Posted on 01/16/2007 6:38:48 AM PST by rface
Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage originally leaked Plame's identity. Armitage says the leak was inadvertent, and he is not being prosecuted.......Federal prosecutors are trying to show that Libby lied to investigators about conversations he had with reporters regarding Plame. Libby has denied lying and says he has a faulty memory........
Former Cheney Chief of Staff on Trial for Allegedly Lying to a Grand Jury, Not Outing CIA Agent:
.Jan. 16, 2007 — Jury selection begins today in the trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.
Libby is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice in the leaking of the identity of a former CIA operative.
Libby is on trial for allegedly lying to a grand jury about the source of a leak that outed former CIA operative Valerie Plame. Plame's identity was leaked to the media after her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, was critical of the Bush administration's handling of the war in Iraq.
Libby has been called a master of discretion, and the trial promises to be a high-profile bloodletting.
[ snip ]
Among those on the star-studded witness list are former White House press secretary Ari Fleisher and NBC "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert.
[ snip ]
Said Lanny Davis, former special counsel to President Clinton, "I can imagine [White House press secretary] Tony Snow behind closed doors saying, 'Oh my God, of all the things we have to face is a trial when we are facing all of this stuff in Iraq. This couldn't have happened at a worse time,'"
[ snip ]
Libby's trial is an unwelcome distraction for the administration at a critical juncture.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Precisely correct.
The crime of the century is not investigating who directed Burglar to do what he did.
The case boils down to Russert's word about what was said in a long-ago conversation vs. Libby's, and all the prosecutor has to do is to persuade 12 liberals to believe Russert over Libby.
Well and the fact Fitzgerald has a customer who has given him a blank checkbook to charge whatever amount of time he wants and pays top dollars for those hours and expenses.
I like that.
Question for you then.
Do you think for one moment you can force me to say a thing?
Be it in a Court of Law under penalty of perjury or contempt of court.
Do you think you can FORCE me to testify?
You can fight it -- your attorneys can file a motion to quash the subpoena. Of course, you probably need a better reason than that you don't wanna . . . . ;-)
As much as you can be 'forced' to pay the IRS, forced to pay your property taxes, forced into the county jail for resisting arrest and forced into jail for defying a court order, yes.
"Compulsory" means "compelled by the weight of the federal contract we live under in this society."
Can you be a hardass and break those laws, SURE!
The Constitution is something Americans all consent to be governed by, sorry pal, that's the way it is.
And the Constitution, in order to enable rule-of-law, says that the government can compel your testimony---except---that it may not compel you to testify against yourself.
If you want to make a distinction between a criminal that commits some felony, and you defying a court illegally, and you feel like you're better than the criminal in the cell with you, then fine! Good for you!
The fact is, the answer to Red Badger's question is that the 5th Amendment does not allow you to be "willfully quiet about anything, anytime," it only allows that you "not be compelled as a witness against yourself."
Saying that you can defy the laws of the land and that there may be consequences ignores the fact that in one case it is sanctioned by the Constitution, and in the other, it is not.
Wrong
NO YOU CANNOT FORCE ME TO TESTIFY!
You can simply punish me for not doing so.
I don't know where you get your delusions of godhood, but no Man can force another to do something he doesn't want to do.
Unless of course you really are that weak that you know someone can force you to do something against your will. That would then make this entire conversation understandable.
Finally, a fact surfaces in all this mess! :)
Prosecuting young men for rape where none occurred. Prosecuting high profile officials for having poor/different recollections than that of a reporter. Not prosecuting the one person who actually did what the investigation is purported to be investigating.
We need "loser pays" tort reform, a lot less lawyers, or both.
Oh for Pete's sake, cut the keyboard tuffguy schtick and try to use your brain muscle instead.
If your only point is that a respectable individual can be beaten to a pulp without giving in, ok, fine!
That's not a very novel concept.
Is that simpleton point all that you've been trying to make all this time?
I was pointing out a little more interesting distinction.
That is, the difference between the force of the state to compel something and mano-y-mano type force which you describe.
This may be too complex for you to grasp.
Well don't be so ignorant as to continue to spout that you can force someone to do anything.
Cut your own keyboard tuffgy schtick slick and we'll get along just fine. I asked you a simple question and you start on this overblown legal analysis that hasn't to do squat with what I asked.
Can you FORCE me to testify.
You can't, end of story.
The ONLY thing you can do to ANYONE is punish them.
Maybe you should try reading what is said instead of going off half cocked. The statement was very simple
IT IS A CHOICE
Whether you choose to believe it or not is immaterial.
Oh! I see now! We're back to where we were at the very beginning!
You say something, and then it's our job to agree and then we are allowed by you to stop, there and then.
If we have anything more to say that's more complicated than your point, we should not post it for fear of upsetting you.
For instance, if I was to point out that there are different types of "choice" under the rule of law, and that committing armed larceny is "a choice," just like refusing one's duty to testify when legally 'compelled' is also "a choice," then that would not be allowed because you think it's an "overblown legal analysis."
Anything beyond your assertion that a judge or lawyer can't make words come out of the mouth of a witness is 'off limits.'
Keep digging, FRiend. I enjoy the spectacle.
Patrick Nifong Fitzgerald is as bad, in his own way, as Nifong, the world's most visible corrupt prosecutor.
This is rediculous. GWB- pardon him and get it over with. YOU have nothing to lose
Doesn't your assumption that the case will fizzle assume that there will be a jury with common sense acting in good faith? I can't be so optimistic about a DC jury. I believe Scooter's best chance is to get acquitted on appeal after he is railroaded by Fitz and a pro-Dem jury at the trial court.
I am disappointed that Libby's lawyers have not been able to get the case thrown out. Two arguments I can think of seem to have merit: (1) If the prosecutor's mandate was to investigate who made Plame's name PUBLIC (as opposed to who mentioned her name to a reporter at some time or another), then once Armitage was revealed as Novak's source--that's the ballgame, end of story; and (2) If it was not ILLEGAL to reveal Plame's name, then nothing Libby said or did could be legally MATERIAL to any legally proper investigation, so "perjury" and "obstruction" become legal impossibilities.
Maybe the trial judge will grant a motion or maybe the appeals court will come through, but I'm not holding my breath for even a hung jury, given the jury pool make up.
Or as my gym teacher used to say, "I can't make you do anything. I can only make you wish you had."
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.