Skip to comments.'SCOOTER' Libby TRIAL Could Be A High-Profile BLOODLETTING
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 ...
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??????
Libby needs to walk on all charges.
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.
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?
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....
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.)
I thought that you could not refuse to testify if subpoenaed......
You can refuse. The judge can also throw you in jail.
"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.
Lanny Davis is a lying SOB.
Dream on, ABC. Dream on! Tony: "Bring it on."
I know that applies to Grand Juries, but what about regular court trials?.........
IS this trial before or after Sandy Berger's trial?
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........
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.
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?
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
"Lanny Davis is a lying SOB."
He's a Clintonista. It's part of their job description.
This is the "Seinfeld" of Scandals, a Scandal about...nothing.
A bloodletting, eh? Like Julius Caesar's assassination. And the MSM with the knives under their togas.
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".)
They just HAD to include a comment from Lanny-the-Moron-Davis where he imagines what Tony Snow says. Absurd.
Lanny Davis imagining thoughts in Tony Snow's head... why isn't this in breaking news?
Can you imagine if all the Clinton toadies were put on trial for lying? The court docket would be clogged for years.
Shhh, don't look too closely and just go with the flow.
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.
Fitzmas? Don't you mean Festivus? It's Festivus for the rest of us!!!
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.
5th Amendment may let em skate. Depends on the judge.
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.
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.
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.
It better be.
The crime of the century is not investigating who directed Burglar to do what he did.
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.
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.
I like that.
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?
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 . . . . ;-)
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.
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.