The more we learn, the more it appears Libby was indicted for lying to the media.
PARDON SCOOTER!
Old news, nobody cares, time to move on.
On the one hand I'd like to see Libby fight these charges like hell, because I think a good lawyer could at least hang a jury on this using moral suasion.
But having a knock-down, drag-out trial will hurt the country and the president, and he doesn't need that trouble just now.
Sigh.
Lets see if Chris has the balz to say it on FOXNews Sunday.
Unfortunatly in the delay until a trial, the MSM can say anything they want about the situation to degrade the Bush Administration, before the trial degrades them (MSM)
The WSJ poses the same question that I've been asking all day. What was Libby's motive to lie? In the absence of any crime, why would Libby lie about conversations with Russert and other reporters? It makes no sense. The most likely explanation is that there are differing recollections (which is what Libby's lawyer mentioned in his press release). Contrary to what others have said, I believe these charges with be very difficult to prove in court.
I guess you can say he was "Martha Stewarted".
Fitgerald is a FLAMING IDIOT BEYOND BELIEF if at this point in time, THE MOST IMPORTANT FACT, is still unknown or uncertain. It's makes such a mockery of his much vaunted 'thoroughness'.
I think it's a complete set-up. They interview you like a Philadelphia lawyer, trap you with trick questions until you make a minor mistake and then indict you for "lying". They do that because they want to prosecute you but they don't have anything on you.
Thay did the same thing to Martha Stuart. Slimy bastards!
Great headline!
Evidently, if Scooter hadn't lied Fitzgerald would have gone home empty?
Evidently Scooter became a criminal but not for the crime under investigation?
Weird!!!
Why didn't Fitzgerald say that plainly?
Folks, there was no Valeri Plame crime!
If he lied under oath about anything, even having sex with an intern, he deserves to be indicted.
What a cryin' shame that Libby has been indicted for lying to the GJ, because of "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."
As far as I can tell, the reporters in questions have all stated either Libby didn't give them the name of the CIA employee in question, or else they said they didn't "think" he did, or they can't remember for sure.
The unfair treatment of our judicial system has been felt by the ordinary citizenship for years. Now apparently the elite in our government are feeling the same inequities.
It's the lawyers' fault. Our judicial system is being corrupted from within. The letter of the law is being twisted and the intent of our great system is being abused.
bump
This law needs changing. When there is no crime, there should not be any chargesw. There can be no misdirection. With this law, 90% of Texans, and 100% of fisherman, will be in jail soon.
This is interesting. Has she been on leave from the CIA? ...
"the CIA officer contacted for help in overcoming her own severe bout with postpartum depression."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801172.html
EXCERPTS
Plame, the mother of 5-year-old twins, recently told a friend, Jane Honikman, that she intends to retire from the agency where she has worked for 20 years. "She really wants to be with her kids -- that's her plan, to be that mom," said Honikman, founder of a postpartum depression support network in which Plame has been active.
(snip)
"She's going to be a huge asset no matter what she does," said Plame's friend Honikman, founder of Postpartum Support International, a group the CIA officer contacted for help in overcoming her own severe bout with postpartum depression. "She's too smart a woman . . . and would maximize whatever opportunities lie ahead."
(snip)
Was the "outing" of Valerie Plame the violation of any law"?
This question is independent of who may or may not have been doing the "outing". It is not an issue of sufficient evidence. It is not an issue of whether Libby could have obstructed Fitzgerald's investigation as was claimed. It is the simple question of whether Plame was covered by the law. I think she wasn't. I think Fitzgerald knows she wasn't and that is why he dodged the question. It also the reason for that strange lecture on the importance of keeping CIA employees identities a secret. He wasn't telling us what the law says. He was telling us what the law should say and it was the latter that was his guide in his investigation.
If I was Libby's new lawyer I would attack Fitzgerald on the grounds that he conducted a witch hunt for nearly two years when he should have or could have or probably did have enough facts to realize that no laws were broken regardless of who "outed" Valerie Plame.
MR. RUSSERT: You also write in Time magazine this week, "This was actually my second testimony for the special prosecutor. In August 2004, I gave limited testimony about my conversation with [Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff] Scooter Libby. Libby had also given me a special waiver, and I gave a deposition in the office of my attorney. I have never discussed that conversation until now. In that testimony, I recorded an on-the-record conversation with Libby that moved to background. On the record, he denied that Cheney knew"--of--"or played any role the Wilson trip to Niger. On background, I asked Libby if he had heard anything about Wilson's wife sending her husband to Niger. Libby replied, `Yeah, I've heard that, too,' or words to that effect."
Did you interpret that as a confirmation?
MR. COOPER: I did, yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: Did Mr. Libby say at any time that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?
MR. COOPER: No, he didn't say that.
MR. RUSSERT: But you said it to him?
MR. COOPER: I said, "Was she involved in sending him?," yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: And that she worked for the CIA?
MR. COOPER: I believe so.