To: areafiftyone
Someone please help me understand more clearly....
My understanding is that, in effect, Libby is now facing a trial for having supposedly lied under oath to cover-up something that is obviously not a crime (as in a violation of the statute of "outing" undercover CIA agents)...?
So what am I missing in this puzzle..?
17 posted on
11/09/2005 9:18:47 AM PST by
VRWCTexan
(History has a long memory - but still repeats itself)
To: VRWCTexan
To: VRWCTexan
Libby is now facing a trial for having supposedly lied under oath to cover-up something that is obviously not a crime - How hilarious it is that Libby is in trouble about lying about telling the truth about a lie.
To: VRWCTexan
"My understanding is that, in effect, Libby is now facing a trial for having supposedly lied under oath to cover-up something that is obviously not a crime (as in a violation of the statute of "outing" undercover CIA agents)...?"
---
Yeah.
Libby gave the prosecutor his own notes which ran contrary to his testimony.
Like I've said before, "Plead the fifth as you walk into the courthouse and don't stop till you get to the parking lot."
Nobody in there right mind will ever talk with investigators now.
To: VRWCTexan
My understanding is that, in effect, Libby is now facing a trial for having supposedly lied under oath to cover-up something that is obviously not a crime (as in a violation of the statute of "outing" undercover CIA agents)...?
So what am I missing in this puzzle..?
This is what is known as "The Criminalization of Politics" plain and simple.
57 posted on
11/09/2005 10:01:40 AM PST by
HEY4QDEMS
(Ham & Eggs: A day's work for a hen, A lifetime commitment for a pig.)
To: VRWCTexan
You are correct. It's a Martha Stewart prosecution, no underlying crime. But Martha still went to jail.
66 posted on
11/09/2005 10:09:09 AM PST by
colorado tanker
(I can't comment on things that might come before the Court, but I can tell you my Pinochle strategy)
To: VRWCTexan
So what am I missing in this puzzle..? After many days, the only thing I can think of that makes any sense at all is that when Libby was questioned, he thought he (or someone) might actually have broken the law, and so tried to cover it up. But then, why did he say things which could so easily be refuted?
116 posted on
11/09/2005 3:53:44 PM PST by
c-five
To: VRWCTexan
My understanding is that, in effect, Libby is now facing a trial for having supposedly lied under oath to cover-up something that is obviously not a crime (as in a violation of the statute of "outing" undercover CIA agents)...? So what am I missing in this puzzle..?
Why Scooter lied.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson