Libby: guilty of purjury. Possible sentence25 years.
This Libby guy is just the tip of the iceburg, and sums up the Bush admininstration completely. Lying, cheating, vindictive criminals.
And Libby may now be a convicted criminal, but he's just the guy following orders. Those that gave those orders have, like always with this administration, cowardly managed to escape the consequences of their actions.
quote:
WASHINGTON -- Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Vice-President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, could be headed to jail after being found guilty on four counts of perjury and obstructing justice in a case that goes to the heart of the Bush administration's justification for its 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Yesterday's jury conviction, after a four-week trial and 10 days of deliberation, is a humiliation for Mr. Cheney and a major victory for prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, just more than a week before he begins his next big trial -- that of Canadian newspaper baron Conrad Black.
HECK! said this in post #3 : FOX News was at its best last night... the little headline deal was something like "What's Libby Guilty Of?"
So freakin' pathetic, all of them.
-HECK!
Well it seems like a resonable question. Otherwise, listening to most of the network news, you would get the idea that he was found guilty of outing Valerie Plame. After all, that was the theme of the whole investigation and prosecution.
Well it seems like a resonable question. Otherwise, listening to most of the network news, you would get the idea that he was found guilty of outing Valerie Plame. After all, that was the theme of the whole investigation and prosecution.
"Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Vice-President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, could be headed to jail after being found guilty on four counts of perjury and obstructing justice in a case that goes to the heart of the Bush administration's justification for its 2003 invasion of Iraq."
There's your reasonable answer. The rest is right wing crapola.
"Lewis (Scooter) Libby,...found guilty on four counts of perjury and obstructing justice in a case that goes to the heart of the Bush administration's justification for its 2003 invasion of Iraq."
-HECK!
Yes, but wasn't the heart of that case the allegation that the Bush administration leaked Valerie Plame's identity as a secret agent as revenge for her husband returning from Nigeria and refuting Bush's claim about Iraq purchasing uranium from Nigeria? I think it was.
Yet many months into the investigation, we learn that it was Richard Armatage who leaked Plame's identity. He admitted it. And we also learned that the prosecutor knew, at the start of the investigation that Armatage was the leaker, but he told Amatage to not go public with that revelation. Then the prosecutor began his investigation, which was constantly reported to be about discovering who leaked Plame's identiity.
All of last night's news coverage highlighted issue of the leaking of Plame's identity as being the heart of the prosecution of Libby. I don't recall even hearing the name, Richard Armatage mentioned.
Richard Armatage admitted leaking Plame's name but claimed he did it "accidentally". He seems to have got away with it. But Libby was convicted of lying about the Plame incident under oath before a grand jury in March 2004.
There is talk that Bush will pardon Libby when he leaves office. Why not, Libby did, after all, lie before a grand jury for the Bush administration, about their pernicious outing of a CIA agent, to punish her husband for daring to tell the truth to the US public about WMD. So for services to the US president, if not the US public, Libby clearly should be given a pardon
If your interested there's audio stuff from Libby's trial here:
h@ts said this in post #7 : Richard Armatage admitted leaking Plame's name but claimed he did it "accidentally". He seems to have got away with it. But Libby was convicted of lying about the Plame incident under oath before a grand jury in March 2004.
There is talk that Bush will pardon Libby when he leaves office. Why not, Libby did, after all, lie before a grand jury for the Bush administration, about their pernicious outing of a CIA agent, to punish her husband for daring to tell the truth to the US public about WMD. So for services to the US president, if not the US public, Libby clearly should be given a pardon
I now understand more about Libby's crime about lying to the grand jury. But I am skeptical of the vlaidity of a lot of the background leading up to Libby's perjury. Apparently (from what I have heard) a lot of people leaked Plame's identity. Also there seems to be an unresolved question of whether or not she was covert, and therefore, whether or not leaking her identity was a crime. I know the judge said she was covert, but this was never proven in the trial.
I have heard the suggestion that the prosecutor did not charge anyone for outing Plame because he could not prove that they knew she was covert. But how does one leak that an agent is covert without knowing that the agent is covert???
Although Wilson was reported as having discredited the Bush administration, I understand that he was proven to have been a complete liar by his subsequent testimony before congress.
I understand British intelligence still maintains that Sadam was trying to buy uranium from Niger, contrary to what Wilson claimed. I understand that Sadam's purchasing of uranium from Niger was clearly an established practice, according to an IAEA finding that, in 1993, Iraq possessed 500+ tons of unranium which Sadam had purchased from Niger.
EUCLID said this in post #8 :
I now understand more about Libby's crime about lying to the grand jury. But I am skeptical of the vlaidity of a lot of the background leading up to Libby's perjury. Apparently (from what I have heard) a lot of people leaked Plame's identity. Also there seems to be an unresolved question of whether or not she was covert, and therefore, whether or not leaking her identity was a crime. I know the judge said she was covert, but this was never proven in the trial.
Libby isn't a convicted criminal because he leaked Plame's name. He's a convicted criminal because he lied to the Grand Jury, and that's perjury. If there was nothing to hide and no-one did anything wrong, why did Libby commit perjury?
Bush said in the state of the union speech, 2003:
quote:
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
The administration later conceded that evidence in support of the claim was inconclusive and stated "these 16 words should never have been included", attributing the error to the CIA.
Wilson was right about the yellow cake. Bush was wrong. It was an unfortunate "error" on Bush's part, but one that convinced the American public to back the war! How convenient these "errors" seemed to be for the Bush administration's agenda.
Libby isn't a convicted criminal because he leaked Plame's name. He's a convicted criminal because he lied to the Grand Jury, and that's perjury. If there was nothing to hide and no-one did anything wrong, why did Libby commit perjury?
Wilson was right about the yellow cake. Bush was wrong. It was an unfortunate "error" on Bush's part, but one that convinced the American public to back the war! How convenient these "errors" seemed to be for the Bush administration's agenda.
Yes I realize that Libby was not convicted for leaking Plame's identity. I believe Libby's motive is not known. He may have thought the he and/or Cheney had committed a crime.
I am not convinced that Wilson was right on the yellow cake. There is evidence to the contrary, such as what I mentioned. Just because Bush said the words referenceing the yellow cake allegation should have been omitted, does not mean that the story was not true.
EUCLID said this in post #10 :
Yes I realize that Libby was not convicted for leaking Plame's identity. I believe Libby's motive is not known. He may have thought the he and/or Cheney had committed a crime.
The guy's a crook, who could get 25 years in jail. He lied about the Plame incident. His motive was so that people didn't find out the truth. Why? Because it's an act of treason to reveal an undercover CIA agent's name.
quote:
I am not convinced that Wilson was right on the yellow cake.
Really? We actually started a war because of this yellow cake "information" so you'd think if anyone had the "real" documents they'd maybe present them to the public out of courtesy? What do you think they might be waiting for?
quote:
There is evidence to the contrary, such as what I mentioned. Just because Bush said the words referenceing the yellow cake allegation should have been omitted, does not mean that the story was not true.
So you're saying - just because there's no evidence it doesn't mean there's no evidence??
Neither the UK government nor British intelligence have offered anything to back up this spurious claim that they have or ever had any other evidence other than the discredited yellow cake documents. That's the stuff that Bush used to convince the US public that Saddam was the greatest threat to world peace since Ghengis Khan, and only a matter of time before we'd all see mushroom clouds over New York.
I think British intelligence are just hoping everyone will forget they ever said the had this "other" evidence.
The guy's a crook, who could get 25 years in jail. He lied about the Plame incident. His motive was so that people didn't find out the truth. Why? Because it's an act of treason to reveal an undercover CIA agent's name.
If leaking Plame's identity was the issue, why was Armitage not prosecuted? The prosecutor knew that it was Armitage who leaked Plame's identity at the start of his investigation.
Your speculating as to Libby's motive. Nobody knows for a fact what it was.
EUCLID said this in post #12 : If leaking Plame's identity was the issue, why was Armitage not prosecuted? The prosecutor knew that it was Armitage who leaked Plame's identity at the start of his investigation.
Your speculating as to Libby's motive. Nobody knows for a fact what it was.
The prosecutor obviously didn't think there was a case to be made that could stand a chance in court, or Artmatage would have been prosecuted.
I don't speculate about Libby's motive, I just say to lie is usually to hide the truth, and if you lie in front of a Grand Jury, and get found out - you go to prison. The guy's a criminal. He was Cheney's chief of staff, worked with Cheney, and I wouldn't be surprised if he's covering up for Cheney - that is speculation.
The prosecutor obviously didn't think there was a case to be made that could stand a chance in court, or Artmatage would have been prosecuted.
Why would it be hard to make the case? Armitage confessed near the start of the investigation. The prosecutor told Amitage to not go public with his confession until after the investigation was over.
I have heard the contention that the prosecutor felt he could not prove that anyone outed Plame because he could not prove that the outers knew she was covert. And this knowledge would have been required in order to make the outing a crime.
But I have also heard that the prosecutor did not charge anyone with leaking Plame's identity, because no crime was committed. Maybe that is the same thing as the preceding paragraph.
EUCLID said this in post #14 : I have heard the contention that the prosecutor felt he could not prove that anyone outed Plame because he could not prove that the outers knew she was covert. And this knowledge would have been required in order to make the outing a crime.
There you have it. Unlike the Bush administration's chief of staff, Cheney's top aide and "friend", Scooter Libby, now a convicted criminal and liar, a case couldn't be made against Armitage. you've answered your own question.
03-07-2007 11:00 AM
