UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY"

Beat you by 1 minute, but I like your post better.

 

I see rimrocker already did basso the favor of not having to go back and search for the rebuttal to Schmidt's faulty reporting of the findings of the senate committee.

You got burned on that rubbish the first time you posted it. Why post that crap again?

 

You did beat me, and yours includes the nice response to the senate intel committee BS.

 

To TJ lying about a blow job is at best no worse than lying to get us into a war killing hundreds of thousands of people of a different skin color or thousand of Ameriancs who did not in most cases have SAT scores exceeding his own..

As we know from Enron here in H town it is dangerous to have guys like TJ's appaling lack of morals development in the gerneral evironment of money and business

 

and yet the post, continues it's chimpymcbushhitler propaganda:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/06/AR2007030602020.html

[rquoter]The Libby Verdict
The serious consequences of a pointless Washington scandal

Wednesday, March 7, 2007; A16

THE CONVICTION of I. Lewis Libby on charges of perjury, making false statements and obstruction of justice was grounded in strong evidence and what appeared to be careful deliberation by a jury. The former chief of staff to Vice President Cheney told the FBI and a grand jury that he had not leaked the identity of CIA employee Valerie Plame to journalists but rather had learned it from them. But abundant testimony at his trial showed that he had found out about Ms. Plame from official sources and was dedicated to discrediting her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. Particularly for a senior government official, lying under oath is a serious offense. Mr. Libby's conviction should send a message to this and future administrations about the dangers of attempting to block official investigations.

The fall of this skilled and long-respected public servant is particularly sobering because it arose from a Washington scandal remarkable for its lack of substance. It was propelled not by actual wrongdoing but by inflated and frequently false claims, and by the aggressive and occasionally reckless response of senior Bush administration officials -- culminating in Mr. Libby's perjury.

Mr. Wilson was embraced by many because he was early in publicly charging that the Bush administration had "twisted," if not invented, facts in making the case for war against Iraq. In conversations with journalists or in a July 6, 2003, op-ed, he claimed to have debunked evidence that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger; suggested that he had been dispatched by Mr. Cheney to look into the matter; and alleged that his report had circulated at the highest levels of the administration.

A bipartisan investigation by the Senate intelligence committee subsequently established that all of these claims were false -- and that Mr. Wilson was recommended for the Niger trip by Ms. Plame, his wife. When this fact, along with Ms. Plame's name, was disclosed in a column by Robert D. Novak, Mr. Wilson advanced yet another sensational charge: that his wife was a covert CIA operative and that senior White House officials had orchestrated the leak of her name to destroy her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson.

The partisan furor over this allegation led to the appointment of special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald. Yet after two years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald charged no one with a crime for leaking Ms. Plame's name. In fact, he learned early on that Mr. Novak's primary source was former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage, an unlikely tool of the White House. The trial has provided convincing evidence that there was no conspiracy to punish Mr. Wilson by leaking Ms. Plame's identity -- and no evidence that she was, in fact, covert.

It would have been sensible for Mr. Fitzgerald to end his investigation after learning about Mr. Armitage. Instead, like many Washington special prosecutors before him, he pressed on, pursuing every tangent in the case. In so doing he unnecessarily subjected numerous journalists to the ordeal of having to disclose confidential sources or face imprisonment. One, Judith Miller of the New York Times, lost several court appeals and spent 85 days in jail before agreeing to testify. The damage done to journalists' ability to obtain information from confidential government sources has yet to be measured.

Mr. Wilson's case has besmirched nearly everyone it touched. The former ambassador will be remembered as a blowhard. Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby were overbearing in their zeal to rebut Mr. Wilson and careless in their handling of classified information. Mr. Libby's subsequent false statements were reprehensible. And Mr. Fitzgerald has shown again why handing a Washington political case to a federal special prosecutor is a prescription for excess.

Mr. Fitzgerald was, at least, right about one thing: The Wilson-Plame case, and Mr. Libby's conviction, tell us nothing about the war in Iraq.[/rquoter]

 

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5O5sNZHu2LE"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5O5sNZHu2LE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

 

sadly, thinkprogress' "report" is devoid of facts.

 

They need to do some fact checking on their editorials. They keep getting the facts wrong

 

basso, the posts above already show that your editorial is the one lacking. It has been shown that while she brought up her husband's name as a possibility, it was not her own recoommendation that was the final step.

The intel committee stuff has been shown to come in the additional comments section by two GOP people who added that in. It is not evidence based.

If you believe the other comments are lacking facts please post evidence to back up your claims.

 

really? care to try completely disputing these? if you can't, then what is your basis for saying it is "devoid of facts"? plagiarism - check. lying - question mark

 

Fact: Libby's perjury occured after Fitzgerald knew both the identity of the original leaker, and that no underlying crime had been committed.

Fact: Plame status: unproven. Fitzgerald claims "classified" but does not claim "covert". although alledged, neither is proved.

Fact: Cheney/Libby were pushing back against Wilson's distortions about the 16 words, and who sent him to Niger. what we've witnessed is the criminalization of politics.

Fact: Armitage was the original leaker, which Fitz knew prior to questioning Libby. Fitz' charge was to find the leaker and, if laws had been broken in the act of leaking, prosecute. He knew the answers to both well before he questioned Libby. His investigation should have ended at that time

none of which excuses Libby. But thinkprogress should get the Facts straight.

 

it's not a river...

what planet are you living on? it's been SOP for evrey admin since that of washington. there's even a word for it: Politics

 

Why lie and obstruct justice if there were no underlying crime? As someone said, just because Al Capone was only tried for tax evasion doesn't mean he didn't do other, worse things.

Utter ridiculousness. "Classified" is a legal term applied to information that is not to be shared outside government and only within on a "need to know" basis. "Covert" does not have that kind of standing. It was classified that she worked at the CIA. Here's Fitzgerald announcing the indictment:

Notice the language he uses. Her status was "classified." "She had another life." Her "cover was blown."

Fitzgerald yesterday:

By parsing "classified" and "covert" you are really grasping at straws.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/o...6aeb1ce960dec0&ex=1372824000&partner=USERLAND

There's the op-ed. Please point out the distortions. This is not the criminalization of politics, but rather, criminal politics. There is a difference. Besides, Fitzgerald was appointed by Bush and has investigated Dems, notably Daley in Chicago. This charge holds no water, especially when Bush himself says Fitzgerald has conducted a "dignified" investigation.

Pure BS. This is from Comey's letter to Fitzgerald giving him the delegated authority to pursue the investigation:

He was well within his authority in bringing the charges against Libby.

Perhaps you should learn to distinguish GOP talking points from facts.

 

You're right... it's a lake. Notice the dam at the top?

 

it's key to understanding whether a crime was committed. if you don't understand this fundamental point, you shouldn't even be debating this topic.

 

check the url:

http://www.ancient-egypt-online.com/images/map-of-nile-river-2.jpg

i don't know that much about the nile, but i'm pretty sure it's not a lake, altho there are dams in it.