Posted on 03/06/2007 5:54:52 PM PST by windchime
So let me get this straight: Scooter Libby is going to jail for not remembering who he told what. He didn't lie, evidently. He didn't remember right, and that is a federal crime, of course, if you happen to be speaking to a FBI agent when your memory fails.
But at the same time, the same Justice Department has taken the case of a high government official who lied, who stole classified documents, who destroyed those documents, and he's walking around free as a bird. They won't even ask him to take a lie detector test to determine if he lied more than they already know.
People are saying the Libby trial is the key to the kingdom, that it stands for the trial of the entire administration and the war in Iraq.
Here's what it was about: Does the vice president have the right to say, see that guy named Joe Wilson who is going around saying I sent him to Africa to investigate Saddam's nuke bombs? I didn't send him. His wife did.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Thanks for the ping!
Actually, John, Scooter did lie, to the FBI when they deposed him, prior to Fitzy being appointed as Special Prosecuter. Then he repeated lies to the Grand Jury when he could have salvaged his innocence with merely stating that he didn't recall. He did not have the best representation he should have had for the case, and he was sacrificed by the State Department in order to spit on the President ... Powell imagined that he had been made a scapegoat with his U.N. presentations regarding WMDs.
Yep .. but it will be ingored by the DBM
Thanks -
These will seen in many cute outfits
All accurate!
That would be an FBI agent who took notes so he could be precise regarding a matter other than your truthfulness and then forgot where he left his notes and can't quote you exactly.
How can she be "covert" when the Judge himself says there is no evidence, to his knowledge, that establishes that? Does the accusation by Fitz constitute "evidence?"
Which ignores the possibility of more than one source.
Questions were being asked of many, by many, so there could have been multiple sources, each unaware of the other(s).
Republicans = NO BALLS
As he is, legally. A decision does not have to be true to be legal.
http://www.answers.com/topic/fact
Legal definition of "fact":
"Incident, act, event, or circumstance. A fact is something that has already been done or an action in process. It is an event that has definitely and actually taken place, and is distinguishable from a suspicion, innuendo, or supposition. A fact is a truth as opposed to fiction or mistake.
A question of fact in litigation is concerned with what actually took place. During a trial, questions of fact are generally left for the jury to determine after each opposing side has presented its case. By contrast, a question of law is ordinarily decided by a judge, who must deal with applicable legal rules and principles that affect what transpired."
The word "fact" does not have the same meaning in legal terms as it does in more generalized reality. In a very real legal sense, a legal "fact" is whatever the jury decides it to be.
Here are a couple of legal "facts" for you. OJ is innocent and Scooter is guilty. That you and I believe the juries to have been wrong in both cases is irrelevant.
Thus the common misure of the expresion, "A person is innocent until proven guilty." Obviously, in a metaphysical sense a person is either innocent or guilty, and even after the trial, whether he has been convicted or found not guilty, the truth of the matter cannot change.
However, the purpose of the law is not to arrive at metaphysical truth. It is to make decisions, right or wrong, so that society and litigants or defendants can move on. We have checks and balances such as juries, with the goal of getting closer to legal decisions that line up more closely with actual facts. But neither the US nor any other society has ever had or ever will have a legal system that is always right in the common sense of the term.
Accckkk.
Misstated in previous post.
OJ was not found to be innocent, even by that most corrupt of juries. He was found to be "not guilty," a very different concept.
However, the law now considers him to be innocent, and he cannot be retried just because almost everybody is aware that he is indeed guilty.
From Stephen Spruiell:
Contradictions Come to Define Libby Trial
Just off the top of my head, and in no particular order:
- Former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer testified that he told John Dickerson (then with TIME magazine) about Valerie Plame. Dickerson denies this.
- Fleischer also testified that he told NBC’s David Gregory about Valerie Plame. NBC Washington bureau chief Tim Russert later denied that Gregory ever received the leak.
- Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus testified that Fleischer told him about Valerie Plame. Fleischer denies this.
- Bob Woodward testified that he had discussions with Pincus about Valerie Plame. Pincus denies this.
- Russert first told the FBI that he couldn’t rule out the possibility that he discussed Valerie Plame with Scooter Libby. He later testified that he could.
- NBC’s Andrea Mitchell has yet to testify, but she first said publicly that everyone knew about Valerie Plame prior to Robert Novak’s column. She now denies that she herself knew (and successfully resisted a subpoena).
And now, today, this:
On Tuesday, Jill Abramson, now The New York Times' managing editor, was called first by the defense [...]
Abramson was asked about former Times' reporter Judith Miller's testimony (she had claimed this for a long time) that she had asked Abramson in 2003, when the latter was Washington bureau chief, if she could write a story related to WMD and her recent talks with Libby.
- Abramson, as she has done in the past, denied it.
Remind me: Why is Libby the only one on trial for perjury?
Links in the original:
http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWY4ZGZjMmVlMWYyZjY5MjA3MmQ2ZWRkODk2YjAwMDk=
And Hillary still has 900+ FBI files. Whew!!!!!
Legal definition of "fact":
"Incident, act, event, or circumstance. ...
A question of fact in litigation is concerned with what actually took place. During a trial, questions of fact are generally left for the jury to determine after each opposing side has presented its case. By contrast, a question of law is ordinarily decided by a judge, who must deal with applicable legal rules and principles that affect what transpired."
Yet you refused to answer my simple question:
"Then why do judges presume to "make decisions of fact" by telling juries what facts they can and cannot see, and concealing facts or preventing access to facts by juries?"
To make things as simple as possible for you, let's rephrase that using your own preferred definition of fact from the above cite:
Why are judges allowed to make "decisions of fact" by arbitrarily preventing access to or knowledge of "incidents, acts, events, or circumstances" relevant to the case from being made available to the jury?
When you can address this brazen, contradictory hypocrisy of the courts honestly and directly, your posts might be worthy of some respect.
One of the jurors who has spoken to the press asked why the VP was not on trial. That is not up to the jurors to decide, and is irrelevant to what they should have been doing. Why that does not lead to a mistrial is beyond me. (Of course, much of the legal system shennanigans is beyond me!)
From what I understand of this whole convuluted mess is that Libby was convicted of lying to Grand Jury by saying he did not leak the name of Plame to a reporter who already knew that Plame was Wilson's wife and CIA.
I turn on the tube when I get home and listen to John Gibson. He is a smart guy and - IMHO - is head and shoulders above O'Reilly. Like I said, I listen to him but have not actually watched him in weeks. Yesterday, I sat down and watched him and was shocked. Someone needs to tell him he is gaining weight. Too much too fast. And he is pale. He needs to start hitting the gym or something. He does not look good.
Joe Wilson was/is in business with ALAMOUDI!! I wish someone would bring that out!
"Contradictions Come to Define Libby Trial"
So true. Thanks for the link!
Re: Your statement about John Gibson:
"- IMHO - is head and shoulders above O'Reilly"
Absolutely agree! He's quick and his material is well researched. I wish the 'Countdown to Shame' got more attention. I heard a tease for a 'Fox News Investigates the Sandy Berger Case' that is supposed to be coming soon on Fox. Hope Gibson does it.
I haven't noticed the weight gain, but do see him almost daily. The pallor could be attributed to the season or inadequate outdoor activity in Texas.
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.