 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Libby convicted
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Libby convicted From: mrdux Date: 06 Mar 07 - 01:04 PM This just in: WASHINGTON -- Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was convicted Tuesday of obstruction, perjury and lying to the FBI in an investigation into the leak of a CIA operative's identity. here's the full story |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Wesley S Date: 06 Mar 07 - 01:08 PM Gee - couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. |
|
Subject: BS: A bit harsh From: Jean(eanjay) Date: 06 Mar 07 - 01:08 PM Lewis Libby faces up to 30 years in prison and a $1 million fine for lying - well, actually perjury and obstruction of justice. Seems a bit harsh - or could the consequences have been so serious? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Peace Date: 06 Mar 07 - 01:10 PM Yes it could. It coulda happened to Cheney. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: wysiwyg Date: 06 Mar 07 - 01:14 PM The jury spent almost as long, reviewing the facts presented and applicable case lawy to reach this sentence, as it spent hearing the evidence. In the end they convicted only on the better-supported portion of the charges and let reasonable doubt lead them to acquit on the rest. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Jean(eanjay) Date: 06 Mar 07 - 01:14 PM mrdux - sorry, I started a thread on this just after you; I must have been typing as you were pressing submit. What I said in mine was that he faces up to 30 years in prison and a $1million dollar fine. This seems a bit harsh. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Donuel Date: 06 Mar 07 - 01:20 PM The prosecutor said the door is still open for Libby to come clean and inform on Dick Cheney. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A bit harsh From: Donuel Date: 06 Mar 07 - 01:22 PM Rush Limbausgh says, What we have here is a criminalization of politics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Stilly River Sage Date: 06 Mar 07 - 01:23 PM We wish. . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: jeffp Date: 06 Mar 07 - 01:24 PM Actually, he now only faces up to 25 years, as he was acquitted on one of the 5-year charges. He will actually serve a good deal less than that, as sentencing guidelines indicate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A bit harsh From: John MacKenzie Date: 06 Mar 07 - 01:29 PM Sorry it's the other way round Donuel. Crime is just like politics, but without all those nasty lies! G |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A bit harsh From: Donuel Date: 06 Mar 07 - 01:29 PM The most Libby will spend in an upscale prison will be 2 years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Donuel Date: 06 Mar 07 - 01:33 PM 2 years tops |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Donuel Date: 06 Mar 07 - 01:35 PM 2 years, I'll bet you 2 moandolins and raise you 1 autoharp |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Jean(eanjay) Date: 06 Mar 07 - 01:41 PM This has been a long investigation but it doesn't say how much it will have cost. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: jeffp Date: 06 Mar 07 - 01:57 PM Well, they can also soak him for up to a million bucks, so maybe he can finance part of it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: mrdux Date: 06 Mar 07 - 02:12 PM One wonders if Scooter will spend any time behind bars at all: the office pool is on when Libby gets his presidential pardon: before or after sentencing. Or maybe he's pissed off enough to cooperate with the prosecution, which would substantially reduce his sentence. . . Realistically, though, the estimates I've been hearing are substantially less than even two years -- comparisons are being drawn to the sentence given to Martha Stewart: a combo of less than a year at Club Fed, followed by home confinement, probation and a whopping fine. Wouldn't surprise me if Libby got something like that. The jurors' reaction was interesting. One juror, a former Washington Post journalist, said: "I will say there was a tremendous amount of sympathy for Mr. Libby on the jury. It was said a number of times, 'What are we doing with this guy here? Where's Rove? Where are these other guys?' I'm not saying we didn't think Mr. Libby was guilty of the things we found him guilty of. It seemed like he was, as Mr. Wells put it, he was the fall guy." michael ps to eanjay -- thanks, but no apology needed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 06 Mar 07 - 02:40 PM If Cheney and Rove aren't indicted, they should at least pay a generous chunk of Libby's fine in exchange for his taking the fall for them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Stilly River Sage Date: 06 Mar 07 - 02:50 PM Yup. You pegged that one, BWL. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: mrdux Date: 06 Mar 07 - 05:06 PM As I think about it, my guess is that Scooter will probably be given a Martha Stewart-like sentence. It wouldn't surprise me if his lawyers were able to persuade the judge to let him stay out of jail pending appeal, in which case, look for a pardon in early January, 2009, just before W. leaves the building. I agree that any money that may have to be coughed up -- bond on appeal, fines -- isn't likely to be coming out of Scooter's own pocket. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A bit harsh From: Ebbie Date: 06 Mar 07 - 05:15 PM As to whether his crime was so serious, Libby really had no way of knowing just what consequences he was setting in motion. Valerie Plame had been a covert CIA operative- (in fact, she was evidently brought home after Ames' perfidy became known for fear that she would be in danger); for all Libby/Cheney/Rove/Novak knew there were people down the line whose covers could have been blown or just possibly who could have lost their lives. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Ebbie Date: 06 Mar 07 - 05:25 PM I'm repeating this post on this thread because I think it's an important point. "As to whether his crime was so serious, Libby really had no way of knowing just what consequences he was setting in motion. Valerie Plame had been a covert CIA operative- (in fact, she was evidently brought home after Ames' perfidy became known for fear that she would be in danger); for all Libby/Cheney/Rove/Novak knew there were people down the line whose covers could have been blown or just possibly who could have lost their lives." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A bit harsh From: Peace Date: 06 Mar 07 - 05:27 PM Harsh? He put an operative at risk. What's harsh is that the bastard will likely have to take the whole rap by himself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Bobert Date: 06 Mar 07 - 06:15 PM I just saw on of the jurors give a statement to the press and in essence he said that the jury felt sorry for Libby because they felt he was a scapegoat and taking the heat for Rove and Cheney... Yeah, I'm sure the usual cast of Bushites will come along and call me a liar or whatever but it's gonna be all over the news thonight and in the coming days so I'd advise the usaul cast to hold their fire or be further embarressed by their narrow little wrong views.. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: dianavan Date: 06 Mar 07 - 06:24 PM Libby/Cheney/Rove/Novak were all playing fast and loose with peoples' lives but that sort of sums up the morality of this administration. I'm sure that Libby knows that his only chance is to keep his mouth shut. If he doesn't squeal, he will surely be pardoned. Kinda makes you sick to think that these are role models for today's youth. The message is, of course, lie, steal and cheat if you want to succeed. If the U.S. administration can get away with it, so can we. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Ebbie Date: 06 Mar 07 - 08:06 PM I don't feel sorry for Libby. I wish - and hope - that his 'superiors' will eventually be brought before the bar- but Libby is/was no little innocent. He was a savvy, cynical, ambitious man who knowingly served a corrupt master. I'm surprised that the jurors would report feeling pity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Charley Noble Date: 06 Mar 07 - 08:26 PM I'm pleased that at least Libby was convicted of several felonies. That verdict might slow down a few other potential fall guys in the Bush Administration. Be nice if Cheney and Rove acknowledged their responsibilities as well but fat chance of that happening. Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Donuel Date: 06 Mar 07 - 08:32 PM Has anyone found Novak lately? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Bobert Date: 06 Mar 07 - 09:23 PM Ebbie, Yeah, I know how ya feel but... ... fir jurors who were constantly told that Cheney and Rove were doing this and that and they were lookin' at a guy who should have been the 3rd or 4th in line in terms of severity to be charged I can understand how they felt... I think had that been the case and the folks above him charged then there wouldn't have been an ounce of pity... Beaubear |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: iancarterb Date: 06 Mar 07 - 11:35 PM Inasmuch as Cheney paid taxes on 39 million in income in his first year as vp, he could easily support Libby for life. Shouldn't be necessary, though, as he'll be pardoned between the election in Nov 08 and inauguration in 09. I.LewLib will not be flipping burgers if he's fined TEN million dollars. I can't think of a more appropriate sentence though- about 25 years at McBurgerQueen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Dickey Date: 07 Mar 07 - 02:41 AM I can't understand why someone would lie about something he didn't do. Novack was right there on your favorite news chanel tonight saying Libby didn't do anything, it was Armitage. If the whole thing was about who outed Plame, why was Armitage ignored? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Ebbie Date: 07 Mar 07 - 10:36 AM Last night on As it stands, sentencing is scheduled in June 2007. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Scoville Date: 07 Mar 07 - 12:53 PM I don't think it will stick, but I'm going to enjoy it for as long as it does. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Peace Date: 07 Mar 07 - 01:12 PM It would be fitting to put Libby into covert ops. Say, uh, Iran. Yeah, Iran. Yeah. And send Cheney as his controller. Yep. "We have an agent in place but he has nothing to do with the company that was bought by Heinz. Noting to do with beans." Let the punishment fit the crime. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: beardedbruce Date: 07 Mar 07 - 01:23 PM Peace, Libby is not convicted of releasing Plume's name.- Just lying about it, committing perjury, and obstruction of justice. He deserves to be convicted. Now, what about the other person in high office, who lied, committed perjury, and obstructed justice? When can we expect Bill Clinto to serve time? Oh, I forgot- Democrats are exempt from the laws of the US that the rest of us are held to. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: TIA Date: 07 Mar 07 - 01:49 PM Lying about a blowjob = lying about the outing of a CIA operative? I've lied about blowjobs (and so have you Bruce), but never about outing a CIA operative (and neither have you Bruce). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: beardedbruce Date: 07 Mar 07 - 01:53 PM TIA, Lying to a grand jury investigating a felony... But that is ok, as long as it was someone YOU support. And how would you know if I lied? I certainly don't recalL any such false statements on that topic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: beardedbruce Date: 07 Mar 07 - 01:57 PM Or is it that you consider it OK to lie to a Grand Jury to make yourself look better? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: beardedbruce Date: 07 Mar 07 - 02:02 PM From the Article of Impeachment as passed In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of justice, in that: On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth before a Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following: (1) the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee; (2) prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a Federal civil rights action brought against him; (3) prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action; and (4) his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action. ..... In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a Federal civil rights action brought against him in a duly instituted judicial proceeding. The means used to implement this course of conduct or scheme included one or more of the following acts: (1) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to execute a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false and misleading. (2) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to give perjurious, false and misleading testimony if and when called to testify personally in that proceeding. (3) On or about December 28, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly engaged in, encouraged or supported a scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in a Federal civil rights action brought against him. (4) Beginning on or about December 7, 1997, and continuing through and including January 14, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton intensified and succeeded in an effort to secure job assistance to a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him in order to corruptly prevent the truthful testimony of that witness in that proceeding at a time when the truthful testimony of that witness would have been harmful to him. (5) On January 17, 1998, at his deposition in a Federal civil rights action brought against him, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and misleading statements to a Federal judge characterizing an affidavit, in order to prevent questioning deemed relevant by the judge. Such false and misleading statements were subsequently acknowledged by his attorney in a communication to that judge. (6) On or about January 18 and January 20-21, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton related a false and misleading account of events relevant to a Federal civil rights action brought against him to a potential witness in that proceeding, in order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness. (7) On or about January 21, 23 and 26, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton made false and misleading statements to potential witnesses in a Federal grand jury proceeding in order to corruptly influence the testimony of those witnesses. The false and misleading statements made by William Jefferson Clinton were repeated by the witnesses to the grand jury, causing the grand jury to receive false and misleading information. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Don Firth Date: 07 Mar 07 - 02:16 PM I'm beginning to find it highly amusing to note that whenever someone in the Bush administration gets his ass in a sling, quicker than a bullet ricocheting off a flat rock, some Bush apologist feels ompelled to try to divert attention by mentioning Clinton. Tap-dancing on a patch of black ice. But wotthehell, it's all they've got. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: beardedbruce Date: 07 Mar 07 - 02:19 PM Don, "some Bush apologist feels ompelled to try to divert attention by mentioning Clinton." I STATED that a convicted perjury should go to jail- no excuse for what he did. What am I diverting attention from? YOU are making excuses for Clinton, not me. I just want to know why there are two sets of laws, one that apply to those you dislike, and one that applies to those you approve of? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Dickey Date: 07 Mar 07 - 02:21 PM I guess that separates me from the Bush apologists. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Ebbie Date: 07 Mar 07 - 02:25 PM If Bill Clinton had, from the very beginning, maintained that any marital infraction was none of the United States of America's business, do you think that a special investigator would have been funded and set free to ascertain the facts of the matter? If they had and Clinton had been supoened and he persisted in the view that the matter was not under the nation's umbrella, don't you think it is likely that they would have had to retreat? Damn. That's what I wish he had done. Clinton's infidelity was not the first dalliance - nor will be the last- seen in the august halls of the White House. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Don Firth Date: 07 Mar 07 - 02:32 PM I'm not making excuses for Clinton, BB. I'm commenting on both the speed and the consistency with which Bush apologists pull Clinton out of the hat whenever the Bush League screws up and gets caught. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: beardedbruce Date: 07 Mar 07 - 02:36 PM Ebbie, At the time, B. Clinton was under investigation about a FELONY, not a dalliance. Had he told the truth, he might, or might not have been found guilty of that felony. Since HE chose to lie, my objection is to those who declare that JUSTICE IS DONE when a Republican is convicted of perjury, yet say that the reason B.C. lied was reason to let him violate the same law without punishment. I think BOTH should spend time in jail for violating the law against perjury- WHY do you think that each person ( as long as they are Democrats) gets to decide whether it is important enough to tell the truth about something to a Grand Jury? "2) prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a Federal civil rights action brought against him; (3) prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action; and (4) his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action. ... (1) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to execute a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false and misleading. (2) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to give perjurious, false and misleading testimony if and when called to testify personally in that proceeding. (3) On or about December 28, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly engaged in, encouraged or supported a scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in a Federal civil rights action brought against him. (4) Beginning on or about December 7, 1997, and continuing through and including January 14, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton intensified and succeeded in an effort to secure job assistance to a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him in order to corruptly prevent the truthful testimony of that witness in that proceeding at a time when the truthful testimony of that witness would have been harmful to him. (5) On January 17, 1998, at his deposition in a Federal civil rights action brought against him, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and misleading statements to a Federal judge characterizing an affidavit, in order to prevent questioning deemed relevant by the judge. Such false and misleading statements were subsequently acknowledged by his attorney in a communication to that judge. (6) On or about January 18 and January 20-21, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton related a false and misleading account of events relevant to a Federal civil rights action brought against him to a potential witness in that proceeding, in order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness. (7) On or about January 21, 23 and 26, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton made false and misleading statements to potential witnesses in a Federal grand jury proceeding in order to corruptly influence the testimony of those witnesses. The false and misleading statements made by William Jefferson Clinton were repeated by the witnesses to the grand jury, causing the grand jury to receive false and misleading information. " TRY to read what he was accused of- NOT a "marital infraction " Just as Libby WAS NOT accused of releasing Plume's name. THE CRIME is in lying to the Grand Jury in a FELONY investigation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Don Firth Date: 07 Mar 07 - 02:37 PM Addendum: The point of constantly bringing up Clinton, of course, is to divert the discussion from the Bush administration's transgressions and try to turn it to Clinton--who is irrelevant to the discussion. The Clinton matter has been discussed ad nauseum and doesn't need to be rehashed yet again. Now, let's get back to the subject. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: beardedbruce Date: 07 Mar 07 - 02:40 PM Don, And I'm commenting on both the speed and the consistency with which Clinton apologists pull "blowjob" out of the hat to avoid admitting that he was lying to avoid a felony conviction. But you still seem to approve of "separate and unequal" enforcement of the law in regards to Democrats and Republicans. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: Songster Bob Date: 07 Mar 07 - 02:43 PM "YOU are making excuses for Clinton, not me. I just want to know why there are two sets of laws, one that apply to those you dislike, and one that applies to those you approve of?" Notice that you are asking that convicted perjurers be punished. Libby was convicted. Clinton was not. That's what impeachment and conviction are all about. The House impeaches (indicts, effectively) and the Senate tries (and convicts or not). Clinton can't serve time for something he was not convicted of. Libby can serve time because he was convicted. Does that make Clinton a saint? No. Does that make Libby a felon? Yes. Simple, you know? Bob |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: beardedbruce Date: 07 Mar 07 - 02:47 PM Bush can't serve time for something he was not convicted of. Libby can serve time because he was convicted. Does that make Bush a saint? No. Does that make Libby a felon? Yes. Simple, you know? So, UNTIL after the impeachment AND conviction of Bush for some reason, shouldn't HE be considered innocent? I fail to see that being represented here on Mudcat... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libby convicted From: dianavan Date: 07 Mar 07 - 02:48 PM bb - It always gets down to this point: Clinton and Libby were accused of the same crime. Their lies for were for different reasons. Thats why the public (and notice I didn't say Dems.) is more forgiving of Clinton. |
