http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1596626,00.html

Libby found guilty of multiple counts of perjury.

Let's hope it's just one more step in the investigation chain.

I'm sure the right-wing blogs are busy trying to spin this as "just perjury" even though they crow on and on about Clinton's perjury charges.  Being convicted of perjury for something actually related to the reason you were being investigated for is a little different than some open ended prosecution.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1596626,00.html

Libby found guilty of multiple counts of perjury.

Let's hope it's just one more step in the investigation chain.

I'm sure the right-wing blogs are busy trying to spin this as "just perjury" even though they crow on and on about Clinton's perjury charges.  Being convicted of perjury for something actually related to the reason you were being investigated for is a little different than some open ended prosecution.

And how!  They'll be going on about Clinton this and Clinton that in the right-wing media (they do that anyway, Bill or Hill), and Scooter will give some kind of Oliver North sanctimony about "Your honor, when American lives are in jeopardy...."
If he goes to the clink at all, it'll be one of those country club super-minimums.  "OK, Scooter, if a golf ball rolls over that white line, you can't go after it, otherwise, FORE!"

   Add him to the pardon list for exit-2008... ::)

   Let the spinning, contorting and comparisons to Slick, begin from the righties...

   Maybe this will finally get Anna Nicole off the front page.  Damn, I'm such a great American I frighten myself groove ;) on...

   

  Add him to the pardon list for exit-2008... ::)

  Let the spinning, contorting and comparisons to Slick, begin from the righties...



which is really too bad, because the comparisons to Tricky Dick are way more relevant.  Abusing the office of the president for political gain and then lying about it.  It's almost like the lessons of Watergate are completely forgotten.

which is really too bad, because the comparisons to Tricky Dick are way more relevant.  Abusing the office of the president for political gain and then lying about it.  It's almost like the lessons of Watergate are completely forgotten.


  Sure.  Besides, Slick lied about a sexual favor.  Libby lied to cover up a deliberate campaign to punish a disenting American by ruining his wife's career, or worse.  Sounds like treason, to me...
 
  I gotta believe this verdict is very bad news for Cheney.  Isn't Plame's lawsuit still alive?  I wonder what this conviction will do for Plame's case... 

  Relevant..?  The CIA gets kinda peeved when politicians out their NOCs.  CIA say she was covert at the time.  I wonder how many of her assets in other countries were rounded up and shot as a result..?  :-\\

 

  Relevant..?  The CIA gets kinda peeved when politicians out their NOCs.  CIA say she was covert at the time.  I wonder how many of her assets in other countries were rounded up and shot as a result..?  :-\\


Bush himself revealed a confidential source on national TV just to try and bump his ratings.  It is almost like the administration doesn't know what top secret means.

The civil lawsuit was on hold pending the outcome of the case. I would imagine this gives them plenty more ammo.

This to me just shows how scewed the justice system can be.

In short, he was convicted of Purjery, for something he did not do.  It has been widely covered that the leak was not even Scooter Libby, but Richard Armitage.

Personally, I think this is going to be thrown out.  It is obvious by listening to the Jury that they were totally clueless about what this was all about.  During their deliberation, one of the questions they sent to the judge was "Is it against the law to lie to a reporter?"

Lying to a reporter illegal?  What on earth were they looking at when they asked that question?  And he was convicted of lying to the grand jury about a discussion with Matt Cooper.  Yet at the same time, he was found Not Guilty in reguards to talking to the FBI about having a conversation with Matt Cooper.

Not to mention there is already a discussion about a "mistrial" because the Judge questioned Mr. Libby in open court about his not testifying.  That is something that is just not done, since a Jury is told to neither read guilt or innocence into weather a person on trial testifies or not.  It would be like Lance Ito asking OJ why he did not testify.

And let's be fair here.  If Scooter Libby being convicted of Obstruction of Justice and Perjury is such a big deal, then Bill Clinton being charged with the same crimes should also be a big deal.  But for some reason, it is not.  Once again, the "Double Standard" steps in.

It's OK to prosecute people for crimes that are in the other party, but wrong to prosecute people that belong to the party that I support.

How about a little consistancy here.  For the last 8 years, I have been listening to people tell me that "purjery is no big deal".  Now a lot of the same people are jumping up and down, saying that Mr. Libby should be sent to jail for 30 years.  The exact same thing that we were told was "not really a crime" in reguards to Bill Clinton.

This to me just shows how scewed the justice system can be.

In short, he was convicted of Purjery, for something he did not do.  It has been widely covered that the leak was not even Scooter Libby, but Richard Armitage.



thank you for the expected knee jerk reaction from Red State... even got Bill Clinton in there just like expected.

not even going to bother responding to that long rambling incoherent post filled with half-truths. 

Lying to a reporter illegal? 

Tony Snow seems to think telling the truth to a reporter is illegal!

If the Clinton Administration did the same thing, the FOX News guys would be clamoring for a capital sentence for treason!  Don't say they wouldn't, 'coz you know they would! 

And let's be fair here.  If Scooter Libby being convicted of Obstruction of Justice and Perjury is such a big deal, then Bill Clinton being charged with the same crimes should also be a big deal.  But for some reason, it is not.  Once again, the "Double Standard" steps in.

It's OK to prosecute people for crimes that are in the other party, but wrong to prosecute people that belong to the party that I support.

How about a little consistancy here.  For the last 8 years, I have been listening to people tell me that "purjery is no big deal".  Now a lot of the same people are jumping up and down, saying that Mr. Libby should be sent to jail for 30 years.  The exact same thing that we were told was "not really a crime" in reguards to Bill Clinton.


      Clinton didn't lie..!  He just redefined the truth...

  Seriously, Clinton was sucessufully prosecuted.  Thing is, he was aquitted.  On the grand jury perjury charge, 45-55 with 10 Repubs voting for acquittal...

  On the obstruction of justice charge, 50-50 with 5 Repubs crossing party lines in voting acquittal...

thank you for the expected knee jerk reaction from Red State... even got Bill Clinton in there just like expected.

not even going to bother responding to that long rambling incoherent post filled with half-truths. 


sorry... this is just a mean post on my part, totally uncalled for

sorry... this is just a mean post on my part, totally uncalled for

Knee-jerk reaction from Blue State?

Knee-jerk reaction from Blue State?


yeah, I guess so... I just get tired of the "But Clinton..." whine used as a justification for everything the Republicans get caught doing, even when it's not applicable.

thank you for the expected knee jerk reaction from Red State... even got Bill Clinton in there just like expected.

not even going to bother responding to that long rambling incoherent post filled with half-truths. 


Actually, it is not a "knee jerk" reaction.  If the person in question was a Democrat, I would be just as upset.  It is screwy to find out that somebody was not even responsible for the leak, yet to try and convict them for it.


If the Clinton Administration did the same thing, the FOX News guys would be clamoring for a capital sentence for treason!  Don't say they wouldn't, 'coz you know they would! 


And I would think that is screwy also.

Yet ironically, we have somebody that has admitted to illegally removing and destroying classified material, and nothing is happening to him.  That to me sounds like it should be a much bigger issue.


yeah, I guess so... I just get tired of the "But Clinton..." whine used as a justification for everything the Republicans get caught doing, even when it's not applicable.


The reason I threw that out, is that it really is true.  For years now, we have had people tell us that purjery is no big deal.  Now suddenly, it is a big deal.  I really do not care if the person involved was Bill Clinton or Bozo The Clown.  You simply can't expect to be taken seriously when you basically go around saying "Purjery is ok, unless it is this person.  Then it is wrong."

I think perjury is wrong.  And I think that Scooter should pay the penalty for it.  But come on, 30 years?  There are people who commit murder that will get out before he did.  And he did not even leak the information.

And interestingly enough, the person that really was the leak is not charged with anything.  This is what I mean by this entire thing is screwed up.

And I simply can't see how somebody can logically go "Oh it is OK for Mister A to comit perjury and obstruct justice, but it is wrong for Mister B to do it".  I think that both Mr. A & B should pay the price.  But not 30 years.  That is a punishment way out of proportion to the crime.  No matter if it is Bill Clinton or Scooter Libby.

And let's be fair here.  If Scooter Libby being convicted of Obstruction of Justice and Perjury is such a big deal, then Bill Clinton being charged with the same crimes should also be a big deal.  But for some reason, it is not.  Once again, the "Double Standard" steps in.

It's OK to prosecute people for crimes that are in the other party, but wrong to prosecute people that belong to the party that I support.

How about a little consistancy here.  For the last 8 years, I have been listening to people tell me that "purjery is no big deal".  Now a lot of the same people are jumping up and down, saying that Mr. Libby should be sent to jail for 30 years.  The exact same thing that we were told was "not really a crime" in reguards to Bill Clinton.



It seems to me whenever people say that Clinton shouldn't have been impeached-for having "sexual relations with that woman", your argument has always been that he was impeached because he lied to a grand jury-the same thing that Libby was convicted. The difference here? For one thing, having an affair is NOT illegal. Clinton was NOT CHARGED with obstruction of justice-trying to cover up a crime-yeah, he was trying to cover up an embarrassing act but NOT a crime. And for another thing, I don't think the Grand Jury had the right to ask Clinton what he did behind close doors-as long as it is NOT illegal.

As for Libby, I think he is the fall guy. I think this whole mess goes higher up but he is taking a hit for the team.



Cat

Actually, it is not a "knee jerk" reaction.  If the person in question was a Democrat, I would be just as upset.  It is screwy to find out that somebody was not even responsible for the leak, yet to try and convict them for it.


Having an affair isn't illegal either, and yet Clinton almost was impeached for lying about it.  Same logic.  The cover up is always worse than the crime. There's nothing screwy about it.


Yet ironically, we have somebody that has admitted to illegally removing and destroying classified material, and nothing is happening to him.  That to me sounds like it should be a much bigger issue.


Too bad you only get your news from right wing blogs.  Sandy Berger was charged, plead guilty and was sentenced.  VERY old news.  Yet I see that same line repeated by right-wing folks on every non-partisan site I visit.  I guess it wasn't a sensational sentence, so the right wing blogs ignore it so they can keep harping the same tired line as an "arguing point". 


The reason I threw that out, is that it really is true.  For years now, we have had people tell us that purjery is no big deal.  Now suddenly, it is a big deal.  I really do not care if the person involved was Bill Clinton or Bozo The Clown.  You simply can't expect to be taken seriously when you basically go around saying "Purjery is ok, unless it is this person.  Then it is wrong."

I think perjury is wrong.  And I think that Scooter should pay the penalty for it.  But come on, 30 years?  There are people who commit murder that will get out before he did.  And he did not even leak the information.


and yet Republicans have pushed the mandatory sentencing guidelines for years for drug offenders, but when it comes to a crime they don't want enforced against one of their own... oh boy


And interestingly enough, the person that really was the leak is not charged with anything.  This is what I mean by this entire thing is screwed up.


really? just because they haven't been charged YET doesn't mean they can NEVER be charged.  Nixon's henchmen were never charged with committing the break in, just in covering it.  Same deal, same type of crime even.  Go back and re-read the history on Nixon, or any other large corruption case (even Iran-Contra).  It never starts at the top, it always starts with convictions of the little fish and works it's way up to the top.  If Scooter thinks Bush won't pardon him, and that his appeal isn't going to be successful, the likelihood that he will squeal or reveal more to prosecutors is much higher.  I can think of at least a dozen recent cases where this has been the same model is used.


And I simply can't see how somebody can logically go "Oh it is OK for Mister A to comit perjury and obstruct justice, but it is wrong for Mister B to do it".  I think that both Mr. A & B should pay the price.  But not 30 years.  That is a punishment way out of proportion to the crime.  No matter if it is Bill Clinton or Scooter Libby.


no one ever said Clinton wasn't guilty of perjury.  That would be revisionist thinking, you can't even point to someone who said it, total strawman.  He should have never been asked the question in the first place.  Kenneth Starr was appointed to investigate Whitewater, and then well, whatever he felt like.  Monica Lewinsky never filled harassment charges against him, so why was it even relevant?  As a lawyer, Clinton should have known better than to even respond to it. 

The biggest reason the Clinton argument shows a complete and total knee jerk reaction?  Simple. You can't defend Scooter's actions. Period, exclamation point, done.  You have to bring Clinton into it, to distract from the fact that an undercover CIA agent had their cover revealed simply for political gain.  It's a strawman, and a distraction from the crimes committed by the administration in order to justify a war.  Anytime you have to rely on a "But, but, Clinton..." defense, it's because you have nothing stronger to rely on.

As for Libby, I think he is the fall guy. I think this whole mess goes higher up but he is taking a hit for the team.



Cat


   Fall guy or not, if the jury followed judge Walton's admonishment they would have concerned themselves only with those on trial and no one else, in their deliberations...

   No problem with bringing up Richard Armitage, Carl Rove, Dick Cheney.  Misdirection is a common defense tactic in trials.  The jury was smarter than that groove ;) on...

   Merry Fitzmas...

The reason I threw that out, is that it really is true.  For years now, we have had people tell us that purjery is no big deal.  Now suddenly, it is a big deal.  I really do not care if the person involved was Bill Clinton or Bozo The Clown.  You simply can't expect to be taken seriously when you basically go around saying "Purjery is ok, unless it is this person.  Then it is wrong."
I have never once seriously said what Clinton did was O.K.  All the powerful people who hated Clinton were trying to destroy him since 1992.  Clinton's philandering gave them a golden opportunity.  They spent tens of millions investigating Clinton, put him betwen a rock and a hard place where he could either commit perjury and get impeached or tell the truth and get impeached all the same.  If Clinton had told the truth, don't try to tell me they would not have impeached him.  The Clinton-haters were doggedly determined to impeach him.  That's why it showed a pathological lack of personal discipline and strength for him to fool around with Monica.  The guy is a sex addict and a junkie will risk anything to get a fix.  However, even if there was no sex scandal, they would have found some lame technicality on which to impeach Clinton.  The impeachment would have failed all the same.  At the height of the Clinton-bashing days of 1998, Clinton's approval ratings were more than double what Dubya's have been for the past two years. 

There are those who say Clinton's perjury was mitigated because it was about sex.  I'm not one of them.  But do you think for an instant Ken Starr and those goons would have dropped the whole thing if Clinton told the truth?  Of course not!

I think perjury is wrong.  And I think that Scooter should pay the penalty for it.  But come on, 30 years?  There are people who commit murder that will get out before he did.  And he did not even leak the information.
Scooter won't get sentenced to 30 years.  In the end, I doubt he'll even serve 30 months.  Don't fret.

I'm not worried about the Scooter/Russert/Novak/Wilson/Plame situation.  I'm more worried about a lame duck Bush presidency touching off World War III.

Having an affair isn't illegal either, and yet Clinton almost was impeached for lying about it.  Same logic.  The cover up is always worse than the crime. There's nothing screwy about it.


That is true.  However, he was being investigated for a crime when it came out.  The crime of sexual harassment.

Hmmm, interesting parallel.  Mr. Clinton may be innocent of the crime of harassment, but he still lied to a grand jury.

Mr. Libby was innocent of being the leak, yet he still lied to a grand jury.

See the parallel?


Too bad you only get your news from right wing blogs.  Sandy Berger was charged, plead guilty and was sentenced.  VERY old news.  Yet I see that same line repeated by right-wing folks on every non-partisan site I visit.  I guess it wasn't a sensational sentence, so the right wing blogs ignore it so they can keep harping the same tired line as an "arguing point". 


ROFL!  Chucky, do you want to see the only "blog" I subscribe to:

http://www.myspace.com/squid07 

That is my buddy Sean.  He is my best friend, and about as opposite from me politically as is possible to be.  For some strange reason, people in here seem to think I spend all day listening to Rush, and my evenings watching Fox News.  And my spare time is spent going to various "Right Wing Blogs".

Here is the truth:  I spend about 30 minutes going through various news channels in the morning.  I do it again in the evening when I get home from work.  And I have been doing this since at least 1976.  Nothing new here.  The only difference is that instead of watching "Good Morning America" and the "NBC Evening News", I now turn to CNN, CNNHN, and Fox.  And if we had Al-Jazeera, I would probably watch that too.

I do not go to "right wing blogs".  After all, why should I?  I already have my beliefs, and I do not need to read things from other people who tend to agree with me.  After all, why should I?  And the vast majority of "political blogs" are pure coprolite.  They are people sitting around, patting each other on the back, saying how wonderful they are for not being with the other party.  I can't think of anything more stupid or dull.

Here is a novel concept:  That I actually come to these conclusions myself.  That I actually think up these things myself.  That I have a brain, and a memory that lets me remember when similar things happened in the past, and I have the mental ability to bring these up and comment on them.  After all, I do not accuse the "Liberals" here of going to "Move-On", "Democracy Now", and other Left Wing blogs for their information, do I?

This is what I find so frustrating here.  I am Conservative, so what?  But so many in here try to place me in this little jar, thinking I walk in step with Rush, O'Riley, Hannity, Coulter, and the like.  I find it very insulting.  It really boils down to being accused of being an idiot, with no free thought or free will.  I am going to say this again (for like the 1,000th time), I come to my own conclusions, nobody tells me what to think.


The biggest reason the Clinton argument shows a complete and total knee jerk reaction?  Simple. You can't defend Scooter's actions. Period, exclamation point, done. 


If he broke the law, then there is nothing to defend.  He broke the law.  Period.  And now he needs to pay the price.

However, I see people dancing around with glee over it.  They say what he did was horrible, yet forgetting a lot of the things they said in the past.  This is not distraction.  This is a scream of frustration over people being inconsistant.  Remember, I am a fairly cold and logical person when it all comes down to it.  And I really can't understand how somebody can logically say "It is OK to lie to a Grand Jury, but it is a crime for another person to lie to a Grand Jury".

So go ahead, everybody feel good about Scooter being convicted.  And then wonder why there is a credability loss going on.

and yet Republicans have pushed the mandatory sentencing guidelines for years for drug offenders, but when it comes to a crime they don't want enforced against one of their own... oh boy



If a Republican does it, it's not a crime.  Jesus's Republican children even have a special dispensation from Original Sin!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/icon_albino.gif

That is true.  However, he was being investigated for a crime when it came out.  The crime of sexual harassment.

Hmmm, interesting parallel.  Mr. Clinton may be innocent of the crime of harassment, but he still lied to a grand jury.

Mr. Libby was innocent of being the leak, yet he still lied to a grand jury.

See the parallel?


yup, an open ended investigation that continued to invent new reasons to prosecute someone as opposed to one that had one topic of investigation bringing up perjury charges. 

In the Clinton investigation they just kept changing the charges and fishing until they found something they could make him lie about.  9 times out of 10, you'll find the same thing with anyone else too I bet.

In the Libby trial, he was questioned about the same topic twice and kept changing his story.

You seem to think Clinton was never punished, that's the funny thing.  Even though the impeachment proceedings ultimately failed against him, he still had his law license suspended.  The courts decided on a sentence and executed it.  Same as what will happen with Libby unless Bush pardons him and gives him a shiny medal.


ROFL!  Chucky, do you want to see the only "blog" I subscribe to:

http://www.myspace.com/squid07 

That is my buddy Sean.  He is my best friend, and about as opposite from me politically as is possible to be.  For some strange reason, people in here seem to think I spend all day listening to Rush, and my evenings watching Fox News.  And my spare time is spent going to various "Right Wing Blogs".

Here is the truth:  I spend about 30 minutes going through various news channels in the morning.  I do it again in the evening when I get home from work.  And I have been doing this since at least 1976.  Nothing new here.  The only difference is that instead of watching "Good Morning America" and the "NBC Evening News", I now turn to CNN, CNNHN, and Fox.  And if we had Al-Jazeera, I would probably watch that too.

I do not go to "right wing blogs".  After all, why should I?  I already have my beliefs, and I do not need to read things from other people who tend to agree with me.  After all, why should I?  And the vast majority of "political blogs" are pure coprolite.  They are people sitting around, patting each other on the back, saying how wonderful they are for not being with the other party.  I can't think of anything more stupid or dull.

Here is a novel concept:  That I actually come to these conclusions myself.  That I actually think up these things myself.  That I have a brain, and a memory that lets me remember when similar things happened in the past, and I have the mental ability to bring these up and comment on them.  After all, I do not accuse the "Liberals" here of going to "Move-On", "Democracy Now", and other Left Wing blogs for their information, do I?

This is what I find so frustrating here.  I am Conservative, so what?  But so many in here try to place me in this little jar, thinking I walk in step with Rush, O'Riley, Hannity, Coulter, and the like.  I find it very insulting.  It really boils down to being accused of being an idiot, with no free thought or free will.  I am going to say this again (for like the 1,000th time), I come to my own conclusions, nobody tells me what to think.


that was in response to your comments about Sandy Berger, and was the same talking point I saw repeated by at least a dozen hardcore conservatives on the same day.  It's weird, but it's not the first time I've seen you repeat the same talking points these folks use.  If you really read all the news sources you claim to, you must not do a very good job if you happened to ignore the same exact piece of information these folks do.

You claim to not read any right wing blogs or talk shows, yet you just happen to use the same arguments they do.  It's just really strange, because most people who get the same pieces of information still come up with different arguments to support it.  In this case, all the conservatives started naming someone who happened to be sentenced and claimed he wasn't.

Then again, you mention Fox in there along side CNN.  Neither network is even worth watching, but Fox has so many distortions and questions posing as facts, that it's easy to see how you might pick up a piece of their misinformation and end up using it as fact.  CNN is worse, because at least Fox News is pretty blatant about their tilt, CNN is like tabloid junk.  Maybe it's just my total dislike for televised news in general, I find half an hour of reading online news sources to be far more productive than 30 minutes of any news network.


If he broke the law, then there is nothing to defend.  He broke the law.  Period.  And now he needs to pay the price.

However, I see people dancing around with glee over it.  They say what he did was horrible, yet forgetting a lot of the things they said in the past.  This is not distraction.  This is a scream of frustration over people being inconsistant.  Remember, I am a fairly cold and logical person when it all comes down to it.  And I really can't understand how somebody can logically say "It is OK to lie to a Grand Jury, but it is a crime for another person to lie to a Grand Jury".

So go ahead, everybody feel good about Scooter being convicted.  And then wonder why there is a credability loss going on.


really? because your argument started off with "why someone be convicted for lying about a crime that was committed, when those crimes aren't even being charged?"  Now it's "oh sure, he did the crime he should do the time, but hey, look, Clinton!!!"

The credibility gap exists on both sides, but it's not for the reasons you seem to think it exists. I'd feel better about Scooter being convicted if only it leads to the actual crime getting charged. 

The biggest difference between Scooter and Clinton?  Scooter's "obstructing justice" conviction.  That is the biggie right there, and the one charge the conservatives always sweep under the rung.  Clinton's lies didn't block the investigation.  The question being asked of Clinton was to establish his character in a deposition.  Ultimately, whether he answered yes or no, it would have very little impact on the rest of the case.  Scooter on the other hand ran active intereference to block investigation. He didn't lie once, he lied multiple times (hence more than one charge and the reason he faces more years).