugh's alleged misuse of back-pain pills refused to bring statutory rape charges against a Clinton contributor. Enraging the police, who had spent months on the investigation, Krischer let Epstein off after a few hours on a single count of solicitation of prostitution. The Clinton supporter walked, and his victims were branded as whores.

The Republican former House Whip Tom DeLay is currently under indictment for a minor campaign finance violation. Democratic prosecutor Ronnie Earle had to empanel six grand juries before he could find one to indict DeLay on these pathetic charges -- and this is in Austin, Texas (the Upper West Side with better-looking people).

That final grand jury was so eager to indict DeLay that it indicted him on one charge that was not even a crime -- and which has since been tossed out by the courts.

After winning his primary despite the indictment, DeLay decided to withdraw from the race rather than campaign under a cloud of suspicion, and Republicans lost one of their strongest champions in Congress.

Compare DeLay's case with that of Rep. William "The Refrigerator" Jefferson, Democrat. Two years ago, an FBI investigation caught Jefferson on videotape taking $100,000 in bribe money. When the FBI searched Jefferson's house, they found $90,000 in cash stuffed in his freezer. Two people have already pleaded guilty to paying Jefferson the bribe money.

Two years later, Bush's Justice Department still has taken no action against Jefferson. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently put Rep. William Jefferson on the Homeland Security Committee.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat, engaged in a complicated land swindle, buying a parcel of land for $400,000 and selling it for over $1 million a few years later. (At least it wasn't cattle futures!)

Reid also received more than four times as much money from Jack Abramoff (nearly $70,000) as Tom DeLay ($15,000). DeLay returned the money; Reid refuses to do so. Why should he? He's a Democrat.

Former Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger literally received a sentence of community service for stuffing classified national security documents in his pants and then destroying them -- big, fat federal felonies.

But Scooter Libby is facing real prison time for forgetting who told him about some bozo's wife.

Bill Clinton was not even prosecuted for obstruction of justice offenses so egregious that the entire Supreme Court staged a historic boycott of his State of the Union address in 2000.

By contrast, Linda Tripp, whose only mistake was befriending the office hosebag and then declining to perjure herself, spent millions on lawyers to defend a harassment prosecution based on far-fetched interpretations of state wiretapping laws.

Liberal law professors currently warning about the "high price" of pursuing terrorists under the Patriot Act had nothing but blood lust for Tripp one year after Clinton was impeached (Steven Lubet, "Linda Tripp Deserves to be Prosecuted," New York Times, 8/25/99).

Criminal prosecution is a surrogate for political warfare, but in this war, Republicans are gutless appeasers.

Bush has got to pardon Libby.

Ann Coulter is the legal correspondent for Human Events and author of Godless: The Church of Liberalism .
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top