perfect... 8^)
Posted on 11/03/2005 8:16:28 AM PST by frankjr
Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff pleaded not guilty Thursday in the CIA leak scandal, marking the start of what could be a long road to a trial in which Cheney and other top Bush administration officials could be summoned to testify.
Libby entered the plea in front of U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton, a former prosecutor who has spent two decades as a judge in the nation's capital.
Once the charges were read and the judge asked for his response, Libby said: "With respect, your honor, I plead not guilty."
...
Cheney's top aide signaled his determination to fight the charges after Friday's grand jury indictment, which has provided more fuel to the political debate over the White House's possible misuse of prewar intelligence on Iraq. Libby bolstered his defense team this week with two well-known criminal trial lawyers, Ted Wells and William Jeffress.
Wells won acquittals for former Agriculture Secretary Michael Espy and former Labor Secretary Raymond Donovan. He is a partner at the New York-based firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.
Jeffress is from the firm Baker Botts, where Bush family friend and former Secretary of State James A. Baker is a senior partner. Jeffress has won acquittals for public officials accused of extortion, perjury, money laundering, and vote-buying, his firm's Web site says.
...
Libby pleaded not guilty in the Leak Investigation case or in the perjury case, but no one, not even Libby has been charged with anything regarding the CIA Leak Case.
Not a pretty picture!
the defense of Libby is important because his trial is part of an effort to tear down the administration. whether Libby himself has committed some sin in the past, not that I am happy about it, but its not important.
You would have to take a circuitous route to get to Plame and Wilson as the issue addressed in the indictments is conversations between individuals and the timing of those contacts. Plame and Wilson were not privvy to those conversations and their testimony, therefore, is irrelevant to the issues under consideration.
If a defense attorney is successful in convincing the judge that a broader conspiracy, among them attempts by the witnesses for the prosecution to hide their own complicty in events under investigation, then Libby's attorneys may have something to work with.
But for a few possibilities, and some of those requiring mistakes on the part of the prosecution in cross-examination, it will be hard to get the people on the stand that should really be questioned......Plame, Wilson, Kristoff, Corn, et.al.
I wish Scooter good luck and hope he feels it's in his best interest to pursue an aquittal.
PresidentFelon
At least he has a Republican lawyer. Rove's lawyer, Luskin, is from the RAT firm of Patton Boggs. The Boggs in the name refers to Tommy Boggs, none other than the brother of Cokie Roberts.
To me, it adds to the credibility of Libby's not-guilty plea that he has a Democrat lawyer representing him.
The worm turns.
perfect... 8^)
I think it would be very easy to get Wilson on the stand. All Wells has to do is tell the judge he believes Wilson himself told many reporters about Plame's CIA status. This would be exculpatory to Libby and support what Libby testified that Russert said. Then he can get Wilson on the stand and ask him if he also told Chris Lehane or anyone else in the Kerry campaign about Valerie and if she ever met with anyone from the Kerry campaign.
We may get to see some very interesting criminal and civil court action in this mess.
You know what would blow the dems away?
Scooter Defense Fund
c/o Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, George Bush
I can hear them doing Gomer...."Rule 21!Rule 21!Rule 21!"
(remember the "Citizen's Arrest" episode where Gomer kept getting Barney?)
Fitzgerald was appointed by Deputy US Attorney General James Comey.
In Post 32, you stated that you didn't think testimony from Plane and Wilson would be pertinent in the trial, but wouldn't their testimony be pertinent to Discovery? It was Wilson's lies that started all the trouble, and he has continued to lie, so I think their testimony might be more pertinent than we know. I think if I were Tim Russert, Matt Cooper, and Judith Miller, I would be looking for the best lawyers I could find!
One important point. the ONLy issue of this case is whether the stories told by libby are different than the facts.The broader isuue of the veracity or appropriateness of the Fitzgerald investigation is not in question at these proceedings.
The indictment claims that adminisrtration sources told Libby about Plame before he spoke with Russert. If that is provable, then what Russert knew is irrelevant. Russert has claimed he did not tell Libby about Plame. Even if Joe Wilson himself toild Russert about Plame, that does not mean Russert told Libby. So what Wilson said to whom is irrelevant to the eventual findings on perjury and obstruction charges.
The reason I left the possibility of getting these people on the stand is that Libby's lawyer, if very good, will find inconsistencies in the witness stories and can go after their credibility. In that light the defense team may get who they really want on the stand to verify those conversations we are all interested in.
I may be missing something, I have not read the full indictments so I don't know if anybody beyond the principalscan be pulled into the case. But on the narrow questions I have seen posed, I believe it may be hard to get there since the icase has nothing to do with the status of Plame or the criminality, or lack thereof, related to het outing.
PresidentFelon
Did you read Zell Miller's article?
how dare he
LOL!
Several years ago, a deputy sheriff was killed by someone who received a gunshot wound in the confrontation. There were several witnesses and IIRC, it was on tape. He did it. No doubt about it.
This happened at about 11:00 at night. When I came to work at 7:00 (RN) guess who was one of my patients? The cop killer. Of course, I had no second thoughts about taking care of the scum sucking murderer, it is what I do. And I gave him the same care as I would any other patient. (Of course, the armed guards in the room and at the door helped my nerves, LOL!)
Marc Rich or anyone else deserves the same level of representation from a lawyer as that patient did from me. It is what we do.
BTW, The cops who were watching him all had black bands on their badges. This guy killed one of them. Not only were they there to protect the staff, they were also there to protect him. I will never forget thinking how hard it must have been for them and yet not one of them betrayed what they must have felt about the scum sucking POS murderer.
And as for DeGuerin, another Democrat (but he must be a very conservative, pro-Second Amendment Dem) -- I gained a lot of respect for him during the Waco hearings.
But I guess DeGuerin's got his hands full for the moment.
That's about the degree of accuracy we've come to expect.
As far as I can tell, you are correct. Russert yes, Phlame and Wilson no.
Personally after finding out Libby was Rich's attorney and got paid millions and then talked to Rich while he was in the WH, I wouldn't give one red cent to a defense fund of Libby -- take it out of the fee he got from Rich.
I am not one of these that everything that the WH does is Mom and Apple Pie -- I want accountability from Libby why he did this and why he allegedly lied because I think he was out there pretty much by himself and, in turn, he put the VP in a bad light. He should have resigned a long time ago IMHO. Why would a defense lawyer alledgely lie to the FBI and Grand Jury -- had he become that invincible in his own mind?
Cannot believe the people on here that condone the fact he lied (if he did) just because he worked for the WH. That was my complaint about the Clintons -- no accountability. I thought Republicans were better than that and this hero worship of everything the WH does is ridiculous. The President doesn't surround himself with all "yes" people and wouldn't expect everyone to agree with him 100% so why are some people on here loathe to criticize anything.
What part of the President appointed Fitz do some folks on here not understand? The President wanted to find out who was leaking if anyone and that person(s) would be shown the door. That's exactly what happened.
I refuse to be a robot for anyone. I will work as hard as I can to support Republicans and believe in 99% of them but how are they supposed to know they are doing something wrong if all they ever hear is yes they are doing everything right.
My mini rant!
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.