Libby Guilty
by KevinMarch 6th, 2007
On four of the five counts, including obstruction of justice and perjury. In plain terms, this means the the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Libby, top aide to the Vice President of the United States, lied in order to obstruct an investigation into the outing of a CIA agent. That strongly implies a conspiracy to, at least, cover up the identity of the original leaker. Libby’s position strongly implies that the conspiracy was taking place very high in the power structure of the Executive Branch. Fitzgerald made it clear in his closing arguments that he thought the conspiracy reached all the way to the Vice President. Hopefully, the sentence will be large enough to encourage Libby to co-operate with Fitzgerald’s investigation.
Categories: General |
It’s all a rightwing conspiracy.
I just heard a juror explain his reasoning for voting guilty. If he is an example of the quality of the jurors, it is not surprising they reached the guilty verdict. What a blithering dope!
One of the brilliant questions they asked the judge this morning was whether or not it was a crime to lie to a journalist. Also, after 10 days of deliberation they asked this morning to have it explained to them exactly what Libby was accused of.
“In plain terms, this means the the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Libby, top aide to the Vice President of the United States, lied in order to obstruct an investigation into the outing of a CIA agent.”
Technically, all it means is he lied to investigators.
SU
I am pretty sure the obstruction charge means he lied in order to obstruct the investigation.
Pete McCloskey in “When politics infects justice” (SF Chronicle March 6) misses an essential point regarding Watergate and what effect it has now. Before Nixon waived good-bye, he picked his own successor Ford. Nixon was not indicted but was pardoned by Ford.
If Nixon was instead indicted and convicted for real war crimes including bombing Cambodia and lying about it, then the current President would not so flagrantly violate the law.
In 2006 when asked about Nuremburg Trials for Bush etal, McCloskey said it was not in the cards, and would not be good for the country. It is that kind of thinking during Watergate that left us with the remnants of that infection, bringing us to the insane state of affairs visited us by the Bush Empire builders, cheats and torturers.
Pete looks at this as merely corruption that has to be weeded out every so often. As long as the Executive is above the law we are headed toward empire and away from democracy. Nuremburg Now! Impeach, Indict, Commit war crimes, Go to jail! The Executive branch must understand that it’s not above the law.
Blah, blah, blah. It’s amazing how hatred perverts the liberal mind.
Juror Denis Collins said, “We asked ourselves, what is HE doing here? Where is Rove and all these other guys….He was the fall guy.”
This statement in itself should be a basis for appeal. This juror obviously expresses his bias and prejudice. What Rove or anyone else did or did not do should not have been a consideration.
Fred -
An appeal? By who? Just how dim can you be? The bias indicated, even assuming there is any, would be that other people should have been prosecuted instead of Libby - that is, it would be in favor of Libby.
What, then, is Libby going to appeal that he should have been convicted on the other count but wasn’t because of juror bias? That would be a very unusual brief that would make, I expect, for fun reading.
“An appeal? By who(sic)?”
Duh! By the person who was convicted. Just how dim can you be?
HAHAHAHA!
Fred, you’re such a cute little troll.
Putting your best food forward by citing the delusions of your grade-school grammar nazi. Aaaawwwwww…
“Putting your best food(sic)forward”
Thanks. I always try to put my best food forward, especially when I have guest for dinner.
See, even I can make a typo.
Juror Denis Collins is a neighbor of witness Tim Russert and worked with witness Woodward. Would you want people who are neighbors and co-workers of witnesses be on your jury? It certainly appears to be a conflict of interest.
“Would you want people who are neighbors and co-workers of witnesses be(sic) on your jury?”
Keep digging Fred, but Scooter is still a convicted felon.
Scooters going to be pardoned.
“Scooters going to be pardoned.”
I hope so. However, I don’t think Bush will do it.
[...] Lean Left: In plain terms, this means the the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Libby, top aide to the Vice President of the United States, lied in order to obstruct an investigation into the outing of a CIA agent. That strongly implies a conspiracy to, at least, cover up the identity of the original leaker. Libby’s position strongly implies that the conspiracy was taking place very high in the power structure of the Executive Branch. [...]
“That strongly implies a conspiracy to, at least, cover up the identity of the original leaker.”
We know who the original leaker was. It was Richard Armitage. Fitzgerald knew that before he or his people talked to Libby.
Fred, how does the ultimate success of a police investigation mitigate a criminal attempt to obstruct that investigation?
Hmmm. The prosecutor knew the identity of the ‘leaker’ within 3 weeks of starting his investigation and still wastes taxpayer money by continuing to bring people in fromt of a grand jury. Plame was already known to work for the CIA because he husband, who committed perjury to the Senate Intelligence committee, had already blown her ‘cover’ (she hadn’t worked covertly in the field)in a published article two years prior. Then Libby gets prison for not remembering if he first heard about Valerie Plame from Russert or someone else? Somebody get Libby a pardon and the rest of you left leaners please stop drinking the Kool-Aid.
“Hmmm. The prosecutor knew the identity of the ‘leaker’ within 3 weeks of starting his investigation and still wastes taxpayer money by continuing to bring people in fromt of a grand jury. Plame was already known to work for the CIA because he husband, who committed perjury to the Senate Intelligence committee, had already blown her ‘cover’ (she hadn’t worked covertly in the field)in a published article two years prior. Then Libby gets prison for not remembering if he first heard about Valerie Plame from Russert or someone else? Somebody get Libby a pardon and the rest of you left leaners please stop drinking the Kool-Aid.”
The leftist loons in here know all of this. It’s not about truth to them; it’s about hatred.
“Fred, how does the ultimate success of a police investigation mitigate a criminal attempt to obstruct that investigation?”
I give up. Your tell me how it does. Since I never said it mitigated anything, what’s your point?
Hopefully, Libby will not win any concessions on appeal. Also, I certainly hope that Libby is not pardoned. See my poem “Capitol Hill Winds” posted a few months back. It is a relief to see Libby convicted. Nice to be on the winning side in both the elections and in this case. May the “Democratic Revolution” also claim another turkey if Gonzales resigns. Hey, and let’s get Rove out of there, too.