Posted on 03/06/2007 8:34:59 AM PST by Dog
Who do you think it is?
Not even brave enough to engage, but can run around behind folks backs and snark. I'm sure your mom is proud.
got an a+ in both classes
interesting point of view
seems different than the examples given by my proffs
The Left has just found their messiah. Joseph Wilson. And the Wilson's already have a movie working. I wonder who the bad guy will be?
The "truth of the matter" is definitely the truth of the statement presented as evidence. This is the fundamental principle of the hearsay rules. If your professor didn't teach you that you were ill-served, and you can tell him/her freely that someone said so. Really. Go ask him. But if you ask this question you might get your A+ revoked.
I agree. It's disheartening, and I go back to a column by John Podhoretz last week about Rudy and why so many conservatives like him---and I'm NOT turning this into a Rudy thread. But P's point was that on the issues Rudy fought libs over, he CRUSHED them, and I think people on our side are desperate for ANYONE who will actually fight these people . . . on ANYTHING. The first candidate who really captures that sense will dominate this election.
It was on Yahoo, but the article is by the Associated Press. No surprise there.
I think materiality is the issue that most bothers me.
Fitz knew who the leaker was as he entered this case. He knew it was Armitage. He also knew that Plame was not a covert agent per the law on that issue. He knew no crime had been committed.
At that point, the case should have been stopped.
However, assuming the worse about Libby for a moment. Assume Libby did not know who the culprit was. However, Libby would have known it was not himself. His actions would then be taken to assure that someone did not FALSELY conclude that it was him.
He is asked "when did you first tell that Plame was an agent?" If he had told at week #1 to one person and also told at month #1 to another person, why did he place himself in his testimony to the FBI in the later incident? Perhaps to place himself further from the time of the incident itself. Perhaps he saw greater distance in time as being safer.
All along, Libby knows that Libby is not the one who outed Plame. What did he fear happening if he placed himself closer in time? I'd say he feared some kind of false accusation by an overzealous prosecutor.
At this point, what is his crime? He is guilty of lying to the FBI and the Grand Jury in an effort to distance himself from a crime that he is certain that he did not commit AND that the prosecutor will know that Libby did not commit.
He would have been far better off, now that we know Armitage's name, never to have spoken to the FBI or the Grand Jury beyond a pleading of the 5th Amendment.
From henceforth, I will never suggest otherwise to anyone who has to speak to authorities.
As for Libby, if we assume he lied to the FBI/Grand Jury, then he deserves some form of punishment. That punishment should be a wristslap since he is clearly innocent and has been known all along to be innocent. I'd give him a suspended sentence with lots of community service.
If I were on the jury, and if I had been permitted to consider that there was no crime committed and that it was definitely not committed by Libby, then I would have nullified this case. If they had had all the above information and Andrea Mitchell's testimony that disputed Russert's testimony, then I could not have convicted him.
Obstruction of justice does not require another crime be committed. All it requires is that he knowingly impede the functioning of a grand jury by misleading it. By lying to the grand jury about when he learned of Ms. Wilson's identity and the sum and substance of his conversations about Ms. Wilson to reporters, he obstructed justice. It is irrelevant that he was not the actual source of the leak (Mr. Armitage, who cooperated with investigators), nor is is relevant if Ms. Plame was or was not covert. What matters is only that he lied to the grand jury and investigators.
Remember - no crime need be committed for a grand jury to exist. There must only be reason to believe a crime may have been committed. Grand juries are investigatory tools, not fact-finders.
I have absolutely no sympathy for Libby. I didn't buy the "I forgot" defense (come on - one of the sharpest Beltway lawyers "forgot"? Not bloody likely.) My support for the Iraq war does not extend so far as to give immunity to lawyers for lying to grand juries.
The Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination does not attach until the initiation of formal adversarial proceedings. You do that, you will get a one-way ticket to join Scooter. You cannot assert the Fifth Amendment if the FBI just wants to talk to you, or if the Grand Jury desires your testimony. The Grand Jury is entitled to every man's testimony.
" Obstruction of justice does not require another crime be committed. All it requires is that he knowingly impede the functioning of a grand jury by misleading it. By lying to the grand jury about when he learned of Ms. Wilson's identity and the sum and substance of his conversations about Ms. Wilson to reporters, he obstructed justice. It is irrelevant that he was not the actual source of the leak (Mr. Armitage, who cooperated with investigators), nor is is relevant if Ms. Plame was or was not covert. What matters is only that he lied to the grand jury and investigators.
Remember - no crime need be committed for a grand jury to exist. There must only be reason to believe a crime may have been committed. Grand juries are investigatory tools, not fact-finders."
"I have absolutely no sympathy for Libby. I didn't buy the "I forgot" defense (come on - one of the sharpest Beltway lawyers "forgot"? Not bloody likely.)"
The rigidness and absolutism of youth! Smart lawyers never give guarantees, but I'll break that rule this one time. After you've been practicing as long as b-d and me, I guarantee you'll look at these things differently.
"My support for the Iraq war does not extend so far as to give immunity to lawyers for lying to grand juries."
As well it shouldn't.
"You cannot assert the Fifth Amendment if the FBI just wants to talk to you, or if the Grand Jury desires your testimony. The Grand Jury is entitled to every man's testimony."
Well, sort of. You can tell the FBI to go to hell. Like I posted earlier, name, address, I want my lawyer here's his name. The Grand Jury is a bit different, but the 5th Amendment protection still applies unless you're given at least some sort of immunity. You of course may find yourself a target after the assertion, however, or be held in contempt.
Wait until you get to my age and Scooter Libby's age. When I was your age my memory was so sharp I could remember conversations weeks after they had occurred. Today, however, if I do not write down the essence of conversations, I simply cannot remember the details at all. I will go to hearings that last all day long and three days later I will forget who was there, what was discussed, what the disposition was. I rely heavily on my notes for everything. I do not rely upon my memory for anything. Memories are not reliable, especially when you get to be Scooter Libby's age.
When I was younger, I could remember anything, whether it had happened or not; but my faculties are decaying now and soon I shall be so I cannot remember any but the things that never happened. - Mark Twain's Autobiography
.
The truth is, a person's memory has no more sense that his conscience, and no appreciation whatever of values and proportions. - Mark Twain in Eruption
.
It isn't so astonishing, the number of things that I can remember, as the number of things I can remember that aren't so. - Mark Twain, a Biography
The ugly history of Mark Rich returns ...
I would disagree with you. The words are: "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,...without due process of law."
As soon as they offer me immunity, then I'll speak.
Also, it is too easy to simply call one's memory into question throughout any statements and regularly affirm that you reserve the right to change anything in any way as your memory is refreshed.
Wasn't Patrick Fitzgerald appointed by the Bush Administration?
No, Libby said under oath Russert told him about Wilson's wife and he was surprised to hear it. Libby and Russert both agree the conversation took place but Russert denies telling him about the wife and in fact says no such discussion of her took place at all. And there was the issue of Libby saying he was surprised.
However, he also told the FBI up front about hearing it from Cheney back in June but hadn't remembered it, just had a note about it so it's hard to imagine why he'd fabricate such a conversation with Tim Russert of all people.
And finally, Russert's memory and very credibility were brought into question in the trial.
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.