The whole indictment was a classic democrat party hatchet job, framing an innocent man. The media hystrionics were carefully orchestrated by the 'rat party.
Posted on 02/23/2006 4:41:35 PM PST by Anti-Bubba182
Lewis “Scooter” Libby is defending himself against a flawed indictment that never should have been brought by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald. A former public official of impeccable integrity and brilliance is being pilloried on absurd charges. The need to defend his freedom from this unjustified legal jeopardy exacts a huge toll on his time, energy, finances, and every other aspect of the life of a man in his prime.
Fitzgerald’s case is very likely to be thrown out of court at some point or other. It is far from clear that the Prosecution could ever establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Libby’s testimony was untrue or anything but an innocent misstatement, the product of confusion, a mistake or faulty memory. But beyond that, the case must fail because the prosecution has omitted the key step of establishing that an underlying crime warranting the investigation ever existed. In court filings, Fitzgerald admits he didn’t even try to establish this necessary legal predicate, and disingenuously dismisses the question as immaterial.
The indictment of Scooter Libby raises the question whether you can indict someone for purportedly giving false information to a grand jury about a matter which never met the statutory prerequisites for proceeding to an investigation in the first place.
A comparison illustrates the fatal flaw. Fitzgerald could not convict Scooter Libby for lying about what he had for lunch a year ago, if the investigation in which he made that statement had no relationship to his lunch that day. For exactly the same reason, he cannot win a conviction of Libby for lying to prosecutors while they are in effect on a fishing expedition, rather than pursuing evidence of an actual crime.
Fitzgerald charged Libby with making false statements to federal investigators, perjury before a grand jury and obstruction of justice. Absent an underlying applicable criminal law, there is no justification for bringing charges about lying to investigators or under oath before a grand jury. Without a legitimate investigation to be impeded, no charges of obstruction of justice can be brought, either.
Discovery is a process in which the parties get to see and test the evidence of their opponents. As discovery proceeds, we are finding more and more about how flimsy is the case against Libby. And Fitzgerald’s responses in discovery, that the factual support for the predicates of his investigation are not material, are beyond disingenuous.
The details are a bit complex, so the antique media have not lavished much attention on the flawed nature of the prosecution. For most of them, Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff is far from a sympathetic figure, and they relish his indictment as symbolic of The Larger Truth – the imagined corruption of the Bush administration.
It is worthwhile to take a closer look at the flaws in the case....."
"Lewis “Scooter” Libby is defending himself against a flawed indictment that never should have been brought by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald. A "
He's not really gonna defend himself is he? That's almost always a mistake, even if you are a lawyer.
The whole indictment was a classic democrat party hatchet job, framing an innocent man. The media hystrionics were carefully orchestrated by the 'rat party.
Anyway, I don't think K. had a $5MM defense fund.
That might make a difference, even in a Kafka novel.
He's still on MSNBC though. I guess they just wipe his chin, give him a shot of Thorozine and roll him out again...to their occasional embarrassment when he relapses.
He he concluded that he could not prosecute under charges that prompted the original investigation he should have dropped the whole thing. Even on the perjury angle he does not have anything approaching DNA on the dress quality evidence.
BTTT - Good Read.
If the TV screen was a radio speaker I would swear I saw Randi "Skank" Rhodes spouting that crap!! "Oh Oh the horror of the evil Bush Admin".
Dong
Very similar to the Martha Stewart case.
Actually worse because the evidence is weaker and there is no underlying crime.
Good article. Thanks for posting.
1. Does he not have evidence? His indictment apparently used the word "classified". If he has no evidence, is he guilty of perjury for a false certification of the indictment?
2. If he doesn't have evidence that Plame's role was classified, is he then guilty of fraud on the American people for not first investigating whether there was a crime committed?
3. If he committed fraud on the American people by attempting to entrap individuals to allegedly make false statements regarding a non-crime, is he guilty of squandering the taxpayers' money when an early finding might have revealed that no crime was committed?
4. Did he just drag this case on so he could have a low-stress, guaranteed paycheck for as long as he could make it last.
Inquiring minds, ie those who footed the bill for this farce, want to know.
Did Fitzgerald make false statements himself in the indictment when he certified that classified information was revealed to the public?
Does anyone have a link to the original CIA "complaint" that started this whole mess? Did the CIA go on record stating that Plame was (or was not) in an undercover/classified role? Doesn't the prosecutor need to examine the original complaint in order to go after a crime? Many of us in government have job classifications which does not mean our jobs are "classified" in the cloak-and-dagger sense. The more this roles out, the more it stinks.
Libby is trying to get this in discovery and Fitzgerald is resisting turning it over.
Unfortunately, this is a political hack piece and the author does not demonstrate any understanding of federal criminal law or process. Almost every sentence is a declaration, which is not based on our laws. While a jury may find Scooter not guilty, it is highly unlikely that the case will be dismissed.
Perjury is perjury; the circumstances of how it occurred are not that important - i.e., "I lied to protect my children." The press, talking heads and lawyers play games with the word "materiality," which may or may not be a necessity for Fitz to prove in court.
"Actually worse because the evidence is weaker and there is no underlying crime."
Get with the american justice system. Lying under oath or lying to the FBI, while not under oath, is a crime in and of itself. There is no necessity to have an underlying crime. Ask Martha Stewart.
This is a federal criminal case. What discovery do you think Libby is entitled? The law of the US is that there is essentially no discovery for Mr. Libby unless it is Brady material or his taped discussions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.