Verdict in Libby Trial in....reading at noon. (Guilty On 4 of 5 Charges)

MSNBC

[Dog]

Breaking on MSNBC

[conservative in nyc]

Sexual harassment is usually considered a misdemeanor and that bad piece of legislation known as Violence Against Women Act that Clinton signed was the reason for his troubles.

Most run-of-the-mill sexual harassment isn't a crime. And I'm not sure what the Violence Against Women Act did to change that. The provisions of that bill dealing with Violence Against Women in the Workplace don't appear at first glance to be criminal. (Apologies for the source in advance - it's the first that came up on Google).

[pbear8]

Stop calling him Shirley !!!

[lugsoul]

"everything at CIA is "classified", the guy who cleans the toilets there is "classified"

Wow. oceanview, you know full well that just isn't true. Why are you so willing to distort the truth? Whose payroll are you on?

[whatexit]

bookmark for later reading

[popdonnelly]

You ask for evidence, lugsoul, and then when it's produced, you discount it. If you don't like the way trials work, fine. I have far better things to do than to try to instruct you.

[ohioWfan]

;o)

[lugsoul]

Dissembling again, oceanview? Revealing a covert agent's identity is not a crime. INTENTIONALLY revealing a covert agent's identity is a crime. You know that, but you are trying to avoid it.

[lugsoul]

Point to the evidence of a CIA parking permit on her car.

Oh, I forgot. You can't.

[FreedomNeocon]

Yes... Burgler stole documents from the national security archives, hid them in his pants and socks, hid them down an ally under a construction trailer, snuck back down to get them at night after which he admitted to shredding them into bits and throwing them away.

Sandy Burgler got a puny fine, and security clearance suspended until 2008.

Libby AT WORST defended Bush against Joe Wilson telling lies in the NYT by saying that "he is a clown, he only was there because his wife sent him" (WHICH WAS TRUE).

Libby was faced with years of investigation, led by a "special prosecutor" with unlimited powers, and conviction on perjury charges that can get him 25 YEARS IN JAIL



And Dingy Harry has the gall to come out and say "its about time Bush pays for manipulations intel and national security thuggery"

[lugsoul]

Where are all the people that Joe Wilson told?

BTW - Armitage saying that Wilson said it isn't admissible for the truth of the matter - that's classic hearsay.

So, you got any admissible evidence that Wilson called anyone - anyone at all - and told them that?

Of course not.

[top 2 toe red]

Keep the faith, we're along time away from Nov. 2008!

Remember those that threaten to "stay home" or vote "third party" in order " to teach the GOP a lesson, are just as irresponsible as the far-left-wingers, just irresponsible in a different way.

I believe we who realize a far right wing Conservative could not be elected at this time, far exceed those who insist on pulling up an unelectable as the GOP candidate.

[popdonnelly]

I have better things to do than argue with a child who can't admit that someone may know something that he doesn't.

[Dolphy]

Yep, he said the jury wanted to know why Rove wasn't on trial.

I'm trying to catch up. Did he say he wanted to know why Rove wasn't on trial or appearing as a witness in this trial? (I read conflicting things.)

[Howlin]

I took it to mean why Rove and Cheney weren't indicted. I could be wrong.

[FreedomNeocon]

Heh... I was wondering when people would actually read a few pages and see what lugs and dave s were up to.

Though I suspect a some 'fresh bait' will be in here soon for them ;)

[Howlin]

That is a total waste of time, if you ask me.

[conservative in nyc]

Oh please, the liberal DC jury had hours upon hours of tapes of Libby testimony before the GJ on the way he remembered things.

Questions all asked by a guy (Fitzgerald or his underlings) that was hardly sympathetic to Libby's excuses. His own lawyer could have had Libby explain his memory lapse on the stand in a much more sympathetic way than taped recordings from a federal prosecutor who was out to get him.

Fitz had no evidence of Libby trying to suborn perjury, notes asking or admitting to lying, no testimony of him planning to lie deliberately, over and over and over again.

Obviously, the jury didn't think Fitzgerald needed those things to prove Libby perjured himself.

To the contrary, there was PLENTY of evidence that Libby and other gov officials were trying to explain to the press that Wilson was not specifically sent by Cheney, as he had claimed in his oped, and that there was no report on the trip to Cheney as Wilson said, which led to the talk of Val Plame, because she was the one who sent Wilson.

I'm not sure that any of this was relevant to the jury in a perjury case, at least as far as the trial judge charged the jury. The issue was whether Libby was truthful when he told the FBI and grand jury that he learned Plame's "secret" identity from Russert, and lied about what he told Cooper, not whether Libby was trying to out Plame in some sort of grand conspiracy to lie about the intelligence leading up to the Iraq war.

[KJC1]

I don't know if this has been posted in this thread yet, but here is Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame's attorneys' response. BARF.

---

WILSONS' ATTORNEY STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO JURY’S VERDICT IN U.S. V. I. LEWIS “SCOOTER” LIBBY


March 6, 2007

Washington, DC – First, Valerie and Joseph Wilson would like to express their appreciation to Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald and the entire team of federal prosecutors for their professionalism and hard work. Their prosecution of a senior White House official illustrates that we are a nation of laws and that no man is above the law. The Wilsons respect the jury’s verdict and thank the jurors for their service. The entire Wilson team is pleased by today’s verdict and believes that justice has been served in this case.

The Wilsons will continue to pursue the civil case against Vice President Cheney, Mr. Libby, Mr. Rove and Mr. Armitage because it hinges on additional and different facts from those underlying the criminal case. The criminal trial was about whether or not Mr. Libby obstructed justice and committed perjury by lying to FBI agents and the grand jury about the fact that he had disclosed to reporters that Valerie Wilson worked for the CIA. The civil suit, on the other hand, hinges on whether or not the defendants violated the constitutional rights of Valerie and Joe Wilson by making those disclosures in a concerted effort to retaliate against Joe Wilson for revealing the falsity of the president’s rationale for the Iraq war.

Disturbing facts emerged from the criminal trial that are highly relevant to the civil case. For example, the American public learned details of how Vice President Cheney orchestrated the concerted White House effort to discredit and retaliate against Joe Wilson. Towards that end, the vice president enlisted the aid of other senior administration officials including former press secretary Ari Fleischer, vice presidential assistant Cathie Martin and presidential advisor Karl Rove. Testimony in the criminal case also confirmed that Mr. Libby spoke to numerous reporters in an effort to persuade at least one of them to publicly reveal Mrs. Wilson’s covert status.

Melanie Sloan, CREW’s executive director and counsel to the Wilsons stated, “The civil case may provide the American public with its only opportunity to hear directly from Vice President Cheney, Mr. Libby, Mr. Rove and Mr. Armitage about what really took place behind the scenes after Joe Wilson exposed the truth about the administration’s justification for the Iraq war.”

http://www.wilsonsupport.org/node/313

By the way, that website is set up to beg for donations to "support" these cretins' lawsuit.

[lugsoul]

You know who Wilson called up, but you won't say it?

Who's being the child?

Facts are facts. If Wilson was calling every reporter in Washington, why did the biggest reporters in Washington have to be told by Administration officials? You have no answer for that question, so you toss out your childish response and take your ball and go home.

[midwyf]

What have we come to in this country with our highly touted legal system? One man was acquitted of murder despite every on e knowing he did it, just because of the color of his skin. Now we have a man convicted of lying about a crime that wasn't committed because of his beliefs. What has happened?