Scooter Libby found guilty.

Just curious....

How many of you who more or less agree with Coulter's position, that he was caught in a lie about nothing; a lie of no consequence, and therefore shouldn't have been convicted of perjury...how many of you who believe that ALSO believed that Clinton SHOULD have been indicted/charge (and possibly removed from office) for lying in the Paula Jones matter under oath?

Please, do answer the question. Because I think Clinton should have been held responsible for lying under oath, and I think Libby should be held responsible for lying under oath. Libby got what was coming. Clinton didn't, unfortunately. Neither lie was about anything earth-shattering or illegal (one was about personal sexual matters; other about a non-illegal leak). Of course, it doesn't matter - the REASON for the perjury crime is that the system needs truth when testifying under oath to lead to and uncover all the relevant facts, to attain justice. Stewart, Libby, & Clinton ==> criminal liars all. The jury said so in 2 of the 3. The last criminal is still roaming freely.

P.S. Coulter herself is of course the biggest liar of all in her claim that the conviction is a result of "faulty memory". Clearly, the jury considered that defense thoroughly, and rejected it. They found, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, that it was an intentional, knowing, LIE, and NOT just bad memory/confusion. Coulter knows that. But Coulter is not under oath, so she has the right to roam free and continue to be the biggest blowhard idiot who ever walked the face of the planet.
 
I vote a lie under oath land you in jail. No exceptions, if you can't remember, then say I don't recall; if you don't want to say, then don't (5th Amnd).

The entire legal system is based on it, lying under oath is perjury.


In regards to the Primary Classification Authority - check if we heard anymore from the frequencies that Reagan divulged with a line-by-line transcript of KAL007. I'll save you the time - we didn't.

Reagan didn't have the need to know the exact transcript - that cost us - big time.
 
How many of you who more or less agree with Coulter's position, that he was caught in a lie about nothing; a lie of no consequence, and therefore shouldn't have been convicted of perjury...how many of you who believe that ALSO believed that Clinton SHOULD have been indicted/charge (and possibly removed from office) for lying in the Paula Jones matter under oath?
Click to expand...

Libby was found guilty of lying. I don't think anyone but libby will ever really know whether it was lying or a case of faulty memory. There certianly wasn't any single piece of damning evidence. However, he broke the law, and was found guilty by a jury of his peers. Justice was done.

What I have a problem with is the fact that Libby should have never been talked to. Fitzgerald knew the cause of the leak before libby was ever investigated. As we say in the legal community this is bad ju ju. If libby lied, he comitted a crime, but even if he did, it was due in no small part to being set up by the special prosecutor.
 
People throw out the term "Lied" a little too freely IMO

To my way of thinking lying is a conscious effort to deceive

Having a bad memory...or believing bad intelligence (GWOT) is not lying

Clinton knowingly provided false information...wasn't he even disbarred?

While it appears that the jury in the Libby trial believe that he did as well, I am not completely convinced

"Because Libby successfully muddied the waters"

Excuse me...but in order to know that he lied don't you have to know the truth...you know....so you can compare???

Nobody has proven (to me) that Plame was even in a postition to be "outed"


Nobody has proven (to me) that any crime regarding her status was even committed

And it looks like nobody will because they got their scapegoat and they are content

Seems to me if actual treason were involved here there would be more interest

After months of hearing the MSM shout about the "outing of a CIA operative" I don't think Ann Coulter is dragging down the quality of the discussion
 
Excuse me...but in order to know that he lied don't you have to know the truth...you know....so you can compare???
Click to expand...

Yes, they had 13 witnesses agreeing.. that's as much truth as they could get.

Nobody has proven (to me) that Plame was even in a postition to be "outed"
Click to expand...

Her position at the CIA was classified information. Making that public knowledge is "outing" her.

Clinton knowingly provided false information...wasn't he even disbarred?
Click to expand...
Yep, from the supreme court. A presidential first.

Nobody has proven (to me) that any crime regarding her status was even committed
Click to expand...

There was an investigation, during the course of which libby knowing lied (according to the jury). Why does there have to be an underlying crime at all? I think there just isn't enough information to determine that the leak of classified information was willful..

I am still asking why the White House is staying silent on this issue. If there wasn't even an underlying crime, then there is no reason not to talk about it.
 
Her position at the CIA was classified information. Making that public knowledge is "outing" her.
Click to expand...

Being classified is not the same as being covert. There is nothing that suggests that under the statutes definition that Plame was covert.

Fitz knows full well that Plame wasn't covert. If she was, Fitz would have had a host of people to charge starting with armitage.
 
I understand that. I still think that "outing" is a fine verb to use in this situation.
Click to expand...

No, its not. If Plame was outed the it was done by the first person to do it, Armitage. A person can only be outed once. I don't know how far down the chain libby was, but by the time it got to him, the damage had already been done.

If we're going to talk about this, then accuracy is important.
 
I give about as much worth that anything that Coulter ( :barf: ) says as I would a single pellet of plastic, and thats being generous.


I dont know the "truth", but I highly suspect that Libby is not the top of the food chain in this matter. Most of these officials are not as dumb as they lead others to believe and would not have risen to such levels of power if they were. There is no lack of intelligence and most politicians are incredibly crafty; ( Uh, I forgot.... yeah right, give us a break, do we look like we were born yetserday?) what is lacking is wisdom, but that is another can of worms.

At the very least, it's good dramatic scenerio to keep the public focused on B.S. and the foliticians squabbling amongst themselves instead of dealing with important issues.

To say it isn't true because it can't be "proved", to me, is pretty ignorant.
 
I like how just because there isn't enough evidence to charge someone, that somehow means he is innocent. All it means is there isn't enough evidence.
Click to expand...

Even by internet standards, this takes the cake.
 
I vote a lie under oath land you in jail. No exceptions, if you can't remember, then say I don't recall; if you don't want to say, then don't (5th Amnd).
Click to expand...

You cannot take the fifth in a grand jury testimony.

More and more, it looks as though one would be far better off to simply say "No, I do not" when asked "Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give before this court is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; so help you God?"

When they ask you why you gave that answer the simple answer would be "I saw what happened to Scooter Libby." Of course, Martha Stewart wasn't even under oath when she lied and still ended up in the slammer.

If you never swore to tell the truth then you cannot be held to answer for lying. Remember, purjury is based upon lying under oath.
 
If we're going to talk about this, then accuracy is important.
Click to expand...

In the sentence "He outed Valerie Plame", I think any of these three names works just fine in place of the pronoun: Richard Armitage, Karl Rove, and Robert Novak.

Original source, confirmer, and publisher to the world.

Any complaints about this accuracy?

Libby was talked to I imagine to determine if the leak was ordered or not. Who the hell knows what prosecutors think? ;)
 
Being classified is not the same as being covert. There is nothing that suggests that under the statutes definition that Plame was covert.
Click to expand...
Uh, I hate to break it you guys but she was definately covert. She was actually ANOC status meaning that not only was her position classified/covert she was at a level where the U.S. would deny all knowledge of her if her cover was blown. If she found herself in trouble she would have been on her own with no rescue or state intervention. This made it all the ore heinous that she was outed.
 
I'm sure it will all come out in the civil suit against cheney. Unless congress finally gets off its collective butt and does some oversight first.
 
SecDef,
That's a good one. Keep 'em comin' :D

Hell yes Dubya is gonna pardon Libby. Otherwise he might roll over and get his superiors busted. Let's face it: Scooter didn't do this on his own hook.
 
Pardon?

You know, I'm not so sure they will. It depends on a few things, not least of which is what the prosecutor does next.

He's gonna lean on Libby between now and sentencing. That's a given, he's too good of a prosecutor not to. If Libby's pardoned, he looses the 5th Amendment protections that make squeezing him for voluntary testimony necessary.

It's pretty obvious that Libby lied, if not under direct orders, then out of loyalty. There weren't that many people above him to protect, and they're all powerful enough that which one it was doesn't really matter. Bush is in a bind here. Don't pardon Libby, throw him under the bus... he's gonna roll. Pardon him, and watch him be subpoenaed and forced to testify.

The only way I see Bush pardoning Libby is if the White House legal team really think this is over. If they even suspect that Fitzgerald's not done, Scooter's on his own. Pure self-interest.

--Shannon
 
Uh Penguin.....I believe the atatute protects CIA employyes for 5 yrs after they left the field (not like Mission Impossible)

And by all reports she was beyond that 5 year limit

As far as why she was "outed"

As to how it came up in conversation, I believe Armitage was explaining how her idiot husband came to be sent to Niger in the first place
 
Obiwan,
I believe Armitage was explaining how her idiot husband came to be sent to Niger in the first place
Click to expand...
Possibly, although her husband was proven correct so if there was an "idiot" involved it wasn't him.
Honestly it never occurred to me that the outing might have been unintentional. Why else would the vice president's chief-of-staff happen to know the identity of a CIA field officer in the first place? He clearly had no need to know that. Somebody at CIA had to tell him, so who told him and why?

I personally think it was intentional. This administration was going pretty far out of it's way to ignore information contradicting their conclusions and to discredit critics. They may say that they weren't all gung-ho to get us into a shooting war in Iraq, but they sure as heck acted like it. Outing an operative to force a critic to back off would not have been out of character.
But even if it was unintentional, it would indicate a mind-numbing level of incompetence. I could see accidentally divulging an identity and compromising a valuable intelligence network to a co-worker...but a member of the press?? Was this guy in the habit of talking to the press without notes?:confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top