Posted on 06/05/2007 4:29:19 AM PDT by prairiebreeze
I believe you got my point, that Libby was questioned quite some time after the conversations happened. Far enough that it is plausable IMO to be unclear or mis-stated but not necessarily intentionally misrepresented.
One of the jurors came on television shortly after the verdict and it was found that he had....media ties IIRC. I won’t have a chance to research the name as I’m going to work soon, but it was heavily noted here that particular juror seemed inappropriate to a case involving media figures. That’s what I was referring to, if I get a chance I’ll try to research the old Libby threads for a name. Perhaps somebody else will remember it.
Care to actually debate, or just make unfounded statements? I know the prosecution itself was an outrage, completely politically motivated in the frustration over not being able to nail Cheney. Now if Libby had only told the truth during the investigation everything would be fine.
This administration has the very dumb habit of lying and spinning over perfectly legal actions. Take the current DOJ firings scandal, actions that were entirely, legally within the President's authority. Congress shouldn't be invesgitating in the first place, but now that they are somebody's lying instead of just saying "We did it, so what?"
Given a date two years ago, a person, and a choice of possible sources of knowledge of that person, I know positively I can tell you a) Yes, b) No or c) I don't recall. Libby had those options. Honesty is all that's needed to avoid perjury.
One of the jurors came on television shortly after the verdict and it was found that he had....media ties
Denis Collins, a former Post reporter and novelist. I don't see anything that disqualifies him. He was also the one who was sympathetic towards Libby.
The lefty Firedoglake is blogging the hearing.
Here’s the latest from them:
Jeffress: [continuing on IIPA] If there had been a violation of IIPA, I’m sure the govt would have charged it.
Walton: I always hear lawyers say indictment doesn’t matter. The fact that someone is indicted, I tell people not to take that seriously. The fact that someone isn’t found guilty, that’s stronger than the fact that they weren’t charged.
Jeffress: Govt has never shown that the offense was committed.
Walton: The objective behind cross-referencing as it relates to obtstruction is that it’s envisioned when law enforcement officials start an investigation and they go to citizenry to find out whether an offense has been committed, it is the obligation of the citizenry to cooperate, when a person is put on notice of what the govt is investigating. I think that’s what this cross-referencing provision is designed to reach. You only look at whether a legitimate investigation was taking place, it’s my view the x-referencing does apply, as it relates to the obstruction. I may not reach wrt the perjury conviction, I have questions whether it would apply.
Jeffress: I would point out two things. Not a single of these cases is in DC Circuit. [Shorter Jeffress: Silberman won’t buy this argument]
Walton: I’m looking at it from a social policy perpsective. If the circuit wants to take a different position, they have that prerogative. If a person can keep the ability of govt to investigate by obstructing the investigation.
Jeffress: speaking of policy, the defendant may go to prison for twice the time than the case that was being investigated.
Walton just mentioned responsibility again… (that is, why hasn’t Libby taken responsibility)
Walton if you come to me in reference to very serious social offense, there’s a difference. Cross-reference for obstruction does apply. We still have issue of … govt never presented any evidence that Libby knew what her status was. Either negligence or recklessness that resulted in that being disseminated to press.
10:10
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8PIN78O0&show_article=1
WASHINGTON (AP) - Former White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s hopes of avoiding prison in the CIA leak case began to dim Tuesday as a federal judge ruled he could face a longer sentence because the investigation he obstructed was so serious.
Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, is the highest-ranking official convicted of a crime since the Iran Contra affair.
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald wants to put Libby in prison for up to three years because the investigation he was convicted of obstructing—the leak of a CIA operative’s identity—was so serious. Libby’s attorneys are seeking no jail time and argue that it’s unfair to increase the sentence simply because the investigation was serious.
“No one was ever charged. Nobody ever pleaded guilty,” attorney William Jeffress said. “The government did not establish the existence of an offense.”
U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton didn’t accept that. By that reasoning, Walton said, witnesses benefit if they aggressively obstruct investigations so prosecutors can’t make their case.
“I just can’t buy in on that being good social policy,” said Walton, who has a reputation as a tough sentencing judge. “It’s one thing if you obstruct a petty larceny. It’s another thing if you obstruct a murder investigation.”
Walton’s preliminary ruling doesn’t necessarily foretell Libby’s sentence. But it does make it harder for Libby’s attorneys to argue for no jail time because it raises the seriousness of his offense.
Having determined what the guidelines should be, I’ll move to what the actual sentence should be.
Fitz: whatever sentence Your Honor imposes, needs ot make a clear statement that truth matters, when we think about how truth matters, as eloquent as SCOTUS is, your honor sees that every day, when people walk into a court room, the whole system depends on truth. If we lose truth in judicial system, then judicial system is lost. That is true in every case, but especially true in this cse. High level person,he knew he was going to be questioned, he had time to meet with an attorney, extended period of time, from October, instead of saying, you know what, I lied, he persisted in that lie. He walked into GJ, he raised his hand and lied again. When I read the sentencing letters that are quite eloquent, they describe someone who would not do such a thing. But the truth is, he did do such a thing. In a case such as that, we need to make the statement that truth matters ever so much.
[Libby looking off into wilderness. ]
Fitz: One’ station in life does not matter. Many defendants are first offenders, most defendants have family. We need to make clear that the truth matters and one’s station in life does not matter.
Fitz: We need to make sure we don’t make a special category of person who is not liable for their behavior. That is a terrible precedent, when we talk abotu govt corruption, if he doesn’t have to tell the truth, that is dangerous. I don’t think we should make a decision based on the policy decisions has made. We put that out the window and say, whatever policy decision he did in good faith, but many others have sacrificed for govt, but they all have to follow the truth. I don’t think it’s appropriate to consider impact of prosecution on him. No doubt it has impact on him, no defendant has stood before court, no defendant has better prospects for employment, even wihtout a law license Libby has many people who wrote letters who would said he would trust him. He has better employment prospects than any other defendant, and he has means.
Fitz: I don’t think he qualifies for aberrant behavior. The record here shows someone who lied in Oct, lying precisely about critical issues. Persisted in lies despite training as lawyer, has shown absolute no contrition. We’re not going to recommend any sentence. I do think the sentence has to make clear and loud that truth matters and one’s station in life does not.
10:57
checking in briefly, thanks for the updates.
Both the judge and Fitz sound like flaming moonbats. Walton brings up murder FGS.
11:23
Wells: the letters only represent a fraction of the evidence supporting Mr. Libby’s character.
Wells WRT collatoral consequences suffered by Libby. This is an exceptional case, exceptional degree of media coverage, bc of that, ramifications have been different.
[And I’m sure the Wilsons enjoyed that media attention, Ted]
Wells: Mr Libby has been exposed unlike people convicted in normal case, to overwhelming public scrutiny, exposed to ridicule.
[And standing ovations from his buddies the Neocons]
Wells: The social stigma of being so publicly humiliated, should factor in. It is a type of public humiliation that the guidelines didn’t contemplate. It made it seem like MR Libby was the poster child for all that has gone wrong with this terrible war. [Hey, Wells is anti-war] Burden of media coverage has fallen on his wife and children. This is exceptioal pain. This is not a regular case.
[Say, how many kids do the Wilsons have?]
Wells: In addition to his family, Libby had two loves, govt service, and practice in law. No question that he is going to lose law license. No question he is no longer going to be able to serve in govt as NSA.
[Say, what is Eliot Abrams doing right about now???]
Wells: In terms of issue of deterrence, one of factors court required to consider. No reason to incarcerate Libby for deterrence. I don’t think Mr LIbby is going to go out and do something wrong. In terms of general deterrance, because of exception publicity, the message sent to all public officials, the clear message is, if you find yourself in position like LIbby, consequences are huge. [Two words: Standing ovation] A tragic fall from public grace.
[Walton leaning back in his chair looking at Wells sideways]
11:29
11:29
Wells; I submit no need to incarcerate. Libby Public humiliation combined with exceptional public sevrice to nation, would justify court exercise not to incarcerate. To extent Your Honor requires incarcaeration, I’d ask some kind of split sentence, permit him to serve in home confinement or halfway house. Judge Urbina in sentencing Jamal, convicted of fraud gave Jamal probation.
[Walton looking up at ceiling]
Wells In fashioning sentencing, one’s entire life should be taken into account, that is a factor that permits the court, should it so choose, to give credit to and depart from. Libby few short remakrs.
Hopefully Bush will have to guts for an immediate pardon, but I doubt it. He’s too busy putting border guards in combat soldiers in prison.
Now what did Mr Clinton get for his perjury?
Why does this seem excessive in comparison........
Could it be the dreaded (R) factor? Naaaaaah.......move along, nothing to see here.
Care to actually debate, or just make unfounded statements? I know the prosecution itself was an outrage,
Let's see... I call it an outrage and you agree, and then call my statement "unfounded". How stupid is that?!
The overall Plame investigation case was an outrage. The prosecution of Libby's perjury was valid. You initiated with insults instead of talking the points.
But the lying scumbag FitzFong can keep telling THE BIG LIE that Libby leaked the name, when he knew from the start that was false.
It’s still not clear if he’ll release Libby pending appeal. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
God help us.
It makes me want to be sick.
I know..
Wonder if the president will pardon him..
Don’t know....guessing not though.
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.