Posted on 10/24/2005 8:29:50 PM PDT by ArmyBratproud
Now, how was he doing financially before he was put on this fool's errand.
Excellent point. I suspect that is where Libby's testimony is most significant.
That's why this case, which even my conservative colleagues likened to the Martha Stewart matter, really isn't anything close to that case. Martha was nailed for hiding the fact that she received inside information. That inhibited prosecution of her source. But there never was any doubt that the underlying act - insider trading - was a crime.
By contrast the case against Rove, et. al. relies entirely on whether Plame was in fact known to be a covert agent at the time of her *outing*. That's a tough, tough sell given the reality of her job at that time, and other easily-obtainable information on her.
That would seem to obviate the delay charge, unless there's something really odd going on.
Aren't we all going to have a laugh when we realize this is just another Rove plot to embarass the Dems, MSM, and out the CIA pimps.
I agree that Rove would skate. But if Fitzgerald plans to work with the MSM and the DNC--which I hope he doesn't--he could make a lot of trouble with a false indictment. These things take time to adjudicate, and in the meantime the MSM would be going after Bush hammer and tongs.
In the end, Fitzgerald and the MSM would damage themselves severely, because people are no longer in the mood to let them pull off another Watergate; but the administration could suffer in the meantime.
And it would be quite ironic if Libby goes down for perjury because he was trying to hide the fact that he learned about Wilson's wife being at the CIA from Cheney by falsely claiming he learned about her from a reporter.
Because if Cheney learned from Tenet that Wilson's CIA wife got him sent to Niger, but Cheney mistakenly believed she was not covert but an open bureaucrat at CIA, and Cheney passed on this mistaken understanding to Libby, who then discussed it with reporters, neither Cheney nor Libby broke the law, and Libby would have been fine if he had simply told the truth.
It just seems to me another court running amok. No one exactly knows the rules, they could 'get' you for forgetting, it depends on if he is honest or out to get you? And it is a tool that can be used to bring a President down? What kind of stink is that??
Well Libby himself wouldn't have knowledge of her covert status in that scenario, only that he knew she was at the CIA.
Proving knowledge in criminal law requires proving either actual knowledge or a reasonable belief that the matter is true. I don't see anything beyond a reasonable doubt to indicate that anybody knew or believed her to be a covert agent at the time of the communications.
That's why Fitzgerald hasn't done anything yet (other than tacitly acquiesce in leaks), and why nobody's getting indicted for the underlying alleged *crime* or for perjury.
That's my take. We shall see.
Not sure about the acquittal.
The trial would be in DC, with a DC jury pool. What percentage of the vote did Bush get last year in the district?
If Fitz gets an indictment against any Republican appointee, a DC jury is almost certain to convict.
The only hope is, like with the Oliver North case, the appeals court throws out any conviction.
Actually, that was the decision announced through Justice.
Because of political push at the time, Ashcroft pretty much let Comey make all decisions on the issue. Even then...the Bush admin caved to political pressure and press worries.
The other issue is what did Rove tell the FBI agents during any pre-grand jury interviews?
Even though it wasn't under oath, the charge of making a false statement to a federal official carries the same penalty as perjury (10 years in prison).
The false statement law, IIRC, doesn't have the same material issue caveats the perjury law does. Even a falsehood about something immaterial to the case is enough to hang an indictment.
We'll see what Fitzgerald has when he shows his cards.
...in order to flood the media with corruption allegations so that when the other report comes out about Cisneros and the Clintons' sicking the IRS on individuals it lessens the blow. (and also to create a theme for th 2006 elections that all republicans are corrupt).
I'm not a lawyer, but I think a proceeding is a single session (like an afternoon or a day). Since Rove allegedly changed his testimony in a second appearance, that would be a separate proceeding.
I'm still not a lawyer, but ", at the time the admission is made, the declaration has not substantially affected the proceeding, or it has not become manifest that such falsity has been or will be exposed." leads me to believe that Fitz could go after Rove, because it had become manifest that such falsity had been exposed when the Rove/Hadley email was found.
Your source for this? I find this very doubtful.
A letter from Tenet to the WH states that Wilson's wife works at the agency and that she suggested her husband for the trip. Her name is supposedly given in a box that is classified secret. She may or may not have been covert agent as required by the one statute but there are reports that her identity was classified "secret" in a classified document. Disclosing that to reporters would be illegal.
It's hard for me to believe that Libby got where he is taking shortcuts with the truth. Why would he commit perjury? Did he expect that Cheney and Tenet would also commit perjury? Did they? Did Libby lie to his attorney? Or is his attorney incompetent?
Many of the reports I have read treat the questioning before the grand jury as if every question is an opportunity for redefining what the meaning of "is" is.
My expectation is that an examination into this matter would have included asking Libby details about any conversation with Cheney about Wilson, Plame, or yellowcake from Niger. If the topic of "who sent Wilson to Niger" was discussed? If so, who was it? How was this person described? By their relationship to Wilson? By their relationship with the CIA? By their status as a covert agent with the CIA? By their married name? By their unmarried name? By the nature of the work they did for the CIA?
I, for one, believe that Miller lied when she stated that she couldn't remember who provided the name "Flame" to her. Her public statement that she had a "deal" that she would not be asked about sources other than Libby is contradicted by her statement that she was asked who provided the name "Flame" and she answered.
When a witness says "I can't recall", that is an opportunity for asking many, many more questions. It is not the case that the examiner just shrugs and says, "Too bad. Let's just forget about it, then".
The examiner could ask Miller if she remembered writing the name down? If not, is it possible that someone else wrote it down? Did anyone else have access to her notebooks? Where was this notebood kept during the time that the notation could have been made? Is the notation made in Miller's handwriting? Is it a different pen or pencil from the rest of the notes? Does Miller recall if she made the notation at the moment the name was mentioned or did she make note of it later? Was she on the telephone at the time she made the notation? Does she recall thinking that the name "Flame" was unusual? Had she ever met anybody else named "Flame"?
Are there any other examples in her notes of adding information after a phone call which was not supplied during the phone call? What was the nature of the information added. Did she routinely get information from a research service to be later added to notes of phone calls?
How did she go about retrieving the notes of the call with Libby? Was it ready to hand when she made the additional notation? Did she read through the notes before or after making the additional notation?
It takes a gutsy liar to sit through all of that and claim "I don't recall" for every single question.
Libby would have to have planned to suffer the same consequences if he attempted to flat out lie about what he knew and how he knew it.
The lesson of Watergate is best summarized by the fact that over 60 people were convicted of crimes.
Those are all excellent questions.
All we really know about the case it what gets reported (and spun) from leaks to reporters, and there seems to be a fundamental inconsistency between the reports that Rove and Libby told the grand jury that they learned about Plame's CIA status from reporters (with perhaps Rove learning about it from Libby), and the notion that Libby instead learned about Plame's CIA status from Cheney.
Smart people have done bone-headed things before, and I hope this is not the case with Libby.
But it stll has the same issue regarding intent. I am not sure I agree with about materiality.
her identity was classified "secret" in a classified document. Disclosing that to reporters would be illegal.Only if learned of from that classified document.
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.