Posted on 10/29/2005 3:10:01 AM PDT by YaYa123
Clintoon was in LEGAL JEOPARDY with the sexual harrassment suit against him.
The investigation/official proceeding he impeded was not into any crime he may or may not have committed in the Oval Office sink.
His perjury went to a fact that was material in a judicial proceeding then against him that could have resulted in significant civil liability. That is, whether he had a pattern of misconduct in engaging in sexual harrassment and asking people to lie to cover his acts.
"Pattern of conduct" evidence is directly relevant under the rules of evidence in a civil trial. Evidence that Bubba routinely asked people to lie about his conduct went to critical issues of credibility of witnesses in a PENDING JUDICIAL PROCEEDING.
Bit o' difference there.
and
The more we learn, the more it appears Libby was indicted for lying to the media.
And the media are loving it! How dare a conservative someone have the audacity to lie to them!! They're 'unbiased' and they just want to help us. They have to teach him a lesson. (Of course, none of this applies to lefties whose lies they regularly print.)
I agree. I couldn't find anything on it anywhere, and I think it would be noted.
I think it probably was a joke someone made that didn't have a /joke /sarc tag and got taken up as a fact.
It should go away. Even Plame isn't stupid enough to be in France at this precise moment. Besides, how would she tend to all the book and made-for-tv deals pouring in if she were on the Blue Coast?
None of it has to do with whether or not she was outed, which was the original reason for the investigation. Fitz is either obsessive/compulsive or he is looking for fame, glory, and an extended contract.
Even a mediocre prosecutor starts out with a review of the elements of proof for the crime being investigated. He must have evidence on each "element" in order to secure a conviction.
Some of these elements are "threshold" issues. For example, to be charged with child molestation, the first element the prosecutor needs to be sure he has proof on is that the victim was a CHILD.
Similarly here, if the investigation is for the purpose of determining who *illegally* revealed the status of a *covert agent,* the first element any prosecutor would look at is whether the victim, in fact, was a COVERT AGENT.
If not, there can never be a crime, no matter how much evidence there is on the other elements of proof.
Was this an investigation simply to find out who revealed Plame's status or was it an investigation to find out who *illegally* revealed the status of a *covert agent*?
This brings up issues of what types of investigations meet the threshold requirements for being covered by the perjury/false statement/obstruction statutes.
If you lie in ANY investigation launched by the government, are you subject to the perjury etc. statutes?
Or must the investigation meet certain requirements before witnesses are subject to the full panopoly of laws on impeding justice?
Even a mediocre prosecutor starts out with a review of the elements of proof for the crime being investigated. He must have evidence on each "element" in order to secure a conviction.
Some of these elements are "threshold" issues. For example, to be charged with child molestation, the first element the prosecutor needs to be sure he has proof on is that the victim was a CHILD.
Similarly here, if the investigation is for the purpose of determining who *illegally* revealed the status of a *covert agent,* the first element any prosecutor would look at is whether the victim, in fact, was a COVERT AGENT.
If not, there can never be a crime, no matter how much evidence there is on the other elements of proof.
Was this an investigation simply to find out who revealed Plame's status or was it an investigation to find out who *illegally* revealed the status of a *covert agent*?
This brings up issues of what types of investigations meet the threshold requirements for being covered by the perjury/false statement/obstruction statutes.
If you lie in ANY investigation launched by the government, are you subject to the perjury etc. statutes?
Or must the investigation meet certain requirements before witnesses are subject to the full panopoly of laws on impeding justice?
That's not what has been said previously.
Hey, at least Joe has a good memory. He remembers Valerie "outing" herself on their THIRD date. He also remembers asking her if her real name is "Valerie". She said Yes.
That is definitely missing. And that would be a necessary elemnt of charging a violation of 50 USC 421. But Libby wasn't charged with a violation of 50 USC 421, he was charged with giving misleading and false information to the GJ.
Yes, I would and I do. But given the political climate of "who disclosed Plame's ID to Corn/Novak/Pincus," I don't find probing the "who knew what, and when, and from who" question to be unexpected.
IMO, had Libby told the truth, the GJ would have come back with a no bill, no report, no nothing.
Yes, to the extent he lies about how he learned of Plame's status. Part of the inquiry was "how did Plame's status make it's way to the press?" Libby was asked "How did you learn of Plame?" and according to the indictment, his answer was in the form of "I learned it first from the press." But in fact, the prosecutor has evidence that Libby first learned of it from his own inquiries to the CIA. If he'd told the GJ that he first learned of her ID from the CIA, then played mind games with the press, probably "no bill."
The "who did the disclosing" line of questioning is a material inquiry to probing a violation of 50 USC 421 - even if other elements of the crime (e.g., "covert" status) are known to be not met.
Certainly that could be the law, but is it?
Stated the way I just did (a lie on any fact material to any element of a crime) subjects one to perjury/etc. laws, Libby's indictment (assuming he did even what he's indicted for) makes sense.
Stated this way: a lie on a fact that is not material to the act criminalized by the pertinent law, then Libby's indictment might not make sense.
If you have time and inclination, kindly check out my other posts on this thread. I would be interested in your comments.
Pray for W and Our Troops
I understand that, but, again, how is how Plame's status made it's way to the press material if it did not violate any law for Plame's status to be revealed to the press?
If revealing Plame's status to the press was not illegal (because she was not covert), what about the investigation is "official" such that perjury/etc. laws apply?
As I have said elsewhere, what does the law require for an investigation to be "offical" such that justice can be obstructed by obstructing the investigation?
Does the investigation not have to have some relationship to determining if a crime was committed?
If the threshold elements for a crime were not met (Plame was not covert -- similarly one could not investigate child molestation if it was clear or reasonably knowable at the commencement of the investigation that the victim was not a "child" within the meaning of the law), how does the investigation, in fact, remain "official"?
Are you saying the law is the mere fact that a certain official officially launches an investigation is enough? There's no requirement that the investigation actually be about something within the authority and purview of the appointing official (such as a law enforcement purpose)?
I don't see you pulling for Plame to be indicted. She lied under oath and so did her husband. We don't know how many reporters lied under oath either, so shouldn't they be indicted too? To start we don't even know if Libby actually lied but you are sure pushing that he did and that Firzy baby is a great prosecutor. He is trash, a water boy for the DNC, he was trying to nail the Bush administration for something, anything and this was the best he could come up with. If Libby fights this in court, and I hope he does, he will win.
Subtitute "her ID was leaked by a person who is under the law" for "Plame was not covert" as being what you refer to as "the threshold element."
What you describe is apt to be the primary line of defense by Libby, but it will be as tough to prevail in taht as it was for Miller and Cooper to get out of testifying ON EXACTLY THE SAME GROUNDS.
Miller and Cooper asserted that they did not have to testify, because Plame was not covert, ergo, there is no crime, ergo, there is no need for their testimony.
Miller went to jail over the issue.
Agreed this occurs frequently and I agree with it: people should not lie under oath on a material fact.
It's like this:
An official launches an official investigation into whether someone committed child molestation. But it's clear, or at the least reasonably knowable from the outset, that the victim of the crime is NOT A CHILD.
(In this analogy, we are stipulating that child molestation is the only charge possible.) The investigation continues nonetheless and, in the course of the investigation, a witness lies about how he first learned the identity of the victim, who is NOT A CHILD.
So what material fact is this lie relevant to?
How does not learning exactly how the witness learned the identity of the victim impact the prosecutor's ability to determine that no crime was committed because the victim was not a child?
Does the mere revelation of her "identity" have any legal meaning?
Is it wrongful for "a person under the law" (by which I assume you mean a person bound to handle certain information within certain restrictions) to reveal the mere identity of person when that identity has no particular legal protection?
If I'm a "person under the law" because I, say, have a security clearance, and I reveal information that in fact is not prohibited to reveal (by anyone), I've still done something illegal?
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.