Breaking: Verdict reached in Libby Trial, will be read at noon, AP: Libby found guilty on 4 of 5 counts, Update: Video of Attorney’s statement
posted at 11:40 am on March 6, 2007 by Ian
Share on Facebook | regular view
3:30PM: Juror Denis Collins, who wrote a book about SPYING and is a former reporter for the Washington Post: “Tremendous amount of sympathy for Mr. Libby on the jury.” Adds “it was said a number of times ‘what are we doing with this guy here,’ where’s Rove, where’s you know, these other guys? We’re not saying we didn’t think Mr. Libby wasn’t guilty of the things we found him guilty of, but that it seemed like he was … the fall guy.”
What sounds like David Shuster, of MSNBC, asks Collins: Was he the fall guy for Vice President Dick Cheney?
2:41PM: Michelle quotes Fitzgerald and a juror who WROTE A BOOK ABOUT SPYING:
12:37pm Patrick Fitzgerald. Paraphrasing. “The results are sad. It’s sad that we have a situation in which a top official lied and obstructed justice. But it happened…We brought charges. We went to trial. And proved our case…Any lie under oath is serious. We cannot tolerate perjury…”
12:42pm Fitzgerald: “I do not expect to file any further charges.” Paraphrasing: We’re not going to be handing over our files to you guys to write articles or books or whatever.
12:54pm Denis Collins, one of the jurors, addresses the press. He identifies himself as a former reporter. “The primary thing that convinced us on most of the accounts was the alleged conversation with Russert…It was either false (didn’t happen) or did happen…Mr. Libby was either told by or told to about Mrs. Wilson at least nine times…we believed he had a bad memory…but contradicted by testimony that he had an incredible grasp of details…even if he forgot who told him, it seemed very unlikely that he would have not remembered about Mrs. Wilson…tremendous amount of sympathy for Mr. Libby on the jury…jury asked “Where’s Rove? Where’s the other guys?” It seemed like he was the fall guy.
Update @ 12:33PM: Libby’s attorneys make the following statement to the press:
***
11:52AM: Robert Novak on FOX News …
12:01PM: Stay waiting … no one has taken mic outside courthouse …
12:05PM: AP: LIBBY FOUND GUILTY on 4 of 5 counts.
12:09PM: Napolitano says Libby is facing 25 years …
12:12PM: Thumbnails of all five charges (click for larger image):
12:16PM: Brett Baier says White House is expected to make a statement at 12:30’s White House press briefing with Tony Snow Dana Perino.
12:18PM: CNN’s Blitzer: Libby threw “sand in the eyes” of investigators.
12:23PM: Still waiting for Libby’s attorneys to address the press …
12:26PM: Sen. Harry Reid: “I welcome the jury’s verdict, it’s about time someone be held accountable.” Adds Bush must pledge not to pardon Libby …
12:28PM: Mrs. Libby unable to present herself to the cameras … Libby’s team:
12:29PM: Libby’s attorney: We “intend to file a motion for a new trial and if that is denied we will appeal the conviction. And We have every confidence that ultimately Mr. Libby will be vindicated.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
This trial was not about the identity of any of our covert agents.
Furthermore, the alleged covert agent was no longer a covert agent, hadn’t served in that capacity in over 5 years prior, and worked a desk job at Langley (which is a decidedly non-covert position).
And third, even if it was about protecting the identity of a covert agent, Richard Armitage was the original leaker, not Lewis Libby.
You don’t even have the barest grasp of the facts in this case, so why are you so busy offering opinions on it?
thirteen28 on March 6, 2007 at 1:36 PM
OK, I’ll bite………. what was the lie he told the grand jury? A different recolection of a memory?
Compared to semen on an interns dress, classified documents stolen and destroyed, the collection of FBI files and endless delays in their return, the transfer of classified technology to China linked to illegal campaign contributions, allegations of rape, denying due process of an American citizen, and on, and on, and on???
Your quote will live long in infamy……..
PinkyBigglesworth on March 6, 2007 at 1:36 PM
Russert tells FBI he might have talked about Plame with Libby, tells grand jury later no, the FBI “loses” the notes from their interview, and the jury has no reasonable doubt?????????????????????????????????????
I guess the members of the jury still don’t have a clue what reasonable doubt means.
Seixon on March 6, 2007 at 1:39 PM
One other queston, what is the difference between Libby and what the Clintons did when they testified under oath:
“I don’t recall……”, “I can’t remember….”, “I don’t recall that……..”, “It depends on what the defenition of “is”, is……”, “I can’t, don’t, recall….” “I don’t recall……”, “I don’t recall……”, “I don’t recall……”, “I don’t recall……”, “I don’t recall……”, “I don’t recall……”, “I don’t recall……”, “I don’t recall……”, “I don’t recall……”, “I don’t recall……”, “I don’t recall……”, “I don’t recall……”, “I don’t recall……”,?
PinkyBigglesworth on March 6, 2007 at 1:39 PM
The Bush administration has done a terrible job managing the media as well. They could have exploited the new media to the fullest potential to get their agenda out.
We’ve been in Iraq for over three years. That’s plenty of time to do what was necessary in Iraq, without engaging in Wilsonian fantasies. This may not be a popular opinion, but Bush has been fighting a PC war with PC generals. Now, all of a sudden, he wants to get serious. Too late. You can only blame the hostile media so much. There’s ways around it. You start by implementing sensible policies that the public wants, like border security, so that you’re popular and the media treats you with kid gloves.
PRCalDude on March 6, 2007 at 1:41 PM
Ummm… what COVERT agent? Valery Plame? Who bypassed sent her HUSBAND on a CIA paid “mission”??? That one??? The one on Vanity Fair? The one the CIA will NOT say is covert? Which is why there were no actual charges filed?
Or was it her Hubby? Who went on a CLASSIFIED mission, and then wrote a hit piece which was UNTRUE for the press??? You know, the guy who ACTUALLY broke security??? The guy who put himself, as an agent, into the spotlight???
PLEASE…. get a clue..
Romeo13 on March 6, 2007 at 1:42 PM
That’s what is so infuriating. Russert has memory problems? Okay. Libby has memory problems? Send him to jail for 25 years. The jurors were clearly a bunch of idiots. Let’s see, they admit to wanting Rove on trial and see Libby as a fall guy and they are trusted to return a fair verdict?
No comment from the White House… Same “ongoing investigation” excuse because:
RightWinged on March 6, 2007 at 1:44 PM
Your “understanding” is in sharp contrast to public statements that Cheney did no such thing. For a CIA staffer to promote her husband for a CIA contract is considered nepotism. For a guy who dithered around Niger twenty years ago in a entry-level State Department assignment, with no known expertise on weapons, nuclear secret trade, sources, and not know anyone currently in the Niger government, seems to be an incredibly “curious” choice when the CIA is supposed have experts who do know these things. WHy did Wilson get the job? It’s “curious” all right. Course, I wouldn’t use that word to describe this “thing” that resembles a fraud and a cheat.
It’s also “curious” that a Washington Post contributing writer got on the jury. He really convinced the court that he didn’t know anything about the case. Wow! What a news hound. Curious.
naliaka on March 6, 2007 at 1:45 PM
So, what’s the OJ jury been up to since 1995 anyway?
What a farce. How silly of us to think that the prosecution having no case and no crime being committed would be obstacles to 11 morons finding Libby guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt”. BDS in action.
If forgetting things is now a crime, we’re all screwed.
ReubenJCogburn on March 6, 2007 at 1:45 PM
Clinton didn’t face 25 years in jail. Clinton is making millions off of speaking fees.
Clinton wasn’t just convicted of his own perjury, he was also caught suborning perjury.
And last, it wasn’t his perjury that bothered me. It was the rape, the sexual harrassment, the sex with the intern thing (that only seems to be a problem when Republicans are caught IMing), the selling our secrets to the Chinese, the selling access to the White House, etc., etc., etc….
If anyone out there is only pissed that Clinton lied, then they simply know nothing of what Clinton actually did.
Yeah, he wanted the CIA to investigate. How is a former temp. diplomat equal to a CIA agent?
When you ask the CIA to investigate something, I assume you’re asking for more than a conversation over mint tea. Wilson was useless in that the only thing he could do was ask a question that only had one right answer.
Clearly this isn’t what Cheney wanted.
Wilson’s (oral) report? You can find a report on it online if you choose. And as I said earlier, it only substantiates the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger.
Wilson’s Report
(U) In an interview with Committee staff, the former ambassador was able to provide more information about the meeting between former Prime Minister Mayaki and the Iraqi delegation. The former ambassador said that Mayaki did meet with the Iraqi delegation but never discussed what was meant by “expanding commercial relations.”The former ambassador said that because Mayaki was wary of discussing any trade issues with a country under United Nations (UN) sanctions, he made a successful effort to steer the conversation away from a discussion of trade with the Iraqi delegation.
You and I can disagree here. It all feels painfully obvious.
Esthier on March 6, 2007 at 1:48 PM
So, everyone knows that Richard Armitage, by his own admission, was the guy who leaked Plame’s name, yet Libby is convicted. Seems like Libby’s only crime was being a white male Republican.
forged rite on March 6, 2007 at 1:49 PM
You know that during the deliberations, the jury actually sent a note to the judge asking for the definition of reasonable doubt, don’t you?
For most people, it’s common sense. Not for this jury.
thirteen28 on March 6, 2007 at 1:49 PM
Ding! Ding! Ding!
db on March 6, 2007 at 1:52 PM
This is what happens when you kowtow to the Left. This is what happens when you play the Left’s game by the Left’s rules. This is what happens when you give a flying fig about what the dishonest, corrupt MSM says or does. This is the result. Think about that the next time you hear a joke using a word you might not personally use or like. Think about it the next time you do five posts about it.
TheBigOldDog on March 6, 2007 at 1:54 PM
Did I miss the exit question about how Ann Coulter wasn’t going to be brought up?
Darksean on March 6, 2007 at 1:55 PM
DC Jury Convicts Ham Sandwich
If crack dealers, fugitives and terrorists can be pardoned, so can Libby.
Do it now, Mr. President.
JammieWearingFool on March 6, 2007 at 1:56 PM
My kneejerk reaction is that Bush should issue an immediate pardon. IMMEDIATE – even before the sentence is decided. Just to flip off the left.
However, this was such a travesty of justice, that perhaps an appeal (a proper one) would be better.
uptight on March 6, 2007 at 1:58 PM
Non-lawyer disclaimer, but wasn’t it that he was guilty of perjury but the Senate voted to not remove him from office for it?
eeyore on March 6, 2007 at 1:58 PM
Everyone female in my extended and immediate family has just been sentenced to hundreds of consecutive life sentences each.
RightWinged on March 6, 2007 at 1:59 PM
That’s not even the half of it either.
During the trial (out of the jury’s presence), it was revealed that Russert submitted an affidavit to quash a subpoena that was at best, very misleading, if not an outright lie. He claimed he would be forced to reveal his sources when in fact he had already talked freely with an FBI agent about them. He omitted any mention of the FBI conversation in his affidavit.
Further, if I’m not mistaken, Russert was allowed to testify before the grand jury with an attorney present – which is a very notable exception to grand jury procedure. However, when questioned about that on the stand, Russert, a trained lawyer, stated that he did not know that it was standard procedure that one could be compelled to testify before the GJ without a lawyer present. The defense presented evidence that Russert had discussed this very same fact on TV during the whole Monicagate scandal, which totally impeached Russert on that point. Yet the jury still chose to believe him over Libby.
thirteen28 on March 6, 2007 at 1:59 PM
Pelosi directs the media on how to cover this:
http://speaker.house.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=0086
RightWinged on March 6, 2007 at 2:07 PM
What wsa that sensitive national security information Pelosi you piece of trash?
RightWinged on March 6, 2007 at 2:08 PM
He is guilty then – of what exactly…
Coastian:
I can’t tell you if he broke the law but I can point this out:
Libby was charged and convicted basically of the same thing that Bill Clinton did.
Result:
Clinton walks the streets and Libby is facing some serious prison time.
OBX Pete on March 6, 2007 at 2:08 PM
Filling in any name, two lefties admitted to what they would have probably vehemently denied in the late 90s, if HA would have been around. Awesome!
JaHerer22, your argument, above, was strong, if only you would have left the First Organ alone, later.
Entelechy on March 6, 2007 at 2:13 PM
Pelosi and Reid feigning indignation and preaching Lalathings is, well, risible, pedantic, narcissistic and nanny-like. What were they saying in the late 90s? No, I don’t want to hear from JaMann about First Organs and other equivalency items.
Entelechy on March 6, 2007 at 2:18 PM
My question is this, how do you lie about something that did not happen?
Wade on March 6, 2007 at 2:24 PM
I thought the First Organ was in the National Cathedral.
(Say, how do Marcotte and the rest of her leftist Christian-hating ilk feel about us having a National Cathedral?)
ReubenJCogburn on March 6, 2007 at 2:25 PM
Clinton lied about a fact that happened and he lied to a judge…big difference in my opinion.
Wade on March 6, 2007 at 2:26 PM
Don’t even bother with Jatroll22, because the REAL difference is that Clinton WAS truly guilty of the crimes, Libby was clearly not.
RightWinged on March 6, 2007 at 2:33 PM
Time to find Osama
Ropera on March 6, 2007 at 2:34 PM
Probably has already been said but Clinton lied to a grand jury, Clinton perjured himself…If Libby’s guilty stands, then he should be punished the same as President Clinton. We should demand the same punishment as Clinton; the same jail time, the same fines.
right2bright on March 6, 2007 at 2:37 PM
Rove’s on it.
RightWinged on March 6, 2007 at 2:39 PM
It will be interesting to see how long it takes for the trial transcripts to become available.
RushBaby on March 6, 2007 at 2:45 PM
Justice in America is dead.
The liberal courts killed it a long, long time ago.
doingwhatican on March 6, 2007 at 2:48 PM
Martha Stewart lied and payed the price. Clinton lied and profited. Both cases were a waste of prosecutors time and taxpayers money. Libby should be pardoned to avoid more litigious expense.
infidel on March 6, 2007 at 2:51 PM
Except that Clinton’s trial was not about his lying. His lying happened during a trial about something else.
Esthier on March 6, 2007 at 3:02 PM
This does more to confirm my suspicions about the jury. They completely ignored that Wells nuked Russert’s credibility on the stand. And the ignored the judges instructions that they were only to consider the facts of this case, not the larger story surrounding it. And since they couldn’t get a bigger fish like Rove, they figured they had to convict someone, and Libby was the one available.
Tell me again why I should have faith in our so-called “justice” system?
thirteen28 on March 6, 2007 at 3:18 PM
Let me get this straight….
Bill Clinton lies in a Sexual Harrassment lawsuit, to the grand jury, to the Justice Dept. and the American People and get’s nothing………..
Scooter Libby doesn’t remember who told him what in a conversation about someone who has no significance and he could get 25+ years?
Man is this a great country or what??
Randy1968 on March 6, 2007 at 3:22 PM
Well said, but also as I mentioned earlie today, that juror who spoke to the press basically (and unknowingly) admitted how bad they f**ked up:
Last I checked jurors aren’t there to decide who they think should be on trial, they are there to decide on a specific case using the facts given. This thing should be tossed. I don’t know what the procedure is, but based on this juror’s statements to the press, this thing stinks. I mean, we already knew what a pile of crap this whole thing was, but this juror gave us a pretty clear argument.
RightWinged on March 6, 2007 at 3:27 PM
How much did this prosecution of a non-crime cost?
I remember that question being asked a lot to Mr. Star regarding the investigation into “the Stainer of Dresses”.
Let me guess, money is not an issue as long as we are going after white, male Republicans?
PinkyBigglesworth on March 6, 2007 at 3:33 PM
The point of this really being that liberals aren’t guilty of anything, no matter what they do. Right, Mr. Wilson?
Halley on March 6, 2007 at 3:42 PM
So was he found guilty of any REAL crimes?
- The Cat
P.S. I know purgery is a real crime, but come on. When did it become fashonable to convict a guy of lying without convicting him of the main charge?
MirCat on March 6, 2007 at 4:00 PM
As long as someone was held accountable for what? With everything that has been happening in DC, all the leaks to the Times… , all the dirty land deals, cash in freezers, this is the big victory?
That would be like New Orleans cracking down on someone downloading music illegaly, while bullets ricochet outside the courtroom.
But hey, let’s keep taking the high road! We’ll keep taking it right off a frackin’ cliff.
reaganaut on March 6, 2007 at 4:06 PM
Well, at least Scooter didn’t call Fitzgerald a F****t. Then he would have been in real trouble.
JayHaw Phrenzie on March 6, 2007 at 4:14 PM
No need to recap the above. You guys pretty much said it all.
What I absolutely love is how President Reid issued–what? He’s not the President? Oh, my bad.
When Dems aren’t in the White House, they must issue presidential proclamations from the steps somewhere. I don’t recall powerful GOP senators warning Bubba not to pardon so-and-so when he was on his way out.
GWB should paron him–just for spite!
Oh, and that’s the only time the words “President Reid” will ever be printed.
RedCrow on March 6, 2007 at 4:15 PM
Chug-a-chuga-chug-a-chuga……
Nice. The dems have their moral victory.
Bush should pardon him TODAY.
Limerick on March 6, 2007 at 4:22 PM
Amazing. Simply. Amazing. Libby gets 25 yrs. for NOT leaking the name of a woman who was NOT a covert agent. Meanwhile, William Arkin goes around spilling details (and bragging about it) of our military’s codenames, and not a peep from the LameStream press. Not even from the WaPo, the newspaper he works for (and, not-so-coincidentally, the former employer of one of the jurors in this trial. *sniff sniff* What is that I smell? Could that be jury bias? Grounds for appeal?)
BigOrangeAxe on March 6, 2007 at 4:36 PM
All over America, everyone is asking the same question:
“Who the hell is Scooter Libby?”
TallDave on March 6, 2007 at 5:36 PM
Know what else is funny? If Wilson had his way, if we had taken his “findings” at face value, believed Saddam wasn’t trying to purchase yellowcake, not invaded Iraq, etc… Iraq would have nukes right now. Well unless they were sold to terrorists, or used on Israel or any of his neighbors.
And why was a juror babbling about Rove afterwards? – this whole think just stinks.
reaganaut on March 6, 2007 at 5:37 PM
It’s a good thing the penalties don’t merit “capital punishment.” The Liberal Left cannot be relied on to be morally against capital punishment when it could be applied to their idealogical enemies or to someone who may have a few extra, inconvenient things to say if he sits around long enough.
naliaka on March 6, 2007 at 5:38 PM
Hey, it was kinda nice being the minority party back in the day. We could pat ourselves on the back for being so upstanding and diplomatic, and we’d even get a nice little committee position from our dear leaders in the Democrat caucus. We make outstanding lap-dogs. Just ask Nancy!
Washington, D.C. is dirty place, and the only clean ones there are the ones that keep it that way.
spmat on March 6, 2007 at 5:48 PM
I know. Damn that “jury of your peers” thing.
According to a jury, Libby lied. He didn’t forget; he lied. The jury has convicted him of obstructing justice and fabricating the truth. Period.
Nonfactor on March 6, 2007 at 5:56 PM
The big question, is why would he lie???
If there was NO CRIME TO LIE ABOUT???
Romeo13 on March 6, 2007 at 6:05 PM
Hi lied about a crime that never happened. They knew when they interrogated him that no crime was committed and they knew the he was not the original source (Armitage). This was a witch hunt and a DC jury led by a former “journalist” did their part by checking their integrity at the court house door. Please… it’s ok until they come for you…I defended Martha Stewart on the same grounds.
TheBigOldDog on March 6, 2007 at 6:19 PM
According to a jury, O.J. is innocent. Bush should pardon him, go home to Crawford and order the military to burn D.C. to the ground.
forged rite on March 6, 2007 at 6:27 PM
Jury verdicts do not equal the truth. The jury believed he lied, but that doesn’t mean he did.
The jury also gave OJ a not guilty verdict afterall.
Esthier on March 6, 2007 at 6:30 PM
Liberals are drooling like dogs after steak, and they sense weakness in conservatives, especially after witnessing certain conservatives who criticized Ann Coulter. Liberals are even dreaming about putting Cheney in jail.
What a week for them! First of all, liberals gleefully watch conservatives turn on their number one enemy Ann Coulter. Conservatives, instead of defending her, worry more about what liberals think and even want to ban Ann Coulter from CPAC. Liberals are calling this Ann’s “macaca” moment and naive conservatives even join liberals in denouncing Ann who has done so much for the conservative movement. Then they get the news about Libby.
Conservatives need to toughen up and start fighting liberals as ruthlessly as the MSM and Democrats fight conservatism. Bush, without apology, should promise to pardon Libby. Republicans should get over this dhimmitude towards liberals and vigorously defend Ann Coulter and not break unity.
januarius on March 6, 2007 at 6:38 PM
Are you a G4 fan?
If so, you’re aware that everyone gets a 4 out of 5.
Unless they’re really bad. Then they get a three….out of five.
JadeNYU on March 6, 2007 at 6:45 PM
Fitzgerald is a crook and should be investigated himself for a malicious prosecution.
Our Criminal justice system in this country is a joke.
Want proof, we prosecute Border Patrol agents for doing their job and waste millions of dollars prosecuting people for not outing a known CIA employee that walked in and out of Langley everyday…. some covert agent.
ScottyDog on March 6, 2007 at 6:48 PM
Lesson Learned:
If you haven’t committed a crime, don’t lie to the FBI about it.
Lawrence on March 6, 2007 at 7:02 PM
If there was no crime, then there is no reason to lie.
Was Libby set up, baited to make contradicting statements that have been now used against him? You don’t lie if you don’t have anything hide. And if the jurors couldn’t figure what the right thing to say was, how was Libby supposed to know? He hadn’t done anything wrong. But, if aggressive investigators start hammering at you from five different directions, it’s a sure bet you’ll screw up some statement, caught in some contradiction, simply because you have no idea what’s going on.
So, on the one hand, we have a CIA spouse couple who are sitting with big smirks on their faces, living a lifestyle that has the impression of exceeding their combined salaries, and on the other hand, the first face out of the jury is a writer who’s been associated with the Washington Post and other deep D.C. connections, including spy circles, who’s hogging the media and stating the terms of debate. Incredibly convenient. What are the odds?
naliaka on March 6, 2007 at 7:14 PM
So, how long is it going to be until the Washington Post announces it has an inside account of the Libby jury deliberations? The length of the delay will be a function of how confident they feel that they can get away with it.
naliaka on March 6, 2007 at 7:26 PM
No, the lesson is this:
If you are a Republican, do not speak to a hostile press. EVER. It can and will be used against you.
thirteen28 on March 6, 2007 at 7:34 PM
regardless of any other issue, The Judge denied Libby due process by not allowing him to introduce testimony directly pertaining to the credibility of the prosecution’s main witness.
If I had been working on that case as the Prosecutor, I would have allowed defense to do that so that I could avoid having to re try the entire case.
Jones Zemkophill on March 6, 2007 at 7:44 PM
First, it’s not, “dhimmitude towards liberals”, it’s about right and wrong… You know, that thing that separates us and them.
Secondly, with regard to, “vigorously defend Ann Coulter”…
NO. CHANCE. IN. HELL.
That woman is a major liability to the conservative movement, not an asset.
John on March 6, 2007 at 7:53 PM
According to a jury, Sandy Berger li ….. Oh, that’s right he wasn’t tried before a jury, or indicted, or sentenced to prison for committing a crime.
Makes perfect sense though when you think about it. All Berger did was steal top secret documents from the National Archives, was caught on camera doing it, hid them under a construction trailer and then lied about it.
Libby: Go directly to jail, do not pass GO
Berger: Go to your time-out corner
This country is in BIG TROUBLE.
fogw on March 6, 2007 at 7:56 PM
It’s not about there being a “crime to lie about” – perjury means lying under oath. That’s it. The guy was the Chief of Staff for the VP – that means he was a very busy individual, and was always talking to people, including many reporters, etc. You can probably indict and convict most high level federal government people for this crap.
It’s all politics, all the time. If you recall, the left was hoping this thing would go all the way up the ladder to Bush.
A “fall guy” for perjury?? That’s got to be one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard. Seriously, MSNBC, can you be any more biased? Cheney wasn’t the one having the conversations with reporters, morons.
Rick on March 6, 2007 at 7:58 PM
How the hell did Libby’s defense let this guy on the jury? You don’t let a former member of the press be on the jury when the main testimony deals with fellow members of the press, that’s like having prisoners on the jury when trying a prison guard for manslaughter. I would have “outed” him in the first round of jury selection.
I’m not surprised that Libby was convicted as this trial was held in D.C and we all know how fair the citizens of D.C treats republicans as compared to democrats (think of Marion Barry and his repeated drug offenses yet he’s still in D.C.’s government, do you think that same would be said of someone like Rush Limbaugh?) so finding an impartial jury would just about be impossible. This case is heading for appeal where the conviction will be overturned, you can count on that.
RedinBlueCounty on March 6, 2007 at 8:40 PM
My real question???
When did the DA KNOW who had done the leak?
And did he question Libby AFTER he had that piece of information???
Romeo13 on March 6, 2007 at 8:43 PM
He knew of the leak almost from the very beginning of the investigation. Armitage told investigators that he had leaked Plame’s name to Novak before the grand jury was even empaneled. Yet he still went forward.
thirteen28 on March 6, 2007 at 9:33 PM
Actually, let me slightly correct the above, R13 – Armitage told DOJ investigators about his leaking before Fitzgerald was even appointed. Yet the investigation went on.
thirteen28 on March 6, 2007 at 9:35 PM
Libby was Fitz’s gotcha man. If he would have brought charges against Cheney, Libby would be his immunity guy.
That didn’t happen…so he uses the trumped charges and gets him by default (media)
tomas on March 6, 2007 at 9:46 PM
I blame NOVAK for not coming forward and releasing Armitage’s name as his source from the getgo. He KNEW that an innocent man was under investigation and yet he did nothing and still held his “confidential” source a secret. I no longer care on whit for journalists and their so-called ‘confidential sources’.
If Russert had a source that would clear a Clinton in a similar case, does anyone believe he wouldn’t release his source in a NY minute?
auzerais on March 6, 2007 at 10:27 PM
Novak was caught between a rock and a hard place on this one. But Armitage wasn’t – all he had to do is the right thing.
Still, I blame both the DOJ for letting this investigation go forward when they knew Armitage was the original leaker (which utterly destroyed the left’s narrative regarding the case) as well as Fitzgerald for continuing when he knew he couldn’t ever establish that the original crime he was appointed to investigate was ever committed.
thirteen28 on March 6, 2007 at 10:39 PM
“Where’s Rove”
Says it all.
Texas Gal on March 6, 2007 at 11:07 PM
Even if Armitage wouldn’t let Novak release his name, Novak, knowing the he had info that would exonerate the Administration, should have immediately written a column revealing that his source was not from within the WH, but was instead a State Dept anti-Bush operative, who btw is easily identified by his bull neck and head.
auzerais on March 7, 2007 at 1:10 AM
How so?
honora on March 7, 2007 at 8:34 AM
J22: Obviously you’re making good point!! That usually is what gets the “troll” calling going.
honora on March 7, 2007 at 8:37 AM
No it’s not. Cheney daily was briefed by the CIA, he wanted them to provide more info on the Niger thing, the CIA decided to send someone to investigate. That much is on the record, look it up.
Now the fact that Plame was in the loop, or insinuated herself into the loop, and Wilson ended up being the guy sent–hey, it is absolutely nepotism. It looks very fishy. HOWEVER, I really, really doubt Plame made this decision on her own.
A quick review:
1) Libby claimed he first heard about P from Russert.
2) Russert denies this.
3) Nine witnesses testifies that Libby had called them and told them about P prior to the date Libby and Russert talked. Nine.
4) Libby’s own handwritten notes verify that he heard about P from the VP.
If you seriously think Libby went into the grand jury and his FBI interview without reviewing his notes and actions, well, good luck with that.
The question I have: whether or not P was protected under the statue (which is an odd statue–you have to prove the outer had intent to harm), there was clearly an effort to discredit Wilson by giving away her identity and the fact that she had been key in sending her hubby on this mission. I believe the latter part of that sentence is what Libby et al wanted to get into the press. So at the end of the day, all Libby et al really did, was play hard ball politics.
The question; why would Libby, by all accounts a brilliant man, put himself in jeopardy by lying about all of this?
There is more to this, count on it.
honora on March 7, 2007 at 8:49 AM
As one non-lawyer to another, his guilt/non-guilt was up to the Senate to decide. He was guilty of perjury IMO but he was not found guilty by the Senate. (The House impeaches, which is the rough equivalent of indicting).
The difference that matters again, IMO, is that impeachment is inherently a political procudure and Clinton was riding a 60% approval rating and a real distaste for Starr’s antics. Libby was facing a “real” jury.
There’s an old saying in criminal defense law , if you’re innocent go for a bench trial, if you’re guilty go with a jury. Meaning juries are unpredictable.
I feel sorry for Libby, but really, what was he thinking?
honora on March 7, 2007 at 8:56 AM
I must defend honora on this, seldom is she flawed when she copies her talking points from her DNC sites. She just cuts and pastes from various sites. The poor girl gets hammered when she strays from the DNC talking points.
right2bright on March 7, 2007 at 9:21 AM
Imus says that Russert would not lie.
I guess that settles all the questions about that.
Of course, Russert also sends little gifts to Imus’s son.
If that fat bastard sent any gifts to my son I would report it to the police. But I’m not Imus!
OBX Pete on March 7, 2007 at 9:38 AM
Russert is right in the middle of this case and of course left winged former DNC political operatives masquerading as journalists never lie.
ScottyDog on March 7, 2007 at 9:50 AM
I understand your frustration on this, but think about this for a minute: the CIA asked for an investigation; Fitzgerald is a non-partisan nominated by a Republican Senator and confirmed by a Republican Congress; Libby was given a jury trial. So the group of people who have a hand in this–all left wing political operatives? Good grief.
Ask yourself why Libby did not take the stand and why the defense didn’t call Cheney or Rove.
honora on March 7, 2007 at 9:58 AM
This logic befuddles me. The fact that Berger is being given a pass means Libby should be given a pass?
In what judicial system? Two wrongs etc.
honora on March 7, 2007 at 10:01 AM
Hey, honora, shutty! Jatroll22 was obsessing over “but what about what you guys did to Clinton”, etc. What a child!? This isn’t “tit for tat”, this is about right and wrong. He kept talking about the first penis versus disclosing a covert op’s identity. Again NO EVIDENCE SHE WAS COVERT OR THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGES!!! ALL EVIDENCE SAYS SHE WASN’T. And that wasn’t what these charges were about Ja is as bad as the libs at Kos and HuffPo. Hey, by the way Honora, what did you have for lunch two Sunday’s ago?
RightWinged on March 7, 2007 at 11:02 AM
I’m watching/listening to Ba-ba Wa-wa spin this story on the View and I feel like puking. Joy Behar just made an awful comment about Cheney: “Who wouldn’t have a blood clot after all the lying he’s done?”
These harpies need to take their show to France. What a bunch of morons…
W.T.F?????
PoliticallyIncorrectSandy on March 7, 2007 at 11:05 AM
For starters, it wasn’t Cheney’s request that initiated Wilson’s trip to Africa. This was already established in the summer of 2004 in the Senate Intelligence Committee Report.
Second, Plame wasn’t “brought into this”, she thrust herself into the middle of it by recommending her husband for the trip.
Third, you seem to insinuate in the post I referenced that Wilson produced some kind of report for Cheney. He did not. He did nothing but give an oral report.
Again, all these things were established as fact more than 2.5 years ago when the Senate Intelligence Committee report on this affair was release. Somehow I guess you missed that. Unsuprisingly.
thirteen28 on March 7, 2007 at 11:05 AM
honora, you’re distorting everything – the crime was perjury (nothing more), not leaking. You want to hope and pray that somehow, someway, this goes to the top of the mountain, be my guest – even Fitzgerald’s done with this case.
Also, who the hell cares about Wilson and Plame?? seriously. The moron went and had lemonade with his contacts and was told what they wanted to tell him. The guy is no spy – he had no idea how to go about finding the necessary information.
You want to concern yourself about someone who lied about something important – try Sandy Berger. That has more to it than what we’ve been told – and what we know so far should sure as hell raise some eye brows. But, all quiet – hmmm…wonder why?
Rick on March 7, 2007 at 11:08 AM
First, Fitzgerald is not a non partisan, he is a Democratic hack working for former Clinton appointees at the Justice Department.
Perjury is intentionally swearing to something you know to be untrue – not misremembering what later appears, on balance, not to be the truth.
There is no underlying crime, Valarie Plame was outed by Aldridge Aims to the Soviets. That is why she was recalled from her undercover position to work at Langley. Translation-she was no longer a covered person,covert operative my ass. She walked in the front door of the CIA everyday something covert agents never do because foreign agents photograph everyone to keep track of who works there.
It was Richard Armitage that told Novack about Plame and Fitzgerald knew all about it before he started his phony investigation. That my friend, is called a malicious prosecution. Investigating a non crime is a violation of judicial ethics.
It is Patrick Fitzgerald that should be on trial for violating his oath of office and running a political hit operation.
ScottyDog on March 7, 2007 at 11:48 AM
There is, but only from the Left. There never is ‘more to it’ on the Clintons, Bergers…but heh, strawberries, remember…
Entelechy on March 7, 2007 at 3:12 PM
Ding!
The whole judicial branch and the so-called criminal justice system has about as much credibility as the MSM. It is now nothing more than a Barnum and Bailey circus freak show. The O.J. trial showed the system for what it is, quite some time ago. The Libby conviction and the Anna-Nicole Smith sideshow are simply icing on the cake.
Justice itself was passed-over in this country a long time ago. Only a fool would continue to try to make sense of it.
CyberCipher on March 7, 2007 at 4:39 PM
CyberCipher
I could not agree more. The Judicial System is so corrupt that it may be too late ever to reform what has happened.
Federal prosecutors are creating a police state in this country and nobody is watching the store.
Look at what Johnny Sutton has done.Look at Nifong.
Malicious prosecutions using paid informants are the rule of the day
ScottyDog on March 8, 2007 at 1:46 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2