Posted on 03/20/2006 11:28:20 AM PST by Boldeagle
For the sake of the President's program, Scooter must--can--clear good his name, here's how.
[I don't know all of the protocols in posting here. I am a newbie. Just fair warning. :) ]
No leak, no leak crime. It's as simple as that. Scooter Libby can clear his good name, as this very, very recent news shows. NOTE: He has to, because a conviction could cripple the administration and hurt the cause of good government for years to come. He can do it.
The Administration picked a real bulldog in special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. When Scooter comes out of this smelling like a rose, as this shows he probably will, no one will be able to say the fix was on. Fitzgerald is tough.
Libby will win for the simple reason that Valerie Plame-Wilson and her proximate employer, Brewster Jennings, were not secrets, not undercover. There was no leak. The intensive investigation of Libby amounts to illegal entrapment because there was no reason for such intense scrutiny. Libby was busy working the biggest national-security issues at the very top of our government, trying to protect our butts. That's why he misspoke himself in speaking to FBI agents and trying to recall minutia for the grand jury.
Some amunition has come from unexpected (and possibly unsuspecting) quarters:
1. LEFT-WING INDYMEDIA http://colombia.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/38643.php article on "PLAME IS NO SECRET" and MANY NEW DETAILS ON BREWSTER-JENNINGS (previously undisclosed) PUBLISHED TUES. MAR 7.
2. BREWSTER-JENNINGS = BURKE DENNEHY (PLAME'S EMPLOYER) Brewster Jennings apparently was the name of an account at this accounting company in Boston. It may well have been a CIA account, but people associated with it did not consider it to be a secret.
3. ROBERT ELLMANN, JEAN C. EDWARDS named as BREWSTER EMPLOYEES (first since Plame). THEY PUT THEIR RESUMES ON THE WEB. http://colombia.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/38643.php MARCH 7 What has Libby or anyone else done that compares to that?
4. MARCH 12: CHICAGO TRIBUNE PICKS UP ON ABOVE (1, 3) FIVE DAYS LATER. Another sign of Brewster-Jennings' link to the CIA came from the online résumé of a Washington attorney, who until last week claimed to have been employed by Brewster-Jennings as an "engineering consultant" from 1985 to 1989 and to have served from 1989 to 1995 as a CIA "case officer," the agency's term for field operatives who collect information from paid informants. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-060311plame-story,1,2504459.story?coll=chi-news-hed (MARCH 12)
5. TRIBUNE SAYS BREWSTER REMOVED FROM RESUMES AFTER TRIB CALLED EDWARDS. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-060311plame-story,1,2504459.story?coll=chi-news-hed
6. LEFT-WING CRAPTOME http://cryptome.org/robert-ellmann.htm PUBLISHES ORIGINAL RESUMES. YES, THE CIA RESUMES ARE HERE TO SEE (Friday, March 17, 2006) and the Indymedia article pans out.
This could be critical for Scooter. It shows he was entrapped so he could be removed from office.
No leak, no crime. Entrapment, no time. Other likely defenses include Scooter's preoccupation with the people's business, also the difficulty of trying a case in which the CIA blocks the discovery of evidence by the defense (some things like the Presidents Daily Briefs really must be kept secret; other things are blocked by Scooter's enemies in the CIA using "classified information" as a ploy).
ping
Welcome to FR
He isn't charged with that..He is charged with giving false information to the Grand Jury,IIRC.
Welcome to FR and nice job. BUMP!
Welcome. You done good!
Leni
"No leak, no leak crime. It's as simple as that. Scooter Libby can clear his good name, as this very, very recent news shows. NOTE: He has to, because a conviction could cripple the administration and hurt the cause of good government for years to come. He can do it"
Maybe the lawyers here could help me out. President Clinton was impeached but not convicted for lying under oath during an investigation where charges were never brought on the original charge. And now we see a situation where Libby is charged with lying about during an investigation where the original charges are likely to never be charged.
So, is it or is it not a crime to lie to investigators if what they are investigating turns out to not be a crime? I guess this is something I should know...but I don't.
2. BREWSTER-JENNINGS = BURKE DENNEHY (PLAME'S EMPLOYER) Brewster Jennings apparently was the name of an account at this accounting company in Boston. It may well have been a CIA account, but people associated with it did not consider it to be a secret.
3. ROBERT ELLMANN, JEAN C. EDWARDS named as BREWSTER EMPLOYEES (first since Plame). THEY PUT THEIR RESUMES ON THE WEB. http://colombia.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/38643.php MARCH 7 What has Libby or anyone else done that compares to that?
4. MARCH 12: CHICAGO TRIBUNE PICKS UP ON ABOVE (1, 3) FIVE DAYS LATER. Another sign of Brewster-Jennings' link to the CIA came from the online résumé of a Washington attorney, who until last week claimed to have been employed by Brewster-Jennings as an "engineering consultant" from 1985 to 1989 and to have served from 1989 to 1995 as a CIA "case officer," the agency's term for field operatives who collect information from paid informants. case officer (MARCH 12)
5. TRIBUNE SAYS BREWSTER REMOVED FROM RESUMES AFTER TRIB CALLED EDWARDS. TRIBUNE SAYS BREWSTER REMOVED FROM RESUMES AFTER TRIB CALLED EDWARDS
6.LEFT-WING CRAPTOME PUBLISHES ORIGINAL RESUMES. LEFT-WING CRAPTOME PUBLISHES ORIGINAL RESUMES. YES, THE CIA RESUMES ARE HERE TO SEE (Friday, March 17, 2006) and the Indymedia article pans out.
This could be critical for Scooter. It shows he was entrapped so he could be removed from office.
No leak, no crime. Entrapment, no time. Other likely defenses include Scooter's preoccupation with the people's business, also the difficulty of trying a case in which the CIA blocks the discovery of evidence by the defense (some things like the Presidents Daily Briefs really must be kept secret; other things are blocked by Scooter's enemies in the CIA using "classified information" as a ploy).
I think misrepresenting the facts to a Grand Jury stands alone.
Wow--welcome!!
The whole matter is very complicated. There was a lot of honest debate within the administration when Mr. Libby talked to the FBI and the grand jury. It is hard to pinpoint who said what and to whom -- without giving away the store to America's enemies.
That is the tack his lawyers took in their filing on Friday.
Some think this is an open-and-shut case. However, a jury would have to be convinced he deliberately lied, that he didn't simply misspeak himself or fail to remember all of the details of his conversations with reporters and people in the administration. We all have misspoken ourselves, especially when under pressure and when involved in a complicated situtation.
"What did he know and when did he know it?" is a tricky game. So is "Who said what to whom at which of 1000 conversations?"
The jury would have to be convinced that Mr. Libby is not the subject of subjective prosecution also. Why single him out?
Why even investagate the so-called outing when Valerie Plame's coworkers put their Brewster Jennings reference on their resumes on the Web for the whole world to see? One lady lawyer even posted here CIA service. Why was Plame a secret when Edwards and the other guy were not?
I am all for effective intelligence gathering, but the CIA still needs to get its act together. State terrorists still are looking to make nuclear bombs. Islamic terrorists and freelance nuts still are looking for radioactive material to be dispersed with high explosives. CIA, let's find them and keep the uranium and technology out of their hands, and let's learn to keep some secrets and not have to depend on Fitzgerald to clean up after you.
Yes, it is a crime to impede a criminal investigation by lying, regardless of whether the investigation ever uncovers an underlying crime.
Remember Martha Stewart? She went to jail for obstructing the investigation, although she was never charged with the underlying crime of insider trading.
bttt
You are absolutely right. Fitz had to have something to show. And grand jury indictments are not that all hard to get, according to some legal sources.
Not only that, Jones lost the case against Clinton because there were no damages. She couldn't have won at trial. Just like Fitz wouldn't be able to prove a violation of outing the covert agent, because Plame doesn't meet the legal definition of covert.
When it's Libby on the line, people argue "if there can't be a crime, there can't be perjury." But in Clinton's case, they like to argue "perjury denies a person their fair shake in court" (or similar).
So, is it or is it not a crime to lie to investigators if what they are investigating turns out to not be a crime?
I know the answer, but think it's useful if one thinks through the ramifications of the alternative rules. If lying to investigators is not a crime unless the underlying case can be won, then Clinton "goes free," and people may gamble on lies in the hopes that the case fails on some other point.
The rule would also work in Libby's favor. It also could have helped Miller, if she felt free to lie to the GJ, knowing that Plame wasn't covert, instead of going to jail for refusing to divulge sources.
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.