More than one finger required
Libby is guilty on three counts. Appeal process underway of course.
Libby was convicted of:
obstruction of justice when he intentionally deceived a grand jury investigating the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame; making a false statement by intentionally lying to FBI agents about a conversation with NBC newsman Tim Russert; perjury when he lied in court about his conversation with Russert; a second count of perjury when he lied in court about conversations with other reporters.
What comes next for the conspirators (yes, it’s a valid term); Presidential pardon or more heads to roll.
Libby, 56, faces a maximum sentence of 25 years in prison and a fine of $1 million. A hearing on a presentencing report is scheduled for June 5.
BTW, isn’t it interesting that Fox News, the bastion of unbiased reporting, is reporting: “With a retrial on its way, many speculate that if Libby is found guilty again, President Bush will pardon him so he won’t have to do any jail time.” http://tinyurl.com/27blhu
So Libby will be getting a retrial anyway, no conviction, no foul. I haven’t seen that elsewhere, though. Gotta wonder what the Bush spin machine channel knows that the rest of America does not.
Liberal hacks fail to negate my argument. I win again, and you lose… again.
#32. I kinda doubt if ‘a retrial is on the way.’ Libby’s lawyers will file a motion for new trial and if it is denied, they will appeal after he is sentenced. Fox’s reporters should spend some time in a community college Intro to Criminal Procedure class.
What I find hilarious is that the White House is continuing its ‘we dont comment on ongoing prosecutions’ stonewall, even after the trial is concluded. They could ride that one out to the end of Dumbya’s term, if the appeal takes long enough
#21. This is the way Federal prosecutors operate. If they can’t get someone for the actual crime, they will get someone for lying about the actual crime, either to the grand jury or to the FBI. Note that Martha Stewart was not convicted of insider trading, but rather of lying about insider trading. Many of the so-called ‘terrorist’ prosecutions which have failed since 9/11 have worked the same way.
#23. I was reading a history of the Cold War and I came across Nixon’s great quote about ‘If the President does it, its not illegal.’ Oh, the times they don’t a-change!
I just don’t understand why nobody seems to get upset over the fact that a person was just convicted of obstructing justice in a case where the Proecutor already knew who had committed the crime(Fitzgerald insists that outing Plame WAS a crime) and had told the person who outed her to not reveal that he(Fitzgerald) knew who the outer was.
Armitige had already admitted to Fitzgerald that he was the one and Novack had already told Fitzgerald who leaked Plame’s name to him, when Fitzgerald decided to question people in the White House about who was the leaker. This proves Prosocurital misconduct, he was on a **fishing exhibition*….you Liberals remember that term, it’s the one shouted from every Liberal rooftop when Clinton was being investigated every which way but up……and nothing more. Libby apparently either was stupid enough to lie or was stupid enough to not remember and got caught. The problem I have here is that there was no crime to obstruct, since Fitzgerald had already made the decision not to prosicute Armitige(a point he made again yesterday, saying, the investigation was done because he knew who the leaker was).
Libby will most likely win on appeal. Based on rulings made by the Presiding Judge about evidence, out of court statements made by witnesses, and the Judge allowing Fitgerald to quote as fact, assumptions made in op-ed newspaper pieces, in open court and flawed testimony he has an appeal wrapped up. Add to that that the conduct of Fitzgerald going after people in the WH after he already had a confession and back up as to the guilty party and Libby will either get a new trial or a complete reversal.
Chaney, Rove and whoever else may have wanted to discredit Wilson(which he finally managed to do to himself), but thats not a crime. Chaney especially is probably guilty of things that could be or are crimes, but thats not one of them.
I know that no matter what we say here, that no one’s mind will be changed. People like Fusion and Hill will always believe what they want.
I know there are several posters here that are lawyers…..youse guys need to put down the partisen politics and look at how this case came about and how it was handled by the Judge and the Prosecutor. When you do, you will see what I’m saying about the Appeals process.
#35. I confess I have not been following the trial close enough to comment on whether reversible error may have been committed. No doubt lots of out of court statements were admitted. whether they were admitted for the truth (hearsay) or to show that Libby or someone else was on notice of something (non-hearsay), will make all the difference.
But, AFAIK, you can be convicted of perjury or lying to the FBI if you are covering up … nothing. I cannot say (as other people have asserted) that the investigation failed to turn up more b/c of Libby’s lying, but that does not change the fact that he either (a) lied to the FBI and the Grand Jury about certain facts; or (b) had several rather implausible memory lapses. The jury chose (a).
Yes, I would say it was likely a fishing expedition. But again, compared to the Starr extravaganza of numerous years, which ranged from the failed Whitewater land deal to alleged perjury in an utterly unrelated sexual harassment suit, it is a pretty minor one.
This is the problem with special prosecutors – they are under a lot of pressure to convict someone of something, even if that means sending someone like Susan McDougal or Scooter Libby to jail.
But that does not make either of them any less guilty.
#35,
I just don’t understand why nobody seems to get upset over the fact that a person was just convicted of obstructing justice in a case where the Proecutor already knew who had committed the crime
You are correct. A crime was committed and the Prosecutor, Fitzpatrick, rightfully charged the perpetrator. The charge was obstruction of justice and lying to the Grand Jury and FBI.
This happened after the CIA complained to the Department of Justice that Robert Novak had outed a covert agent, a Federal crime. Not to mention this happened during “a time of war”. Subsequent investigation reveled that the White House authorized the release of a state secret making the outing a non-crime. The obstruction of justice and lying came about during the investigation.
While injustices occur every day in this country, if you don’t like the law then either speak to your Federal representative to have the law modified or run for office yourself. To claim that no crime was committed just because you don’t like the law, or the outcome in a specific case, is foolish.
So far the only ones claiming that Libby will prevail upon appeal are from the far right, including the Fox Spews crowd. I have not heard anything on CNN or MSNBC or read anything elsewhere that would suggest serious errors occurred during the trial. While almost every trial will have some error in it, you, of all people, should know that they seldom rise to the level of warranting a reversal or new trial. With the amount of publicity on this case as well as the experience of the Judge, defense and prosecution, I don’t see any appeal succeeding. Yet as the legal pundits like to point out, you never know how an Appeal Court will view a specific item.
Well Susan McDougal was in jail for refusing to answer questions. She was never convicted, but was in jail for contempt of court, so she is comparable to Judith Miller not Libby. I think Miller’s the only other person to go to jail, and both she and LIbby have had bad dealings with Fitzgerald. Libby with the Marc Rich pardon, and Miller with the Holy Land Foundation.
People keep saying Clinton just lied in a civil hearing, he also lied in a grand jury for a criminal case. It wasn’t just Hillary, Bill and Monica who were involved, but Paula Jones who brought a sexual harassment case, or defamation, or whatever. Apparently, it’s OK to lie to avoid yourself trouble in a case, and who cares if the defendant doesn’t get a fair court case. The case against Libby is much more serious, with possible lies about WMD as the backstory. Fitzgerald clearly thought that Libby was covering for Cheney and Bush, so he went after LIbby.
#33 – Liberal hacks fail to negate my argument. I win again, and you lose… again.
Comment by James Hill — 3/7/2007 @ 3:25 pm
I used to think like you do.
That is, when I was six I used to think that repeating the some lie over and over would magically make it true.