Libby's Criminal Indictment

[Jeannieb43]

The criminal indictment today of "Scooter" Libby (V-P Cheney's chief of staff) is the first time in 135 years that any person working in the White House has ever been indicted for a crime.

Not a good record for this president.

(Remember: Clinton was never indicted for anything.)

A prosecutor has to have credible evidence that a crime has been committed before he can bring an indictment. Regardless of how hard Starr tried, and how much of our tax money he spent, he could never find any evidence that Clinton had committed any type of criminal act.

On the other hand, national security is compromised when an undercover CIA operative's cover is blown (to say nothing of jeopardizing her life, and the lives of her family). Libby not only was the first person to tell a reporter about Valerie Plame's identity; he later lied about it under oath, repeatedly, to the the Grand Jury.

[Dr. Shane]

Hypocrits are all over the place on this. President Clinton wasn't indited - he was impeached - on the same charges. And after he got off the impeachment, a judge cited him in comtempt of court for purgery and he lost is license to practice law for two years.

At the time all of Clinton's defenders were saying that purgery and obstruction of justice were no big deal. They were crying that it was a technicality. It was "low fruit". They only got Clinton on that because they couldn't find anything with all the other trumped up charges.

Now many of the same folks that said that about Clinton are saying the opposite. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, purgery and obstruction of justice are a big deal. It doesn't matter that it is "low fruit" because nothing could be found to charge anyone with on the leak charges.

But the hypocrits aren't limitted to the left-wing. Right-wingers that told us how terrible Presient Clinton was to purgery himself and solicit purgury from others, now are telling why these charges are no big deal.

Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeweeee, watch out folks. A lot of spinning going on out there.

[Jeannieb43]

Clinton was fined by an Arkansas judge for contempt of court -- not for perjury or obstruction of justice.

[Dr. Shane]

He was found in comtempt of court for lying while under oath.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright found President Bill Clinton in civil contempt of court Monday for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit...

"Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false," the judge wrote of Clinton's January 17, 1998 deposition.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Clinton found in civil contempt for Jones testimony

[Bravus]

Leaving Clinton aside for a minute <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/focus.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> - the finding with Libby is certainly not good news for the White House, but in some ways the on-going inquiry into Rove is even worse. If all the indictments had come down today, the administration could have cut loose those indicted and moved on (actually, credit to Bush for loyalty, he hasn't really cut Libby loose). With this on-going cloud over Rove it just doesn't go away for a while longer...

I was almost feeling bad for Bush after his horrible week, then I watched his speech this morning and got furious all over again: *still* explicitly linking 9/11 and the war in Iraq!! And now the War on Terror is apparently the new Cold War...

[Dr. Shane]

I don't see this as a big deal for the Administration. The bad press is worse than losing some guy no had heard of before the "scandel" started. Losing Colen Powell was a bigger blow than Scooter Libby.

Some seem to forget that President Nixion's vice president, Agnew, had to resign. Could you imagine Dick Chenney having to resign? And yet that happened before (unrelated to Watergate).

I think next week after President Bush names a new nominee, this story will be over. Remember how quickly the story about Clinton's national securiety advisor, Sandy Berger, stealing classified files disappeared? Most of the public doesn't care about these little-known people.

[Neil D]

Remember, while Libby has repeatedly held up the investigation of National Security by obstructing justice, the investigation is STILL NOT OVER...It is ongoing and there are others who are still NOT CLEAR of the investigation.

Libby took one for the team....and in doing so, shows that this administration is aware of his culpability. It also is another plug that this admiistration is corrupt with the head either very stupid or very corrupt hisownself.

Jeannie is correct to show that national security is comprimised when Libby, et al, went out to smear an american diplomat investigation on the non buying of materials for WMDs, and even outed a CIA agent, just to get back at the diplomat.

It bothers me greatly when the very next post's first line is "Hypocrits are all over this." The implication is clear...This is emotional language being used again in an inflamatory mannor. The need to be very careful with wording is paramount here.

My opinion is that Shane needs to clarify that post, and owes Jeanie an appology....

[Dr. Shane]

It is quite simple and I am not the only one picking up on it. The situational ethics on this is rampant. Those that considered obsruction of justice a major issue when President Clinton did it, find it a minor, "cooked-up" charge with Libby. Those that thought it a minor, "cooked-up" charge with President Clinton, now see it as a major charge.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

while Libby has repeatedly held up the investigation of National Security by obstructing justice

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

And who repeatedly held up the investigation of sexual harrassment against Paula Jones? Were those so concerned about Libby now, equally concerned about the same violation when President Clinton was doing it?

If the leak was illegal, why hasn't Libby been indited on that? It seems, like Watergate, the coverup is greater than the original crime - if any crime was even committed to begin with.

If hyprocrit is too inflamatory, I can use the term situational ethics. That may be better. The ethics depend on the situation. When a Democrat obstructs justice it is a minor issue (for some Democrats) and a major issue (for some Republicans). When a Republican obstructs justice it is a major issue (for some Democrats) and a minor issue (for some Republicans).

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

It is quite simple and I am not the only one picking up on it. The situational ethics on this is rampant. Those that considered obsruction of justice a major issue when President Clinton did it, find it a minor, "cooked-up" charge with Libby. Those that thought it a minor, "cooked-up" charge with President Clinton, now see it as a major charge.

---

I am really disappointed in you. I have not talked about Clinton. I have not brought him up. But I do look at his motives...and the results of his motives. I don't excuse that the man litterally screwed up. But his screw up did not cost the lives of 2000 US men and women. Nor the 100,000+ lives in Iraqi. And while Clinton was attempting to protect his own skin, and save the public embarrasment of himself and his family, the results of this obstruction of justice was out to literally kill an ambassador's wife, and countless CIA agents using the same cover as her. It was to threaten an ambassador of the US, sell war to a naive country and to punish another country that was contained. It ruined the US reputation and makes US look like the terrorists. [Case in point-Have you see the news regarding Canada/US relations lately over timber sales to the US? Have you seen how they treated the President and the Secretary of State? They are doing so because our repuation is "poor" and "now is the time to get things done in thier favor"....]

This adminstration is conservative, and desisive and not uniting.... And don't even get me started on the Administration that was to bring back dignity to the Presidency..

Quote:

---

If the leak was illegal, why hasn't Libby been indited on that? It seems, like Watergate, the coverup is greater than the original crime - if any crime was even committed to begin with.

---

Can't you hear, Shane??? IT HAS TAKEN 24 MONTHS JUST TO GET TO THIS POINT! And Libby [et al] has impeded the investigation all the way to this point. The procecutor cann't even answer the question whether there the breaking of the national security law...Libby, et al, have impeded the investigation repeatedly.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

But his screw up did not cost the lives of 2000 US men and women. Nor the 100,000+ lives in Iraqi.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

We did not go to war because of this leak. My goodness. That is a huge leap to say Scooter Libby leaked Plame's name to the press and so we went to war! The leak happened after the war started, for goodness sake.

President Bush used some information in his state of the union address that was given to him by the Brittish intelligence service which the Brittish still stand by. But that information wasn't even the only reason we went to war. Iraq had violated 17 UN resolutions. Iraq had been shooting at Brittish and US planes in the no-fly zone and shot one down. Over a dozen forgien intelligence agencies believed Iraq had WMDs. Russia warned us they were going to use terrorists to attack us on our soil with WMDs. There was a strong case for Saddam having WMDs even without the Brittish information about yellow cake from Niger.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Clinton was attempting to protect his own skin, and save the public embarrasment of himself and his family

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

That is if we give him the benifit of the doubt. However it could be that he was trying to prevent the truth from coming out about him flashing Paula Jones and asking for some oral favors.

Let's look at the two situtions:

Paula Jones says Clinton dropped his pants and asked her to perform oral favors and then threatened her if she told anyone.

Scooter Libby informs a reporter that Vice-President Chenny wasn't the one that sent Joe Wilson to Niger. That it was his wife who is a member of the CIA. Valaie Plame, Joe Wilson's wife, was not working undercover and her life was not placed in jepardy due to this information - although her future carear has been affected.

Those are the two original alleged crimes. Both appear to have lied and obstructed justice. Some people, like me, say both were in the wrong and niether should get away with it. Others, that are partisan, choose their favorite and say it was no big deal while they say the other is a major offense.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

We did not go to war because of this leak. My goodness

---

Neither did I. Quit misquoting me.

The leak was in retaliation when Wilson told the truth about the Adminstrations campaign to sell a war.

Quote:

---

President Bush used some information in his state of the union address that was given to him by the Brittish intelligence service which the Brittish still stand by.

---

Which was a lie, because that information was what Wilson went to confirm or deny. He had evidence that the adminstration's assurtion was NOT true. That is why he went public, and that is why Bush/Cheny/Rove/Libby went after Wilson.

Quote:

---

That is if we give him the benifit of the doubt. However it could be that he was trying to prevent the truth from coming out about him flashing Paula Jones and asking for some oral favors.

---

WHICH DOES NOT NEGATE WHAT I HAVE SAID ABOUT SAVING HIS OWN FLESH AND HIS FAMILY FROM EMBARRASSEMENT.

Gosh, Shane, are you truely this thick headed?????

Quote:

---

Those are the two original alleged crimes. Both appear to have lied and obstructed justice. Some people, like me, say both were in the wrong and niether should get away with it. Others, that are partisan, choose their favorite and say it was no big deal while they say the other is a major offense.

---

That is because some of us are looking at motive... You want to emphasis sex, and I want to emphasis NATIONAL SECURITY and betrayal of NATIONAL TRUST...in addition to killing, ruining US covert trusts, the deaths of other CIA agents using the same cover that Valery used, ...Shane, last time I checked, killing was worst than adultery.

[Derrell M]

Quote:

---

The leak was in retaliation when Wilson told the truth about the Adminstrations campaign to sell a war.

---

Quote:

---

That is why he went public, and that is why Bush/Cheny/Rove/Libby went after Wilson.

---

Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions.

[Neil D]

[:"green"] Hardball (MSNBC - 9/30/03) Chris Matthews interview of Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie

MATTHEWS: Don't you think it's more serious than Watergate, when you think about it?

GILLESPIE: I think if the allegation is true, to reveal the identity of an undercover CIA operative -- it's abhorrent, and it should be a crime, and it is a crime.

MATTHEWS: It'd be worse than Watergate, wouldn't it?

GILLESPIE: It's -- Yeah, I suppose in terms of the real world implications of it. It's not just politics.

[/]

Quote:

---

3 October 2003 (link no longer valid): "More vicious than Tricky Dick" by John Dean: "I thought I had seen political dirty tricks as foul as they could get, but I was wrong. In blowing the cover of CIA agent Valerie Plame to take political revenge on her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, for telling the truth, Bush's people have out-Nixoned Nixon's people. And my former colleagues were not amateurs by any means."

"Regardless of whether or not a special prosecutor is selected, I believe that Ambassador Wilson and his wife -- like the DNC official once did -- should file a civil lawsuit, both to address the harm inflicted on them, and, equally important, to obtain the necessary tools (subpoena power and sworn testimony) to get to the bottom of this matter. This will not only enable them to make sure they don't merely become yesterday's news; it will give them some control over the situation.

---

[Neil D]

This just out on mainstream press....Read it and weep, conservatives...

[:"green"]PHILADELPHIA - The Bush administration's rationale for war is now officially on trial.

Ostensibly, the indictment of Vice President Cheney's closest aide is about lying under oath and obstructing a federal probe. But the prosecution of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who resigned Friday, must be viewed in the broader political context.

This case is about the credibility of the war architects who pushed to invade Iraq while assailing dissenters who questioned the evidence.

If this case is pursued in open court, it could lay bare the inner workings of Cheney's office, where the most powerful vice president in history worked with top aides to marshal pro-war arguments that have since been judged, in numerous official reports, as baseless. That fact alone - coupled with Bush strategist Karl Rove's ongoing legal limbo - is likely to further distract a White House that has spent two years under legal and ethical clouds.

For President Bush and Cheney, this case sends an embarrassing message. Patrick Fitzgerald, the Republican-appointed prosecutor, is basically alleging that a Republican White House played fast and loose with national security by exposing a classified CIA employee. Fitzgerald said Friday, "Compromising national security information is a very serious matter."

Democrats have long sought to challenge the commonly held perception that the GOP is best equipped to safeguard the nation's security; this case is already prompting Democrats to contend that Bush's team is willing to compromise security for its own political ends. Indeed, several prospective 2008 presidential candidates charged Friday that CIA employee Valerie Plame's status was blown because the administration simply wanted to retaliate against her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, a vocal critic of a key administration argument for war.

And administration critics will contend that the Plame case is vivid proof that Bush has violated his 2000 campaign pledge "to restore honor and integrity to the White House."

[/] The rest of the Story

[Derrell M]

Read it and weep? Why? Because a journalist says it? There have also been articles in the mainstream press stating that creationism is on trial and that the fallacious rational behind the creationist lies is hereby exposed. Is that a reason to read and weep? Does that mean that us creationists are wrong? Because someone said, "This just out of the mainstream press..."?

I certainly can't imagine citing a journalist's statement of opinion as indisputable proof of fact.

Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

I certainly can't imagine citing a journalist's statement of opinion as indisputable proof of fact.

---

Opinion???

Ok, I will bite..Why did Libby continously lie over the CIA Leak? What motivation could he have for impeding the investigation?

Oh, let me guess....He LIKES litigation and desires to have it brought to him.....No, no, no, that can't be it...Nobody likes litigation and all that court stuff. It rather embarrassing, you know.....Oh, I know, he has a crush on Patrick Fitzgerald, special procecutor...Oh, that can't be it as Libby is married..so is the Fitzgerald ...I dont know...why could Libby be stonewalling this investigation that has taken nearly 2 years????? What is your answer, Friend?

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Gosh, Shane, are you truely this thick headed?????

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Read it and weep, conservatives...

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Do we need to talk about inflamatory, emotionally-charged phrases again? Let's try to play nice with others.

[Derrell M]

An indictment is an accusation, not a conviction. When an indictment is handed down, it in no way indicates that the person indicted is guilty.

Stonewalling? Lying? Which court has convicted Libby of those thing????? What is your answer, Neil?

What if he is convicted of lying? The idea that this is proof of some administration plot to launch a fraudulent war is still just assumption, assumption, assumption.

You probably think that I am a dyed-in-the-wool conservative. I am not. I may not agree with much of what Bush and his administration do and have deep feelings and opinions about those matters, but I also disagree with presumption of guilt, and use of feelings and opinions as infallible proof of guilt.

"In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination." Mark Twain

[Dr. Shane]

Another point that should be made in regard to comparing this to the Clinton scandal.

Clinton's lying wasn't just about sex. It was about sexual harrassment which is more about abuse of power than sex. A teacher can sexually harass a student but a student cannot sexually harass a teacher. A CEO can sexually harass a secretary but a secretary cannot sexually harass a CEO. Sexual harassment has a lot to do with abuse of power. Clinton was accused by an employee of his while he was governor. He aledgedly used his position as governor to try and preasure an employee into having sex with him. So it isn't like he had a love affair with another consenting adult and was trying to hide it so as to avoid embarassment.

[Derrell M]

On the other hand it could be called citing a case in which precedent is set for a top level politician being indicted, tried, convicted, and impeached on charges of lying and obstruction. You will find that reference to precedent is actually quite common in legal matters, in court and many other venues, and is not defined as obfuscation, but citing precedent.

Shane, Your statements on abuse of authority are quite interesting. I've seen some studies that assert that most abuse in any form starts as abuse of authority: physical, sexual, emotional, or spiritual.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Another point that should be made in regard to comparing this to the Clinton scandal.

---

Let's stop right there. This is about Libby, not Clinton. You want to talk about Clinton, start another thread. And quite frankly, I am tired of this ploy where Clinton's name coming up everytime something in the Bush administration comes up dirty. I hear this in EVERY thread, Shane...If you want to obsese over Clinton, go to a nursing home and live out the past there. Please don't do it here.

Quote:

---

You will find that reference to precedent is actually quite common in legal matters, in court and many other venues, and is not defined as obfuscation, but citing precedent.

---

And it is president that we charge Libby with obstruction of Justice when he continues to claim one thing and his records/notes say something totally different. And when others make statements that back up the notes rather than Libby's story.

I am impressed with the prosecutor when his office refuses to leak information to the public. He had the White House scared this last week. They didn't know what to do, even though they were fishing for information...It was interesting to see.

[Jeannieb43]

This prosecutor (Patrick Fitzgerald) is a paragon of excellence. Works hard, doesn't say more than is legally necessary, follows the law to the letter, and doesn't bring charges unless he has evidence to back them up.

Too bad he can't be nominated to fill the Supreme Court vacancy!

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

This is about Libby, not Clinton.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I disagree. Both have been accused of the same crime. There is a lot of partisan politics involved in both cases. The news programs on TV and the radio have been comparing both cases. I can't see how one can discuss one without contrasting it with the other.

[jasd]

QR Window:

Sheesh! …can’t even remember the name of my first wife; nor can I remember the anniversaries of the others…

Other things -- I remember. Some matters travel by one neural pathway -- others attempt to burn another path; it’s a matter of filtration. With guys,

it’s either weird or quirky; fer instance, I can remember every detail of my first car…, white, ’55 Ford convertible, white and pink leather interior (the gals loved it -- verrry important to a young guy), out-dragged most other stock cars -- and doing it with an automatic shift (start in first and when the engine was screaming… a quick shift to second and, as quickly, back to first -- allowing the tranny to stay in second all the way to 95mph!) etc -- and everything and every moment that happened or was spent in it. It’s like yesterday. Matter-of-fact,

I recall almost everything having to do with my cars, mostly convertibles…[/sighhh… ] On the other hand,

practically everything that was off the cuff, you know, sorta like Scooter’s conversations about that covert… (umm, I forgot, it’s no longer ‘covert’, is it? -- it’s now ‘classified’) agent is sorta hazy; like, who remembers

what Mrs Goodbottoms brought to the potluck two years ago the 13th of August, this year? Hmmm, I wonder why

so many Grand Juries give the Prosecutor his indictments for ‘lying…’? Speaking of wondering…,

I wonder how it is that the pundits, en masse, seem always to know more and better than the best and the brightest -- or the one briefed by them?

Red meat for yellow cur dogs… (remember, I’m referencing politicos, pundits, and hacks)

Hey! don’t get me wrong, I haven’t trusted a POTUS since way back (and have seen, fer instance, our Civil Defense structure dismantled by one POTUS whilst another makes the operational change that the USofA will only retaliate after an IBM first strike; like, what have we left to retaliate with after a first strike!? and what message does that send to a potential enemy? whilst yet another POTUS builds concentration camps in Amerika) -- but after all, it is he who has the helm and it just doesn’t do to be hangin’ on the POTUS’s pant-leg and making strange noises -- “I’m the opposition and this is what we do” --by Schumer, Teddy, Boxer, other politicos, pundits, et al, thinking they’s oughta be POTUS (after all, how smartcha hafta be? if Dubya can be POTUS!). That all being said,

if the guy is guilty of pernicious malfeasance, and with a name like ‘Scooter’ Libby, he mebbe oughta be sent to Leavenworth. But hey! change his name to something-the-other Muahmumad Mutmut, why! it might even be that he’s sent to the tropical Caribe Gitmo!

On disclosing a CIA agent’s name:

“…Congress considered prohibiting revealing a covert person’s identity, it stated in the accompanying report that such disclosure should only be prohibited under limited circumstances to “exclude the possibility that casual discussion, political debate, the journalistic pursuit of a story on intelligence, or the disclosure of illegality or impropriety in government” would be chilled by the law.”

[Derrell M]

Quote:

---

And it is president that we charge Libby with obstruction of Justice when he continues to claim one thing and his records/notes say something totally different.

---

Huh?

Quote:

---

Shane...If you want to obsese over Clinton, go to a nursing home and live out the past there.

---

Ouch! Me thinks a level of personal nastiness is developing here.