Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'SCOOTER' Libby TRIAL Could Be A High-Profile BLOODLETTING
ABC NEWS ^ | ABC NEWS

Posted on 01/16/2007 6:38:48 AM PST by rface

Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage originally leaked Plame's identity. Armitage says the leak was inadvertent, and he is not being prosecuted.......Federal prosecutors are trying to show that Libby lied to investigators about conversations he had with reporters regarding Plame. Libby has denied lying and says he has a faulty memory........

Former Cheney Chief of Staff on Trial for Allegedly Lying to a Grand Jury, Not Outing CIA Agent:

.Jan. 16, 2007 — Jury selection begins today in the trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.

Libby is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice in the leaking of the identity of a former CIA operative.

Libby is on trial for allegedly lying to a grand jury about the source of a leak that outed former CIA operative Valerie Plame. Plame's identity was leaked to the media after her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, was critical of the Bush administration's handling of the war in Iraq.

Libby has been called a master of discretion, and the trial promises to be a high-profile bloodletting.

[ snip ]

Among those on the star-studded witness list are former White House press secretary Ari Fleisher and NBC "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert.

[ snip ]

Said Lanny Davis, former special counsel to President Clinton, "I can imagine [White House press secretary] Tony Snow behind closed doors saying, 'Oh my God, of all the things we have to face is a trial when we are facing all of this stuff in Iraq. This couldn't have happened at a worse time,'"

[ snip ]

Libby's trial is an unwelcome distraction for the administration at a critical juncture.

(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abcfantasy; armitage; cialeak; davis; lannydavis; libby; nigerflap; nonevent; plameleak; richardarmitage; showtrial
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last
Hahahaha!!

The Trial of the Century will be a liberal DUD....a fizzler....another Fitzmas.

The crime is that Scooter has had to spend a fortune to protect himself in this fraud of a trial.

Hmmmmmmmm......will Joseph Wilson be taking the stand??????

1 posted on 01/16/2007 6:38:51 AM PST by rface
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rface

Libby needs to walk on all charges.


2 posted on 01/16/2007 6:40:08 AM PST by KC_Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rface

Meanwhile Fitzgerald lied to the public and congress by continuing the investigation long after the facts were known so he could trump up some phoney charges and continue to bill the government millions of dollars.


3 posted on 01/16/2007 6:43:14 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rface

I thought that his was the trial that Wilson didn't want to testify in, but the judge informed him that he would have to testify. Am I wrong?


4 posted on 01/16/2007 6:43:56 AM PST by Clara Lou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clara Lou
Wilson will be called to testify, along with many fat-mouthed MSM types. Ob course, they'll probably refuse and that will be the end of it.
5 posted on 01/16/2007 6:46:50 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks (BTUs are my Beat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Clara Lou
.....the judge informed Wilson that he would have to testify. Am I wrong?

I don't know. It might be the trial of the Century after all. It could be funny to see Mr and Mrs. Plame lie on the stand....

6 posted on 01/16/2007 6:49:28 AM PST by rface ("...the most schizoid freeper I've ever seen" - New Bloomfield, Missouri)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Clara Lou
I thought that his was the trial that Wilson didn't want to testify in, but the judge informed him that he would have to testify.

IIRC, he was subpoenaed but not called to testify. The judge ruled that asking to get out of testifying was premature since he hadn't been called. (The article I saw didn't say what the subpoena was for -- possibly a request for documents. Maybe for a deposition, but I would think that would count as testifying.)

7 posted on 01/16/2007 6:50:57 AM PST by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
...they'll probably refuse and that will be the end of it.

I thought that you could not refuse to testify if subpoenaed......

8 posted on 01/16/2007 6:51:52 AM PST by Red Badger (New! HeadOn Hemorrhoid Medication for Liberals!.........Apply directly to forehead.........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

You can refuse. The judge can also throw you in jail.


9 posted on 01/16/2007 6:55:11 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks (BTUs are my Beat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

"I thought that you could not refuse to testify if subpoenaed"

It's actually still a matter of choice. You can go, be sworn in and claim the 5th, or just sit there and say nothing.

However, I'm sure there are consequences.


10 posted on 01/16/2007 6:55:35 AM PST by Leatherneck_MT (In a world where Carpenters come back from the dead, ALL things are possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: rface

Lanny Davis is a lying SOB.


11 posted on 01/16/2007 6:56:02 AM PST by Homer1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rface

Dream on, ABC. Dream on! Tony: "Bring it on."


12 posted on 01/16/2007 6:57:44 AM PST by norwaypinesavage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks

I know that applies to Grand Juries, but what about regular court trials?.........


13 posted on 01/16/2007 6:58:37 AM PST by Red Badger (New! HeadOn Hemorrhoid Medication for Liberals!.........Apply directly to forehead.........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: rface

IS this trial before or after Sandy Berger's trial?


14 posted on 01/16/2007 6:58:46 AM PST by SengirV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rface

I can't wait to hear the MSM whine about the millions of dollars that have been wasted on this nonsense that could have been used to feed and house women and children........


15 posted on 01/16/2007 7:00:48 AM PST by The South Texan (The Democrat Party and the leftist (ABCCBSNBCCNN NYLATIMES)media are a criminal enterprise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rface
Trial of the century??????? But, but, but, what about the Duke rape trials??? Oh, wait, that was a bogus charge(s). Not real like these charges. Never mind. Move along. Keep the line moving. Free stuff at the end of the line. /sarcasm still on.
16 posted on 01/16/2007 7:01:20 AM PST by RetiredArmy (Dimocrats stand for everything I hate, despise and wish to see destroyed, including dimocrats!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KC_Conspirator; rface
Libby needs to walk on all charges.

Unfortunately, he's being tried in a city that is 9 to 1 registered Democrat. The judge is a Democrat. So far this morning, the word is the questions the lawyers are asking potential jurors relate to their political leanings. Scooter will not get a fair trial in DC where the jurors aren't even on the same planet as him -- forget about them being a jury of his peers.

17 posted on 01/16/2007 7:02:06 AM PST by Wolfstar ("Common sense is not so common." Voltaire, 1764)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rface

I still cannot fathom, in light of the Armitage admission, why Fitzgerald was not dismissed months ago and this witch trial disbanded. Can't Gonzales take a break from his internet porn obsession to focus on this madness?


18 posted on 01/16/2007 7:03:18 AM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SengirV

I thought the Sandy Burgler trial was over long ago - and that Burgler got a slap on the wrist - but since the trial, these new revelations are out


19 posted on 01/16/2007 7:03:21 AM PST by rface ("...the most schizoid freeper I've ever seen" - New Bloomfield, Missouri)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Homer1

"Lanny Davis is a lying SOB."

He's a Clintonista. It's part of their job description.


20 posted on 01/16/2007 7:03:58 AM PST by popdonnelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: rface

This is the "Seinfeld" of Scandals, a Scandal about...nothing.


21 posted on 01/16/2007 7:04:00 AM PST by dfwgator (The University of Florida - Championship U)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rface

A bloodletting, eh? Like Julius Caesar's assassination. And the MSM with the knives under their togas.


22 posted on 01/16/2007 7:05:57 AM PST by popdonnelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rface
All Libby has to do is show Armitage spoke to any reporter who in turn spoke to Russert and he walks because it's a he said, he said. Contents is not important because Armitage already said he spoke Plames name. Libby holds the trump card against Plame and Wilson because they can't ask any national security questions or reasons for Iraq but Libby's lawyers can ask them who all they spoke to about their claim. It will be a Merry Fitzmas and with any luck Wilson will continue to lie and get charged with perjury when he lies to the jury.
23 posted on 01/16/2007 7:06:01 AM PST by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy

Nah Duke will never get to trial. (But in my fantasy world the defense attorneys would have not allowed Nifong to drop the rape charges just so they would be able to get the lying whore on the witness stand for the legal version of "machine gun practice, 50c/hr".)


24 posted on 01/16/2007 7:06:20 AM PST by jiggyboy (Ten per cent of poll respondents are either lying or insane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: rface
Typical wishful thinking by ABC.

They just HAD to include a comment from Lanny-the-Moron-Davis where he imagines what Tony Snow says. Absurd.

25 posted on 01/16/2007 7:07:21 AM PST by subterfuge (Today, Tolerance =greatest virtue;Hypocrisy=worst character defect; Discrimination =worst atrocity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rface

Lanny Davis imagining thoughts in Tony Snow's head... why isn't this in breaking news?


26 posted on 01/16/2007 7:09:17 AM PST by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SengirV

Can you imagine if all the Clinton toadies were put on trial for lying? The court docket would be clogged for years.


27 posted on 01/16/2007 7:09:18 AM PST by popdonnelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: rface

Shhh, don't look too closely and just go with the flow.


28 posted on 01/16/2007 7:10:30 AM PST by SengirV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SengirV
Where is Sandy Berger's trial? Where is the media attention for Sandy Berger's CRIMES?
29 posted on 01/16/2007 7:11:13 AM PST by Obadiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
[Meanwhile Fitzgerald lied to the public and congress by continuing the investigation long after the facts were known so he could trump up some phoney charges and continue to bill the government millions of dollars.]

Yep. Fitzgerald is just like Nifong...drunk with power and stupidity. These DA's aren't really pursuing justice. What a sham.
30 posted on 01/16/2007 7:16:48 AM PST by khnyny (For today in the city of David a Savior has been born for you who is Messiah and Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: The South Texan

The entire federal budget is not enough to satisy the MSM if it means going after Republicans. I will be shocked if any of them even hint at the cost.


31 posted on 01/16/2007 7:19:24 AM PST by Enterprise (Drop pork bombs on the Islamofascist wankers. Praise the Lord and pass the hammunition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
with any luck Wilson will continue to lie and get charged with perjury when he lies to the jury.

I hope any "bloodletting" is from Wilson's vital arteries. He and his wife can be ruined financially if he lies again. If he doesn't, he has to admit to all his previous lies. Either way, it'll be great watching the destruction of the fun couple from Santa Fe.
32 posted on 01/16/2007 7:23:54 AM PST by Thrownatbirth (.....when the sidewalks are safe for the little guy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: rface

Fitzmas? Don't you mean Festivus? It's Festivus for the rest of us!!!


33 posted on 01/16/2007 7:25:44 AM PST by Paco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maryz; All
My sense is that Wilson is going to end up being a very important witness in this case -- if not in the trial itself, then in a subsequent appeal.

One of the basic requirements for a perjury conviction is that it must relate to a trial or hearing on a substantive matter, and the perjured statements must be relevant to the case in question. Libby's basic defense is two-fold:

1. The matter is not substantive, since the questions Libby was asked involved a matter so inconsequential that he could easily have forgotten details over time; and

2. The matter is neither substantive nor relevant, since the prosecutor had no business conducting the investigation in the first place (because he wouldn't have been able to file criminal charges even if every accusation against various people in the "leak" case were true).

The testimony of Wilson is important because it ties directly to Point #2. Libby's defense team will probably go to great lengths to point out that the original CIA request for an independent prosecutor was complete bullsh!t -- on the grounds that the CIA couldn't even make a minimal case that any information revealed about Valerie Plame involved a specific violation of a specific Federal statute. This would mean that Fitzgerald's actions in this case are the equivalent of a prosecutor pursuing a murder case even after the alleged "victim" of the murder shows up in court alive and well.

34 posted on 01/16/2007 7:38:38 AM PST by Alberta's Child (Can money pay for all the days I lived awake but half asleep?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

5th Amendment may let em skate. Depends on the judge.


35 posted on 01/16/2007 7:39:29 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks (BTUs are my Beat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Leatherneck_MT; Red Badger
"I thought that you could not refuse to testify if subpoenaed" It's actually still a matter of choice. You can go, be sworn in and claim the 5th, or just sit there and say nothing.

It absolutely IS NOT a 'matter of choice.' You MAY NOT just sit by and say nothing -unless- it is incriminating to YOURSELF.

If you witness a crime, and you know that the defendent DID NOT commit the crime, then you can be compelled to testify as a witness for the defendant. You MAY NOT just choose to shut up, or else you will go to jail for contempt of court.

36 posted on 01/16/2007 7:40:31 AM PST by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine

Try to make me talk and I'll just sit there and stare at you.

It is a Choice, whether you care to believe so or not.

As I said, there are Consequences in doing so. I guess you missed that part.


37 posted on 01/16/2007 7:46:43 AM PST by Leatherneck_MT (In a world where Carpenters come back from the dead, ALL things are possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: montag813
..."Can't Gonzales take a break from his Internet porn obsession to focus on this madness?"


I've been wondering what this guy has been doing. Seems to be taking "low profile" to greater depths.
38 posted on 01/16/2007 7:48:37 AM PST by mcshot ("If it ain't broke it doesn't have enough features." paraphrased anon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Leatherneck_MT; Red Badger
I guess you missed that part.

No. I didn't miss that part.

If your semantics of "choice" means that murdering someone during a robbery with a handgun is "a choice," the same as owning one and killing a burglar/rapist during an assault is "a choice."

Surefine. It's just 'consequences,' whatever.

One is proscribed by law, and one is permitted by law.

If you accept the Fifth Amendment, then you have to accept the Sixth, as well.


39 posted on 01/16/2007 8:03:14 AM PST by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: rface
'SCOOTER' Libby TRIAL Could Be A High-Profile BLOODLETTING

It better be.

40 posted on 01/16/2007 8:06:30 AM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Meanwhile Fitzgerald lied to the public and congress by continuing the investigation long after the facts were known so he could trump up some phoney charges and continue to bill the government millions of dollars.

Precisely correct.

41 posted on 01/16/2007 8:07:13 AM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Obadiah
Thank you for your post! Every time someone brings up the Libby fraud we all need to shout "What about Burglar!!!"

The crime of the century is not investigating who directed Burglar to do what he did.

42 posted on 01/16/2007 8:07:44 AM PST by Scarchin (+)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: khnyny
Fitzgerald isn't stupid--this is helping the liberal agenda, to discredit the Iraq war by getting a jury to accept Joe Wilson's version of reality (about Saddam's efforts to get the bomb).

The case boils down to Russert's word about what was said in a long-ago conversation vs. Libby's, and all the prosecutor has to do is to persuade 12 liberals to believe Russert over Libby.

43 posted on 01/16/2007 8:08:46 AM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus
Fitzgerald isn't stupid--this is helping the liberal agenda

Well and the fact Fitzgerald has a customer who has given him a blank checkbook to charge whatever amount of time he wants and pays top dollars for those hours and expenses.

44 posted on 01/16/2007 8:13:06 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
"Seinfeld" of Scandals, a Scandal about...nothing.

I like that.

45 posted on 01/16/2007 8:23:52 AM PST by BoneHead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine

Question for you then.

Do you think for one moment you can force me to say a thing?

Be it in a Court of Law under penalty of perjury or contempt of court.

Do you think you can FORCE me to testify?


46 posted on 01/16/2007 8:26:20 AM PST by Leatherneck_MT (In a world where Carpenters come back from the dead, ALL things are possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: SengirV
Did I hear wrong, Sandy Burglar walked. I wonder whose Justice Department prosecuted(?) him?
barbra ann
47 posted on 01/16/2007 8:46:46 AM PST by barb-tex (Why replace the IRS with anything?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
I thought that you could not refuse to testify if subpoenaed......

You can fight it -- your attorneys can file a motion to quash the subpoena. Of course, you probably need a better reason than that you don't wanna . . . . ;-)

48 posted on 01/16/2007 9:04:02 AM PST by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Leatherneck_MT; Red Badger
Do you think you can FORCE me to testify?

As much as you can be 'forced' to pay the IRS, forced to pay your property taxes, forced into the county jail for resisting arrest and forced into jail for defying a court order, yes.

"Compulsory" means "compelled by the weight of the federal contract we live under in this society."

Can you be a hardass and break those laws, SURE!

The Constitution is something Americans all consent to be governed by, sorry pal, that's the way it is.

And the Constitution, in order to enable rule-of-law, says that the government can compel your testimony---except---that it may not compel you to testify against yourself.

If you want to make a distinction between a criminal that commits some felony, and you defying a court illegally, and you feel like you're better than the criminal in the cell with you, then fine! Good for you!

The fact is, the answer to Red Badger's question is that the 5th Amendment does not allow you to be "willfully quiet about anything, anytime," it only allows that you "not be compelled as a witness against yourself."

Saying that you can defy the laws of the land and that there may be consequences ignores the fact that in one case it is sanctioned by the Constitution, and in the other, it is not.

49 posted on 01/16/2007 9:08:28 AM PST by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine

Wrong

NO YOU CANNOT FORCE ME TO TESTIFY!

You can simply punish me for not doing so.

I don't know where you get your delusions of godhood, but no Man can force another to do something he doesn't want to do.

Unless of course you really are that weak that you know someone can force you to do something against your will. That would then make this entire conversation understandable.


50 posted on 01/16/2007 9:13:17 AM PST by Leatherneck_MT (In a world where Carpenters come back from the dead, ALL things are possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson