One thing I would love to see

[Kelly the Dog]

On the witness stand, confronted with all the evidence, under oath, Scooter is accused of repeatedly lying to the grand jury and says, with straight face, totally serious, sure this will get him off: "Clinton did it!" Libby faced with accusations of trying to sabotage anyone against the administration's choice to go to war, screams maniacally "Bush Bad! Hot Pockets!".

 

That would be great. And I'm sure you conservatives and Bush people would love it even more than me because that would mean that Libby would get off scott free for sure. Those are simply irrefutable arguments. The jury will nod and completely reverse their suspicions when they realize that yes, Clinton did it so it's okay. And they will slap their knees and cackle when Libby yells "Bush Bad!" and "Hot Pockets!" every single time as he says it over and over, but then realize ultimately that it's so true, and that was a perfect brilliant inarguable response and defense by Libby. The judge may even stop the trial in the middle and Libby will be totally exonerated.

[/dev/null]

i'm sorry, but i just can not take seriously an adult named Scooter

[JimBob2232]

I always start off discussions like this by saying I am a conservative, so everyone knows where I am coming from.

 

I dont know that there is a difference between Clinton and Libby. But until we know more about the case, I cannot make that determination. Clinton should have been prosecuted for it, and if Libby also lied and intentionally misled the grand jury, he too should be proscecuted.

 

That said however, there is a big difference between mispeaking or forgetting minute detailes of events that happened years ago, and intentionally misleading a grand jury. It remains to be seen what exactly happened.

 

It appears from the outset that this is a witch hunt. It pains me to see our legal system ripped to shreads as it has been recently. This "we cant charge you with the crime, but we can charge you with covering it up" nonsense needs to go. I was stupid in the Martha Stewart case and, unless it can be proven Libby was lying to cover up a crime, its stupid in this case.

 

It should also be stated, that I dont think a crime was even commited. She worked at the CIA. Her neighbors knew that. Her husband introduced her as "working in the CIA" at parties. She hadnt been on a covert mission in over 7 years (the legal threshold for the crime). So I dont see that there was ever a crime here, until possibly when it went to the grand jury and someone lied under oath.

 

No doubt libby and rove knew (or at least felt) that there was no crime commited. That would have undoubtably been their defense had they been accused of outing a CIA agent. So, knowing that no crime was commited, why would Libby lie to the grand jury to try to cover up a crime that wasnt commited? It just doesnt wash.

 

But, i'll let they legal corse play out and see where it goes from here.

[Kelly the Dog]

I always start off discussions like this by saying I am a conservative, so everyone knows where I am coming from. 

 

I dont know that there is a difference between Clinton and Libby.  But until we know more about the case, I cannot make that determination.  Clinton should have been prosecuted for it, and if Libby also lied and intentionally misled the grand jury, he too should be proscecuted.

 

That said however, there is a big difference between mispeaking or forgetting minute detailes of events that happened years ago, and intentionally misleading a grand jury.  It remains to be seen what exactly happened.

 

It appears from the outset that this is a witch hunt.  It pains me to see our legal system ripped to shreads as it has been recently.  This "we cant charge you with the crime, but we can charge you with covering it up" nonsense needs to go.  I was stupid in the Martha Stewart case and, unless it can be proven Libby was lying to cover up a crime, its stupid in this case.

 

It should also be stated, that I dont think a crime was even commited.  She worked at the CIA.  Her neighbors knew that.  Her husband introduced her as "working in the CIA" at parties.  She hadnt been on a covert mission in over 7 years (the legal threshold for the crime).  So I dont see that there was ever a crime here, until possibly when it went to the grand jury and someone lied under oath. 

 

No doubt libby and rove knew (or at least felt) that there was no crime commited.  That would have undoubtably been their defense had they been accused of outing a CIA agent.  So, knowing that no crime was commited, why would Libby lie to the grand jury to try to cover up a crime that wasnt commited?  It just doesnt wash.

 

But, i'll let they legal corse play out and see where it goes from here.

489290[/snapback]

You obviously didn't see the prosecutor's press conference or read the transcript of it. Fitzgerald said flat out that he has no idea if a crime was committed and the reason he doesn't is because Libby kept lying to him. He wasn't just forgetting minute details of a conversation years ago, he was forgetting major details of at least six conversations he had about Plame that are indisputable, including at least one where he took notes.

[JimBob2232]

You obviously didn't see the prosecutor's press conference or read the transcript of it. Fitzgerald said flat out that he has no idea if a crime was committed and the reason he doesn't is because Libby kept lying to him. He wasn't just forgetting minute details of a conversation years ago, he was forgetting major details of at least six conversations he had about Plame that are indisputable, including at least one where he took notes.

 

Woah woah woah....

 

I never said Libby wasnt lying. If he is in fact intentionally lying, he needs to be prosecuted. End of story. But this needs to be proven. And the word of some random attorney is not enough evidence for me to say that he is lying as alleged. I am just choosing to let the process run its course before I make any firm committment either way.

 

It just seems hard for me to believe though, that since there was no crime commited (my opinion, but i think libby and co. agree) why would he lie to cover up a crime that wasnt committed? If you are libby, you go into the grand jury with 2 options. 1) I can lie and hope to get out of here scott free, but if im caught lying I go to jail for a long time or 2) I can tell the truth, get charged with outing a CIA agent, then fight those charges on the basis that the agent was not covert. It seems to be option 2 is the better option. But yes, I would like to see alot more evidence than the press release of a prosecutor before I make these kinds of rash judgements.

[finknottle]

It should also be stated, that I dont think a crime was even commited.  She worked at the CIA.  Her neighbors knew that.  Her husband introduced her as "working in the CIA" at parties.  She hadnt been on a covert mission in over 7 years (the legal threshold for the crime).  So I dont see that there was ever a crime here, until possibly when it went to the grand jury and someone lied under oath. 

 

489290[/snapback]

 

How do we know any of this? I know it's being spun that way... I would be stunned if, for example, they would ever confirm or deny that "so-and-so has not been on a covert mission for x years.'

[SilverNRed]

It just seems hard for me to believe though, that since there was no crime commited (my opinion, but i think libby and co. agree) why would he lie to cover up a crime that wasnt committed? If you are libby, you go into the grand jury with 2 options.  1) I can lie and hope to get out of here scott free, but if im caught lying I go to jail for a long time or 2) I can tell the truth, get charged with outing a CIA agent, then fight those charges on the basis that the agent was not covert.  It seems to be option 2 is the better option.  But yes, I would like to see alot more evidence than the press release of a prosecutor before I make these kinds of rash judgements.

489309[/snapback]

He probably thought he could get away with it. Even if he gets away with option 2, it looks bad. After Wilson went public with his fake whistle-blowing, it was only a matter of time before people realized he was only sent on the mission because of his CIA wife, but that doesn't mean Scooter should have been the guy making that happen.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

It just seems hard for me to believe though, that since there was no crime commited (my opinion, but i think libby and co. agree) why would he lie to cover up a crime that wasnt committed?

489309[/snapback]

 

Why would Martha Stewart? Because they're uncertain...

 

In Libby's case, I wouldn't be surprised if it went something like: when the investigation started, Libby wasn't sure what, if any, his role was in "outing" Plame, as while he knows he talked about her, he was by no means certain he was in the clear. Ergo, he lied ("obfuscated" seems a better word, actually), just in case he needed to cover his ass.

[Kelly the Dog]

Woah woah woah....

 

I never said Libby wasnt lying.  If he is in fact intentionally lying, he needs to be prosecuted. End of story.  But this needs to be proven.  And the word of some random attorney is not enough evidence for me to say that he is lying as alleged.  I am just choosing to let the process run its course before I make any firm committment either way.

 

It just seems hard for me to believe though, that since there was no crime commited (my opinion, but i think libby and co. agree) why would he lie to cover up a crime that wasnt committed?  If you are libby, you go into the grand jury with 2 options.  1) I can lie and hope to get out of here scott free, but if im caught lying I go to jail for a long time or 2) I can tell the truth, get charged with outing a CIA agent, then fight those charges on the basis that the agent was not covert.  It seems to be option 2 is the better option.  But yes, I would like to see alot more evidence than the press release of a prosecutor before I make these kinds of rash judgements.

489309[/snapback]

He IS being prosecuted, to see if he was lying. Because they have a pretty good case against him (which he laid out in great detail). That's why they have these things. Middle of story. Although, in order for him to not being lying, at least seven other people with no reason to lie, including Tim Russert, would have to be lying, and Libby be the one person who wasn't.

 

And it would have been okay for him to be wrong or mistaken or misspoken about the first time he heard her name the first or second time they interviewed him. However, if you think about it for a nanosecond, after that, if YOU were about to go in front of a grand jury to be asked questions about a specific incident you know they are going to talk to you about, the only incident in fact they are asking you about, if you weren't 100% sure about something, like where you first heard this, or at the very least seven conversations you may have had with seven other people about said incident -wouldn't you, perhaps, just by chance, say, LOOK OVER YOUR OWN NOTES that the prosecutors just asked you for, and handed over to them? Maybe? You know, the ones that say the exact opposite of what you are about to testify to? Or, perhaps, ask any of your colleagues when you might have spoke to them about that incident. You know, the guys in your office who are also being questioned. Maybe to refresh your memory?

[JimBob2232]

So I guess he is guilty until proven innocent then?

[Chilly]

I would pay to see Bush box Cheney

[Wacka]

All he has to do is say "I don't remember" to every question asked him. It worked for Hillary with the Rose Law Firm records.

[Campy]

All he has to do is say "I don't remember" to every question asked him. It worked for Hillary with the Rose Law Firm records.

489506[/snapback]

IMO it was much more effective when used by Reagan in Iran-Contra.

[Kelly the Dog]

So I guess he is guilty until proven innocent then?

489421[/snapback]

It's called having an opinion after seeing some of the evidence in 22 pages of specific detail, watching the non-partisan, extremely competent and well-respected prosecutor speak for an hour about it, and listening to, and reading a lot about the situation from both sides of the aisle. Innocent until proven guilty, in case you didn't notice, is only given people in court. In court, I think he is innocent until proven guilty, which he should be. That means I don't think he should be convicted until he is proven guilty. And I presume him innocent under the law. It's perfectly okay to have an opinion on someone before the case is over. Go ahead, try having one. Or do you think OJ is innocent, too.

[/dev/null]

IMO it was much more effective when used by Reagan  in Iran-Contra.

489535[/snapback]

 

thats because with Reagan it was actually believable

[JimBob2232]

It's called having an opinion after seeing some of the evidence in 22 pages of specific detail, watching the prosecutor speak for an hour about it, and listening to, and reading a lot about the situation. Innocent until proven guilty, in case you didn't notice, is only given people in court. In court, I think he is innocent until proven guilty, which he should be. That means I don't think he should be convicted until he is proven guilty. It's perfectly okay to have an opinion on someone before the case is over. Go ahead, try having one. Or do you think OJ is innocent, too.

 

Wait, you just got done telling me that he is innocent until proven guilty, then you go out and say "do you think OJ is innocent, too"? Last I checked he was found not guilty and buying a house in buffalo. Maybe I need to look it up again.

 

We are making a huge mistake if we start making our own decisions independant of what a jury decides, and even a bigger mistake if we are making these decisions based on what we think we know came out of secret grand jury testimony.

 

He may very well be guilty of these crimes, and if he is, he should hang for it. But im taking a wait and see approach for now.

[Mickey]

I always start off discussions like this by saying I am a conservative, so everyone knows where I am coming from. 

 

I dont know that there is a difference between Clinton and Libby.  But until we know more about the case, I cannot make that determination.  Clinton should have been prosecuted for it, and if Libby also lied and intentionally misled the grand jury, he too should be proscecuted.

 

That said however, there is a big difference between mispeaking or forgetting minute detailes of events that happened years ago, and intentionally misleading a grand jury.  It remains to be seen what exactly happened.

 

It appears from the outset that this is a witch hunt.  It pains me to see our legal system ripped to shreads as it has been recently.  This "we cant charge you with the crime, but we can charge you with covering it up" nonsense needs to go.  I was stupid in the Martha Stewart case and, unless it can be proven Libby was lying to cover up a crime, its stupid in this case.

 

It should also be stated, that I dont think a crime was even commited.  She worked at the CIA.  Her neighbors knew that.  Her husband introduced her as "working in the CIA" at parties.  She hadnt been on a covert mission in over 7 years (the legal threshold for the crime).  So I dont see that there was ever a crime here, until possibly when it went to the grand jury and someone lied under oath. 

 

No doubt libby and rove knew (or at least felt) that there was no crime commited.  That would have undoubtably been their defense had they been accused of outing a CIA agent.  So, knowing that no crime was commited, why would Libby lie to the grand jury to try to cover up a crime that wasnt commited?  It just doesnt wash.

 

But, i'll let they legal corse play out and see where it goes from here.

489290[/snapback]

The CIA listed her as "classified" and Fitzgerald's investigation concluded (its right in the indictment) that the fact that she worked for the CIA was not common knowledge.

 

From the indictment:

 

"At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community.

 

"LIBBY had lunch with the then White House Press Secretary and advised the Press Secretary that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and noted that such information was not widely known."

 

This idea that every one and their brother knew about Plame and that her identity was no longer classified has been repeated so often on every conservative web site there is that it has, by its own inertia, become gospel. Fitzgerald's investigation clearly concluded otherwise. In fact, at the time, even Libby was of that opinion. Between conservative blogs and whatever other sources and the Prosecutor, I am going to go with the Prosecutor. He is the one who has seen all the proof and has to go in front of a Judge and Jury and prove these findings, unlike the Ann Coulter's of the world or even real journalists (are there any left?)

[Kelly the Dog]

Wait, you just got done telling me that he is innocent until proven guilty, then you go out and say "do you think OJ is innocent, too"?  Last I checked he was found not guilty and buying a house in buffalo.  Maybe I need to look it up again.

 

We are making a huge mistake if we start making our own decisions independant of what a jury decides, and even a bigger mistake if we are making these decisions based on what we think we know came out of secret grand jury testimony.

 

He may very well be guilty of these crimes, and if he is, he should hang for it.  But im taking a wait and see approach for now.

489598[/snapback]

No, IMO you think he is innocent because you're an unabashed conservative and think he wouldn't do that. And that's fine with me, you're perfectly entitled to your opinion on the case. If this were James Carville or Paul Begala, you would think he was innocent until proven guilty in court, as I do, but in your opinion you'd think he did it and was guilty. And that would be perfectly fine with me, too, because I would think the same thing (after looking at what we know as of now) whether I am a liberal or not. I usually will give my side the benefit of the doubt but there ain't much doubt here, from what we know. I would think the leftie did it for sure. I just wouldn't know why, as I don't know why Libby did. Although I would have opinions on it. I just wouldnt think my opinions were surely right, that is what we dn't know now.

 

You also, I would assume, think OJ is guilty of murder, unless you're crazier than I think. You think he did it, and you think he's guilty of the crime. That's okay, too. That's another opinion. You also think, as I do, that he is innocent under the law, and he shouldnt be in jail for it because he wasnt proven guilty in court. That's the way our system works and it's highly flawed but the best in the world. But you don't think OJ''s innocent of killing two people.

 

BTW, a whole lot of it is no longer secret grand jury testimony, a lot of it is public now, or at least the specifics of it. That is why I have this opinion.

[Taro T]

You also, I would assume, think OJ is guilty of murder, unless you're crazier than I think. You think he did it, and you think he's guilty of the crime. That's okay, too. That's another opinion. You also think, as I do, that he is innocent under the law, and he shouldnt be in jail for it because he wasnt proven guilty in court. That's the way our system works and it's highly flawed but the best in the world. But you don't think OJ''s innocent of killing two people.

489605[/snapback]

He was found (rightly in my opinion because the prosecution was incompetent and the defense did raise "reasonable doubt") not guilty of criminal charges. In the civil complaint by Goldstein's father, he was ordered to pay restitution (i.e., guilty by preponderence of evidence). So, I'd say he wasn't "innocent"; just "not-guilty" of criminal charges.

[Kelly the Dog]

He was found (rightly in my opinion because the prosecution was incompetent and the defense did raise "reasonable doubt") not guilty of criminal charges.  In the civil complaint by Goldstein's father, he was ordered to pay restitution (i.e., guilty by preponderence of evidence).  So, I'd say he wasn't "innocent"; just "not-guilty" of criminal charges.

489667[/snapback]

I totally agree, and it's an often wrongly understood and made distinction. But please answer these two questions for me:

 

1. Do you believe in your heart of hearts that OJ Simspon is guilty of killing two people?

2. Do you believe in your heart of hearts that OJ Simspon is guilty under the law of killing two people?

 

My own answers to those questions would be:

1. Yes, I think he is guilty of killing two people.

2. No, I think he is not guilty under the law of killing two people because the prosecution didn't prove its case. People can say that he is guilty because of the civil case, but to me that is not the determining factor, the governments case is.