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.



    1. James Hill says:

      Biggest non-story of the year.

      I also enjoy trying to throw the potential of Presidential pardons into this. Clit’n’s pardons will do more damage to Hillary this year than this story will to Cheney or Bush.

      Now… back to watching the Democratic congress solve all of our problems.

    2. moss says:

      Libby, of course, will get crumbs thrown to him for being a “good pet” – whether it’s a pardon or a gig with Halliburton or both.

      I’m still chuckling over one bit of trivia mentioned on MSNBC, this morning. The last presidential pardon which raised the hackles of the Republikan hyenas — was Mark Rich, pardoned by BillyBoy.

      His attorney — Scooter Libby. All these creeps take care of each other.

    3. Olo Baggins of Bywater says:

      James, maybe it is a non-story, but after the Rs turned Clinton’s boner into an impeachment, there’s the smell of retaliation in the air. This, at least, involves the possibility of national security.

      Where are the next Woodwards and Bernsteins when we need them? What’s next is Scooter will start to squawk to stay out of the clink and Cheney croaks, leaving Scooter with a dead end, and then we’ll have a real conspiracy on our hands.

    4. Dallas says:

      Libby taking the hit for the chief liar – George W.

      Clearly, a pardon is absolutely coming around, say, December 2008 when the public has forgotten. By the time that day comes around, the prosecution red tape would result in Libby serving days in prison.

      It’s a win-win for everyone. It’s not like Libby has a reputation to be concerned about.

    5. Tom 2 says:

      Well Done. Bravo, one down, Dick Cheney to go.

    6. venom monger says:

      Now… back to watching the Democratic congress solve all of our problems.

      Second verse, same as the first. Don’t you get tired of spouting the same crap in response to everything that comes up?

      Let me ask you something. Say you take your car to a garage because it’s making a funny noise and it stalls at every red light. You see the mechanic open the hood and start to work on the engine with a big circular saw. When you start to object, the service manager says “hey, what do you know about cars? If you couldn’t fix it yourself, you don’t have the right to tell us we’re doing it wrong”.

      Is he right?

    7. JohnS says:

      So how many days till he gets pardoned… let the betting begin.

    8. malren says:

      Question – Was the actual legal violation of Libby lying under oath, lying to investigators and lying under oath again somehow different from when Clinton did it? Because I’m seeing the same names that scream to the heavens that Clinton’s violation of the law meant nothing calling for Libby’s head on a platter.

      Personally I think both of them were stupid to lie under oath and deserve to be (or have been) punished, but then I like applying my sense of justice equally regardless of party affiliation. I’m CRAZY like that.

    9. James Hill says:

      #3 – The problem with revenge is that the people seeking it always come out worse than those who it is targeted against. While I’m not saying the left should be “above this”, I am saying they should have better tact in advancing the story and dealing with the issue.

      At the end of the day, the possibility this impacted national security… which has not been proven… is trumped by the fact that Clit’n purgered himself… albeit over soemthing meaningless.

      The problem with the left’s argument is that too many people like #4, #5 and #7… who are too stupid to do anything other than cheer… are making the argument. Those would could do so and gain ground for the left choose not to… with why being an interesting question.

      #6 – What bothers you more about my comments: That they’re annoying, or right?

      Your analogy doesn’t fly: The vast right-wing conspiracy, much less myself, have never claimed that the Democratic party as a whole is unfit to rule (or in this case, fix a car). What I’m simply pointing out is that they were selected to fix what the right supposedly messed up… and they haven’t done so.

      With all of the good feelings over the Democrats coming to power (note that I’m not saying the left, since the Democrats won based on turnout in conservative districts), I’m wonder when people are going to expect the new mechanics to fix the car.

      In the end, they may be smart enough to not use a circular saw, but that doesn’t mean they’re capable of solving the problem.

    10. James Hill says:

      #8 – I think you’ve got it right. The only difference is the left is attempting to spin this as a national security risk, while the right attempted to spin Bubba’s fuck up as proof he was unfit to rule.

    11. Roc Rizzo says:

      Just remember which is worse,

      Libby lied about outing a CIA agent…

      Clinton lied about sex…

      Which was worse?

      Yes, they are both crimes, but which is worse?

    12. Roc Rizzo says:

      Pardon him?
      Nah, Bush is gonna pin a medal on him!

    13. malren says:

      Yes, they are both crimes

      You should have stopped right there. Plame wasn’t a national security issue, and neither was Monica.

      They both committed perjury and they both lied to investigators. They committed the exact same crime in the eyes of the law. Period.

      They are either equally as guilty of violating the law or they are not. Trying to have it both ways is EXACTLY what is wrong with American politics. Either both sides obey the same laws in the same way or it’s a free-for-all. You make the choice every time you defend one side and criticize the other for the same acts.

      If enough of us demanded that these politicians play by the same set of rules, eventually they will. They live to do whatever the latest poll says they should do.

    14. venom monger says:

      What bothers you more about my comments: That they’re annoying, or right?

      Just quit saying “If you don’t know how to fix it yourself, shut up.”

      How about if you have TWO apparently incompetent mechanics who are arguing over repairing your car. But one of them has already tried every tool in his tool bin, with no luck. The other has just been kibbitzing. And just to throw another monkey wrench at ’em, what if the engine is ruined because you forgot to put oil in it and NEITHER of them will EVER be able to fix it. At some point, the correct decision is to have your car towed away and forget both of them.

      Yeah, it was a lousy analogy. Anyway, I’ve always hated the argument that if you can’t do something yourself then you’re not qualified to criticize. Sometimes (brain surgery) that may be true. Most of the time (football, cooking, running a country) it’s not.

    15. Mr. Fusion says:

      Let’s see, Clinton lied about having consensual sex with an adult. His motive was to protect both the woman and himself. Libby lied to the FBI and the Grand Jury after outing a CIA Agent. Now that her cover is blown she can never again do surreptitious undercover work. All that training and expertise is gone so the Administration could continue to cover up the fact it lied to the American public.

      Where is the conservative outrage? Or did you forget the venomous language used by the Republicans over Clinton? C’mon all you Republicans; you wrap yourselves in the flag, you scream about patriotism, where the eff is your rage over leaders who would give away state secrets for the sake of their political gains.

      Malren. How on earth can you equate Clinton’s personal and private affair with the spreading of state secrets? They are not the same. They are not equal. One can not balance out the other.

    16. BillM says:

      #16

      Your first four words were all you needed to say.

      “Let’s see, Clinton lied”

    17. BillM says:

      Almost forgot……
      I hope Libby receives the same punishment that Clinton received. Then he would be condemned to travel the world receiving $150,000 per speech.

    18. doug says:

      Actually, there is some doubt that Clinton actually committed perjury, since what he lied about (getting a BJ from Monica) may not have actually been considered “material” in the proceeding that he was testifying in (deposition of an unrelated sexual harassment suit). A lie under oath is only perjury if it is “material.”

      There is no doubt, however, that Libby’s actions before the grand jury were perjury. And, one should note, perjury in a civil matter (such as a sexual harassment suit) is not considered nearly as serious as that in a criminal matter (such as an investigation into the criminal outing of a CIA agent).

      Be that as it may, what REALLY makes me laugh, though is the conservative defense in all these matters. Libby’s lies, Dumbya’s lies … all they can do is point the finger at a guy whose been out of office for SIX YEARS.

      Beats trying to actually defend the indefensible, I reckon.

    19. StuffIt says:

      Okay, so Clinton and Libby did the same thing, let’s look at that first:

      Clinton’s lie was over a personal problem between him and his wife, which effected him, his wife, and this thong-wearing girl without a local dry cleaner and a dirty dress.

      Libby’s lie was over a professional issue, and inside knowledge. BIG DIFFERENCE!!! Look at that apple, isn’t it just the same as that orange (or Vista) ???

      However, consider TWO steps back: why is the WIFE of a DIPLOMATIC AMBASSADOR working for THE CIA? Isn’t that sort of like “kissing the baby while stealing its lollypop?” Shouldn’t that be some sort of international crime, right up there with smuggling “whatever” in diplomatic pouches or correspondence? If they’re sneaking around under the auspices of being a married couple promoting international relations, and they’re doing something to hurt “the enemy”, isn’t that some form of covert terrorism?

      HOLY FRIGGIN’ WHATEVER, BATMAN — I REALLY, REALLY HATE POLITICS AND POLITICIANS AND THE GAMES THEY PLAY…

      Seriously — really — are ya’all just down on the guy because he went by the moniker, “Scooter” ??? I’m with ya, nail his ass to the cross. Literally — not the wrists, or the ankles, just his ass. He’ll flail about better that way, and the sexual connotations will make it a world-wide NUMBER ONE news item.

    20. arch says:

      help me out here …

      i thought it was Armitage, as part of Team Powell at State that outed Plame … (explaining to Novak why the inept Joe Wilson, who missed the Niger deals, got the job in the first place …. ie CIA keeping it in the family).

      this Libby business looks minor in comparison, he wasn’t the leak, and provided waivers for reporters to disclose his name.

      the vital, relevant and important bigger issues seem to be ignored in this blog-post … just reads as more shrill BDS hackery. if i was Dvorak i’d be embarrassed that my name ran across the top of this stuff, he should get his contributors under better control and demand a bit more considered posting.

    21. Olo Baggins of Bywater says:

      A lot of the commentary I’ve heard since leaving the office yesterday revolved around Scooter being the fall guy…even the jurors are saying he apparently fell on a sword for “somebody.” I wonder if this is really over yet…an appeal might be the worst thing possible for the administration because it opens the discussion yet again.

      they [the D’s] were selected to fix what the right supposedly messed up…

      IMO they were elected to stop the bleeding…both literally and figuratively. We’ll have to see how well that works out, and if anything can be fixed at this point after being so thoroughly screwed up.

    22. Mr. Fusion says:

      #19, doug

      What is the matter with you??? Those are facts. Facts have no place in a discussion with Republicans.

      (good points though)

      The one I liked the best is moss’s comment in #2 where Libby was Mark Rich’s lawyer for his pardon. I think this counts as an Inconvenient Truth.

    23. faustus says:

      a little ironic… if this was the sixies and a nobo from the kennedy admin outed a cia agent, the yippies amoung you would have been pinning a medal on him. its actually kind of funny watching the nobos of today falling all over themselves pissing and moaning the typical “how dare he” when this admin is not nearly as bad as the disfunctional but “beloved” kennedy admin with its bay of pigs, vietnam, murdering national leaders, sex lies and audio tape in the white house, giving bags of money to the mob to fix elections by way of the president’s girl friend … get it through your pointed litlle heads…. BOTH PARTIES ARE ROTTEN TO THE CORE…

    24. Frank Baird says:

      I’m a conservative, but good grief, folks. Stop standing up for someone who betrayed an undercover agent. Yes, what Clinton did was wrong, but can you honestly say that endangering the life of an agent because they are married to a whistleblower is the same as lying about getting a BJ? C’mon! Libby clearly did wrong and deserves to be punished for it.

      Maybe this is all just sour grapes over the fact that Clinton went into a region (Serbia, Kosovo, etc) with good reason (genocide) and was reasonably effective, whereas GWB went into a region w/o good reason and it’s a failure. At least GWB had good reason to go into Afghanistan, although it may turn out to be almost just as bad.

      Interestingly, the WSJ mentioned that no charges were brought for the actual revealing of Plame’s name. This is the same way Martha Stewart was brought to “justice.” That’s a sad comment on the state of prosecutors and the court system today.

    25. TheGlobalWarmer says:

      Frank, the there were no charges brought for revealing Plame is that there was no actual crime involved in that. She was NOT an undercover agent therefore could not be exposed in an illegal manner. The only crimes were the perjury which only came about because everyone panicked. Sad.

    26. James Hill says:

      #11 – Just one problem… He didn’t out the dumb bitch. Half of Washington knews she was CIA because she told them herself.

    27. GG says:

      #25: No charges were brought for the actual revealing of Plame’s name because they could not complete the investigation. That’s what “obstruction of justice” is, and what Libby is guilty of–preventing the investigation from proceeding. Even the prosecutor (Fitzgerald) said that the investigation would have ended in 2004, not 2005, if the obstruction did not take place.

      #26: Yes, Plame was an undercover agent for many years, but not in 2003 when her identity was revealed. The disclosure of her identity threatens every person she ever worked with when she was a NOC. See the Time story: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,524486-1,00.html

      Even if Plame is not considered an undercover agent, a crime was still committed. The identity of a CIA agent is classified information, and disseminating classified information is a crime.

    28. GG says:

      Here is some more information on why this is a “big deal” from 2 former agents:
      http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/24/cnna.leak/

    29. Mr. Fusion says:

      #28, The identity of a CIA agent is classified information, and disseminating classified information is a crime.

      Unless you are the President in which case you make the rules as you go along. Or just sign off on what your Vice-President did. Which is why this suddenly became not a crime.

    30. TJGeezer says:

      Yup, now it’s clear to me. Disclosing a CIA agent’s identity and putting every person she ever worked with at risk is not nearly as serious as lying about getting a blowjob from a woman who is of legal age to give them if she wants.

      So there’s no hypocrisy on the right at all. Not a bit.


    1

    Bad Behavior has blocked 4524 access attempts in the last 7 days.