Marijuana.com

anonymity · 10-29-2005, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Time.com

Lewis Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, has been indicted on charges of obstruction of justice, perjury and making false statements by a federal grand jury investigating the leak of the identity of a covert CIA operative. Special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, who heads the two-year-old investigation, believes that Libby lied about how he learned—then shared with reporters—the identity of Valerie Plame, a covert CIA operative who is married to Joseph Wilson, a former diplomat who has been fiercely critical of the Bush Administration's claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. "Mr. Libby gave the FBI a compelling story," Fitzgerald said in a press conference. But that story "was not true. It was false ... and he lied about it afterwards, under oath and repeatedly."

Karl Rove, President George W. Bush's senior advisor and deputy chief of staff, was not indicted, but in a sign that Fitzgerald's two-year investigation is not yet over, Rove has been told that he remains under investigation. Libby submitted his resignation shortly after the indictment was announced, in accordance with a plan agreed to by Bush Administration officials weeks ago.

The indictment contains five counts against Libby—two for perjury, for allegedly lying in his testimony to the grand jury; two for making false statements to FBI investigators; and one for obstruction of justice, for allegedly impeding the grand jury’s investigation. If found guilty, Libby could face 30 years in prison and a fine of $1.25 million.

The indictment alleges that Libby made a "false, fictitious and fraudulent statement" when he was questioned by the FBI. It also says that he lied in his testimony to the grand jury. Specifically, he misrepresented his conversations with NBC's Tim Russert, TIME's Matt Cooper, and Judith Miller of the New York Times. He told the grand jury that Russert had asked him whether he knew Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and that he was surprised to learn this from Russert. According to the indictment, Libby did not in fact discuss this with Russert, and he already knew about the identity of Wilson's wife. The indictment also alleges that Libby lied in testifying that he told both Cooper and Miller that he had learned about Wilson's wife from other reporters. Miller served 85 days in jail for refusing to reveal her source, and, earlier this month, testified to the grand jury about her conversations with Libby only after he granted her a personal waiver.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...123771,00.html

Nothing really new here for anyone who has already heard the news, but this is pretty damn big.

Anyone care to speculate? Will there be further indictments against Karl Rove? Is Cheney off the hook yet? How will the Bush administration move on?

Normally, I don't give a damn about politics, but I'll definitely be following this story.

A search showed no recent discussion of this, but I can't believe that news like this isn't being discussed, so delete if necessary.

HappyMan · 10-29-2005, 10:25 PM

Sharks will gather around the blood in the water and a frenzy will develop. Bush better have good cage and a full airtank.

S2 · 10-29-2005, 10:38 PM

The Special Counsel is pursuing alleged inconsistencies in Libby's recollection and those of others' and to charge such inconsistencies as false statements.

The indictment itself contains no evidence of a conspiracy, and Libby has not been accused of trying to cover up some high crime or misdemeanor by the Bush Administration. The indictment amounts to an allegation that one official lied about what he knew about an underlying "crime" that wasn't committed.

This is a case of a Bush Administration official who was attempting to expose the truth about Joe Wilson, a critic of the Administration who was lying to the press about the nature of his involvement in the Niger mission and about the nature of the intelligence that it produced. In other words, Libby was defending Administration policy against political attack, not committing a crime.

Fitzgerald has thrust himself into what was, at bottom, a policy dispute between an elected Administration and critics of the President's approach to the war on terror and who included parts of the permanent bureaucracy of the State Department and CIA. Unless Mr. Fitzgerald can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Libby was lying, and doing so for some nefarious purpose, this indictment looks like a case of criminalizing politics.

HappyMan · 10-29-2005, 10:41 PM

The Special Counsel's missions tend to evolve. This indictment will allow a broader and more instrusive discover period that might uncover something unknown and damning.

Niteshift · 10-29-2005, 10:56 PM

The odd part is that nobody is being charged with what was set out to be proven in the first place. What Libby is being charged with hadn't even happened until he appeared in front of the grand jury.

And for the liberals that want to make a huge issue of Libby saying he didn't recall one particular conversation..........I wonder where their indignation was when Clinton testified over 200 times in depositions for Ken Starr that he didn't recall or didn't remember something? Or when Hillary did it over 150 about Whitewater?

But Libby forgot about a single conversation.........

Murdock · 10-29-2005, 11:09 PM

Most people who arn't political diehards have never even heard the name of Libby. I have to give kudos to the administration, true to their word, as soon as the indictments were handed down, Scooter resigned.

My prediction.. Scooter plea bargains, and serves time until Bush's last day in office, at which time, Bush will pardon him and the whole episode will be forgotten. The left wing press is salivating over something that won't amount to much in the long run, imho.

Quote:

Fitzgerald has thrust himself into what was, at bottom, a policy dispute between an elected Administration and critics of the President's approach to the war on terror and who included parts of the permanent bureaucracy of the State Department and CIA. Unless Mr. Fitzgerald can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Libby was lying, and doing so for some nefarious purpose, this indictment looks like a case of criminalizing politics.

Fitzgerald has not "thrust himself" into anything, he was appointed by the Asst. Atty General during the 1st Bush term, James Comey, and is following through an investigation that was requested by the CIA. All indications point to Fitzgerald being as fair and impartial as can be.

Quote:

The odd part is that nobody is being charged with what was set out to be proven in the first place. What Libby is being charged with hadn't even happened until he appeared in front of the grand jury.

How is that different than you executing a search warrent for say, stolen property and finding Marijuana instead? Once the law enforcement is "in the door", anything is fair game is it not?

WNB · 10-30-2005, 12:11 AM

Some of you guys are really confused about what's going on here. There is a simple reason no one was charged with leaking Plame's name: The lies made it impossible for Fitzgerald to figure out who leaked. Hence, he instead prosecutes the people who lied.

S2: Policy disputes don't involve criminal activity

Stop polluting your mind by paying attention to neocon pundits who are spinning this as hard as they can.

S2 · 10-30-2005, 12:54 AM

Proof of criminal activity requires a conviction, stop polluting your mind by paying attention to progressive pundits who are spinning this as hard as they can.

What the evenhanded and fair Fitzgerald did in his news conference was to faill to use the terms-- "the gov't intends to show" "It is the government's position.." And in many casses he asserted "What Mr Libby Did" where a more accurate and responsible statement from a prosecutor would be What "Mr. Libby is charged with doing"

Quote:

There is a simple reason no one was charged with leaking Plame's name: The lies made it impossible for Fitzgerald to figure out who leaked.

I'll grant that is one reasonable explaination-- I won't grant its the only one. Other reasonable (IMO) answers: 1)it was widely known where she worked, 2)she wasn't covert or otherwise covered under the law that has been asserted to have been broken, therefore the leak wasnt a crime.

After almost two years, Fitzgerald has not answered the question if "outing" occurred and if it was a crime.

Murdock · 10-30-2005, 01:21 AM

Quote:

I'll grant that is one reasonable explaination-- I won't grant its the only one. Other reasonable (IMO) answers: 1)it was widely known where she worked, 2)she wasn't covert or otherwise covered under the law that has been asserted to have been broken, therefore the leak wasnt a crime.

Don't you think the CIA would have known this prior to calling for the investigation? This would have made the CIA's call for investigation, null and void.

Niteshift · 10-30-2005, 01:08 AM

How is that different than you executing a search warrent for say, stolen property and finding Marijuana instead? Once the law enforcement is "in the door", anything is fair game is it not?

Not even close to being similar.

In your example, the crime existed prior to the warrant being served. Even if the warrant was never served, the crime happens.

In this case, the crime only existed because the investigation happened.

This is similar to the Martha Stewart case. Martha was being investigated for insider trading. There was never clear evidence of that. But she was convicted of lying to investigators.......a crime that would have never occured if she hadn't been under investigation.

It's not a defense....just an interesting aside.

There is a simple reason no one was charged with leaking Plame's name: The lies made it impossible for Fitzgerald to figure out who leaked. Hence, he instead prosecutes the people who lied.

No, there is a more simple reason.........there was no "leak", because where she worked was already known and she wasn't undercover anyway.

10-29-2005, 10:25 PM	#2
HappyMan Jr. Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 4,224 Grams: 1,718.22 Groans: 0 Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts Thanks: 0 Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts Stock Portfolio Total Value: 0.000 Gain/Loss: 0.000%	Sharks will gather around the blood in the water and a frenzy will develop. Bush better have good cage and a full airtank. __________________ Bla. and Marijuana.Com Community Posting Guidelines

10-29-2005, 10:56 PM	#5
Niteshift L.E.O. in Good Standing Join Date: Dec 2000 Posts: 6,432 Grams: 2,665.57 Groans: 0 Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post Stock Portfolio Total Value: 0.000 Gain/Loss: 0.000%	The odd part is that nobody is being charged with what was set out to be proven in the first place. What Libby is being charged with hadn't even happened until he appeared in front of the grand jury. And for the liberals that want to make a huge issue of Libby saying he didn't recall one particular conversation..........I wonder where their indignation was when Clinton testified over 200 times in depositions for Ken Starr that he didn't recall or didn't remember something? Or when Hillary did it over 150 about Whitewater? But Libby forgot about a single conversation......... __________________ A burning desire for social justice is never a substitute for knowing what you're talking about. -Thomas Sowell Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is muzzle flash.

10-30-2005, 12:11 AM	#7
WNB Seasoned Activist Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 3,161 Grams: 2,860.60 Groans: 0 Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Stock Portfolio Total Value: 0.000 Gain/Loss: 0.000%	Some of you guys are really confused about what's going on here. There is a simple reason no one was charged with leaking Plame's name: The lies made it impossible for Fitzgerald to figure out who leaked. Hence, he instead prosecutes the people who lied. S2: Policy disputes don't involve criminal activity Stop polluting your mind by paying attention to neocon pundits who are spinning this as hard as they can. __________________ War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is Strength

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

New To Site?	Need Help?
Register to Participate View Forum Leaders Contact Us	Frequently Asked Questions Did you forget your password? Mark Forums Read

Remove Advertisements Marijuana.com Sponsor
Marijuana.com Advertisement	<a rel='nofollow' href='http://adserver.marijuana.com/www/delivery/ck.php?n=a78e9dba&cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBER_HERE' target='_blank'><img src='http://adserver.marijuana.com/www/delivery/avw.php?zoneid=6&cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBER_HERE&n=a78e9dba' border='0' alt='' /></a>

10-29-2005, 10:38 PM	#3
S2 Just another bonehead Join Date: Dec 2000 Posts: 1,096 Grams: 562.60 Groans: 0 Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts Thanks: 11 Thanked 24 Times in 15 Posts Stock Portfolio Total Value: 0.000 Gain/Loss: 0.000%	The Special Counsel is pursuing alleged inconsistencies in Libby's recollection and those of others' and to charge such inconsistencies as false statements. The indictment itself contains no evidence of a conspiracy, and Libby has not been accused of trying to cover up some high crime or misdemeanor by the Bush Administration. The indictment amounts to an allegation that one official lied about what he knew about an underlying "crime" that wasn't committed. This is a case of a Bush Administration official who was attempting to expose the truth about Joe Wilson, a critic of the Administration who was lying to the press about the nature of his involvement in the Niger mission and about the nature of the intelligence that it produced. In other words, Libby was defending Administration policy against political attack, not committing a crime. Fitzgerald has thrust himself into what was, at bottom, a policy dispute between an elected Administration and critics of the President's approach to the war on terror and who included parts of the permanent bureaucracy of the State Department and CIA. Unless Mr. Fitzgerald can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Libby was lying, and doing so for some nefarious purpose, this indictment looks like a case of criminalizing politics.

10-29-2005, 10:41 PM	#4
HappyMan Jr. Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 4,224 Grams: 1,718.22 Groans: 0 Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts Thanks: 0 Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts Stock Portfolio Total Value: 0.000 Gain/Loss: 0.000%	The Special Counsel's missions tend to evolve. This indictment will allow a broader and more instrusive discover period that might uncover something unknown and damning.

10-30-2005, 01:08 AM	#10
Niteshift L.E.O. in Good Standing Join Date: Dec 2000 Posts: 6,432 Grams: 2,665.57 Groans: 0 Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post Stock Portfolio Total Value: 0.000 Gain/Loss: 0.000%	How is that different than you executing a search warrent for say, stolen property and finding Marijuana instead? Once the law enforcement is "in the door", anything is fair game is it not? Not even close to being similar. In your example, the crime existed prior to the warrant being served. Even if the warrant was never served, the crime happens. In this case, the crime only existed because the investigation happened. This is similar to the Martha Stewart case. Martha was being investigated for insider trading. There was never clear evidence of that. But she was convicted of lying to investigators.......a crime that would have never occured if she hadn't been under investigation. It's not a defense....just an interesting aside. There is a simple reason no one was charged with leaking Plame's name: The lies made it impossible for Fitzgerald to figure out who leaked. Hence, he instead prosecutes the people who lied. No, there is a more simple reason.........there was no "leak", because where she worked was already known and she wasn't undercover anyway.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Marijuana.com

Hot Products: