Libby Guilty of Lying in C.I.A. Leak Case

[Frost2]

Libby Guilty of Lying in C.I.A. Leak Case
http://www.nytimes.com/
By NEIL A. LEWIS
Published: March 6, 2007

[/align]
WASHINGTON, March 6 "” I. Lewis Libby Jr., the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was convicted today of lying to a grand jury and to F.B.I. agents investigating the leak of the identity of a C.I.A. operative in the summer of 2003 amid a fierce public dispute over the war in Iraq.



I. Lewis Libby with his chief lawyer, Theodore V. Wells Jr., outside Federal Court House in Washington today.


[/align][/align][/align]
Mr. Libby, 56, who once wielded great authority at the top levels of government, is the highest-ranking White House official to be convicted of a felony since the Iran-Contra scandals of the 1980s.

The jury rejected Mr. Libby"™s claims of memory lapses as it convicted him of four felony counts: obstruction of justice, giving false statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and committing perjury twice before the grand jury. The 11-member jury acquitted Mr. Libby on an additional count of making false statements to the F.B.I.

As the verdict was read aloud by the jury forewoman after nearly 10 days of deliberations, Mr. Libby grimaced briefly before resuming his expressionless demeanor. His wife, Harriet Grant, sitting a few feet away in the spectator section, began shaking visibly and wept briefly before composing herself.

Dana Perino, the deputy White House press secretary, said President Bush watched news of the verdict on television in the Oval Office. She said Mr. Bush respected the jury"™s verdict but "œwas saddened for Scooter Libby and his family,"� using Mr. Libby"™s nickname.

Mr. Cheney said he was disappointed with the verdict and saddened for Mr. Libby and his family. "œAs I have said before, Scooter has served our nation tirelessly and with great distinction through many years of public service,"� he said.

The verdict meant the end of a nearly four-year investigation into the leak of the identity of the Central Intelligence Agency officer, Valerie Wilson. The inquiry raised fundamental questions about the reasons for invading Iraq, exposed some of the unseen influence of Mr. Cheney"™s office and changed the landscape of relations between journalists and official sources, as many of Washington"™s prominent political reporters were forced to testify in a criminal trial.

Mr. Libby"™s chief defense lawyer, Theodore V. Wells Jr., said he would file papers asking the judge to grant a new trial. If that fails, Mr. Wells told reporters, he will appeal the verdict to the federal appeals court. He said

Mr. Libby was "œtotally innocent and that he did not do anything wrong."�
Mr. Libby, standing at his side, made no comment. Prosecutors had charged that Mr. Libby had lied when he swore that he had not discussed the identity of Ms. Wilson in the summer of 2003 with two reporters, Judith Miller, formerly of The New York Times, and Matthew Cooper, formerly of Time Magazine.

The prosecution also said that Mr. Libby concocted a story that he learned of Ms. Wilson"™s identity in a conversation with Tim Russert of NBC News on July 10 or 11 in 2003 to hide the fact that he had already learned about her identity from several fellow administration officials.

The only one of the 11 jurors who spoke publicly immediately after the verdict said that there was great sympathy for Mr. Libby in the jury room, but that the case presented by the prosecution was overwhelming.
Judge Reggie M. Walton, who presided over the four weeks of testimony and presentation of evidence, set sentencing for June 5. Under complicated sentencing guidelines that are no longer mandatory, Judge Walton has wide discretion in setting a jail term.

But lawyers not involved in the case, who are experienced in the issue of sentencing, calculated that under the guidelines, Mr. Libby might be sentenced to 20 to 27 months.

Judge Walton allowed Mr. Libby to remain free on bail. The defense"™s plans to ask for a retrial and then appeal the verdict mean that it would be many months before Mr. Libby would be required to go to jail. It also would provide a window for Mr. Bush to pardon Mr. Libby, an issue about which the White House has been silent, but one that quickly became a topic of speculation in Washington.

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, issued a public statement calling on Mr. Bush to pledge he would not "œpardon Libby for his criminal conduct."�

Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, said that while he was gratified by the verdict, "œit"™s sad that we had a situation where a high-level official, a person who worked in the office of vice president, obstructed justice and lied under oath."�


[/align]

[Frost2]

Roberts (R Kansas)listed several points emphasized in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that were "overstated or "not supported by the raw intelligence reporting."
Among these were that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, had chemical and biological weapons, and was developing an unmanned aerial vehicle, probably intended to deliver biological warfare agents.
He also said the intelligence community failed to "accurately or adequately explain the uncertainties behind the judgments in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate to policymakers."

I think there is a pattern forming here.

[LBR]

Pretty sad--Libby faces prison time over possibly lying about something that wasn't a secret, border guards get sent to prison for failing to file some paperwork, yet a top official walks out with top secret documents, destroys them, then serves no time and will get his clearance back.

[david m]

how about this.....

i, as a liberal, say that we put sandy berger in jail too.

to be honest, he broke the rules too, knowing full well what they were.

[LBR]

It's a start.

I can't see the comparison myself--Libby may have lied, I don't know. It's ridiculous that charges were brought up to begin with--there was no "outing", there was no crime until the indictment, if there was a crime then. It's just another case of the double standard in politics. Clinton lied, and got a slap on the wrist. Berger lied andstole top secret documents, and got mildly chastised. Libby may have lied, and faces up to 30 years, and over what?

[Blueshark]

Libby obstructed justice and lied under oath to federal investigators, serious crime for a man who supposedly had nothing to hide and no one to cover for. No reason to lie to the feds under oath unless someone has something to hide. The jury didn't buy the "bad memory defense."

If he did nothing wrong, no reason to lie under oath, but he did, and was convicted. I don't hink there is any doubt that exposing Plame's ID was retribution for her husband's refutation of the nuclear related claims leading to war. To say her exposure was simply a coincidence is rather niave. IMHO, he was instucted to lie,persuaded to believe he should be the fall guy. Why? If he had told the truth, and saved his own skin in so doing, the accountability would have moved up the food chain quite a bit.

Good boy libby, good boy.

[LBR]

Ifferd, what crime was committed? What was Libby convicted of? What "justice" did he obstruct?

He may have lied, he may have simply forgotten--I don't know. If he did lie, he was due a reprimand, but instead he's now a convicted felon facing up to 30 years in prison--again, for what??????? You said yourself it made no sense for him to lie.She was not covert, it was well known that she worked for the CIA, and Libby wasn't the first oneto "exposed" her--her own husband had bragged about her working for the CIA, and Robert Novack had mentioned in along with others. So, when will the investigations start on them?

This was simply another partisan "hit" on the Bush administration.

[Blueshark]

ORIGINAL: LBR

Ifferd, what crime was committed? What was Libby convicted of? What "justice" did he obstruct?

He may have lied, he may have simply forgotten--I don't know. If he did lie, he was due a reprimand, but instead he's now a convicted felon facing up to 30 years in prison--again, for what??????? You said yourself it made no sense for him to lie.She was not covert, it was well known that she worked for the CIA, and Libby wasn't the first oneto "exposed" her--her own husband had bragged about her working for the CIA, and Robert Novack had mentioned in along with others. So, when will the investigations start on them?

This was simply another partisan "hit" on the Bush administration.

LOL;First of all, again, I'm not the ifferd person. LOLWhy do I get labeled this character? its getting old by now. I am new to the forum and am not a prior member. The charges were clear and the jury agreed. That's all I can say. If he had nothing to hide why lie? IE he had something to hide or he would have told the truth. You swear to tell the truth under oath, if you don't,its a crime, always has been always will be.

I believe the jury made an informed decision, they voted unanimously for guilty on 4 counts. If they had voted innocent I would uphold and support that as well. This is not partisanship, it is a felony conviction by a jury of peers.

[LBR]

LOL;First of all, again, I'm not the ifferd person. LOLWhy do I get labeled this character? its getting old by now.

Whatever........

If he had nothing to hide why lie? IE he had something to hide or he would have told the truth. You swear to tell the truth under oath, if you don't,its a crime, always has been always will be.

What was he hiding? There was no crime! She was not covert, period. Why was there a court case to begin with? The only possible crime was he lied at a bogus trial.

I believe the jury made an informed decision, they voted unanimously for guilty on 4 counts. If they had voted innocent I would uphold and support that as well. This is not partisanship, it is a felony conviction by a jury of peers.

The catch is it was NOT a jury of his peers. I don't claim to know just how it works, but as I understand it the defendant can only oppose a certain number of jurors. They ran out of "strikes" and had to take what was left. One of the jurors has close ties and is already planning to write a book!

You can't tell me when someone is facing up to 30 years for possibly lying about nothing isn'ta mockery of justice. Once again, there should have been no trial to begin with, as there was no crime committed to have a trial over.

Chad

[petasux]

I cant believe they finally held someone responsible for something, this is great!!!!

The only possible crime was he lied at a bogus trial.

No, he lied under oath, big difference.Doesnt matter if the trial was bogus or not, he was under oath, therefore its a crime.

If he lied to law enforcement officials as well, them being the FBI and all he also obstructed justice by doing that.Even if there wasnt a crime commited to begin with his actions were still illegal.Its the law, he broke it, now he claims ti have alzhiemers or something, tough, he shoulda just told the truth to begin with.

The catch is it was NOT a jury of his peers. I don't claim to know just how it works, but as I understand it the defendant can only oppose a certain number of jurors. They ran out of "strikes" and had to take what was left.

Yeah, about that, its called the legal system, it applies to everyone thats having a jury trial.Why should people get to pick jurors untill they find ones they like.Hell if it worked that way nobody would ever get to trial, theyd just keep picking jurors till they died