Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obstruction for What? Libby is charged with lying about a crime that wasn't committed.
Wall Street Journal.com ^ | 29 October, 2005 | unattributed

Posted on 10/29/2005 3:10:01 AM PDT by YaYa123

Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation took nearly two years, sent a reporter to jail, cost millions of dollars, and preoccupied some of the White House's senior officials. The fruit it has now borne is the five-count indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the Vice President's Chief of Staff--not for leaking the name of Valerie Plame to Robert Novak, which started this entire "scandal," but for contradictions between his testimony and the testimony of two or three reporters about what he told them, when he told them, and what words he used.

Mr. Fitzgerald would not comment yesterday on whether he had evidence for the perjury, obstruction of justice and false statement counts beyond the testimonies of Mr. Libby and three journalists. Instead, he noted that a criminal investigation into a "national security matter" of this sort hinged on "very fine distinctions," and that any attempt to obscure exactly who told what to whom and when was a serious matter.

(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 5countindictment; cialeak; fitzpatrick; gutless; libby; politicalhack; rove; wsj
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-210 next last
To: wouldntbprudent
Does the mere revelation of her "identity" have any legal meaning?

I used that phrase as shorthand to indicate a violation of 50 USC 421.

50 USC 421 <- Crime of revealing covert agent

50 USC 426 <- Definitions

181 posted on 10/29/2005 10:08:25 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

okay, thanks.


182 posted on 10/29/2005 10:21:50 AM PDT by wouldntbprudent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: wouldntbprudent
But it's clear, or at the least reasonably knowable from the outset, that the victim of the crime is NOT A CHILD.

If the prosecutor knew or must have known going in that no crime had been committed (and there would be no crime if a necessary element was wholly incapable of being satisfied) then any indictment or prosecution, even a derivative indictment or prosecution for an offense such as obstruction of justice or perjury, would be subject to dismissal for abuse of process and prosecutorial misconduct. This would also give rise to a civil claim for wrongful or malicious prosecution and perhaps a constitutional claim against the prosecutor personally for denying the accused of due process under color of law.

183 posted on 10/29/2005 10:23:44 AM PDT by JCEccles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: JCEccles
If the prosecutor knew or must have known going in that no crime had been committed (and there would be no crime if a necessary element was wholly incapable of being satisfied) then any indictment or prosecution, even a derivative indictment or prosecution for an offense such as obstruction of justice or perjury, would be subject to dismissal for abuse of process and prosecutorial misconduct. This would also give rise to a civil claim for wrongful or malicious prosecution and perhaps a constitutional claim against the prosecutor personally for denying the accused of due process under color of law.

Do you see any other crime that "caused" the investigation, other than the illegal revelation of the identity of a person whose identity was protected by law?

Not to. beat. dead. horse. But if Plame's id was not protected (because she was not covert within the meaning of the law), seems like that's a necessary element that could never be met.

184 posted on 10/29/2005 10:28:08 AM PDT by wouldntbprudent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: wouldntbprudent

sorry- I be bad today with not turning off italics -


185 posted on 10/29/2005 10:29:44 AM PDT by wouldntbprudent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Southack
But to whom is Libby loyal? Libby received two awards from the Clinton Administration in 1993. Libby worked for/at NSC during Clinton's terms. Libby's massive law firm Dechert Price reeks of "CIA front company" and has only donated campaign money to Democrats. When reporters wanted scoop from "inside" the Bush White House, they called Scooter Libby.

Well then, that begs the question, if this guy was so bad, as you suggest, why in hell was he on the inner circle of this White House?

186 posted on 10/29/2005 10:33:45 AM PDT by Black Tooth (The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
Using the letter Libby sent to Miller releasing her from her oath of confidentiality as a reason for an "Obstruction of Justice" charge clearly shows Fritz lacked the guts to go out and tell the Media the truth.

Does the indictment cite that letter?

187 posted on 10/29/2005 10:37:51 AM PDT by freedomdefender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: wouldntbprudent
It's an interesting observation. I haven't personally studied the espionage act that was the genesis for this investigation, but I do note that there seems to be a lot of confusion about what one must do to violate it (which, in itself, is a problem).

Fitzgerald has a reputation for being exceedingly bright and conscientious, and it is hard for me to believe he would go off half-cocked let alone with malicious intent to trap Libby in an invented crime. But we'll see how Libby's defense counsel shapes up his case.

I can more easily see Ronnie Earle getting his pinhead caught in a "malicious prosecution" vise.

188 posted on 10/29/2005 10:44:00 AM PDT by JCEccles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: billclintonwillrotinhell
When someone obstructs justice, it's often difficult to tell whether an "underlying" crime was committed. That's the whole point of obstructing justice in the first place - to prevent something from being discovered by authorities!
If I see you walking down the street today, it won't matter what people say, I will not conclude that you were murdered yesterday. Likewise if Plame-Wilsonan was not an overseas, covert agent within the 5 years prior to the revelation that she worked at CIA headquarters in Virginia, it really doesn't matter what else you prove - you can't prove that discussing her relationship with Amb. Wilson, the CIA, or the King of Siam violated the law against outting overseas covert agents.

Which is why, when the notice came to the Justice Department, Attorney General Ashcroft should not have recused himself until he had at least gotten a preliminary finding that the law might have been broken. And beyond that I will argue that even if the law was, technically, broken there should have been consideration of whether it was substantively malicious or reckless, on the one hand, or whether it was entrapment of WH officials being deliberately baited by the CIA into "violating the law."

It appears that the latter was the case but Ashcroft, undoubtedly with the agreement of the president, wimped out and allowed an attempted legal/PR coup against the administration to proceed. To the detriment not only of this administration but of the American people and specifically of any administration which is not in cahoots with the conspiracy two of whose facets are "objective journalism" and "the Democratic Party."


189 posted on 10/29/2005 11:17:50 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters but PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Black Tooth
"Well then, that begs the question, if this guy was so bad, as you suggest, why in hell was he on the inner circle of this White House?"

Libby was a student of Wolfowitz and an asst. Dep. Secr. Defense under the elder GHW Bush...a pro-Israel neocon hawk leading the charge against Hussein back in 1990...he was in 1990 a convenient way for Pres GHW Bush to reach out to Democrats regarding that war...because he was one of them.

In short, he got in because he was a legacy. Now he's out.

Good riddance.

190 posted on 10/29/2005 1:21:09 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: pepperhead
Some talking heads were saying Libby could do 30 years if convicted on all the crimes.

Those talking heads are playing up the drama on cable TV. Yes, I suppose Libby is technically accused of crimes that carry MAXIMUM penalties that add up to 30 years. However, msNBC's Dan Abrams (who I trust very much on legal issues) was explaining that Libby at most would face just a few years in jail - if that.

Often, sentences are served at the same time as one another and are cut down significantly for first-time offenders because of sentencing guidelines. If you're confident that Fitzgerald is doing such a horrible thing, I would expect Libby to request a trial by JUDGE instead of JURY if that's possible, considering this case is in the liberal stranglehold of the District of Columbia. A pardon from Bush is also a possibility even if Libby is convicted.

I feel sorry for Libby and his family because I think he probably just went into panic mode and thought he had to lie about stuff that probably wasn't a crime. But every single person out there needs to take this as a lesson: If you ever get called to testify under oath, either tell the truth or don't say anything at all. To do otherwise is to harm a legitimate investigation and put yourself in legal jeopardy at the same time.

191 posted on 10/29/2005 11:38:56 PM PDT by billclintonwillrotinhell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: pepperhead
If accusing people of crimes you didn't indite on is impressive, I guess there is something wrong with me. And Bush didn't appoint him.

I watched the presser, and I didn't come away from it thinking that anybody committed any crimes that they weren't indicted for, so I don't know what you're talking about.

Bush's Justice Department or Attorney General's office appointed Fitzgerald. And Bush is saying this is a serious matter. And Bush isn't taking issue with Fitzgerald's decision.

192 posted on 10/29/2005 11:44:28 PM PDT by billclintonwillrotinhell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: pepperhead
Why did he go out of his way to accuse Libby of a crime he wasn't charged with?

I never heard him do that. He may have said it was classified info, but there's apparently not a criminal charge that covers that. That's what I understood from the presser, anyway.

Why did he go out of his way to not say if Plame was covert? And why did he not clear the names of the rest of the people he hauled into his inquisition?

The covert issue is a good question, but that still wouldn't excuse anybody from committing perjury or obstructing justice in the investigation. He's not going to clear anybody while the investigation is still open.

193 posted on 10/29/2005 11:50:39 PM PDT by billclintonwillrotinhell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: xzins
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.

What's so freakin' difficult about going into the grand jury and either telling the truth or saying you don't recall? That seems pretty simple to me. I'm amazed at the number of FReepers who are willing to give Libby a pass even if he lied to a grand jury. A lie is a lie. It's a crime. It's the law. If you don't like it, go do something to change the law (although I will oppose you). Don't blame Fitzgerald for trying to enforce the law.

194 posted on 10/29/2005 11:58:17 PM PDT by billclintonwillrotinhell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: billclintonwillrotinhell
I watched the presser, and I didn't come away from it thinking that anybody committed any crimes that they weren't indicted for, so I don't know what you're talking about.

Did I say that? No, I said he was basically accusing him of a crime he didn't charge. You know "the outing a covert agent". But he used the term classified. If you missed that part go back and listen, because I am not the only one who has said they heard just that. And 2 people recused them self from this case so you can't really say it is Bush's justice department.

195 posted on 10/29/2005 11:59:20 PM PDT by pepperhead (Kennedy's float, Mary Jo's don't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: calex59
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?

If you have evidence of those crimes, please forward that evidence to Bush's Justice Department. I would think they'd want to prosecute.

If Libby fights this in court, and I hope he does, he will win.

Looks like he will fight it. I wish him the best, and I hope he indeed can raise reasonable doubt. However, what I've been saying is that Fitzgerald strikes me as an impressive prosecutor. I would love for Libby to prove me wrong or to poke holes in the case. I'd prefer our jail cells be used to lock up violent criminals instead of White House aides who went too far in trying to discredit critics.

196 posted on 10/30/2005 12:04:35 AM PDT by billclintonwillrotinhell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: pepperhead
Did I say that? No, I said he was basically accusing him of a crime he didn't charge. You know "the outing a covert agent". But he used the term classified.

Well, it apparently was classified info from all the news reports I've seen, so Fitzgerald was correct if that's the case. Again, if you have any evidence of misconduct by Fitzgerald, by all means forward it to Alberto Gonzales. I just don't see it.

And 2 people recused them self from this case so you can't really say it is Bush's justice department.

The Attorney General's office of the Bush Administration appointed Fitzgerald. They chose him. And Bush isn't opposing him. That speaks volumes. If I had to guess from Bush's statement the other day, I'd say Bush is both sad for Libby and mad at Libby.

197 posted on 10/30/2005 12:13:09 AM PDT by billclintonwillrotinhell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: billclintonwillrotinhell
I never heard him do that.

You didn't?

He may have said it was classified info, but there's apparently not a criminal charge that covers that.

I thought you said you never heard him do that? Make up your mind already.

198 posted on 10/30/2005 12:19:59 AM PDT by pepperhead (Kennedy's float, Mary Jo's don't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: billclintonwillrotinhell

I think in the end...we will see that Libby might be a bit absent-minded and gave some wrong dates and info at the beginning of this whole mess. And of course, none of this connects the dots back to ole Valerie and Joe. Scooter just plain screwed up in his meeting with the grand jury. My guess is that the most that he will get is 12 months in jail. And as for the great Valarie and Joe episode...forgotten by April of 2006. The media won't be able to cook anything else out of this episode, and they will have to move on.


199 posted on 10/30/2005 12:27:26 AM PDT by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: billclintonwillrotinhell
Well, it apparently was classified info from all the news reports I've seen, so Fitzgerald was correct if that's the case.

Do what? You go from you didn't see him accusing anyone of crimes he didn't charge to this? I just got a hour back for daylight saving time, but wasted part of it on this. I should have just went to sleep.

200 posted on 10/30/2005 12:33:45 AM PDT by pepperhead (Kennedy's float, Mary Jo's don't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-210 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson