Yep typical liberal boosheut goin on here. Much ado about NOTHING. Klintoon wasn't indicted when he lied underoath, hell he even got on national TV and said he had lied!!! Yet because he is a liberal dork it is ok for a libby to lie, afterall they aren't responsible for a damn thing they do on their own. It was his upbringing, he was raised by a single mother and since he has a geniune heart of gold blah blah blah.
BUT ahhhhhhhhh when the ball drops in the other court it's HAMMERTIME!!!
RA
I must have dozzed off and missed the trial. Libby was found guilty I guess?
Otherwise it is just an indictment. You know, the guy is innocent until proven guilty.
The nasty thing about these matters (grand juries and john doe inquest)is that when they have no case as with Martha Steward, they go for the "misleading" statement or ask you what you may have said to someone 2 years ago or longer. Then they accept the statement of of the person they like or prefer and if you don't recall or match that statement you are the liar. The Feds are great at this kind of crap and it goes both way, republicans and demmies. The strange thing is the go getter here is a Bush appointment and has a good reputation behind him. Going to be interesting to see this play out.
I do recall this one time....... As inI did not have sex with that girl. then, Oh sucking me off is not really sex is it? Well it's not when I do it with Hillary[:'(]
I guess it is not a lie if you are not sure of what it is you are doing at the time.
Now he, Libby,may be lying through his teeth but I prefer the good old American way, a trial first then call him names.
Iffred, You're really off your game today.
__________________
Now you have to picture a combination of PeeWEE Herman and Wally Cox but with less muscle tone, trying to be intimidating None of this is funny! Message edited by Cougar Mag -- 1/7/2005 1:16:42 AM >/b]
That part was meant to be funny but you are not in the mood.
Read this agian. It addresses your jump to guilty without being a rant.
The nasty thing about these matters (grand juries and john doe inquest)is that when they have no case as with Martha Steward, they go for the "misleading" statement or ask you what you may have said to someone 2 years ago or longer. Then they accept the statement of of the person they like or prefer and if you don't recall or match that statement you are the liar. The Feds are great at this kind of crap and it goes both way, republicans and demmies. The strange thing is the go getter here is a Bush appointment and has a good reputation behind him. Going to be interesting to see this play out.
How about you trying to remember exactly what you posted here a year ago without some notes or a recording and if you're off your mark we'll call you a liar? Not really fair is it. At least here you would be able to locate the exact post. They are holding one persons recollection agianst the other.
This is what they do when they either do not have a real provable case or are on a fishing expedition. I think it is the latter and they are really after someone else.
Like I said, you are assuming guilt with your statements....Why lie if nothing really happened? Was there something to lie about? If so, what? Another crime? Conflict of interest? Concealment of incredible stupidity and arrogance blended with "vengance politics."
This is a much better statementLibby may have done
I am for giving the man a fair trial. Then you can call him a liar if that is the verdict.
__________________
Now you have to picture a combination of PeeWEE Herman and Wally Cox but with less muscle tone, trying to be intimidating None of this is funny! Message edited by Cougar Mag -- 1/7/2005 1:16:42 AM >/b]
Iffred, I alluded to clinton in jest. At the time it occurred, clinton and Monica, I was not sure what she was after but did not put it past him based on his past behavior and other incidents. I did withhold my final conclusion until he came out and addmitted what he did and tried to wiggle his wording around his deeds.
Martha, I think she got screwed but I did not hear all the facts at trial. The jury found her guilty and the state or feds proved their case.
Libby, Idon't know and neither do you.
Your position would have been easier understaoodif you would have stated, For the sake of arguement or In a case where people do lie why ....
And I did not call you anything. I started "How about.... and ended with...Not really fair is it." That indicates a scenario.You seem a little touchy on this so how about this.
You are absolutely correct on all points and I concede to a smarter, more handsome and certainly a better person than I could ever be. and Libby is a liar I guess??????
__________________
Now you have to picture a combination of PeeWEE Herman and Wally Cox but with less muscle tone, trying to be intimidating None of this is funny! Message edited by Cougar Mag -- 1/7/2005 1:16:42 AM >/b]
Ifferd has proven in a couple of other threads that he is incapable of understanding the Libby charges, so I wasn't going to post on this one.
But since he mentioned what would happen if Diane Feinstein were charged with something, I thought I'd point out to him that she was fined $190,000 for in her unsuccessful 1990 gubernatorial bid because she 'overlooked' disclosing expenditures of $3.5 million and $815,000 in contributions.
She is very fortunate that she lives in California, not Texas like Tom DeLay, or she'd still be in the slammer or on parole.
ORIGINAL: Ifferd
Anyone care to seriously address the questions inmy original post?
Here's one thought - don't know if I agree with it or not, but it makes for an interesting scenario.
Quote:
Why Would Libby Lie? Dennis Kelleher, November 03, 2005.
A key element in trying to prove a crime is showing why someone might have done something illegal. Lawyers call it proving motive. Evidence of motive is often the critical reason a prosecutor concludes that someone has committed a crime and a jury convicts someone of a crime.
Thus far, motive is the mystery in the CIA agent leak case that has rocked the White House. Why would so many of the most senior and seasoned White House officials, including apparently the vice president, engage in what appears to be a coordinated and comprehensive smear campaign that included the outing of an undercover CIA official? And why would anyone risk committing federal criminal felonies by lying about it?
I. Lewis Libby, as assistant to the president, chief of staff to Vice President Cheney and assistant to the vice president for National Security Affairs, was indisputably one of the most powerful officials in the administration. By all accounts, he is a savvy, experienced and careful lawyer who sweated the details andwas prudently risk-averse and wily in the ways of dealing with the media.
He has now resigned in disgrace and is charged with the crimes of obstructing justice by lying to the FBI and the grand jury.Prosecutor Fitzgerald has charged him with these crimes for allegedly falsely testifying that he learned of a CIA agent"™s identity from reporters rather than from the vice president and other senior administration officials.
If Libby lied, why would he? The prosecutor unknowingly answered that question at his press conference. He said, if the reporters testified when they were issued subpoenas in August 2004, "śwe would have been here [holding a press conference] in October 2004 instead of October 2005."ť
October 2004 was a mere month before the presidential election on Nov. 2, 2004. Amazingly, in all the timelines of the leak investigations, there is no mention of the presidential election in November 2004 or that the basis for the war in Iraq was a key issue in that election.
Whether the charges in the indictment are true and whether Libby or anyone else is ever convicted, such a press conference on the eve of the presidential election in October 2004 would have dramatically affected that election. The reason that press conference was not held in October of 2004 is because the prosecutor had to waste a year fighting all the way to the Supreme Court to get information from reporters.
An October 2004 press conference summarizing the information in the indictment would have been explosive. If the prosecutor was in a position to know and disclose the information contained in the indictment in October 2004, it would have directly contradicted the White House"™s categorical denial that Libby and Rove "śwere not involved"ť in the disclosure of the agent"™s identity.
At that point, on the eve of the November 2004 election, the key question would have been, what did President Bush know and when did he know it. The answers to those questions would not have mattered:If he knew, he was in the middle of blowing the cover of a CIA agent; if he didn"™t know that his vice president and many of the most senior White House officials were involved in disclosing a CIA agent"™s identity to reporters, it would have confirmed many people"™s worst fears that he was dangerously detached.
Moreover, few would have believed that Libby, an extremely intelligent, careful lawyer with decades of experience, would have on his own and without the knowledge or approval of at least the vice president, if not the president, disclosed classified information and blown the cover of a CIA agent. Thus, the other key questions would have been: Who else knew, when did they know and how did they participate in blowing the CIA agent"™s cover?
So, if Libby lied, he likely did so to conceal the involvement of Cheney and others, to prevent a pre-election scandal and to protect the Bush/Cheney re-election.
How did Libby"™s alleged lies do this?The prosecutor unknowingly answered this question at his press conference as well. Libby isn"™t alleged to have told a little lie here or there. He is alleged to have fabricated elaborate stories including false dialogue, phony feelings and reactions with several reporters. As the prosecutor said, "śit was a compelling story that would lead the FBI to go away."ť
Importantly, the FBI didn"™t just "śgo away"ť from Libby. They went "śaway"ť from Cheney and others in the White House involved in getting the information on Wilson and his CIA agent wife and toward reporters. If Libby told the truth as alleged by the prosecutor, the FBI would have gone directly to the vice president"™s office and the explosive information detailed above would have been uncovered.
Libby"™s alleged "ścompelling"ť lies likely also prevented the prosecutor from determining who, if anyone, broke the law by knowingly and intentionally disclosing the CIA agent"™s identity. In short, Libby"™s lies pointed the prosecutor "śaway"ť from the possible or probable criminals, "śaway"ť from the truth and toward reporters. This guaranteed months if not years of delays from battling over the First Amendment. That"™s why it's called obstruction of justice.
The prosecutor used a convoluted baseball metaphor to try to explain this. I propose a better one:You and three friends are standing on a street corner talking about doing something wrong.The discussion ends inconclusively and your friends leave, but you, with nothing to do, hang out at the corner alone. An hour later, your three friends come running by, looking scared and they duck into an alley behind you.
Two minutes later, cops come running over and ask if you saw three men running by. Without hesitating, you tell them that you did, that they almost knocked you over, that you twisted your knee, and that they ran down the street across the park from where you were standing. The cops go dashing off"”in the wrong direction. Your friends sneak safely out of the alley and go to their homes and to work. A year later, the cops learn that you lied and try to head back in the right direction.
That"™s obstruction of justice and that"™s what Libby is accused of doing. That"™s what it means to tell "śa compelling story"ť that leads "śthe FBI to go away."ť
[Deleted]
