Article

2007-03-07 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Bobby 2007-03-07 08:36|| || Front Page|| [11131 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 White House official convicted in a government scandal since the Iran-Contra arms and money affair two decades ago.

That is if you exclude Clinton's impeachment....

"It's sad that we had a situation where a high-level official person who worked in the office of the vice president obstructed justice and lied under oath.

But it was ok when Clinton did it right?

"We cannot tolerate perjury. Truth is what drives our judicial system. If people don't tell the truth, the system cannot work," Fitzgerald said outside court Tuesday. "Having a high-level official lie under oath is just something that can never be accepted." unless its a democrat.

There... fixed that for ya...

Posted by CrazyFool 2007-03-07 09:02|| 2007-03-07 09:02|| Front Page Top

#2 Don't pardon Libby? This from the party touting the merits and accomplishments of the man who pardoned Marc Rich. I guess the pardons should remain available for you Sen. Reid - to be used should any of your real estate transactions come in for closer scrutiny.

Posted by doc 2007-03-07 10:17|| 2007-03-07 10:17|| Front Page Top

#3 IMO, this a case of another high-ranking government official convicted of lying to authorities, perjury to a federal grand jury, and obstruction of justice during an ongoing criminal investigation. Pending his entitled appeal, I say throw the book at this crook!

Posted by DepotGuy 2007-03-07 10:41|| 2007-03-07 10:41|| Front Page Top

#4 Did Libby make his lies/comments/mistake in testimony before or after Fitzgerald found out Armitage was the leaker?

If it was before than he should still serve time. Telling falsehoods under oath is a bad and we shouldn't set precidents even if the person is a President (who lied but did not serve any time).

If it was after, Libby should go free and Fitzgerald should lose his licence and be held accountable for the cost of the trial.

Posted by rjschwarz 2007-03-07 11:30|| 2007-03-07 11:30|| Front Page Top

#5 Except, DepotGuy, there's NO underlying crime committed to need an investigation for. Even if everything shook out the way it's said it did, she was still not a covert (or whatever the appropriate legal term is) agent within 5 years of the supposed "outing." End of discussion.

Listen, it'd be like saying Joe Blow the janitor was a CIA "agent." Sure, he works there, but was he covert? Nope. Next story.

Posted by BA 2007-03-07 11:36|| 2007-03-07 11:36|| Front Page Top

#6 For Libby's statements to be criminal - either obstruction or perjury - he had to know he was telling a lie, rather than unknowingly misremember something. Virtually all the other witnesses also either lied or misremembered, but in their testimony the inconsistencies were held to be misrememberances. For me to be confident Libby actually lied I would need to have some kind of motive, which was never (as far as I know) presented: since there was no underlying crime, what would the motive be to lie about it?
On the other hand, he's a politician, so no doubt he's lied about something, if not this, so his conviction is no great injustice.

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2007-03-07 11:57|| 2007-03-07 11:57|| Front Page Top

#7 What this tale tells us is never, never, never talk to any Federal agent about anything without a lawyer sitting next to you. And even then, a bad memory is the best defense as long as you state it up front: "I don't really remember, but...", "I can't be sure, but.." , "I have no knowledge of those events, sorry.." "Sorry, I talk to so many people they all blur together.", "I'm terrible with names, who was that again?", etc.

Posted by Steve 2007-03-07 12:02|| 2007-03-07 12:02|| Front Page Top

#8 there's NO underlying crime committed to need an investigation for.

BA, investigations are to determine if there has been a crime committed. As you have correctly pointed outthere wasnt any. Thats fair criticism of an overzealous prosecutor but in no way (legally or ethically) excuse someone that is testifying under oath to lie to authorities or commit perjury. With all due respect, your argument is the same bullshit the Clinton apologists spewed.

Posted by DepotGuy 2007-03-07 12:09|| 2007-03-07 12:09|| Front Page Top

#9 Depotguy, it is my understanding that Fitz knew who and when the leak occured BEFORE he ever talked to Libby. Based on that information Fitz should have determined that crime had not been commmitted and stop his investigation. But he went off on a fishing expedition in hopes of finding a crime somewhere (anywhere). Why would Libby intentially lie to cover up a crime that never happened? My 2 cents.

Posted by Cyber Sarge 2007-03-07 12:51|| 2007-03-07 12:51|| Front Page Top

#10 Cyber Sarge beat me to it. Listen, I'm not advocating lying to the Feds at all. But, if the "lie" is NOT intentional (e.g. "I think it was Tim Russert" but later it's found out it wasn't), then it's NOT criminal.

Billy Jeff's lie under oath, I would assume, would be INTENTIONALLY made. That's a fine line, and, I know, sounds like Lawyering 101. But, Sarge's point remains too.

Posted by BA 2007-03-07 13:14|| 2007-03-07 13:14|| Front Page Top

#11 "But he went off on a fishing expedition in hopes of finding a crime somewhere (anywhere)."

As die-hard fisherman like to sayI might not snag the big one but Im gonna catch somethingDammit! It appears Libby was boated legally and it was Fitzgeralds choice to throw him back or put him on the stringer. Of course, respectable anglers dont keep carp that get tangled in their landing net. But seeing as how I equate lying government officials with scum-sucking bottom feedersI say...mount the sucker!

Posted by DepotGuy 2007-03-07 13:28|| 2007-03-07 13:28|| Front Page Top

#12 Amen BA and it was clear from the Jury questions (and post interviews) that they had no idea what the trail was supposed to be about. Along the angler lines I would state that if I fishing for salmon and snagged one (instead of hooked legally) I have on at least two occasions set it free.

Posted by Cyber Sarge 2007-03-07 13:46|| 2007-03-07 13:46|| Front Page Top

#13 Remember that the judge withheld information from the jury -- so that they would not be aware that Fitzgerald knew all along that no crime had been committed.

A total perversion of justice.

Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2007-03-07 14:58|| 2007-03-07 14:58|| Front Page Top

#14 Cyber Sarge, what is the difference between snagged and hooked legally?

Posted by rjschwarz 2007-03-07 15:00|| 2007-03-07 15:00|| Front Page Top

#15 Snagged = on the body
Hooked = in the mouth

By Law you can only keep salmon that are hooked in the mouth. When the salmon are running it is quite easy to snag on with a hook.

Posted by Cyber Sarge 2007-03-07 15:14|| 2007-03-07 15:14|| Front Page Top

#16 "Dear Patrick Fitzgerald,

Following your brilliant "work" in convicting I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby of high crimes and misdemeanors, we, the U.S. Justice Department, feel we can no longer hold you back from an outstanding career as a civilian criminal lawyer. We feel that it is best that you begin your new career immediately.

Thank you very much for all you've done,

Sincerely,

Alberto Gonzales,
US Attorney General"

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2007-03-07 16:22|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2007-03-07 16:22|| Front Page Top

23:55 JosephMendiola
23:52 JosephMendiola
23:44 garbagecowboy
23:26 garbagecowboy
23:16 RD
23:03 newc
22:53 RD
22:43 JosephMendiola
22:37 JosephMendiola
22:33 trailing wife
22:31 JosephMendiola
22:28 Jackal
22:27 Jackal
22:26 JosephMendiola
22:24 trailing wife
22:17 trailing wife
22:14 trailing wife
22:12 JosephMendiola
22:11 JohnQC
22:10 JosephMendiola
22:08 trailing wife
22:06 djohn66
22:05 djohn66
22:05 Eric Jablow