Libby exonerated of any wrongdoing in Plame "leak"

[insein]

18 USC 1501-1520 contain the possible actions justifying a charge of "obstruction of justice." I want to see the official court transcripts in order to match up the numbers and determine exactly how Libby obstructed justice. Unfortunately the court documents aren't available yet. Should make for some interesting reading though when they do come out.

I doubt its that interesting. The obstruction in question was this. Libby had been questioned several times during the course of the trial. Libby's initial story was that he had heard Valerie Plame's name from Tim Russert originally. Later there surfaced a memo that had gone through Libby's office. In this memo, Valerie Plame was mentioned in passing. She was not the key point of the memo but she was mentioned in the memo as a CIA operative. No mention of her covert/overt status was present in the memo. This memo predates the confession from Russert. Libby said that he did not remember the memo in question. Fitzgerald used this memo to convict Libby of lying to a Grand Jury and Obstructing justice.

So again, why did we have this investigation to begin with? To see if a covert CIA operative was leaked. There wasn't a covert CIA operative leaked. An overt CIA operative's name was mentioned to the press by Richard Armitage which he admitted to within 2 weeks of the investigation's initiation. Libby hadnt even begun to be questioned till several months after that. So how again was Libby obstructing Justice?

 

[red states rule]

The trial was a farce. Libby has very good grounds for appeal.




Does the Libby Verdict Have Appeal?
Making sense of legal nonsense.

By Victoria Toensing

The Scooter Libby verdict makes no logical sense, but that won’t bother the legal notions of an appellate court. In convicting on four counts but acquitting of one, the jury made the peculiar decision that Libby lied before the grand jury about his conversation with Time’s Matt Cooper, but not to the FBI when the agents questioned him about the same conversation. Libby gave the same general answer in both fora, specifically that he told Matt Cooper that he did not know if it were true that Joe Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA.

I don’t think I’ve ever read a case where the courts have overturned a conviction because the individual verdict counts were internally inconsistent. But there are issues that could be legally significant on appeal. To

The court punished Libby for not taking the stand: During trial the Libby legal team had said it was probable, but not certain, he would take the stand. Any criminal-defense attorney knows that decision is never made until the final moments of a trial. When the decision was made that Libby would not testify, the judge was, incredibly, furious and limited his defense evidence on the memory issue.

The court prevented the defense from impeaching Tim Russert: The NBC anchorman, who has a law degree, testified he did not know a lawyer could not accompany a witness before the grand jury. The defense then exhumed three clips where Russert had said on the air that a lawyer cannot go into the grand jury with his client. The judge would not allow the jury to hear that other honorable people sometimes forget or misspeak when being grilled on the witness stand.

The court permitted Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to refer to Valerie Plame as being “covert” or having a “classified” job throughout trial and specifically during closing argument. Neither of those highly prejudicial characterizations was proven at trial. Even if Plame’s job were “classified,” as Fitzgerald reiterated in his press conference after conviction, there is no criminal violation in publishing her name. That legal gap is why Congress passed the Intelligence Identities Protection Act in 1982.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODM4MDMxMTgzNzU1YTVkZTliZDUyZmVjN2JmMWI4ODM=

 

[doniston]

That is quite a mis-statement. It is impossible to be exonerated from something of which you have not been charged. I must asume that you want to put the best light on this that is possible, but just being acquitted of one of the charges, is evenly not enough for you.

 

[doniston]

That is quite a mis-statement. It is impossible to be exonerated from something of which you have not been charged. I must asume that you want to put the best light on this that is possible, but just being acquitted of one of the charges, is evidently not enough for you.

 

[red states rule]

That is quite a mis-statement. It is impossible to be exonerated from something of which you have not been charged. I must asume that you want to put the best light on this that is possible, but just being acquitted of one of the charges, is evenly not enough for you.

Considering she helped to write the law, worked in the Justice Dept, I put some weight in what she wrote

The Judge was very hostile toward the defense

 

[Annie]

Can someone PLEASE fix the quotes? Too hard to read!

 

[Avatar4321]

You are aware that he wasn't TRIED for leaking Plame's name, right? He was TRIED for lying to the prosecutors and obstruction of justice.

And despite the spin... pssssssssssssssssssssst... he was convicted.

If Bush pardons him, that's cool. Just digs the Repubs deeper into a hole for '08. So I'm all for it.

Cheers.

But there is still no evidence that he intended to lie. Intent is a huge factor here.

You don't think it's at all outrageous that he was called before the grand jury to begin with when the prosecutor knew for a fact that there was no crime to investigate?

 

[Avatar4321]

He may not have been tried for the Plame leak, but that doesn't make obstruction of justice any less illegal.

No one is saying obstruction of justice isn't illegal.

We are simply saying that a faulty memory is hardly cause prosecution for perjury when the defendant has no reason to lie about the non-existant lie and the non-existant cover up of a legal action. Especially when he never should have been placed before the grand jury since the prosecutor knew who the leak was within a month and would have known within an hour of looking at the law that no one had committed a crime.

 

[Annie]

No one is saying obstruction of justice isn't illegal.

We are simply saying that a faulty memory is hardly cause prosecution for perjury when the defendant has no reason to lie about the non-existant lie and the non-existant cover up of a legal action. Especially when he never should have been placed before the grand jury since the prosecutor knew who the leak was within a month and would have known within an hour of looking at the law that no one had committed a crime.

You are the 'almost lawyer.' There was no crime, but there was an investigation of what might have been a crime. Then there was testimony that might have been a lie or faulty memory. That is where the prosecution came from. Do I have that strait?

The prosecutor knew from the get go, actually before that who had leaked the information that would have been tied to a crime. It wasn't the accused. So he went after the accused for what might have been a crime, if he didn't already know the perpetrator of the crime...

 

[Bullypulpit]

What justice did he obstruct?

He lied to FBI investigators and to a Grand Jury twice pursuant to the DoJ investigation into the unauthorized release of a CIA asset's identity.

 

[jasendorf]

Libby lied to federal investigators about a national security matter as decided by a jury as prescribed by the U.S. Constitution. He should be treated as the un-American traitor he is.

 

[Avatar4321]

Libby lied to federal investigators about a national security matter as decided by a jury as prescribed by the U.S. Constitution. He should be treated as the un-American traitor he is.

Michael Jackson were found not-guilty by a jury as prescibed of the US Constitution. Does that mean you are going to let your children stay at the neverland ranch?

 

[Bullypulpit]

says bully with wishful glee.

Libby was convicted for not remembering a memo given to him over a decade ago that mentioned plame's name in passing. Thats not obstruction of justice. Thats not even lieing. Thats throwing shit at the white house wall and hoping something sticks. All the pummeling for 6 straight years by the media, the democrats and liberals in general about this being the most corrupt administration in the history of the nation and the only conviction was from a aide who couldnt remember a memo that mentioned in passing a CIA desk jockey's name given to him over a decade before.

Glad to see you care about justice and not politics, bully.

The facts stand. Libby was convicted for perjury, making false statements to FBI investigators and obstruction of justice, not for forgetting about any memo. He lied, and in doing so, he prevented further delving into issue the Bush administration would rather not suffer being dragged into the light of day. Wishing the facts were otherwise will not change them. Deal with it.

 

[Bullypulpit]

No one is saying obstruction of justice isn't illegal.

We are simply saying that a faulty memory is hardly cause prosecution for perjury when the defendant has no reason to lie about the non-existant lie and the non-existant cover up of a legal action. Especially when he never should have been placed before the grand jury since the prosecutor knew who the leak was within a month and would have known within an hour of looking at the law that no one had committed a crime.

Faulty memory...Hmmm...Where have we heard that before. Unfortunately, for 'Scooter' there were nine witnesses who gave the lie to his claims of 'faulty memory'. Were his memory actually that bad, I would expecting him to be taking Aricept to delay the onset of Alzheimer's.

 

[dilloduck]

The facts stand. Libby was convicted for perjury, making false statements to FBI investigators and obstruction of justice, not for forgetting about any memo. He lied, and in doing so, he prevented further delving into issue the Bush administration would rather not suffer being dragged into the light of day. Wishing the facts were otherwise will not change them. Deal with it.

What further issues ?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Considering she helped to write the law, worked in the Justice Dept, I put some weight in what she wrote

The Judge was very hostile toward the defense

Victoria Toensing is a right-wing tool. And, Fitzgerald was allowed to refer to Valerie PLame as being covert and her position classified throughout the trial because that WAS her status until it was blown. That's why the CIA referred the matter to DoJ for investigation. But RSR was never one to let facts stand in the way of his delusions.

 

[Bullypulpit]

What further issues ?

Libby's actions helped screen Dick Cheney's obsession with smearing Joe Wilson for his undermining of the Bush administration's key claim that Saddam was buying uranium on the sly from Nigeria and was reconstituting Iraq's nuclear weapons program. After all, you can't have the Veep, especially Cheney, in the dock ad under oath having to answer questions on that. Besides, the sight and smell of Cheney's hand bursting into flames as he placed it on the Bible would simply be disgusting.

 

[dilloduck]

Libby's actions helped screen Dick Cheney's obsession with smearing Joe Wilson for his undermining of the Bush administration's key claim that Saddam was buying uranium on the sly from Nigeria and was reconstituting Iraq's nuclear weapons program. After all, you can't have the Veep, especially Cheney, in the dock ad under oath having to answer questions on that. Besides, the sight and smell of Cheney's hand bursting into flames as he placed it on the Bible would simply be disgusting.

How did Libby prevent them from subpoening Cheney ?

 

[Annie]

Libby should not have lied. Fine, neither should have a whole bunch of others involved in the trial:

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2007/03/patrick_fitzger.html

Too many links and gyrations to even print an excerpt, for those interested, go read it.