Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

What Libby did here was not the worst wrong in the equation, but it was still wrong.

---

And that's why the Jury convicted him.

If only simberg knew right from wrong too.

Posted by anonymous at March 6, 2007 01:32 PM

Per your quote, I already agreed that what Libby did was wrong, Anonymous Moron, but we know you don't know how to read. Or think.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 6, 2007 01:38 PM

Is it established that Libby lied? It seems clear he contradicted himself, but that does not necessarily mean he lied, even if the jurors think he did. I continue to think the investigation and trial were abusive, because they focused on acts that were not criminal, because they singled out Libby, and because if the conviction holds he is likely to be punished out of all proportion even to what he is accused of having done.

Posted by Jonathan at March 6, 2007 02:13 PM

Is it established that Libby lied?

That's why I wrote "alleged." But if the verdict stands after appeals, it's certainly established that he was convicted for doing so. We're always entitled to have a different opinion, of course (how many intelligent people really think that OJ was not guilty of murder?).

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 6, 2007 02:19 PM

Lots of broken-ness in the post in IE, Rand, towards the end with all of the updates....

Posted by John Breen III at March 6, 2007 02:56 PM

For myself, I think it's asinine that anyone can get convicted of lying to the Feds when no underlying crime about which he might have lied has been proved, or even alleged, by indicting someone for it.

I understand the principal at work here is that someone might obstruct the pursuit of justice by lying to the Feds. But if the Feds aren't pursuing justice -- if they don't even think there's justice to be pursued -- then I sure don't see how it makes any logical sense to charge someone with obstructing it.

Is this some kind of purely theoretical or ineffable justice that Libby is supposed to have obstructed? I mean, if Cheney had outed Plame, and if that were a crime (both of which conditions Fitzgerald knew to be false before he ever talked to Libby)...why then, in that purely hypothetical counterfactual history world, Libby's statements would, indeed, have slowed down Fitz's investigation. But in this world they did exactly squat to hinder justice. You'd think that bare fact would count for something.

I mean, should I yell at my teen for playing with his kid sister in the driveway behind the car? Sure, he's endangering her if the car might be driven soon. But...if the car's up on blocks and the engine's rusting on the workbench in the garage, and the missus is now using the trunk to grow tomatoes? Then what sense does it make to condemn him for something that, in another world, might have been dangerous? It's just vanity in a case like that. Smacking someone around for the pure childish joy of exerting power.

Posted by Carl Pham at March 6, 2007 04:12 PM

After hearing the juror's remarks, I can't see how this could stand up in appeal. The jury was obviously biased with outside influence; otherwise, they wouldn't consider Libby the "fall guy" for a crime that wasn't tried or even determined to have occurred.

Posted by Leland at March 6, 2007 04:35 PM

This jury did what Juries should do...establish guilt or innocence.

This administration has played fast and loose with the truth to impose its ideological agenda on the American people.

Wheather not not Joe Wilson uncovered anything or not.

Libby was accussed of lying to a grand jury.

An actor of the state lied to The People in an ongoing federal investigation...that is what the jury found.

The honorable thing would be for Dick Cheney to resign...he wont of course because honor and Mr. Cheney are not ever in the same room.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 6, 2007 04:35 PM

The nutroots may be celebrating their long-awaited "Fitzmas" tonight, but it's pretty weak tea compared to their fantasies of "Rove being frog marched out of the White House."

Even so, it shows you that the country is in the clutches of a monstrous epidemic of liberal bias. All 12 jurors, in this case. They convicted a good man, a man who just made some little mistakes in the face of no underlying crime. Fitzgerald ought to be disbarred, he's just a cheating opportunist. Judge Reggie Walton must have been drunk not to notice. There's no other way to explain it. He let slide the most outrageous display of prosecutorial misconduct imaginable, worse than Mike Nifong and Ronnie Earle put together.

Certainly it vindicates the recent purge of US Attorneys. Sure, they were appointed by George Bush himself, but look how disloyal they can be. They're RINOs, almost as bad as Democrats. Who needs them.

Okay, I don't actually believe most of the above. But it still needed to be said.

Posted by at March 6, 2007 05:16 PM

I can't see how this could stand up in appeal.

It's simple. The appeals court could be just as outrageously biased as this trial was. Liberal bias runs deep in America.

Posted by at March 6, 2007 05:18 PM

This administration has played fast and loose with the truth...

The administration was not on trial.

The honorable thing would be for Dick Cheney to resign...

Cheney was not on trial.

You and that idiot juror give credence to the claims of the verdict dissenters.

Posted by D Anghelone at March 6, 2007 05:21 PM

The honorable thing would be for Dick Cheney to resign.

Why's that? Just because one of his employees was convicted of a felony? Maybe you think he should just commit seppuku from the shame?

Posted by Carl Pham at March 6, 2007 05:31 PM

Cheney is renown for his "stretching" of the truth, or morphing beliefs into established facts or outright lying...take your pick which.

Cheney's claims about the Iraq situation from his (paraphrase) "we know without a doubt that Saddam is working on nuclear weapons" to "they are all dead enders" or take your pick of a bunch of things that turned out not to be accurate...

Were and are attempts to decieve the American people into actions which without justification they would not have taken otherwise.

This administration is a paradoy of "big business"...failure is an option..and "failure" with bonuses is commonplace. The Delta Airlines CEO running the company into the brink of collapse and then walking out with a 12 million dollar bonus...is no different from Brown, or Tenant or Rumsfeld or Feith (Happy Rand?) are any one of the other people who state things that they have not a shred of evidence to back up...and yet never say "I got it wrong" and in honor offer their exit from the decision making process.

If a Democratic administration had "misstated" its way into Iraq like this and had the same "veracity" level do you really think that the "uber" defenders of a right wing one...would be cheering them on?

Scooter lied because he was use to lying...and not getting pingged on it.

It didnt work with a jury of his peers.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 6, 2007 05:46 PM

"And that's why the Jury convicted him.

If only simberg knew right from wrong too.

Posted by anonymous at March 6, 2007 01:32 PM
"

And yet you always chose the latter.

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 6, 2007 05:54 PM

Cheney is renown [sic] for his "stretching" of the truth, or morphing beliefs into established facts or outright lying...take your pick which.

He is? To whom?

Which of those things are you claiming that he knew not to be true when he said them?

And how is this something for which he should resign? (Recall, we had a previous president whose acquaintance with the truth was only when convenient, on all manner of subjects).

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 6, 2007 06:02 PM

Robert Oler says:

"If a Democratic administration had "misstated" its way into Iraq like this and had the same "veracity" level do you really think that the "uber" defenders of a right wing one...would be cheering them on?"

Frankly, that is an important question that anyone claiming to be unbiased should ponder.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at March 6, 2007 06:06 PM

"“Mr. Libby, are you willing to go to jail to protect Vice President Cheney?” shouted MSNBC’s David Shuster as Libby walked away after his lawyers’ statement."

No liberal bias by the MSM, right? MSNBC is a real news organization and Fox News isn't, right?

Posted by Norm at March 6, 2007 06:26 PM

No liberal bias by the MSM, right?

No, Norm, the media is dripping with liberal bias. It's like the black plague, it has spread everywhere. Not only the media, but across society. No one is safe. It will infect your brain too if you're not extra vigilant.

In fact, you should wash your brain from time to time to cleanse it of liberal bias.

Posted by at March 6, 2007 06:35 PM

Mark Levin bugs me with his whining about the jury. He can say what he wants. But IMHO, it's a good sign when the jury asks for clarification. Unless you somehow think that they know federal law inside and out just from sitting on a court case and getting read the jury instructions.

A month ago, I sat on a rather long trial (a charge of murder) and we, the jury had to have explained several concepts (as they manifest in California) including "dangerous to human life" (means "high probability of death", so we were instructed) and we almost asked about "reasonable doubt" (due to disagreement that was eventually settled). We were able to puzzle through most of them without assistance.

A final point was the the jury was IMHO pretty well educated with (so I gather) only two or so people without some sort of college degree (and at least one of those had some college education). So it's difficult.

Glancing through a news report about juror statements, it appears to me that they were sympathetic to Mr. Libby, but they felt in the end that he wasn't telling the truth and was guilty of the charges in question. That's the role of the jury. There's no indication to me that liberal sympathies ran amok. It sounds to me like a good call given what they had.

Having said that, I agree that there's some room for an appeal. But I frankly think that the appeal is going to run into the same trouble that the initial case did. Namely, that whatever evidence convicted Libby in the first place is still there.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at March 6, 2007 08:28 PM

Actually this was probably the most conservative jury you
could ever impanel in DC and quite possibly the US.

During the pre-trial, the Defense stated that
VP Cheney would testify and that the jury must
be asked if they could be fair and impartial in that regards.
Consequently the Jury pool and selection was the
largest pool of people in a federal trial in DC.
They went through days of questioning dismissing
potential jurors who despised cheney.
Consequently the jury was 80% white while the
typical jury in DC is 70% black.

In spite of a friendly jury, libby was convicted.

Posted by anonymous at March 6, 2007 08:44 PM

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 6, 2007 06:02 PM

Rand.

Cheney himself has said, rather inadvertantly that most of the things he has claimed to be "known" about Iraq were not at a high level of confidence.

Cheney's theory after 9/11 has been stated several times as the "low percent problem".

IE Cheney's argument is that for something to be "actionable" in terms of American power the proof really doesnt have to be all that great. Something has to be "possible" more then "probable" or backed up by any real substantiable evidence that the odds were "high" that this (whatever this was) would happen.

As the scale slides up and down as to the magnitude of the problem there is probably a "point" where simply possible is actionable. But when one gets to the larger levels of what is to be accomplished then the burden of proof should grow.

IE if all one is going to do is send some speical ops into knock off a terrorist cell...the level of certianty is fine to be ambiguous...who cares how many "wantabees" that you kill in the process.

But if you are committing the armed forces, and the foreign policy future for a forseable time to an effort, then your level of confidence in what you are claiming has to be high enough for "you" the political leader to convince the American people that it is something worth doing.

Cheney et al made a lot of statments that people like Zinni, Owens, Shinseki etc immediatly challenged with substantive arguments that they (Cheney's statements) were not accurate.

This is particularly true with the words "the next smoking gun could be a mushroom" babble that everyone but the PResident was spewing Pre Iraq.

Colin Powells babble before the UN was illustrative.

We had by all accounts (Cobra II, etc) special op teams in Iraq searching for WMD based on teh reports that the various "intel" sources were giving. They all came up dry.

When Colin Powell had to use illustrations instead of real pictures, when the AL tubes were immediatly debunked by OAK RIDGE personell, that should have been an indication to a thoughtful and honorable Dick Cheney that ll the claims he was making were "less then solid".

Instead they thought what all the Dems who voted for the war thought...it would be fast, there would be some WMD, and Chalabi etc would make good rulers.

There was no evidence for any of that...there was hope.

Finally If Clinton had gone into Iraq on this evidence.

You would need tranquilizers so loud would you and others here be shouting about HE LIED...

go figure.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 6, 2007 08:50 PM

If Clinton had gone to Iraq with his administration making the statements that this administration did....

The right wing would have howled for his impeachment and removal.

go figure.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 6, 2007 08:52 PM

How did this guy get appointed to the jury?

Posted by Alan K. Henderson at March 6, 2007 09:55 PM

If Clinton had gone to Iraq with his administration making the statements that this administration did....

In the mean while, let us all remember that it was President Clinton that developed the policy of regime change in Iraq based on the same intelligence utilized by President Bush. Hmm, maybe Robert can dig up a few quotes by Right Wingers calling for President Clinton to be impeached for this policy? Maybe add some wood to that straw Robert was using.

It's Fitzmas everybody!!! Maybe Robert has had too much to drink in celebration.

Posted by Leland at March 7, 2007 04:15 AM

It is never a strawman to misstate things to the Ameican people.

But I find it amazing that people who get all up in arms, argued for impeachment and removal based ona a consensual sexual affair that DID NOT change the foreign or domestic policy of The United States...

all of a sudden form a very different conclusion to "misstatements" given to the American people as justification (just to mention one thing) for a major course change in American policy badly done.

Bill Clinton might have seen the same intellegence, but he NEVER told the American people falsehoods designed to scare the American people into actions which they were otherwise not inclinded to take.

"I had no sexual relations with that women" is a magnitude removed in so many ways from "We could die any moment from this guy".

If you cannot see that then you have some serious ideological blinders on.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 7, 2007 04:41 AM

You would never know from this exchange that the topic is a criminal trial of an individual and on specific charges against that individual.

Show trials. How nice.

Posted by D Anghelone at March 7, 2007 04:41 AM

Actually this was probably the most conservative jury you could ever impanel in DC

That's like saying Carrot Top is the best ballroom dancer you could find among the ranks of ugly redheaded prop comics.

and quite possibly the US.

And appending that onto the other demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that Anonymoron does not reside on this planet.

Posted by McGehee at March 7, 2007 05:44 AM

"I had no sexual relations with that women" is a magnitude removed in so many ways from "We could die any moment from this guy".

I see the difference:
"I had no sexual relations with that women"
This statement was made by a Democrat President.

"We could die any moment from this guy"
This statement was made up by Robert Oler.

Any other straw man you want to set up, Robert?

Oh yeah:
all of a sudden form a very different conclusion to "misstatements" given to the American people as justification (just to mention one thing) for a major course change in American policy badly done.

President Clinton made the "major course change in American policy" that called for regime change in Iraq. Please, Robert, go look up "Iraq Liberation Act" from 1998. And before you come back with "but it didn't call for a war"; do notice it was signed just before "Operation Desert Fox".

Posted by Leland at March 7, 2007 08:03 AM

Don't you get it, Leland? It was all right for Bill Clinton to lie about Iraq's WMD and removing Saddam just like Bush did, because he didn't really mean it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 7, 2007 08:06 AM

Posted by Leland at March 7, 2007 08:03 AM

"The next smoking gun could be a smoking mushroom" (Condi Rice and lots of this administration) so we had to invade Iraq.

What they didnt tell us is that they had no hard proof that Saddam was on the verge of a smoking mushroom.

Clinton et al had regime change as the stated policy of the US, but they did not misstate exaggerate etc to the American people about WHY IT HAD TO BE DONE NOW...

and then they did not do it badly.

If you cannot grasp that then you are very blinded by rhetoric.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 7, 2007 08:20 AM

It was all right for Bill Clinton to lie about Iraq's WMD and removing Saddam just like Bush did, because he didn't really mean it.

Exaggeration can make all the difference between an excusable mistake and a lie.

Cheney said, "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." Bush said, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." This is different from what Clinton said. Clinton talked a lot about threat of WMD and pursuit of WMD and so on. But he never said, when he was in a position to know, that there wasn't any doubt. Of course there was doubt; Bush and Cheney simply read doubt as disloyalty.

There is another remark here about honesty. The world's worst liars are not people like Clinton (on the topic of sex) or Libby who know the truth full well. Rather, they are people who first lie to themselves, like Dick Cheney. Sober liars concede the truth from time to time; sometimes they plea-bargain, sometimes they apologize. Even Nixon apologized eventually. But ideological liars, like for instance William Westmoreland, will always take it to the bitter end. Not only will they keep on lying forever, they will always convince a faction to believe along with them, because they are sincere. They are the ones, as Rand puts it, who "really mean it".

Posted by at March 7, 2007 09:59 AM

mcgehee complains about the jury in the libby case.

Given Cheney's low approval ratings, less then 18%
of the american public approve of his role in office,
to find a jury that was neutral on VP Cheney and could
listen to him credibly was actually an event that
would be (o.18**14) or 3EE-11, which is actually
larger then the population of the Planet.

Posted by anonymous at March 7, 2007 10:57 AM

Robert, you still haven't figured it out. You have made claim after claim that Bush did what Clinton did not, but I have proven otherwise. I have provided facts, and you provide paraphrases. I'm not blinded by your rhetoric; it's hardly a worthwhile smoke screen. But hey, I already established that you simply drop names to obfuscate your ignorance; so there is nothing new today from you than yesterday.

Have your fitzmas, but just know that you look (and really) are a fool if you think Libby's guilt means what you think it means. It certainly isn't the first time you believed what a politician told you.

Posted by Leland at March 7, 2007 01:23 PM

what do you think you have proven? That the policy of the US was regime change in Iraq during the Clinton years?

Great...The good news is that clinton did nothing along the lines of committing the entire American armed force, the diplomatic effort of the US and trillions of dollars to do it...

and all on a lie. or a misstatement or whatever.

I am old fashion. I dont think that the actors of the government should lie to federal grand juries.

I realize you adn countless other people are busily explaning how in "this case" it doesnt really matter while in Clinton's case lying in a civil lawsuit about non affiars of state do..

And if you and Rand and a lot of other people can convince yourself of that have at it.

But LIbby should never have lied to the Grand Jury...and the Administration should never have misstated thing about how dangerous a threat Saddam was.

Because when the people found out he wasnt, support for the effort has collapsed.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 7, 2007 01:49 PM

But LIbby should never have lied to the Grand Jury

Can you point us to a quote from anyone here who says he should have?

Or are you just kicking straw men around again?

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 7, 2007 02:02 PM

Can you point us to a quote from anyone here who says he should have?

Or are you just kicking straw men around again?

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 7, 2007 02:02 PM

then why are people saying he got a bum deal or should have been acquited or whatever.

Fitzmas or whatever is about the dumbest thing that I have heard of....it is as stupid as people on the right who refuse to accept a geniune jury verdict simply because they like the ideology of the guy who lied.

Scooter is guilty of lying to a federal grand jury.

There is no excuse for that. He was a senior member of the government who lied to a federal grand jury...

Why he did that I have no clue..but he is convicted of it.

It strikes me that this is a pattern of this administration and its actors particularly about Iraq.

live with it.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 7, 2007 02:54 PM

No one is saying he should have been acquitted. If the jury found the evidence compelling, so be it.

We are saying that the prosecutor abused his discretion in even bringing the charges. There are many people in this case that have given differing versions of what happened. Why pick out Libby, when the investigation should have been over before he even testified before the grand jury, when Fitzgerald discovered that it was Armitage who revealed Plame's name, and that revealing Plame's name wasn't a crime? It makes it look like a political prosecution.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 7, 2007 03:17 PM

We are saying that the prosecutor abused his discretion in even bringing the charges.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 7, 2007 03:17 PM

You are entitled to your opinion, but all it shows is that you dont know how a federal grand jury works and what it does.

A Grand jury is as much an investigative arm of The People as is say the FBI. It is a place where "the people" through their prosecutors try and gather information to aid law enforcement in the investigation of an alleged crime.

It is in fact the most "deliberative" way to do a criminal (or civil) investigation because it takes the investigating out of being completly in the hands of the agents of law enforcement and puts it into the hands of ordinary citizens.

The primary method by which the Founders of The Republic hoped that cases would be investigated, particularly in high profile cases was "the grand jury". Indeed even a cursory knowledge of why they set up impeachment/conviction of judges and the Executive how they did it would recognize that they were trying to bring the grand jury investigation into play.

They investigative technique of the Grand Jury rest on a simple foundation...that the people called will tell the truth.

Ever been before a Grand Jury? I have been before several in criminal cases. They are quite specific about perjury, what the charge means and what is considered perjury.

LIbby is a bright intellegent person.

He went before the Grand Jury, a jury of "people" not lawyers and in teh opinion of the Grand Jury lied and lied purposfully.

and that is crime in itself. It doesnt matter if there were no other charges or anything...to lie before a Grand Jury is a crime in itself.

Have you read the grand jury records? They get mad (the jury does) outside of what the Prosecutor is saying. They know that they are being lied to.

The cornorstone of a state under law is that people will tell the truth. You harp endlessly on Mr. Clinton not telling the truth in a purely civil matter.

Libby did it as an agent of the State attempting to deal decietfully in an affair of the state.

But that is not all.

What you are saying, that the prosecutor abused somehow his office is bogus.

The petit jury didnt buy that.

The petit jury could have and indeed was presented by nuance that accusation by the defense...and they didnt buy it.

You can think what you want (and so could I) but the Petit Jury who tried the case, didnt buy it.

IT is simple Rand...either one believes in the concept of indictment and trial by jury...or who cares about most of the Bill of Rights.

Clinton was essentially indicted by a "jury". The Grand Jury of the HOUSE OF REP...and acquited by a petit jury (that of the Senate).

Libby just couldnt present the arguments that could clear him.

One lies to Grand Juries...one has to be prepared to go to jail.

These people have gotten so use to lying, they dont know when it is time to stop.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 7, 2007 03:40 PM

I wasn't paying a lot of attention to the Libby trial, but when I noticed that one of the jurors was a Post reporter, my first thought was: What were the defense attorneys thinking!

A little more thought, however, and I had to discard the notion that they were incompetant to let him on the jury; anyone they replaced him with was very likely to be just as much a left-leaning democrat voter - the jury pool is from DC.

Posted by bud at March 7, 2007 03:53 PM

You are entitled to your opinion, but all it shows is that you dont know how a federal grand jury works and what it does.

No, it doesn't Robert. Work on your reading comprehension. I'm saying that the grand jury should never have even heard Libby's testimony, because Fitzgerald already had the answer to the question he was investigating before that testimony occurred. Richard Armitage had revealed Plame's name, and revealing Plame's name was not a crime. He could, and should, have folded up hit tent at that point.

And your high-school civics lesson is nice, but it's not how the real world works. If the prosecutor wants an indictment, the GJ gives him one. If not, it doesn't.

I agree, that once Libby lied to the Grand Jury, he was appropriately at risk for prosecution. What we object to is (a) that he had to testify at all, and (b) that he was the only one indicted, when so many other people had inconsistent memories, including many of the prosecution's own witnesses. It continues to look political.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 7, 2007 03:54 PM

Actually my viewpoint goes a little past what Rand is saying. I do think it is silly to prosecute Libby for perjury during an investigation of a crime that was found never to have occurred. The latter is important. The Grand Jury never found evidence that the originally trumped up crime ever occurred. Yet, we have dimwits like Robert believing that Libby's guilt is the tip of the iceberg of a long list of crimes.

The facts:
Libby was found guilty of perjury.

The Grand Jury did not indict anyone for outing a secret agent, because no such crime was committed.

Dick Armitage told Novak the identity of Valerie Plame, and Fitzgerald knew that before Libby was called as a suspect.

Karl Rove testified to the Grand Jury and was found neither to have committed the original crime or perjury.

With this in mind, will you stop the idiotic spin, Robert, that Libby's guilt is something more than Libby's own issue? Gee whiz, if you are going to lecture anybody on Grand Juries, you could at least respect the findings of this Grand Jury. If it makes your day that someone in the Bush administration went down on a crime, then have fun. But you make a fool of yourself acting like this is an indictment against the war.

Posted by Leland at March 7, 2007 04:50 PM

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 7, 2007 03:54 PM..

no on two points...

"If the prosecutor wants an indictment, the GJ gives him one. If not, it doesn't."

you obviously dont know a lot about Federal Grand Juries or federal prosecutorial guidelines.

Federal Grand Juries ibn general and in specific when empaneled as an investigatory group (as this one was) operate in far different manners then you suggest. What you are use to is local state and county grand juries.

Federal Grand Juries and Prosecutors operate under very very strict prosecutorial guidelines which make the burden of proof to a Grand Jury in specific and an investigatory one in specific at the level of "reasonable doubt" for CONVICTION on a charge...not the much lower standard that grand juries require in a state or county system.

Most Grand Juries in a state or county system operate under the burden of proof that the Judge in the Nowak case operated under to bind her over for trial...ie there was an reasonable assumption that 1) a crime was committed and that the defendant did it.

The "a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich" line is a state and county one. Not federal.

SEcond as to Armitage.

You dont seem to understand perjury. I have no doubt that LIbby knew that Armitage was the source...in fact it is pretty clear that Libby knew that. Still he lied.

The crime in itself is lying.

Or put another way...if Libby had nothing to hide, why lie? Or why not take the four non fifth amendment outs to answering questions of the FGJ for which one "does not have clear recollection".

Your viewpoint is "he lied but he really never should have been put in a position to lie".

How conveniant...the clinton people say the same thing.

Really they do.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 7, 2007 04:51 PM

Posted by Leland at March 7, 2007 04:50 PM

Your personal insults aside...LOL

prejury does not require another crime to be committed...it is a crime in itself. It is at the basic foundation of our judicial system of a nation under laws.

It is oddly enough what you rail about Mr. Clinton having done.

I guess it was bad for him to do it...but oK for Scooter.

Second and while important not as important as point one...

Why do you think LIbby lied?

I am curious.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 7, 2007 04:54 PM

Your viewpoint is "he lied but he really never should have been put in a position to lie".

How conveniant...the clinton people say the same thing.

Of course they do. But they're full of it.

He was under oath in a (federal) civil law suit under a law that he signed with his own pen. The fact that it was a civil suit is irrelevant--perjury in such is a federal felony.

They can argue this all they want, but they don't know what they're talking about (and you've demonstrated repeatedly that you don't either, when it comes to the Clinton impeachment).

As to your other question, Libby lied because he wasn't completely aware of the legal situation, and was concerned that he might have broken the law, even though he hadn't (and it was clear to Fitzgerald that he hadn't even before he was called to testify).

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 7, 2007 05:02 PM

Richard Armitage had revealed Plame's name, and revealing Plame's name was not a crime.

Armitage has been described many times as "the" source of Plame's identity. But he was not "the" source, he was only a source, for Bob Novak specifically. If you leak classified information to a journalist, non-publication does not necessarily make it legal. Plame's identity was handled without ethical regard by many White House officials --- Libby and Armitage are just two examples --- and some of it may well have been criminal. When you state as fact that there was no underlying crime, that is no better than when you stated as fact that Fitzgerald is guilty of prosecutorial misconduct.

The factual statement is that Fitzgerald does not feel prepared to prove other crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. That is not the same statement as saying, flatly, that there was no crime. For one thing, Fitzgerald could still change his mind.

Frankly though, the entire anti-Wilson smear campaign, including any attendent crimes, is small potatoes compared to the really big crime, the war in Iraq itself.

Posted by at March 7, 2007 05:13 PM

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 7, 2007 05:02 PM

Actually Rand the perjury is not the same.

There is a difference and has been for sometime in the federal prosecutorial guidelines for perjury in a civil case for which The People are not a participant and lying in a civil or criminal case for which the People are a participant.

If you look very carefully at how Libby was charged and the "law" that you rattle on about with Clinton you will see the difference.

In a civil suit for which The People are not a participant the usual remedy if there is any for perjury is what the judge finally did. A fine.

To say Libby was not aware of the legal situation is nonesense. He is not a dummy nor uninformed...and if you read the transcript of the Grand Jury, he is warned repeatdly of the "situation".

He was given the federal "charge" warning. If he did not recognize what that was, then he had no business being Cheney's COS.

If you want to look at "perjury" then do some examining of why Mark Furhman is a free man...

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 7, 2007 05:34 PM

Rand...

let me make this easy for you...

Had Bill Clinton been subject to the jurisdiction of The Federal Courts...his testimony and perjury in the case you reference...

would not have met the Federal prosecution guidelines and there never would have been a case for indictment.

It is that simple. Ken Starr was on a political hunt...not a legal one.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 7, 2007 05:39 PM

Rand is a GOP stooge and a Neo-con, the
facts don't matter to him

Posted by anonymous at March 7, 2007 05:57 PM

Can you provide a citation or two for that? I think you're making it up.

If you want to look at "perjury" then do some examining of why Mark Furhman is a free man...

On what matter did Fuhrman perjure himself?

Had Bill Clinton been subject to the jurisdiction of The Federal Courts...his testimony and perjury in the case you reference...

He was. Under what jurisdiction do you fantasize that the Paula Jones lawsuit was filed? (Hint: it was under a federal law that Bill Clinton signed with his own pen).

Why are you doing this, Robert? You're just making an ass of yourself. On the Internet.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 7, 2007 06:06 PM

Rand.

with all due kindness, you are the one making a fool of yourself.

You dont seem to understand teh difference in a case where The People are not a party and a case where The People are one of the parties.

That is Rand a really big difference.

Mark Furhman lied under oath in the OJ Simpson trial..he lied in a criminal case. He was not indicted for perjury.

You really dont understand perjury...or the issues of who is a party to a lawsuit.

As for making something up..you can believe whatever you want to and it doesnt bother me. I use to carry a federal badge. I know all about perjury and not to do it.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 7, 2007 06:20 PM

You dont seem to understand teh [sic] difference in a case where The People are not a party and a case where The People are one of the parties.

There is not difference when it comes to perjury. Once again, I ask for a citation.

Mark Furhman lied under oath in the OJ Simpson trial..he lied in a criminal case.

What was the lie?

He was not indicted for perjury.

Why would he be, if he didn't lie? What was the lie?

And you can't even keep your story straight, since this was a case against "The People."

I use [sic] to carry a federal badge.

Ignoring the grammar issues, big whoop. Still waiting for a citation, from a (you know) actual court case?

I'm not stupid, so I won't be holding my breath.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 7, 2007 06:33 PM

the big lie for Mr. Furhman was that he had never used the "N" word.

As soon as that was proven false the the defense invoked "the rule" adn the judge instructed the jury that having been demonstrated to have lied in one statment then everything he said can be viewed as a lie.

It was one of the "three" ends of the OJ case.

I dont think you are stupid Rand...I just think that you are partisan to the point where you are blinded to the facts as they "go".

Had Mr. Clinton been subject to the jurisdictino of the federal court system he would not have been charged with perjury in the case for which he lied.

Starr's case collapsed in the Senate after that.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 7, 2007 06:41 PM

I just think that you are partisan to the point

I'm "partisan" against OJ Simpson?

Had Mr. Clinton been subject to the jurisdictino [sic] of the federal court system he would not have been charged with perjury in the case for which he lied.

Robert, you continue to be delusional on this. The civil case against him was a federal case filed under a federal law that Bill Clinton signed.

If you are making the case that this is otherwise, make the case. Don't just keep bleating nonsense.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 7, 2007 06:59 PM

Rand.

Read slowly, carefully.

It was not a case filled by the Federal Government.

Hence "the people" were not involved and the perjury consequences are quite different.

It was not "The USA vrs Bill Clinton".

read this carefully Rand...there is a difference in cases styled "The United States vrs Scooter LIbby" and JOnes Vrs Clinton.

Understand that difference Rand and you can then understand a LOT MORE.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 7, 2007 08:00 PM

Robert, are you saying that you know more about federal law than federal prosecutor (Democrat, by the way) David Schippers?

[Hint: that sound you hear is the assembled laughing at you]

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 7, 2007 08:10 PM

laugh away but I didnt say that.

I am saying that the case against Clinton was not filed by The Federal Government and the vast majority of legal experts thought the case weak, and Starrs impeachment effort silly...as did the Senate.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 7, 2007 08:50 PM

prejury does not require another crime to be committed...it is a crime in itself. It is at the basic foundation of our judicial system of a nation under laws.
I'm glad you understand that.

It is oddly enough what you rail about Mr. Clinton having done.
Odd? You just described why perjury is a crime. Clinton committed perjury. What's your point here?

I guess it was bad for him to do it...but oK for Scooter.
It was not ok for Scooter to commit perjury. I don't think anyone has claimed that. Indeed, you keep trying to build that strawman, and it hasn't stood up yet.

Maybe I should reiterate what you consider a personal insult:
With this in mind, will you stop the idiotic spin, Robert, that Libby's guilt is something more than Libby's own issue? Gee whiz, if you are going to lecture anybody on Grand Juries, you could at least respect the findings of this Grand Jury.

Let's recall your first comments to this thread, Robert:
This administration has played fast and loose with the truth to impose its ideological agenda on the American people.
Dude, Libby was found guilty, not the administration. The only ideological agenda occurring here is the one that thinks one person's crime is somebody elses. But alas, that's exactly what you are doing:

An actor of the state lied to The People in an ongoing federal investigation...that is what the jury found.

The honorable thing would be for Dick Cheney to resign...he wont of course because honor and Mr. Cheney are not ever in the same room.

I've said it more than once, you keep making this something bigger than what it is, and I don't see evidence to support your conclusion.

Posted by Leland at March 8, 2007 07:52 AM

Post a comment