quote:They do not bite but they are hard to keep on a leash.
That would be a generous way to put it. In keeping with this analogy, it would be more accurate to say that they enjoy peeing on things.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Uhhh...sort of. As I understand it, Richard Armitage came forth himself and was included in the investigation.
edit: I don't know if they had established it prior to him coming forward.
---
edit 2: I was puzzled by why you asked that. So I went back to your earlier postings, in one of which you said:
quote:He admitted it but was never even questioned. How can any serious investigation into who leaked her name not include Armitage? Are you seriously saying that Armitage did not need to be questioned?
I don't know where you got the idea that Richard Armitage was not questioned by Fitzgerald. He was questioned, extensively, and testified 3 times in front of the grand jury.
posted
Bush should have granted a full pardon. All Libby did was misremember his conversations with reporters. Reporters whose testimony was also inconsistent.
Some critics are acting as if this was the first pardon or commutaion that a president had ever made. Clinton even pardoned his own brother's cociane convictions.
It sickened me today to read Mrs Clintons criticism of this. What a hypocrit. Her husband lied to a grant jury and got away without a criminal record. If there are two politicians that should stay quiet on the importance of perjury it's the Clintons.
Also this investigation should not have lasted more than a day. Plame was not covered by the law prohibting the disclosure of undercover agents. If she had been Armitage would be facing charges, since he's the one who relived the identity of one of the people who played a role in sending Wilson to Niger. That no law had been broken was clear before the investigation began. In essence the investigation was what they call a perjury hunt: asking enough people enough questions until somebody trips-up. The longer the hunt lasted the better for Fitzgerald, who could continue to relish the power that came with the special prosecuter appointment.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am amazed at how confident people seem to be basing their defense of Scooter Libby on obvious falsehoods.
quote:All Libby did was misremember his conversations with reporters.
Even by the information readily available to us (let alone that presented to the jury), this is not true. He claimed that after learning of this information (which had to be established from external sources, as he denied learning of it then), he forgot it until told by...was it Bob Novak, one of the reporters, anyway. However, during the time where he claimed he had forgotten it, there were records of him informing other people of this information.
quote:Plame was not covered by the law prohibting the disclosure of undercover agents. If she had been Armitage would be facing charges, since he's the one who relived the identity of one of the people who played a role in sending Wilson to Niger.
That's also blatantly false. The statutes that were in play in the investigation (and which were discussed at great length) do not make it illegal in all cases where classified information is disclosed. There are several qualifications on this. If I recall correctly, among them are the person needs to have known that it was classified and knowningly disclosed it. Armitage was cleared because it appeared that he did not know that Valerie Plame working for the CIA was classified information.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It sickened me today to read Mrs Clintons criticism of this. What a hypocrit. Her husband lied to a grant jury and got away without a criminal record. If there are two politicians that should stay quiet on the importance of perjury it's the Clintons.
I think Bill Clinton did something very wrong by committing perjury.
However, I've got two issues here.
1) For some reason, you seem to be blaming Hillary Clinton for something Bill Clinton did. I'm not sure how you justify this. Did she commit perjury at some point?
2) Lying, under oath, about a personal affair is, to me, a matter of far less gravity than lying about matters of national security and potential goverment abuse. I think you'd have to have a seriously messed up sense of proportion to think differently.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Lying, under oath, about a personal affair is, to me, a matter of far less gravity than lying about matters of national security and potential goverment abuse. I think you'd have to have a seriously messed up sense of proportion to think differently.
Do you have a ranked list of subject matter that is less or more important not to lie about on the stand? Just for future reference.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bill Clinton received some punishment for his perjury. He wasn't charged with obstruction of justice (as Libby was), although he probably could have been given his admission later that he deliberately tried to mislead.
Ultimately, while I think it may be a mistake to compare the two cases (Clinton and Libby) I do think that perjury is a serious crime and deserves to punished no matter who commits it -- even the President.
Clinton wasn't JUST lying about sex -- he was lying to save himself from several serious charges and he ended up paying $850,000 in civil damages in one of the related suits after he was convicted of perjury.
Posts: 61 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure I understand your point, Geoff. Could you explain what you are getting at?
You're saying that people are messed-up if they disagree with you about the relative severity of the untruths in question. I was asking if you have a broad set of standards a person can apply to lies given on the stand, such that they can arrive at correct opinions on the matter.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm still not seeing why you think that is relevant. Is it just some sort of shot at me or does it have some reflection on what is being discussed? If so, could you explain?
edit: Or, maybe you are disagreeing with my valuing there? Do you think that lying about matters of national security and potential government abuse aren't a more serious matter than lying about a personal affair?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No need to be so suspicious I don't have any grand plot to get you to say anything incriminating
I just was taken aback by the fact that you're willing to characterize people who disagree with you about this issue so negatively, and it made me want to ask if you had a clear standard that you think all non-messed-up people should be applying to this issue across the board, and if it's something you can provide to them. Or if this is just a judgment call you're making on the spot, determining not only that you are right, but that people who disagree with you have something seriously wrong with them.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
I'm not getting where saying that people who find someone's private affair at least as important as matters of national security and government abuse have, in my opinion, some pretty screwed up priorities suggests that I would have some sort of master list of all issues or that me providing such a list would be at all relevant to anything that was said.
I haven't been able to extract a sensical meaning to what you are saying that doesn't look like a rather bizarre attack.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Plame's position at the CIA was not covered by any law. She was not an agent working in a foreign country undercover, her employment at the CIA was not classified and was not protected by any law. Period. There was never any serious question about it. If she had been, Fitzgerald would have stopped at Armetage and he would have charged him. It is clear that Fitsgerald knew from the beginning that Armetage was the first to make the disclosure.
MrSquicky, your characterization of Libby's testimony proves my point. Libby misremembered who he had talked to, when he had talked to them, and what they had discussed. Libby had nothing to hide. If Libby had first consulted with Woodward's and Miller's memories, he still would not have presented any self incriminating evidence. Libby's prosecution served only one purpose: he need one conviction to help Fitzgerald justify all the time and tax payer money he had wasted on his investigation.
I'm not blaming Hillary for what Bill did, I'm accusing her of being a hypocrit for her change of heart on the seriousness of perjury before a grand jury.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Can you get one at a pet store? Is it safe for children under 6?
^- The most important questions asked so far in this thread.
I'm sorry that I share the same nickname as Mr. Libby. I think, out of respect to all of us who don't lie under oath--and those of us who don't lie at all-- he should change his name to Remoulade.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Plame's position at the CIA was not covered by any law. She was not an agent working in a foreign country undercover, her employment at the CIA was not classified and was not protected by any law.
I'm not sure where you are getting this legal opinion from, but it seems to differ from that of the CIA and the legal experts working on this case. Could you present support for this position?
As I already covered, Armitage could not be prosecuted under the relevant laws because he did not fit the particulars of the statute. It does not appear that he knew that her CIA employment was classified, which is a necessary element in him being charged with a crime.
Likewise already covered, the potential for wrong doing (and thus the investigation) was broader than the first person to divulge this to a non-cleared person. There were serious issues as to whether White House officials did knowingly disclose classified information, which were not precluded by Richard Armitage likely being the first person to do so.
---
Perhaps my summary of that particular inconsistency in Libby's testimony was unclear. As I understand it, he claimed, initially, to have found out about Valerie Plame's status as working for the CIA from a reporter a little after Richard Armitage told. However, they were able to establish that he was told about it significantly earlier than that. He responded that he must have forgotten, because, in his recollection, he found out from the reporter. However, they were able to demonstrate that after being told about it, but prior to any reporters being able to tell him, he was telling people about Plame and her CIA status.
---
Do you have any indication that Hillary Clinton didn't regard perjury before a grand jury as serious?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you have any reason to believe that the workings of the justice system went awry here, or is that just a partisan talking point?
I think it went a little bit awry, but not so awry as to warrant executive intervention - which is (at least as practiced today) an extraordinary remedy for awryness.
To be more specific, I think Libby's sentence was too harsh (based on what I know) when compared to similar sentences for similar offenses. But it was too harsh by a little bit only, and not inherently unjust. We appoint judges to make these decisions, and the reasons for going against that decision were insufficient to justify commuting the sentence.
For the record, the guy who stuffed the classified documents into his clothing got off way too light. But that has NOTHING to do with whether Libby did.
quote:All Libby did was misremember his conversations with reporters.
We don't know that. We do know that a jury found that he did not just misremember his conversations with a reporter, but that he intended to hinder the investigation.
I wish people who didn't attend the entire trial would stop asserting this as a fact. Intent and knowing untruths were elements of the crime and the jury would not have convicted had they thought he merely misremembered.
I disagree with the characterization of Clinton's lie as being about a personal affair. It was about a coordinated attempt to deny someone recompense for a pretty serious civil complaint. Like Libby, the underlying "offense" (in Clinton's case, sexual harassment) was ultimately not proved, but it was still aimed at thwarting an investigation of an attempt to circumvent the justice system.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I disagree with the characterization of Clinton's lie as being about a personal affair. It was about a coordinated attempt to deny someone recompense for a pretty serious civil complaint. Like Libby, the underlying "offense" (in Clinton's case, sexual harassment) was ultimately not proved, but it was still aimed at thwarting an investigation of an attempt to circumvent the justice system.
I wasn't speaking to the larger context, but rather the specific content of the lie. I think, as noted, any instance where people perjure themselves is very bad. However, I'm asserting that the matter here is more grave than in the Clinton perjury, because of the issues of national security and potential government abuse.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if its been in a linked article, but apparently Bush did not consult with the Justice Department at all (or the special prosecutor in particular) over the commutation.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mig, DarkKnight, you two are a pair of party hacks. I voted for the man twice, and I have no respect for your dogged loyalty.
Is that going to be the stance of the conservative base on this? That lawbreaking is OK if other convicts managed to get off?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not blaming Hillary for what Bill did, I'm accusing her of being a hypocrit for her change of heart on the seriousness of perjury before a grand jury.
In what world do you live in where a first lady is supposed to publicly come out against her President husband in any case against him? She was supposed to what, have a press conference and denounce him, and then move out of the West Wing the next day?
She was going to lose in the eyes of Republicans, I think no matter what she did. If she stands by her husband then she's weak and abides perjury and betrayal, but if she had left him she'd have Bible thumpers all over her for abandoning her marriage. Given a lose/lose situation, I think she tried to do the more honorable thing and make her marriage work.
I think it's a pretty low blow to try and muzzle her for something her husband did. If that were the case, Laura Bush should shut her mouth before the very few times she deigns to speak in public. Heck, she probably should anyway since she sounds like a detatched unsympathetic fool. But if that's the new standard then sure, let it ring forth throughout the land that according to Republicans, spouses are now responsible for the crimes of their significant others.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Heck, she probably should anyway since she sounds like a detatched unsympathetic fool.
For the whole post in general, but this line in specific, Lyr, what possible purpose did you think this served?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:We do know that a jury found that he did not just misremember his conversations with a reporter, but that he intended to hinder the investigation.
That's the point at issue. It's not as if the jury didn't take into account Libby's unique circumstance. They found him guilty of obstructing justice. Now if we are going to be casual about secondary crimes like aiding and abetting, obstructing justice, and accessory after the fact, then we are going to have to take a serious look at the evidence gathering process and prosecution of a great many people in jail. Libby's sentence has serious ramifications for every Prosecutor and Investigator who relies on witness testimony to build their cases. If we neuter those crimes, then I think it hamstrings the Justice department in a meaningful way.
____
As an aside, there is a great scene from Joseph Heller's "Good as Gold," where some insider brags about all the favors he is owed in Washington for every time he has lied under oath.
quote:I wasn't speaking to the larger context, but rather the specific content of the lie. I think, as noted, any instance where people perjure themselves is very bad. However, I'm asserting that the matter here is more grave than in the Clinton perjury, because of the issues of national security and potential government abuse.
Fair enough. I even agree Clinton's lie wasn't as bad, but mainly on the national security front.
The underlying issue with Clinton was one of governmental abuse as well, though, both as governor and as President. It was abuse of a single individual and a breach of trust with a public employee, although not one that affected government as a whole.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, thinking about it, I'd agree with that assessment. There was definitely a matter of abuse of power in the Clinton situation.
Random tought, is there a potential difference in seriousness between instances of personal abuses of power, which I would classify Clinton's unacceptible sexual relationship with a junior subordinate, and a governmental abuse, such as may have happened here.
The second feels worse/more important to me, but I'm not entirely sure why.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mig: Plame's position at the CIA was not covered by any law. She was not an agent working in a foreign country undercover, her employment at the CIA was not classified and was not protected by any law. Period. There was never any serious question about it.
The 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act makes it illegal to knowingly out someone of Plame's status at the time. She alternated between official cover and NOC, either of which are inarguably classified status.
As is patently typical for you, you have no idea what you are talking about. The investigation was only sidelined because of the 'knowingly' part, not because it magically turned out that Valerie Plame's position was something that you could spill the beans about without repercussion.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Random tought, is there a potential difference in seriousness between instances of personal abuses of power, which I would classify Clinton's unacceptible sexual relationship with a junior subordinate, and a governmental abuse, such as may have happened here.
The second feels worse/more important to me, but I'm not entirely sure why.
It feels worse to me as well. (Quick quibble: the underlying allegation at issue in the civil case was one of forced sexual contact - the Monica situation was evidence to be used in the Paula Jones proceedings - not merely one of an inappropriate sexual relationship.)
Both amount to a misuse of government power. The Libby situation, however, involved the government attempting to persuade us - the bosses - of something. It was aimed at governance as a whole, not just letting someone in power get away with something he otherwise couldn't.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't post my knee-jerk reaction to this news. Having thought it over a bit more, I think I would have been totally fine with Bush giving Libby a respite of the jailtime until after his appeals were exhausted - basically saying "I think the appeals will overturn this so I don't think he should serve jailtime before the appeal." I'm far from a fan of most of Bush's policies, but that's a use of executive that seems pretty reasonable.
I don't think I'm a fan of Presidential pardons in general, regardless of the party, as they tend to be used. Maybe there are other cases where a pardon is being used as an actual oversight function, but it just seems like all the cases that we hear about are situations where a President pardons his friends on the way out of office or uses pardons as political currency.
Of course, if we're talking about things I dislike in general, "politicians" is also on that list.
Ford should not have pardoned Nixon. I understand the reasoning at the time -- national reconciliation -- but I think a president being put on trial for his crimes would have sent a message to other politicians that use the same techniques. Cheney, I'm looking at you...
Bush Sr. should not have pardoned Weinberger and Co for the Iran-Contra manueverings, or Armand Hammer (which Reagan had resisted doing).
Clinton should not have pardoned Marc Rich.
Bush should not have commuted Scooter Libby. A respite would be tolerable, to keep him out of prison while the appeal continues, but not this or a pardon.
[ July 04, 2007, 08:56 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chris, in all honesty, that's probably too short of a list. For all the "famous" bad pardons, there are a dozen ones almost as bad that don't get the name recognition.
Frankly, I'd be okay with removing this particular power from the executive branch altogether.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Frankly, I'd be okay with removing this particular power from the executive branch altogether.
No, it's a wonderful power. How else can he make fall guys so obedient to defending his cadre if he can't assure them ahead of time that they won't spend a day in jail for obfuscating an investigation?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Heck, she probably should anyway since she sounds like a detatched unsympathetic fool.
For the whole post in general, but this line in specific, Lyr, what possible purpose did you think this served?
What a minute, posts have to have points now?
I was refuting Mig's gibberish about Hillary. Sure I got carried away, but I still think it had purpose.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyone want to bet that if OSC refers to the Libby issue at all, it'll be to excuse Bush and bash Democrats for some hypocricy-that-or-other?
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure if he'll excuse Dubya-though I wouldn't be surprised-but I would be surprised if he didn't take the opportunity to lambast Democrats.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My take on this is not as fanatical as I've read here.
1) Mr. Libby is not evil incarnate. Even the most ant-Bush people should agree with that, since there can be only one Evil Incarnated at a time and they have others to fill that roll. Mr. Libby is a politician who was trying to do what he thought was best. Whether he thought it was best for his country, his party, or his friends I don not know, but he was just trying to do what was best.
2) He lied. He committed perjury to a grand jury. I have no idea if he was under orders to do so, but I doubt it, since those would have been stupid orders. More likely he was just trying to avoid being caught up in a big mess, and save his associates/party from being caught up in a big mess, so he took the quick way out and lied.
You can argue that he didn't lie, but that he just mis-remembered. You can argue that about every perjury case ever brought. The evidence seems clear to me that it was not a "mis-remembering" it was spin applied in the spin-free zone of the justice system.
3) What he did was illegal, and a fair and legal court of law found him guilty. If there was anything unfair or not legal about the trial, it will be resolved by the ongoing appeals process.
4) What President Bush did was legal. He has the right and the responsibility to pardon, commute, and exonerate those whom the system have to harshly treated.
5) What President Bush did was, I believe (this is all just what I believe) a promise fulfilled. The only reason I can think that he commuted the sentence now, and not earlier or later, was because he (or Mr. Cheney) promised Mr. Libby that, due to his loyalty and past service, Mr. Libby would never spend a day in jail. Despite the political turmoil this act would cause, President Bush stood by this promise.
President Bush is a man who respects the virtue of loyalty, perhaps to a fault.
6)Unfortunately, to fulfill this personal promise, President Bush went back on at least two public positions he's held in the past. Do we call those public promises? No, they were apparently just spin. They were A) The President will not intervene in any ongoing case until all appeals have been finished, and B) Any person in any way associated with leaking Valerie Blame's status to the media will be fired and face the full extent of the law.
7) Any attempt to tie this commutation with those done by earlier presidents (Clinton, Ford, Bush Senior, Washington, Lincoln, Truman, any) is just a red herring to divert the conversation. You can not claim that robbing a gas station should go unpunished because someone else got away with robbing a bank.
8)Finally, Mr. Libby is not getting away scott free. He still has a hefty fine to pay and parole to endure.
Hey, I said this before. Isn't a fine and parole just two of the many requirements that were in the Immigration bill? Conservatives called that "Amnesty". Should we then call this "Amnesty" as well?
President Bush may have found a way to work around congress yet again. Why doesn't he commute the sentences of all illegal immigrants to a fine and parole and those other requirements in the immigration bill that got defeated.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why doesn't he commute the sentences of all illegal immigrants to a fine and parole and those other requirements in the immigration bill that got defeated.
Because deportation isn't a criminal punishment or even technically a penalty - it's a remedy for illegal presence.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Is that going to be the stance of the conservative base on this? That lawbreaking is OK if other convicts managed to get off?" The punishment was excessive considering he was never found guilty of what the original investigation was about. He was only found guilty of mis-remembering dates which he may or may not have done under orders from someone else. I have noticed not many people want to even discuss Armitage not being questioned. What are you thoughts about not questioning Armitage when he admitted he was the leaker. I mean if you want to indict someone on something, shouldn't Armitage at least be brought in? I'm not against the hefty fine for Libby, I am against the jail sentence.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What are you thoughts about not questioning Armitage when he admitted he was the leaker.
Because the investigation wasn't actually about who the leaker was. It was about the circumstances of the leak and the subsequent federal response.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: have noticed not many people want to even discuss Armitage not being questioned. What are you thoughts about not questioning Armitage when he admitted he was the leaker.
That it is a transparent falsehood, and already noted as such in a post that you seem to have ignored, along with the other posts dealing with your blatantly false statements in this thread.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The punishment was excessive considering he was never found guilty of what the original investigation was about.
That's not the criteria we use for process-affecting crimes. In fact, that standard has been explicitly rejected by courts and legislatures time after time. If that's the standard we want to use, it requires passing a new law.
On the issue of whether Armitage was questioned:
quote:But Armitage, who said he testified about his actions to a grand jury three times, was not charged for making the disclosure, a circumstance he attributes to his candor in speaking with investigators about his action. He turned over his computers and never even hired an attorney, Armitage said, because "I did not need an attorney to tell me to tell the truth."
quote: Because the investigation wasn't actually about who the leaker was. It was about the circumstances of the leak and the subsequent federal response.
You are making it sound like this was a purely political attack to bring down members of government and was not about investigating the actually leak of her name? Please note I am not saying this is true. I am saying that Libby should not have been the only one indicted.
quote: Armitage was cleared because it appeared that he did not know that Valerie Plame working for the CIA was classified information.
From the article: "Former Deputy Secretary of State Armitage has acknowledged recently that he was the one who revealed Plame's job at the CIA to syndicated columnist Robert Novak and Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward, but Armitage said it was inadvertent. Novak disputes Armitage's claim that he revealed Plame to him in an offhand remark during their conversation on July 8, 2003. Novak wrote that Armitage “did not slip me this information as idle chitchat, as he now suggests.” “He made clear that he considered it especially suited for my column,” the writer said. Novak added, “He told me unequivocally that Ms. Wilson had worked in the C.I.A.'s Counterproliferation Division and that she had suggested her husband's mission.” Armitage is expected to be a witness in the Libby case. Early in the inquiry, Armitage told authorities he was Novak's source. Armitage said Fitzgerald asked him to not to say that publicly. Fitzgerald then pressed on with the investigation, questioning White House aides. Among them was top Bush adviser Karl Rove, who appeared five times before a grand jury before being cleared of wrongdoing this summer."
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where does that say he knew her name was classified, DK? In fact, it seems Novak's statements support Armitage's claim that he thought it was OK to release her name.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
DK, I'm not sure I understand why you think what you quoted is relevant.
Do you think it establishes that Richard Armitage knew that the information was classified? It does not appear to do so to me.
Also, that section makes it clear that Richard Armitage was questioned by the investigation. Were you unaware of this or was your as yet unacknowledged falsehood deliberate?
---
edit: I was aware of this before (Armitage saying that it was an inadvertent slip and Novak saying that is was clearly information that he wanted to impart. If the latter is true, it sounds to me very likely that Richard Armitage was directed (most likely by the Vice-President or Karl Rove) to get this information out there, which was one of the main foci of the Fitzgerald investigation, but one which they were ultimately unable to prove - in part, according to Fitzgerald, because of Scooter Libby's perjury.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: in part, according to Fitzgerald, because of Scooter Libby's perjury.
Despite thinking commuting the sentence was wrong, I'm not convinced Fitzgerald's view makes sense. If he was able to prove Libby's perjury and falsehoods, then he knew the truth. It's feasible to suspect that Libby got away with other lies, but I don't think there's evidence that the behavior Libby was convicted of ultimately stopped the investigation (even thought it did hinder that investigation).
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no idea the inside of the investigation. There are a lot of things that don't add up (the perjury and the dispute over Armitage's behavior being two of them).
I don't see a point in Libby deliberately perjuring himself without their being something to hide. I agree that what they could actually prove he was lying about/provide clear contradictory evidence to doesn't appear to be insurmontable, but I think it is much more likely that Fitzgerald's statements are either about things they nkow/suspect he lied about, but cannot prove, or about the current statements that fit in in a way that I don't understand than that there was nothing more to be found.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I don't have any grand plot to get you to say anything incriminating ![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
