Finally, the trial is over and justice prevails!

Lewis I. Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was found guilty today on four counts of obstructing justice and lying to a grand jury and the FBI. He was not convicted of a fifth count of lying to the FBI. Libby could be sentenced to a maximum of about 30 years in prison and fined up to $1.25 million. --Time (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1596626,00.html)


:woohoo:

Its his boss should have got the 30 years.

Its his boss should have got the 30 years.

One step at a time. ;)

Of course, justice may still be done with respect to Mr. Cheney... if there's a god, his health will continue to deteriorate to the point that (a) he is forced to step down, or (b) he croaks. Either option works for me.

I just have a bad feeling he'll end his days with a couple of Secret Service guys living out front, getting a Federal cheque every month, and doing the extremeist speech tour, coining it in, left right and centre.

Its his boss should have got the 30 years.Don't fall for it Paul.
This conviction was for perjury.

Seems to have been fed to the wolves a bit tho

How so?

thanks god, the greatset threat to national security in recent memory, the outing of super spy valerie plame has come to a close, now we can all sleep well knowing the traitor libby is behind bars and get back to important things like American Idol.

I hope Fitzgerald uses the conviction to pressure Libby into talking now.

yes me too, and I hope in the end Valerie Plame is added to mount rushmore for her contributions to america

Valerie Plame definately does deserve some recognition for her work tracking down loose nuclear materials. It is especially ironic that one of her main focuses was monitoring Iran's nuclear program.

But from your sarcastic tone it doesn't seem you think that is a worthwhile project.

so what was her role again? was she undercover?

yes me too, and I hope in the end Valerie Plame is added to mount rushmore for her contributions to america

I'm sure you don't think this is as important as whether someone lied about getting a blow job, but hey, I'm sure if Libby had gotten a blow job he probably would have lied about that too.

so what was her role again? was she undercover?

Yes she was undercover.

If you don't know anything about it, you shouldn't make comments like you do.

How so?
Mr Libby stated that he became aware of Ms Plame from his boss, Dick Cheney, so if Libby done any leaking, surely it was on his boss's orders.

Hey, libby and clinton both lied under oath, they both deserve to go to jail, can we agree on that at least?

Hey, libby and clinton both lied under oath, they both deserve to go to jail, can we agree on that at least?

Well, it's highly unlikely that a former President would ever be incarcerated unless he went on a killing spree, but I do see your point. I will say I can't work up a great deal of outrage over the fact that someone lied about having an affair. It seems to me there are lies, and then there are lies, but we do want to discourage perjury, so I am in favor of punishment for the offense.

Of course, justice may still be done with respect to Mr. Cheney...

I highly doubt it.

He hasn't had to face justice for the other abonimbale acts he's committed and organized.....a prime example being that he was one of the chief peddlers of the pack of lies that led this country into that clusterfuck known as the 'Iraq war'.

if there's a god, his health will continue to deteriorate to the point that (a) he is forced to step down, or (b) he croaks. Either option works for me.

Stepping down would be good----IF it were made manifest to every American citizen that the reason he was being forced from office was that his lies and subterfuge --as it regards the Plame matter-- have been exposed to the light of day and that he is not being given any choice but to leave in disgrace.

As for his dying, I don't want the man to die. He will die whenever he dies, regardless of his machinations in the Plame affair. I want to see him live....but to be punished for what he did and to suffer the public humiliation and disgrace he deserves.

When I compare the circumstances of the lies I find I cannot muster any outrage over Clinton's lie.

On one hand we have someone lying about having an affiar.

On the other hand we have someone lying about outting an undercover CIA operation, possibly causing the deaths of multiple undercover agents and jepordizing the investigation of Iran's nuclear program.

Yup, hard to be too outraged at Clinton by comparison.

Mr Libby stated that he became aware of Ms Plame from his boss, Dick Cheney, so if Libby done any leaking, surely it was on his boss's orders.

Of course he did it under Cheney's orders. I'd imagine that every sentient being on the planet who has followed the case is well aware of that fact.

I challenge you to find a Rightwinger that (even though they know it as well as you or I) will admit it, though.

On one hand we have someone lying about having an affair. On the other hand we have someone lying about outting an undercover CIA operation........

Exactly.

Its like comparing a shoplifter to a mass murderer.

When I compare the circumstances of the lies I find I cannot muster any outrage over Clinton's lie.

On one hand we have someone lying about having an affiar.

On the other hand we have someone lying about outting an undercover CIA operation, possibly causing the deaths of multiple undercover agents and jepordizing the investigation of Iran's nuclear program.

Yup, hard to be too outraged at Clinton by comparison.

I see, all animals are equal but some are more equal then others.

I see, all animals are equal but some are more equal then others.

That makes no sense.

Not all situations are equal.

That makes no sense.

Not all situations are equal.

True, but it's never right to lie under oath.

True, but it's never right to lie under oath.

True, I never said it was.

I hope Fitzgerald uses the conviction to pressure Libby into talking now.

Sadly, Fitzgerald said he's probably done all he's going to do. Rove got away with it.

Lying under oath is like lying under oath.. you can talk about "lying" all you want.. but the "under oath" thing bites ya in the butt every time.

True, I never said it was.

but you implied it was not as bad to lie under oath sometimes

Mr Libby stated that he became aware of Ms Plame from his boss, Dick Cheney, so if Libby done any leaking, surely it was on his boss's orders.Paul, Libby was not the leaker. Libby was not the leaker. Libby was not the leaker.

Her identity was leaked by a man named Richard Armitage. Colin Powell knew he was the leaker. When Fitzgerald took the case, he also knew Armitage was the leaker.

Fitzgerald then proceeded to (supposedly) try to find out who the leaker was.

Libby is a criminal in the same sense Martha Stewart is.

On the other hand we have someone lying about outting an undercover CIA operation, possibly causing the deaths of multiple undercover agents and jepordizing the investigation of Iran's nuclear program.
Was she undercover? The judge said he didn't know. How do you?
To what deaths are you referring.

PS - The woman who co-wrote the law protecting agents in these situations said that this case does not come close to qualifying as anouting of an undercover agent.

Of course he did it under Cheney's orders. I'd imagine that every sentient being on the planet who has followed the case is well aware of that fact.Unless you're referring to Armitage, no one leaked anything under Cheney's orders.

Rove got away with it.
With what??

but you implied it was not as bad to lie under oath sometimes

True, it is not AS bad.

But they are both bad.

Understand now?

I cant believe you actually admitted something your god B Clinton did was bad

I cant believe you actually admitted something your god B Clinton did was bad

He isn't my God, Drama Queen. If you paid attention you would know I consider him a corporatist.

funny, because you never miss a chance to defend him.

its almost like he's next in line after monica

;)

funny, because you never miss a chance to defend him.

Except when I have criticized him for things like signing NAFTA.

But I am sure you ignored those since they clash with your adgenda of demonizing me.

Except when I have criticized him for things like signing NAFTA.

But I am sure you ignored those since they clash with your adgenda of demonizing me.

funny.. because i have disagreed and slammed bush many times on here and yet you called me a "radical right" person....

pot.. kettle... black

funny.. because i have disagreed and slammed bush many times on here and yet you called me a "radical right" person....

pot.. kettle... black

To the extreme left, all centrists are "radical right." To the real radical right, all centrists are "extreme left."

Decka, If I ever said that, I was wrong. You aren't smart enough to be radical right. You are just an asshole.

Decka, If I ever said that, I was wrong. You aren't smart enough to be radical right. You are just an asshole.

LOL you know you did something right when you got noobs callin you an asshole

:hula: :hula: :hula:

Paul, Libby was not the leaker. Libby was not the leaker. Libby was not the leaker.

Her identity was leaked by a man named Richard Armitage. Colin Powell knew he was the leaker. When Fitzgerald took the case, he also knew Armitage was the leaker.

Fitzgerald then proceeded to (supposedly) try to find out who the leaker was.

Libby is a criminal in the same sense Martha Stewart is.
''The Prosecution also said Mr Libby concocted a storey that he learned of Ms Wilsons identity in a conversation with Tim Russell of NBC News on July 10 or 11 2003 to hide the fact that he already learned about her identity from several fellow administration officials-New York Times.


The testimony made clear that President Bush secretly declassified a portion of the pre war intelligence estimate that Cheney quietly sent Libby to leak to Judith Miller of the New York Times in 2003-ABC News

LOL you know you did something right when you got noobs callin you an asshole


If a negative first impression is your goal, then congratulations.

Gosh, I'm gonna miss Scooter.

Oh, how I used to love riding my Scooter. I could ride that Scooter all day, and into the evening, when my Mom would call me in for supper.
We were inseparable, me and Scooter. I used to polish his handles, and tickle his tassles. I loved my Mister Scooter, I did.


Oh wait.
You're talking about Scooter Libby.
Never mind.

dharma.. while you played the minority and cried about "agendas to DEMONIZE YOU".. that's exactly what you did when you tried labeling me...

I could care less if you have a "bad impression" of me... I ain't the one in the wrong here, so go ahead and insult me and prove me right.

Except when I have criticized him for things like signing NAFTA.

But I am sure you ignored those since they clash with your adgenda of demonizing me.

ya, we have had so many NAFTA threads since you arrived :rolleyes:

I ain't the one in the wrong here,

You have that wrong.

:lolhit:

ya, we have had so many NAFTA threads since you arrived

Trav, Thanks for proving you don't really pay any attention to what I say and that you have no clue what you are talking about when it comes to me.

:upyours:

The good part is ...

If there are anymore investigations along these same lines, Libby will be subpoened to testify and he will not be allowed to take the 5th.

BWAhahahahahah .... ROTFLMAO

Trav, Thanks for proving you don't really pay any attention to what I say

now that's the first thing you have ever been right about.

The good part is ...
If there are anymore investigations along these same lines, Libby will be subpoened to testify and he will not be allowed to take the 5th.
BWAhahahahahah .... ROTFLMAOAlong what same lines. Do you even remember what this trial was about?

The testimony made clear that President Bush secretly declassified a portion of the pre war intelligence estimate that Cheney quietly sent Libby to leak to Judith Miller of the New York Times in 2003-ABC NewsTo what "pre-war estimates" are you referring?
I don't think that's what this trial was about.

Along what same lines. Do you even remember what this trial was about?

Do you even remember what it was Fitzgerald was tasked to investigate?

Do you even remember what it was Fitzgerald was tasked to investigate?Yes, he was supposedly attempting to investigate who was responsible for the leak.
Although he knew in his first week that it was Richard Armitage, he continued the "investigation" anyway. Why? I guess to give the administration all that good publicity.
In the end all he has were petty charges to save face.

Libby's trial was about finding someone guilty of perjury pertaining to an underlying charge that was not a crime.

Just like Martha Stewart.

In the end all he has were petty charges to save face.

Libby's trial was about finding someone guilty of perjury pertaining to an underlying charge that was not a crime.

Just like Martha Stewart.

More like Bill Clinton.

A witch hunt after witch hunters.

More like Bill Clinton.I think Libby's perjury was based on his Grand Jury testimony conflicting with an interview with a journalist. He claimed it was a bad memory. This is possible, but the jury didn't believe him.

What everyone forgets about Bill Clinton is that he probably asked Betty Currie to go along with his story and his legal advisors probably compelled Monica Lewinsky to lie in her affidavit. That's pretty serious.

http://www.pub.umich.edu/daily/1998/feb/02-06-98/news/news6.html

Although he knew in his first week that it was Richard Armitage, he continued the "investigation" anyway. Why?

Because as we now know from the Libby trial, that story has more holes in it that Baby Swiss Cheese.

What everyone forgets about Bill Clinton is that he probably asked Betty Currie to go along with his story and his legal advisors probably compelled Monica Lewinsky to lie in her affidavit. That's pretty serious.


"Probably"?

Thats pretty weak.

Even for you.

Libby's trial was about finding someone guilty of perjury pertaining to an underlying charge that was not a crime.


Outting an undercover CIA operative most certainly IS a crime.

That is why there was an investigation in the first place.

The "did not have sex with that woman" turned out to be a lie.
Her affidavit said the same thing.
They each came up with that independently?

Outting an undercover CIA operative most certainly IS a crime.Even if she was covert (which you don't know), this does not necessarily break any law.

Anyway, why didn't Fitzgerald charge anyone with this?

The "did not have sex with that woman" turned out to be a lie.

Actually he was aquitted by the Senate because they were both telling the same story, that they didn't have "sex" (defined as intercourse).

It was piss poor wording by the interviewer.

Even if she was covert (which you don't know), this does not necessarily break any law.

I have already posted at least two seperate links from credible sources proving that:

A. She was covert. and

B. It is against the law to out a covert agent.

You have nothing except persistent denial, which is growing increasingly weak and tiresome.

Anyway, why didn't Fitzgerald charge anyone with this?

Because he hasn't been able to find sufficient evidence to charge someone.

Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense.

.... they didn't have "sex" (defined as intercourse). Yeah, he wasn't lying. Okay.

Honestly here, do you believe they didn't match up their stories ahead of time?
Seriously.

Honestly here, do you believe they didn't match up their stories ahead of time?
Seriously.

Perhaps their stories matched because they were both saying the same thing.

Seriously.

Because he hasn't been able to find sufficient evidence to charge someone. No, it's because he KNEW who did it but that person wasn't closely enough related to the administration.

When Armitage came forward and said "It was me", I think that's pretty compelling evidence of who did it.
Don't you think?

Perhaps their stories matched because they were both saying the same thing.

Seriously.Drink up Dharma

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v281/queun/images1.jpg

When Armitage came forward and said "It was me", I think that's pretty compelling evidence of who did it.
Don't you think?

Given the fact that reporters testified during the trial that they were told about Plame by Libby days before Armitage said anything is pretty compelling evidence that the whole story isn't getting out.
Don't you think?

Drink up Dharma

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v281/queun/images1.jpg

No thanks, I don't watch Fox.

Given the fact that reporters testified during the trial that they were told about Plame by Libby days before Armitage said anything is pretty compelling evidence that the whole story isn't getting out.
Don't you think?Why do you duppose the timing of Armitage's leak wasn't brought up at the trial since he was the initial leaker?
Fitzgerald wasn't interested.

Why do you duppose the timing of Armitage's leak wasn't brought up at the trial since he was the initial leaker?


It has never been established that Armitage was the initial leaker. In fact it came out in the trial that it was declassified at "the highest levels" in order to be leaked.

It has never been established that Armitage was the initial leaker. In fact it came out in the trial that it was declassified at "the highest levels" in order to be leaked....."that after Armitage testified before the grand jury investigating the leak case, he told Ford, "I'm afraid I may be the guy that caused the whole thing."

".....Armitage was upset that "he was the guy that f---ed up."
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=116511

Apparently you and Patrick Fitzgerald are the only ones who can't figure things out from these subtle, subtle clues.

The audio tape of Armitage supposedly outting Plame. (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/02/12/audio-of-armitage-outing-plame/)

This exchange is the most important:

Armitage: And George [Tenet] personally got it out of the Cincinnati speech of the President.

Woodward: Why wasn't [the yellowcake line] taken out of the State of the Union then?

Armitage: Because I think it was overruled by the types down at the White House.

Good googling, but the "outing" was between Armitage and Novak.

Good googling, but the "outing" was between Armitage and Novak.

Not according to Woodward, who claimed he was told first and has the proof to back it up.

See the link I posted.

Not according to Woodward, who claimed he was told first and has the proof to back it up.Yeah, Woodward, the William Casey deathbed interviewer.

Armitage himself said he leaked the story. Just because Patrick Fitzgerald chose to ignore it does not mean we have to.

Yeah, Woodward, the William Casey deathbed interviewer.

And the guy who broke the Watergate story that brought down Nixon.


Armitage himself said he leaked the story. Just because Patrick Fitzgerald chose to ignore it does not mean we have to.

I don't think Fitzgerald ignored it at all.

But I am sure you will try to ignore this:
Armitage: And George [Tenet] personally got it out of the Cincinnati speech of the President.

Woodward: Why wasn't [the yellowcake line] taken out of the State of the Union then?

Armitage: Because I think it was overruled by the types down at the White House.

This is the second time you posted this. What does it have to do with this.

This latest discussion is about whether or not Armitage was the leaker.

He said he was. Period.

I've watched a lot of episodes of Law & Order, and one of the things I've learned is that a confession is not always the truth.

I've watched a lot of episodes of Law & Order, and one of the things I've learned is that a confession is not always the truth.

people do confess as long as the ramifications defend a higher agenda...

all i know is that shows like Law & Order and CSI need to die, because everytime i turn on the damn TV they have Law & Order:Criminal intent.. or CSI:Miami.. there are like 50 versions of every show... and they are on prime time when i would like to watch something GOOD.

This is the second time you posted this. What does it have to do with this.


Because it goes back to the real heart of the matter, why did Bush decide to knowingly use fraudulent information in his state of the union?

Armitage: And George [Tenet] personally got it out of the Cincinnati speech of the President.

Woodward: Why wasn't [the yellowcake line] taken out of the State of the Union then?

Armitage: Because I think it was overruled by the types down at the White House.

people do confess as long as the ramifications defend a higher agenda...

all i know is that shows like Law & Order and CSI need to die, because everytime i turn on the damn TV they have Law & Order:Criminal intent.. or CSI:Miami.. there are like 50 versions of every show... and they are on prime time when i would like to watch something GOOD.
I do not like CSI. Law & Order is on network television three hours a week (Criminal Intent at 9 on Tuesday, SVU at 10 on Tuesday, and regular L&O at 10 on Friday), although a couple of cable channels do show a lot of reruns of the three versions of Law & Order. I'm pretty sure you can sacrifice three hours of your television watching week so that people who might not like the same shows as you can watch what they want...

Because it goes back to the real heart of the matter, why did Bush decide to knowingly use fraudulent information in his state of the union?Yeah. We were talking about that at one time.
But at the moment you were telling me that Armitage was not the leaker.
I didn't get the relevance of your quote.

What was the point of the whole investigation in the first place?

Oh yes... to find out who outted a covert CIA operation responsible for tracking nuclear technology programs in places like Iran and North Korea. The Big question here is, who is responsible for gravely compromising American national security in regards to the most dangerous weapons man has ever known?

Libby's own defense was that he was the fall guy for Cheney and Rove. The story goes that they chose to out Plame in retaliation for Wilson pointing out the fact that the President lied in the State of the Union. (an impeachable offense, by the way)

1. Libby's own defense was that he was the fall guy for Cheney and Rove.
2. The story goes that they chose to out Plame in retaliation for Wilson pointing out the fact that the President lied in the State of the Union. (an impeachable offense, by the way)1. His defense was that his recollection of a conversation with a journalist was faulty.
Interviewed jurors said they believed he was the fall guy, but that wasn't his defense. That is not a defense for perjury. Any defense lawyer would know that and wouldn't have presented such a defense.

2. I agree with your use of the word "story" in this case.

Wilson has told so many lies in this case it's hard to remember what the real facts are.
My favorite is that the Administration asked him to go.
In his book he writes "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip."
When they found a memo from his wife pushing him for the gig, he said "I don't see it as a recommendation to send me."

As far as Bush lying, this is what he said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." To this day the British stick with the story as originally reported.
So not only was it true when he said it, it still is.

Even the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee believed Wilson was lying about several things. To wit:
"First, the former ambassador described his findings to Committee staff as more directly related to Iraq and, specifically, as refuting both the possibility that Niger could have sold uranium to Iraq and that Iraq approached Niger to purchase uranium. The intelligence report described how the structure of Niger's uranium mines would make it difficult, if not impossible, for Niger to sell uranium to rogue nations, and noted that Nigerian officials denied knowledge of any deals to sell uranium to any rogue states, but did not refuse the possibility that Iraq had approached Niger to purchase uranium.

Second, the former ambassador said that he discussed with his CIA contacts which names and signatures should have appeared on any documentation of a legitimate uranium transaction. In fact, the intelligence report made no mention of the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal or signatures that should have appeared on any documentation of such a deal. The only mention of Iraq in the report pertained to the meeting between the Iraqi delegation and former [Niger] Prime Minister Mayaki.

Third, the former ambassador noted that his CIA contacts told him there were documents pertaining to the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium transaction and that the source of the information was the [blacked out] intelligence service." In fact, the CIA did not provide Wilson with "any information about the source or details of the original reporting as it would have required sharing classified information and noted that there were no 'documents' circulating ... at the time of the former ambassador's trip, only intelligence reports from [blacked out] intelligence regarding an alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal. ...[N]one of the meeting participants recall telling the former ambassador the source of the report ...

To this day the British stick with the story as originally reported.The Brits sticking to their story proves nothing.So not only was it true when he said it, it still is.Nonsense.

but you implied it was not as bad to lie under oath sometimes

The lie itself makes a difference too. If I said I saw a flying purple elephant when I was under oath it would mean very little. If I said that I saw a person try to murder someone when in fact I didn't, it is a much bigger deal.

The punishment should fit the crime.

The Brits sticking to their story proves nothing.Maybe you don't feel that the story is true (perhaps your own private investigation into the matter is better than the British one), but we're not talking about whether you believe the report or not.

This became another "Bush lied" discussion. This is what he said:
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Sorry, but the President's statement is true.

If I said I saw a flying purple elephant .... If I said that I saw a person try to murder someone .That's right. That's why lying under oath isn't always perjury.

Maybe you don't feel that the story is true

The CIA confirmed that the Niger documents that were the basis of the entire claim were fakes. They mispelled several words, including the names of key nigerian officials. The CIA field officer who was originally shown the documents by Berlisconi immediately spotted them as fake and refused to take them. That is why they were then recycled to the British, who later agreed that they were fakes.



"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Yes, he said the British government because our own government already told him it was not true!

Sorry, but the President's statement is a lie.

The CIA confirmed that the Niger documents that were the basis of the entire claim were fakes. They mispelled several words, including the names of key nigerian officials. The CIA field officer who was originally shown the documents by Berlisconi immediately spotted them as fake and refused to take them. That is why they were then recycled to the British, who later agreed that they were fakes.



"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Yes, he said the British government because our own government already told him it was not true!

Sorry, but the President's statement is a lie.

can you prove the CIA told bush and bush denied their assessments? What was the conversation there?

can you prove the CIA told bush and bush denied their assessments?

I already posted the conversation between Armitage and Woodward several times.

Maybe you don't feel that the story is true (perhaps your own private investigation into the matter is better than the British one), but we're not talking about whether you believe the report or not.Actually, I was taking issue with your logic. You are saying (when you use the word 'so') that the President's statement is true because the Brits are sticking with their story. Since when is something true just because someone says it is?This became another "Bush lied" discussion. This is what he said:
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Sorry, but the President's statement is true.If the President had used a qualifier such as "The British government has told me that ..." then I could see how the statement could technically be true even if the intelligence is false. But by affirming with certainty that "the British government has learned", the truth of the President's statement becomes contingent upon whether or not the British government really has learned this or not. The British have not released any intelligence proving the Niger connection. All we have to go on is their say-so. That isn't good enough to baldly state that the President's statement is true. In fact, the lack of evidence (not to mention the planting of forgeries) argues strongly against it.

1. The CIA confirmed that the Niger documents that were the basis of the entire claim were fakes.
2. Yes, he said the British government because our own government already told him it was not true!
Sorry, but the President's statement is a lie.1. That's just wrong. The British findings were not based on those documents.

2. Did he claim that our government made the findings? No, he said the British made this claim.
Show me the "lie"

1. You are saying (when you use the word 'so') that the President's statement is true because the Brits are sticking with their story.
2. But by affirming with certainty that "the British government has learned", the truth of the President's statement becomes contingent upon whether or not the British government really has learned this or not. 1. The Brits don't have to stick to their story to make the President's statement true at the time he said it. The fact that they are is just a bonus.

2. The British government did learn it. I don't get which hair you're splitting here.

The British findings were not based on those documents.

You are wrong.

I suggest you educate yourself by reading the investigative journalism of the BBC reporter, Greg Palast.

Repeating ignorant statements, as you have been, only reinforces the idea that you are ignorant in this area.