Libby Indicted, resigns

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: DonVito
The word on the streets is that they have Libby's dated notes, in which he specifically states that VP Cheney told him about Plame's CIA status, but he testified to the grand jury that he didn't know she was a CIA agent until he heard it from a reporter months later.

If that's true (obviously it's just rumor at this point), it seems to me to be very clear proof of perjury, and likely of obstruction of justice as well.

And I'll ask you the same question - Assuming these street stories are true - how do you prove that Libby intentionally misled the GJ with the purpose of hindering or obstructing the investigation, as opposed to making a mistake in his testimony?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Pabster

Everyone knows who THEY is.

A flesh wound...it seems to be, but I'll reserve judgement until I read the indictment.

Fitzgerald better have something real good if he intends to prove that Libby intentionally misled the Grand Jury. That's pretty hard to prove.

The word on the streets is that they have Libby's dated notes, in which he specifically states that VP Cheney told him about Plame's CIA status, but he testified to the grand jury that he didn't know she was a CIA agent until he heard it from a reporter months later.

If that's true (obviously it's just rumor at this point), it seems to me to be very clear proof of perjury, and likely of obstruction of justice as well.

If that is true wouldnt charges be leveled against Cheney himself? Perjury would seem like nothing compared to what they could get Cheney on.

I have a feeliing by the end of today we will know

Isnt the deadline today for bringing charges?

 

[Medicine Bear]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Pabster

Everyone knows who THEY is.

A flesh wound...it seems to be, but I'll reserve judgement until I read the indictment.

Fitzgerald better have something real good if he intends to prove that Libby intentionally misled the Grand Jury. That's pretty hard to prove.

The word on the streets is that they have Libby's dated notes, in which he specifically states that VP Cheney told him about Plame's CIA status, but he testified to the grand jury that he didn't know she was a CIA agent until he heard it from a reporter months later.

If that's true (obviously it's just rumor at this point), it seems to me to be very clear proof of perjury, and likely of obstruction of justice as well.

He should have just pulled a Clinton and said "I don't recall", "I don't remember", "I have no specific recollection" or some variation of those over 200 times. Much more effective.

Worked for Reagan to. Of course he probably really didn't remember. Loved Ronnie, but near the end of term 2 he was a shell of his former self.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Genx87
If that is true wouldnt charges be leveled against Cheney himself? Perjury would seem like nothing compared to what they could get Cheney on.

No, because Cheney, Libby, and Rove all have appropriate security clearance to discuss matters such as CIA operatives. If Cheney was indeed the first to mention Plame to Libby, it wouldn't be a crime.

Isnt the deadline today for bringing charges?

Yes, but Fitz can always ask for an extension of the GJ. I believe it can serve two more months (It has been serving 22 months.)

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Pabster

Everyone knows who THEY is.

A flesh wound...it seems to be, but I'll reserve judgement until I read the indictment.

Fitzgerald better have something real good if he intends to prove that Libby intentionally misled the Grand Jury. That's pretty hard to prove.

The word on the streets is that they have Libby's dated notes, in which he specifically states that VP Cheney told him about Plame's CIA status, but he testified to the grand jury that he didn't know she was a CIA agent until he heard it from a reporter months later.

If that's true (obviously it's just rumor at this point), it seems to me to be very clear proof of perjury, and likely of obstruction of justice as well.

If that is true wouldnt charges be leveled against Cheney himself? Perjury would seem like nothing compared to what they could get Cheney on.

I have a feeliing by the end of today we will know

Isnt the deadline today for bringing charges?

That or he can extend the grand jury for more months.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Pabster

And I'll ask you the same question - Assuming these street stories are true - how do you prove that Libby intentionally misled the GJ with the purpose of hindering or obstructing the investigation, as opposed to making a mistake in his testimony?

Perjury isn't a specific-intent crime. All the prosecutor is required to show is that he lied - motive is irrelevant. As for the obstruction (where motive is critical), it seems to me like a reasonable inference to presume that the reason he lied was to protect VP Cheney. That will presumably be the prosecutor's argument, to the extent he is charged with obstruction.

I don't think the defense of mistake is plausible here, and frankly I expect that, if the rumored evidence is true, Libby will plead guilty to perjury. Libby is himself an attorney, and I simply don't believe he would "forget" something as critical as how he heard about Valerie Plame's identity and CIA status, when that is one of the most critical elements of this case, then provide incorrect info to the grand jury under oath. He'd have to be the stupidest lawyer on the planet for that to be true. If that's his best defense, he's better off pleading guilty IMO.

It seems to me that Libby is likely to take one for the team if he's indicted. The Bush/PNAC/RNC machine is so big, and so wealthy, that they can ensure he and his family live in great comfort for the rest of their lives if he takes full responsibility for the whole Plame situation, and saves Karl Rove and VP Cheney in the process.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Genx87

If that is true wouldnt charges be leveled against Cheney himself? Perjury would seem like nothing compared to what they could get Cheney on.

I have a feeliing by the end of today we will know

Isnt the deadline today for bringing charges?

No. There's nothing per se improper about VP Cheney and Libby having this conversation. If, hypothetically, VP Cheney explicitly or implicitly encouraged Libby to leak her name and CIA-agent status to the media, that would obviously be a different and far more severe problem for the White House.

 

[Medicine Bear]

I the end none of this truly matters for squat.

Presidential pardon anyone?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: DonVito
Perjury isn't a specific-intent crime. All the prosecutor is required to show is that he lied - motive is irrelevant. As for the obstruction (where motive is critical), it seems to me like a reasonable inference to presume that the reason he lied was to protect VP Cheney. That will presumably be the prosecutor's argument, to the extent he is charged with obstruction.

Perjury, no. But I believe (per the street reports) the charge is Providing False Statements to the Grand Jury. That's a bit different, no? Or is there no burden of intent required for that charge, either? (I'm no lawyer and I won't pretend to be one.)

I don't think the defense of mistake is plausible here, and frankly I expect that, if the rumored evidence is true, Libby will plead guilty to perjury. Libby is himself an attorney, and I simply don't believe he would "forget" something as critical as how he heard about Valerie Plame's identity and CIA status, when that is one of the most critical elements of this case, then provided incorrect info to the grand jury under oath. He'd have to be the stupidest lawyer on the planet for that to be true. If that's his best defense, he's better off pleading guilty IMO.

If that is the case, I agree, and would find it highly unlikely Libby would "forget" some critical point.

It seems to me that Libby is likely to take one for the team if he's indicted. The Bush/PNAC/RNC machine is so big, and so wealthy, that they can ensure he and his family live in great comfort for the rest of their lives if he takes full responsibility for the whole Plame situation, and saves Karl Rove and VP Cheney in the process.

I'm not sure what he would be saving Rove and Cheney from, though. By all accounts Cheney hasn't committed any crime (though the NY Times tried to imply otherwise on several occasions). And Rove?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Medicine Bear
I the end none of this truly matters for squat.

Presidential pardon anyone?

Probably. Nothing is too low for these guys.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Presidential pardon anyone?

Probably. Nothing is too low for these guys.[/quote]

Surely you are being sarcastic. Or do I need to remind you of 42's pardons of "friends"?

 

[Medicine Bear]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Medicine Bear
I the end none of this truly matters for squat.

Presidential pardon anyone?

Probably. Nothing is too low for these guys.

How is that low? Common practice. Just look at what just about every President does as far as pardons go just before they leave office.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Medicine Bear
I the end none of this truly matters for squat.

Presidential pardon anyone?

No way. Libby might be pardoned at the end of President Bush's term, but there is no way in hell, especially given his comparatively weak present support in Congress, that President Bush can pardon White House staffers allegedly involved in felony-level misconduct.

Don't forget that President Bush himself hired a criminal defense attorney in the summer of 2004 - he may not be completely clean in this himself (though of course he may be), and he can't realistically pardon Rove and/or Libby at this point if he wants to finish his term.

I think the President's public words of praise for Fitzgerald are a tell as to the way he'll handle this, when and if indictments are handed down. The affected staffers will have to resign, at least temporarily, and he can't block it. There's too much at stake.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Genx87
If that is true wouldnt charges be leveled against Cheney himself? Perjury would seem like nothing compared to what they could get Cheney on.

No, because Cheney, Libby, and Rove all have appropriate security clearance to discuss matters such as CIA operatives. If Cheney was indeed the first to mention Plame to Libby, it wouldn't be a crime.

Isnt the deadline today for bringing charges?

Yes, but Fitz can always ask for an extension of the GJ. I believe it can serve two more months (It has been serving 22 months.)

However, Rove and Libby CONFIRMED her identity to reporters who, I am very certain, DO NOT have the appropriate security clearances which is a crime.

SF-312 signed by all that get a clearance

3. I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation. I hereby agree that I will never divulge classified information to anyone unless: (a) I have officially verified that the recipient has been properly authorized by the United States Government to receive it; or (b) I have been given prior written notice of authorization from the United States Government Department or Agency (hereinafter Department or Agency) responsible for the classification of information or last granting me a security clearance that such disclosure is permitted. I understand that if I am uncertain about the classification status of information, I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before I may disclose it, except to a person as provided in (a) or (b), above. I further understand that I am obligated to comply with laws and regulations that prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

If he was uncertain if it was classified info, he was obligated to verify it first before confirming to a reporter that she was.

 

[Medicine Bear]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Medicine Bear
I the end none of this truly matters for squat.

Presidential pardon anyone?

No way. Libby might be pardoned at the end of President Bush's term, but there is no way in hell, especially given his comparatively weak present support in Congress, that President Bush can pardon White House staffers allegedly involved in felony-level misconduct.

Don't forget that President Bush himself hired a criminal defense attorney in the summer of 2004 - he may not be completely clean in this himself (though of course he may be), and he can't realistically pardon Rove and/or Libby at this point if he wants to finish his term.

I think the President's public words of praise for Fitzgerald are a tell as to the way he'll handle this, when and if indictments are handed down. The affected staffers will have to resign, at least temporarily, and he can't block it. There's too much at stake.

I was talking about an end of term pardon. I agree, no way he can do it before then.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Medicine Bear
I the end none of this truly matters for squat.

Presidential pardon anyone?

No way. Libby might be pardoned at the end of President Bush's term, but there is no way in hell, especially given his comparatively weak present support in Congress, that President Bush can pardon White House staffers allegedly involved in felony-level misconduct.

Don't forget that President Bush himself hired a criminal defense attorney in the summer of 2004 - he may not be completely clean in this himself (though of course he may be), and he can't realistically pardon Rove and/or Libby at this point if he wants to finish his term.

I think the President's public words of praise for Fitzgerald are a tell as to the way he'll handle this, when and if indictments are handed down. The affected staffers will have to resign, at least temporarily, and he can't block it. There's too much at stake.

GWB CAN pardon who he pleases. What are they going to do, not reelect him?

He does not need any support from Congress in this matter. He doesn't even really need Congress. If it is true he has tenuous support in Congress, then he can do much by regulation and bypass law.

He may not pardon in the end, but he's seriously considering this, and if he does he will do so in the name of "national security" to prevent the possibility of sensitive material coming to light. At that point the Bush supporters here will either point to some Democrat getting pardoned and say it's fair, or claim some national security interests too or most likely both.

Just wait and see.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: DonVito
Perjury isn't a specific-intent crime. All the prosecutor is required to show is that he lied - motive is irrelevant. As for the obstruction (where motive is critical), it seems to me like a reasonable inference to presume that the reason he lied was to protect VP Cheney. That will presumably be the prosecutor's argument, to the extent he is charged with obstruction.

Perjury, no. But I believe (per the street reports) the charge is Providing False Statements to the Grand Jury. That's a bit different, no? Or is there no burden of intent required for that charge, either? (I'm no lawyer and I won't pretend to be one.)

I don't think the defense of mistake is plausible here, and frankly I expect that, if the rumored evidence is true, Libby will plead guilty to perjury. Libby is himself an attorney, and I simply don't believe he would "forget" something as critical as how he heard about Valerie Plame's identity and CIA status, when that is one of the most critical elements of this case, then provided incorrect info to the grand jury under oath. He'd have to be the stupidest lawyer on the planet for that to be true. If that's his best defense, he's better off pleading guilty IMO.

If that is the case, I agree, and would find it highly unlikely Libby would "forget" some critical point.

It seems to me that Libby is likely to take one for the team if he's indicted. The Bush/PNAC/RNC machine is so big, and so wealthy, that they can ensure he and his family live in great comfort for the rest of their lives if he takes full responsibility for the whole Plame situation, and saves Karl Rove and VP Cheney in the process.

I'm not sure what he would be saving Rove and Cheney from, though. By all accounts Cheney hasn't committed any crime (though the NY Times tried to imply otherwise on several occasions). And Rove?

I'm not sure if I'm not being clear, or what. The charge would be one of making false declarations before a grand jury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. The statute requires that the false statements were made knowingly, but beyond that there is no requirement to show any additional criminal intent.

As for Rove and Cheney, only the men involved know what they did. I certainly don't. Frankly I am deeply, comprehensively cynical about Karl Rove, who I think can and will do almost anything, and he is clearly a primary target of the grand jury.

As for Cheney, US News was, last week, reporting rumors that he was facing indictment himself (though this was sheer rumor and hasn't received much more press since). I'm not implying he did anything wrong, but if he did, Libby probably knows where the bodies are buried, and could potentially help shield him from prosecution.

 

[totalcommand]

Dems got pwned on this one.

They set the standard too high for the indictments, and just Libby getting indicted seems like nothing happening to the public now.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
That would be hillarious if some of these Bushies ended up in prison, got gangraped, and ended up dying of AIDS. Imagine Carl Rove dying of AIDS after a guy named Big Gay Al got him.

You are one mentally disturbed person.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: totalcommand
Dems got pwned on this one.

They set the standard too high for the indictments, and just Libby getting indicted seems like nothing happening to the public now.

Agreed. And they can't blast Fitzy, they've been building him up for months.

As well it has been reported that the Grand Jury is not a special GJ after all and if Fitz wants to continue his investigation, he would need to commandeer an entirely new GJ to do so.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: totalcommand
Dems got pwned on this one.

They set the standard too high for the indictments, and just Libby getting indicted seems like nothing happening to the public now.

Agreed. And they can't blast Fitzy, they've been building him up for months.

As well it has been reported that the Grand Jury is not a special GJ after all and if Fitz wants to continue his investigation, he would need to commandeer an entirely new GJ to do so.

I'd say the damage has already been done, with or without the indictments. And Rove hasn't escaped yet, Fitzgerald still hasn't announced what he wants to do with him. The public perception of this administration is essentially one of distrust. People are finally waking up to the lies and BS that this administration has spewed in order to push forth their agenda.

What I find hilarious is the people who are actually trying to defend Rove/Cheney/etc., as if they are patron saints. This entire case represents everything that is wrong with partisan politics today. Instead of the country uniting to demand this administration level with the American people and stop the lies, we are bickering over this stupid case.

I really do hope we see the exodus of Rove from the White House. I've long believed that Bush is a decent man. I think he has surrounded himself with the wrong people, it's time for him to clean house. Bush has 3 years left people, I don't want his administration to crumble because that isn't going to help anyone, I want to see him clean this mess up and get his act straight.

oh yea, and what exactly have the democrats lost here? they have only gained from this whole debacle. i think it is wise that they have been sitting on the sidelines and watching the sh!t hit the fan.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: totalcommand
Dems got pwned on this one.

They set the standard too high for the indictments, and just Libby getting indicted seems like nothing happening to the public now.

Agreed. And they can't blast Fitzy, they've been building him up for months.

As well it has been reported that the Grand Jury is not a special GJ after all and if Fitz wants to continue his investigation, he would need to commandeer an entirely new GJ to do so.

Very true. The only thing the Repubs need to worry about is the people who entered into plea bargains rather than being indicted (There are definitely a couple of people who did this, or the indictments would have been announced earlier).

It is a real possibility that those people could finger Rove in the future.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: DonVito
I'm not sure if I'm not being clear, or what. The charge would be one of making false declarations before a grand jury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. The statute requires that the false statements were made knowingly, but beyond that there is no requirement to show any additional criminal intent.

According to the legal minds I've seen chattering this morning (just recently on Fox) the charge of False Statements To a Grand Jury requires proof that those statements were intentional. That's what I was going on. Perhaps they are going with a different law than the one you are referring to?

As for Cheney, US News was, last week, reporting rumors that he was facing indictment himself (though this was sheer rumor and hasn't received much more press since). I'm not implying he did anything wrong, but if he did, Libby probably knows where the bodies are buried, and could potentially help shield him from prosecution.

I don't read US News (&WR, I assume) ... what were they speculating Cheney could be indicted on?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: DonVito
I'm not sure if I'm not being clear, or what. The charge would be one of making false declarations before a grand jury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. The statute requires that the false statements were made knowingly, but beyond that there is no requirement to show any additional criminal intent.

According to the legal minds I've seen chattering this morning (just recently on Fox) the charge of False Statements To a Grand Jury requires proof that those statements were intentional. That's what I was going on. Perhaps they are going with a different law than the one you are referring to?

As for Cheney, US News was, last week, reporting rumors that he was facing indictment himself (though this was sheer rumor and hasn't received much more press since). I'm not implying he did anything wrong, but if he did, Libby probably knows where the bodies are buried, and could potentially help shield him from prosecution.

I don't read US News (&WR, I assume) ... what were they speculating Cheney could be indicted on?

If you knowingly give false testimony, it is intentional. It does not need to be CRIMINAL intent ie misleading to hide a crime.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
If you knowingly give false testimony, it is intentional. It does not need to be CRIMINAL intent ie misleading to hide a crime.

I'm asking if a burden of proof has to met to say "knowingly".