Posted on 10/30/2005 8:40:57 AM PST by smoothsailing
My comparison is that it's like getting pulled over for drunk driving, found innocent but being charged with being in the bar anyway.
Not a bad comparison.
Another would be to get pulled over for drunk driving, found innocent of that charge, but charged for remembering incorrectly the exact time you were last in a bar.
I knew it! The old "trip them up with talk" technique. Bastards!
It's also very flimsy - why accept the "recollections" of reporters and commentators (particularly one who was already shown to have had a faulty memory) against those of Libby?
In any case, I thought the Martha Stewart thing was a dangerous precedent. Anyone should have the right to file a not-guilty plea without having to worry about being prosecuted essentially for having made use of their right to be considered innocent. The other thing that appalled me was that many Freepers, who seemed to have a particularly violent hatred of Martha Stewart, thought this perversion of justice was perfectly all right.
I think Fitzgerald is also setting a dangerous precedent here, essentially that of having to find some procedural crime or suggestion thereof even when there was no substance to the initial case.
I don't think it was ever supposed to be a crime to lie... unless you were under oath.
And if they insist you DO talk to them as if you were under oath, you should always have 5th amendment protection.
This whole mess seemed to me to be somehow a way of getting around the fifth amendment.
I've read the indictment, and can't figure out why Libby
would lie to the GJ about when and how he learned about
Ms. Wilson. We await his version of the events and timeline.
It's possible that Libby screwed up. He needed the wife-
arranged-trip detail to help discredit Wilson, but
apparently considered it classified. It appears that
instead of having Cheney ask Bush to order it declassied,
he relied on the old trick of finding an "open source"
report of the fact.
And if there wasn't one, or he got confused and merely
thought there was one, or relied on an actual open
source from an unrecorded phone call with a hostile
member of the legacy media, then he's got a problem.
And had Libby admitted to the GJ that he didn't have
an open source for the admitted discussions with
reporters, would Fitzy have then tried to charge on
the supposed original leak?
The Fitzgerald indictment is as political as anything
Ronnie Earle would have coughed out.
But yes, this has troubling parallels with the Stewart
case, and these persecutors had better realize that we
are watching all this, and the lessons we are taking
from it are:
- render no aid to the FBI - it's dangerous to talk to them
- always take the 5th in front of a jury, even if you are
supposedly a non-target friendly witness
Fitz & pals are wrecking the legal system in order to
carve notches on their resumes.
Seems to me the grand jury could have returned no bills on all of this and he wouldn't have had a leg to stand on.
Well, you know what they say, if they want to, they can indict a ham sandwich.
I must be missing something.
The "evidence" used to indict Libby for at least one count was a series of recollections made before the GJ about his discussion with Russert.
My read of those statements was that was describing his thought processes before the GJ - in which he was admittedly trying to deceive Russert - and *not* that he was trying to the GJ itself. It's possible you could read it either way, but that's precisely why it fails to be a solid charge.
If Scooter Libby were facing two months at "Camp Cupcake", this might all be just fine.
He's facing THIRTY YEARS IN PRISON. And a fine of 1.5 million dollars.
He's facing financial ruin, and virtual life in prison.
For what? Talk about a kangaroo court.
This is really disgusting, IMHO. Big time disgusting. Bush really should pardon Libby - proudly, unapologetically, then look right into the cameras and lecture democrats on PARTISAN HATE.
(rant off)
Granted I'm not a lawyer, but c'mon,
/s
Plame (not Libby) has to meet three conditions for there to be a charge for revealing her identity: (a) her status must have been classified, (b) there must have been active government measures to conceal her status and identity, and (c) she must have operated overseas within the last five years.
All three conditions must be met.
Given that he's working out of the long-established Counter Espionage offices at the DoJ, it's implausible that Fitzgerald *doesn't* know beyond question what Plame's status actually was. He never even *hinted* at her actual status in his one-hour+ press conference (yet that has been the central scope of the investigation).
Since Libby did receive his information though classified channels, and he also holds clearance, there's no doubt that he could be charged if Plame met the above criteria.
And since Fitzgerald went instead for five lesser charges, we must infer that Plame did not hold the necessary status. After all, the entire 2-year investigation revolved around this central issue.
That isn't what Martha Stewart was guilty of at all. She was found guilty of lying to investigators. This article is spin, and not very good spin at that.
Neither Stewart nor Libby had to say anything at all to investigators or the GJ. Once they did, they had a legal duty to tell the truth. The prosecutors in both instances had evidence that statements that were made were not true. We get upset about the fact that Clinton and his accomplices lied and were not charged; we should uphold the standard that those who lie should pay the price. I personally hope that Libby is found not guilty. But with what is alleged in the idictment, I don't blame the prosecutor for bringing the charges.
I think the prosecution does have a problem with motive. That will be a major defense, I suspect.
>> would Fitzy have then tried to charge on the supposed
>> original leak?
> Plame (not Libby) has to meet three conditions for there
> to be a charge for revealing her identity:
I wasn't referring to the 1982 law, but Libby's general
requirement to not disclose classified info.
I suspect everyone except barking moonbats agree by now
that Plame wasn't covered by the 1982 law.
My guess is that Tim Russert secretly recorded his phone conversation with Libby.
The reason I think that is that Fitz seems so extremely confident that it was Libby who lied about that conversation, not Russert.
Secretly recording one's phone conversations is not illegal in either D.C. or VA, IIRC (although it is in Maryland -- hence the prosecution of Linda Tripp).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.