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

Skip to comments.

Lewis Libby still in US Bureau of Prison census
US Bureau of Prisons ^ | 07.06.07 | Perdogg

Posted on 07/06/2007 6:10:19 AM PDT by Perdogg

I guess someone thinks he still going to show up.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Miscellaneous; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: libby; pardon; scooterlibby

1 posted on 07/06/2007 6:10:20 AM PDT by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
I’m gonna take a WAG, that he’s still on the roll because he wasn't pardoned outright. His prison sentence was commuted, and he’s still on probation (he paid his fine yesterday). And if he somehow violates probation he’s in the Grey Bar for 30 months.

That's my guess.

2 posted on 07/06/2007 6:28:34 AM PDT by Condor51 (Rudy makes John Kerry look like a Right Wing 'Gun Nut' Extremist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holdonnow; Bahbah; mware

Legal Clarity?


3 posted on 07/06/2007 6:32:01 AM PDT by AliVeritas (America, love it or leave it. To Harry Reid: See me, feel me, touch me, bite me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
Marc Rich & The Clintons must be laughing their ass off.

It was Scooter Libby that represented Marc Rich when Slick pardoned him.

Ironic, isn't it.

4 posted on 07/06/2007 6:33:04 AM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
Most of Libby's defenders -- George W. Bush, David Brooks, etc. -- don't seem to be denying that Libby committed a crime by lying under oath to investigators. They want us to say that, rather, he deserves to be treated very leniently because there was no big deal here. The alleged absence of an underlying crime is key to that theory. The converse theory is that there was an underlying crime and the crime can't be proven because Libby lied to investigators.

If that theory is wrong -- if there really was no crime -- then it seems we ought to get some kind of explanation from Libby as to why he lied. People sometimes do have reasons to lie to investigators other than a desire to cover up criminal activity (hiding non-criminal activity that's embarrassing is the obvious one) but if Libby wants mercy he should offer up a plausible score on this account.

But Libby hasn't offered any such story. Instead, he's offered a wildly implausible story -- that he's innocent. Under those circumstances, it's very odd to offer clemency. He's shown no remorse and appears to be continually engaged in a conspiracy to obstruct justice. Maybe there was no crime here; but if there wasn't, then what was Libby doing? He's not even trying to convince us that he had some other reason to lie.

5 posted on 07/06/2007 6:34:48 AM PDT by MurryMom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AliVeritas

I think Condor is right. He is in probationary status. They have to keep a slot open.


6 posted on 07/06/2007 6:35:29 AM PDT by Bahbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MurryMom

I’m curious as to exactly what he lied about. I’m wondering if you know for sure.

It’s my understanding that he was inconsistent as to who spoke to whom on what day, more than a year after it happened. I also seem to remember that Fitzgerald’s own witnesses couldn’t remember the specifics consistently on the witness stand.


7 posted on 07/06/2007 6:39:26 AM PDT by ex-NFO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Bahbah

His probationary status is in limbo according to the Judge in the case. Since he did not serve time there can be no probation. A hearing on the issue will be held Monday.


8 posted on 07/06/2007 6:39:47 AM PDT by golfisnr1 (Democrats are like roaches - hard to get rid of.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: golfisnr1

This will get interesting. I wouldn’t think the judge could overrule the commutation so the only alternative I can forsee is vacating the probation.

On the other hand, lots of people receive probation as the only punishment for their crimes.


9 posted on 07/06/2007 6:48:05 AM PDT by CaptRon (Pedicaris alive or Raisuli dead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: golfisnr1
His probationary status is in limbo according to the Judge in the case. Since he did not serve time there can be no probation

I think the judge may be playing games here. There are numerous instances of people on probation who do not do any jail time.

10 posted on 07/06/2007 6:51:02 AM PDT by Bahbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ex-NFO
I’m curious as to exactly what he lied about.

As am I. I would really like a full explanation of what his "perjury" was about and in what way it obstructed "justice".

11 posted on 07/06/2007 6:54:46 AM PDT by mc5cents (Show me just what Mohammd brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Bahbah

Actually, you get probation using time served language.


12 posted on 07/06/2007 6:56:47 AM PDT by nyconse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
It’s revealing how rich minor bureaucrats can get while “serving” the people. Libby wrote a check for $250,000 to pay his fine. We’re not sure what he did supposedly he revealed secret information, something the New York Times does with regularity.

Anyway, most people wonder what the fuss is all about. After all President Clinton lied under oath to a federal judge; sold super-computers to communist China in return for campaign donations; trashed the Oval Office, abused power was impeached and lost his license to practice law (not that he ever showed the slightest pretensions to obeying laws). He got off scott free.

Hmmmm. Let’s see. President Clinton is a Democrat. Libby is a Republican. Do you think its possible that there is a double-standard at work here? Naaah! Couldn’t be. (Sarcasm Off)

13 posted on 07/06/2007 6:58:52 AM PDT by R.W.Ratikal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: R.W.Ratikal

It was $250,400.00 :)


14 posted on 07/06/2007 7:02:11 AM PDT by Perdogg (congratulations - you have just won an ipod nano)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MurryMom
and appears to be continually engaged in a conspiracy to obstruct justice.

No such thing. "appears to be" is just your way of making that accusation.

Maybe there was no crime here; but if there wasn't, then what was Libby doing?

Mis-remembering? No one can recall the exact dates, times, people they were talking to, or not talking to, years back. Can anyone even remember every specific moment of every specific day what they did two weeks ago.

15 posted on 07/06/2007 7:24:30 AM PDT by lowbridge (If You’re Gonna Burn Our Flag, Wrap Yourself in It First /No Oil for Pacifists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge
Mis-remembering?

Doesn't Hillary mis-remember in every instance she is cross-examined?

16 posted on 07/06/2007 7:40:39 AM PDT by mia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

The threshold for conviction is that the govt has to prove mens rea, which in my opinion it didn’t.


17 posted on 07/06/2007 8:00:54 AM PDT by Perdogg (congratulations - you have just won an ipod nano)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: MurryMom

Tell us...MurryMom....about that conversation you had 2 years and 3 months ago with a neighbor of yours.....in detail, please. And, don’t lie to us!


18 posted on 07/06/2007 8:07:46 AM PDT by goodnesswins (Being Challenged Builds Character! Being Coddled Destroys Character!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: mia

She knows how to use the phrase: “Do not recall” :-)


19 posted on 07/06/2007 9:08:18 AM PDT by lowbridge (If You’re Gonna Burn Our Flag, Wrap Yourself in It First /No Oil for Pacifists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: R.W.Ratikal
The evidence against President Clinton was so flimsy that the Republican IC, Kenneth Starr, never filed any perjury charges against him. The charges against Libby were solid enough for a federal jury to convict on 4 counts.

Innocent vs. guilty, that's the distinction between President Clinton and Scooter Libby that ought to convince most rational persons, Republican politicos excepted.

20 posted on 07/06/2007 11:03:42 AM PDT by MurryMom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ex-NFO
A partial list of Libby's lies, from paragraphs 32 and 33 of the federal court indictment:

32. It was part of the corrupt endeavor that during his grand jury testimony, defendant LIBBY made the following materially false and intentionally misleading statements and representations, in substance, under oath:

a. When LIBBY spoke with Tim Russert of NBC News, on or about July 10, 2003:

i. Russert asked LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, and told LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and

ii. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was surprised to hear that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA;

b. LIBBY advised Matthew Cooper of Time magazine on or about July 12, 2003, that he had heard that other reporters were saying that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, and further advised him that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true; and

c. LIBBY advised Judith Miller of the New York Times on or about July 12, 2003 that he had heard that other reporters were saying that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA but LIBBY did not know whether that assertion was true.

33. It was further part of the corrupt endeavor that at the time defendant LIBBY made each of the above-described materially false and intentionally misleading statements and representations to the grand jury, LIBBY was aware that they were false, in that:

a. When LIBBY spoke with Tim Russert of NBC News on or about July 10, 2003:

i. Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson’s wife worked fortheCIA,nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and

ii. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA; in fact, LIBBY had participated in multiple prior conversations concerning this topic, including on the following occasions: •

In or about early June 2003, LIBBY learned from the Vice President that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA in the Counterproliferation Division; •

On or about June 11, 2003, LIBBY was informed by a senior CIA officer that Wilson’s wife was employed by the CIA and that the idea of sending him to Niger originated with her.

21 posted on 07/06/2007 11:08:20 AM PDT by MurryMom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MurryMom
A federal jury led by a guy who was Russert's neighbor/backtard BBQ buddy and alsi a co-worker of Pincus and Woodward.

Have you read Russert's testimony? What a joke, the guy can't seem to remember anything right.

22 posted on 07/06/2007 11:11:10 AM PDT by Homer1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ex-NFO

Another response I posted in this thread details some of Libby’s lies that resulted in his perjury and obstruction of justice convictions. It’s true that Libby sometimes claimed lack of memory during his GJ testimony, but not regarding the many lies that resulted in his 4 criminal convictions.


23 posted on 07/06/2007 11:11:49 AM PDT by MurryMom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MurryMom

Tim Russert filed a false affidavit with the prosecutor’s knowledge. Russert LIED to the court, Fitzy lied to the court. The FBI conveniently “lost” all their interview papers with Russert, what notes they did have said that Russert said “it might be possible that we discussed it”, even though on the stand he said he never said it. The FBI was especially egregious in this case, losing notes, misquoting people (including Libby) (which who shown at trial). But the judge and the jury sided with Russert anyway, even though HE WAS THE PROVEN LIAR in this case. But then, when a judge allows Tim’s neighbor on the jury (over the objections of the defense) it all goes out the window anyway.

Scooter DID NOT receive a fair trial.


24 posted on 07/06/2007 11:14:30 AM PDT by Laverne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Bahbah

I never heard of probation without time served, and this can be as short as a hour (or less). Was he ever incarcerated following any arrest on this case? If he was never arrested and has no time behind bars the judge may be correct.


25 posted on 07/06/2007 11:23:24 AM PDT by eyedigress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Homer1
Have you read Russert's testimony? What a joke, the guy can't seem to remember anything right.

I wish that the entire GJ record would be made public so that we all have an equal opportunity to speculate about what Bush/Cheney lies Scooter Libby was trying to cover up by committing perjury and obstructing justice.

26 posted on 07/06/2007 1:19:01 PM PDT by MurryMom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Laverne
Scooter DID NOT receive a fair trial.

Yeah, right. All 12 jurors sat through months of testimony, convicted Scooter on evidence showing his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the trial judge agreed with the verdict in spades, and you still expect me to believe in some stuff you read on a farout website weeks before the trial?

Don't tell me. Tell Scooter's lawyers who are still appealing his 4 convictions. They are the ones who really need a magic bullet to save their client.

27 posted on 07/06/2007 1:22:55 PM PDT by MurryMom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: MurryMom
If that theory is wrong -- if there really was no crime -- then it seems we ought to get some kind of explanation from Libby as to why he lied. People sometimes do have reasons to lie to investigators other than a desire to cover up criminal activity

You actually make the case why Libby is innocence... A person can only lie when they tell you something they know is not true ...it not a lie if I tell you something I believe to the best of my understanding and memory in true but later is found false...

The thing is what motive would Libby have to lie?..There was none as we already know he really did have nothing to do with the release of the name and neither did his boss ... he was found to be incorrect in his recall of a date of a trivial meeting from several years before... and as far an I know that date of the meeting was irrelevant either way to the case...

Someone please show me anything on any relevance to the case and to Libby that Libby had any motive to lie about...if there zero motive and zero relevance... why lie?...there is none.. accept it's bad recall made in to perjury for political reason

28 posted on 07/06/2007 2:10:27 PM PDT by tophat9000 (My 2008 grassroots Republican platform: Build the fence, enforce the laws, and win the damm WAR!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MurryMom
"The evidence against President Clinton was so flimsy that the Republican IC, Kenneth Starr, never filed any perjury charges against him. The charges against Libby were solid enough for a federal jury to convict on 4 counts."

Be serious, you pathetic blowhard! The difference is that Starr had VERY high standards for allowing any charge of perjury to go forward, even though Bill and Hillary lied extensively under oath (but it's always hard to prove intent, and hard to deal with so many dishonest "do not recalls"). In contrast, FITZFONG pushed forward a case that wasn't worth spit because a DC judge allowed him ridiculous latitude in exclusion of inconvenient evidence and expert testimony, while a DC jury comprised of leftists as vicious and dishonest as you proved happy to rubber-stamp the worthless case.
29 posted on 07/19/2007 4:43:56 PM PDT by Enchante (Reid and Pelosi Defeatocrats: Surrender Now - Peace for Our Time!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

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