Libby Found Guilty On 4 of 5 Counts

Fitzgeralds closing statement was masterful

If I was a juror this would ring true Mr. Fitzgerald countered that Mr. Russert’s testimony was not needed to convict Mr. Libby. “If Tim Russert were run over by a bus and had gone to the great news desk in the sky, you can still find plenty of evidence that the defendant lied,” he said.


the jurors found this to be very true.

 

And no one will be.

 

If Libby does time for lieing to a grand jury, shouldn't Sandy Berger, and Mr. & Mrs. Clinton be also ?

 

Wow, I wasn't really expecting this. I know it's wrong to rejoice in another's troubles, but allow me one little political "whoohoo!" - thinking of him as a character in a drama, not a real person.

Of course, it's not over for him yet - he'll appeal and may win or be pardoned.

Has the investigation been closed yet or will it be Cheney's turn next?

 

This, like the Clinton drama of the nineties and the Martha Steward conviction, was a big waste of taxpayer dollars. That prosecutor spent "how long" investigating this and the best he could do is obstruction of justice? Come on! This is a joke, a farce, and an outrage. It is a perfect example of the many things that are wrong in this country. If Libby is guilty of a crime in the leak issues then charge him. But please don’t insult my intelligence with this joke of a trial.

 

I wish they would focus on the despicable Mr. Novak, and put him behind bars..............WHERE HE BELONGS.

Regards,
BiR

 

For what, exactly?

 

If only the real culprit had been convicted, that's Vice-President Dick Cheney of course.

 

A terrible miscarriage of justice. So sad. I'm beyond angry.

 

It is disappointing to see Libby become the fall guy for Cheney.

 

Hoisted on his own petard.

What lies? As far as I can tell, Ambassador Wilson believed that his report discredited the 16 questionable words in the SOTN speech of 2002.

Cheney's office did its best to get Plame's identity published. They denied that they had instigated the trip and tried to discredit Wilson by outing his wife. Now, Cheney claims that whatever he leaks is automatically declassified, but the CIA and the President were upset by this disclosure and apparently in the dark about it.

When Bush vowed to get to the bottom of the leaks, Cheney & Rove could have fessed up then and saved the taxpayers all the investigation & prosecution a ton of money, but no! The official word was that they had nothing to do with it.

Bush appointed Fitzgerald to investigate. He did. Libby lied to the FBI and the grand jury and then tried to cover it up.

 

A minor quibble. People are not found innocent in our courts, they are found not guilty, a big difference. It doesn't declare their innocence, but merely finds that the state did not meet its burden of proof to find guilty. For civil cases, it is the perponderance of the evidence; for criminal cases, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Not a shadow of a doubt, just that there can be no reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt. That is why defense teams try so hard to find reasonable doubt about the assertions of the prosecution.

 

Obstruction of justice isn't exactly a slap on the hand misdemeanor. I'd guess they are going after bigger fish and Libby is taking the fall, knowing he'll be pardoned in two years.

 

Again, I wish they would also focus on the despicable Mr. Novak. Then we could find out exactly who else is a contributor to his despicable actions. To usurp Sean Hannity from his Sunday-night show (the first one anyway - he changed his phrase), the despicable Mr. Novak is a true "enemy of the state."

Regards,
BiR

 

I saw this question raised on FNC earlier, I forget which program.

It was claimed that the prosecutor already knew that no law had been broken in Plame's "outing" prior to his questioning of Libby. If, in fact, Libby did lie during the investigation, but the investigation should not have gone forward because no law was broken, how then could he be charged for obstruction and perjury since the case should have been closed?

Basically, the prosecutor should have stopped the investigation once he knew no law was broken, so anything "illegal" which may have happened after the fact should not be counted, as it wouldn't have happened had he closed the case as he was supposed to.

They made a pretty good argument, I thought.

I really don't know what all to think. The fact that he lied, or at least was convicted for it, makes me think he should do time. But, the questions raised regarding the continuation of a "should-have-been" closed investigation make me think that obstruction of justice doesn't fit since justice was supposedly already carried out when it was determined no law had been broken.

I don't know.

Maybe this is why I'm not a lawyer.

 

Read some of the daily synopsises (synopses?) of the trial and you should be convinced one way or the other.

 

What did Novak do that was so despicable? I thought the press couldn't do nything despicable? How is Novak's column less despicable than the wiretapping reports? One affected national security, the other did not. And yet the one that affected national security is a good revelation, while the one that did not affect national security is bad.

Are we really thinking clearly here?

Furthermore, I too wonder how you cover up a crime that doesn't exist? If Fitzgerald knew ahead of time who revealed it (as it appears he did), and that there was no crime (which is evident by the lack of charges), then why did the investigation go on? I am no defender of Libby's. I don't know the facts, but he shouldn't have lied to teh grand jury. But it seems, based on the actual facts, that he never should have been there to start with.