Tuesday, March 06, 2007
|
|
Verdict in Libby Case at Noon (Update: Guilty on Four of Five Charges)
|
|
Posted by:
Mary Katharine Ham at
11:36 AM
|
|
I've always readily admitted I'm not an expert on this case, but Tom Maguire and Co. are.
Check in with them throughout the day. In case you're feeling bad about being confused about this case, don't. The jurors were, too, just hours before they came to a verdict. The jury in Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby'sperjury trial in the CIA leak case asked the judge to clarify oneof the charges against the former top aide to Vice President DickCheney. A jury note expressing its confusion was sent to the judgeyesterday during the ninth day of deliberations and was madepublic today. The note asked what exactly was being alleged in acharge that accuses Libby of lying to investigators about hisconversation with Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper in 2003about CIA official Valerie Plame. Libby, 56, is charged with obstruction of justice, perjuryand making false statements to investigators probing whether Bushadministration officials deliberately leaked Plame's identity toretaliate against her husband, Iraq war critic Joseph Wilson.Libby was Cheney's chief of staff and national security adviser. Libby is accused of falsely telling the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation that he told Cooper on July 12, 2003, that he hadheard from other reporters that Plame worked for the CentralIntelligence Agency, though he didn't know if it was true. "Is the prosecution alleging that Mr. Libby did not makethe statement to Cooper?'' jurors asked in the note. "Or is the allegation that Libby did know Mrs. Wilson worked for the CIAwhen he spoke to the FBI'' in late 2003?
Sheesh, that can't make Libby feel great. Update: The latest on Fox News is that he's been found guilty on four of five counts. Update: Judge Napolitano says the defense will likely go to thejudge and ask him to throw out charges, based on the confusion of thejury, but that the judge will likely not throw out the obstruction ofjustice charge. Appeals will be possible in the future. And, youthought this was gonna be over. Silly you. In the meantime, obstruction of justice alone carries 10 years.
Update: This account makes it clear the jury was unclear as to whether lying to a reporter was a crime with which one can be charged. Yikes. From the judge to jury:
“To be clear, Mr. Libby is charged in Count Three with making falsestatements to the FBI about what was said during his July 12, 2003 conversation with Mr. Cooper,” Walton wrote in response. “Mr. Libby isnot charged with making a false statement to Mr. Cooper.” Of course, that confusion's on Count 3 (the one on which he was found not guilty), so it seems less likely charges could be dropped due to confusion. Update: Reaction from the White House in 15 minutes or so. Update: The WH Deputy Press Secretary is doing the statement on the case, not Tony Snow, which looks like an attempt to downplay. Interesting. Update: Attorneys for Libby: "We are very disappointed in the verdict of the jurors. This jury deli for approx 10 days. Despite out disappoin in the jury's verdict, we believe int he American justice system and we believe in the jury system,. We intend to file a motion for a new trial, and if that is denied, we'll appeal the conviction...We believe...that he is totally innocent, that he did not do anything wrong. We intend to keep fighting to establish his innocence." Update: The Democrats are already giving press releases. The gist of Harry Reid's was that it's about time someone in the Bush administration was held accountable for manipulating on the way to war (ignoring, of course, that that's not what Libby was found guilty of). He also called on Bush not to pardon Libby, even though the White House hasn't even spoken up yet. Update: Another bummer about the Coulter Affair. She has written well about this case, and has a good understanding of it that she translates into easily digestable column form. Despite all of this, will it matter what she has to say about Libby, knowledgeable or not? No, because she said "faggot" at CPAC, and shot herself in the foot.
Update: Fitzgerald: "We took a case to trial and we proved the charges...Any lie under oath is serious...we cannot tolerate perjury. If people don't tell the truth, we have no hope of making the jury system work." Q: "Cloud on the White House?" Was the VP truthful in his testimony? "We try and treat everyone the same in our legal system. We don't talk about people not on trial. When someone doesn't tell the truth to the system, everyone suffers." "We responded fairly and honestly by saying that there was a cloud there, put there not by us, but by Libby." Q: Is your investigation over? "I do not expect to file any further charges..We're all going back to our day jobs." The Nutroots won't like that at all. Update: Hot Air's collecting video.
Update: Sentencing guidelines:As others have suggested; Sandy Berger lied to investigators and
destroyed national security documents to prevent them from being seen
by the 9/11 Commission. He paid a $50,000 fine, had to do 100 hours of
community service or thereabouts, and lost his security clearance for
two years or so.
I'd say that should be the maximum sentence for Libby. Maybe about half that.
|
|
It was about a witch hunt and you know it. If I had been Libby's lawyer, my first witness would be the prosecutor.
Question #1: At the time of Mr. Libby's interogation did you or did you not know that Valere Plame was not covered by the covert agents act?
Answer: "Yes, but, but, but."
Question #2: At the time of the interogation did you or did you not know that the source of Ms Plames name to Mr. Novak was Richard Armitage?
Answer: "Yes, but, but, but"
Question #3: So you continued to persecute innocent people in a fishing expedition knowing that no crime had been committed, the White House was no involved in any way, and all you could come up with is he actually tried to answer your questions and did not remember everything exactly as happened?
Answer: Yes, but,but,but"
Question #4: What did you have for lunch on Tues 5 weeks ago, please remember that if you can't recall exactly, you will go to jail!
Your Honor, I move to dismiss all charges against Mr. Libby!
Judge: So ruled! Case closed!! |
|
|
In point 4 I state that Libby gave Russert Plame's name. I do not know this to be true. |
|
Warning...Democrat in the room!!! A few observations on the comments above:
1)This trial was not about leaking, it was about perjury and obstruction of justice.
2)Discrepancies between Libby's accounts, and those of Russert et. al. raised a red flag for the investigators in late 2003, months before Fitzgerald was assigned as special prosecutor.
3)The fact that others have gotten away with similar crimes in the past is not a defense for one's own misdeeds, nor is it a reason to forgoe prosecution of suspected crimes.
4)Whatever else the jury may have discussed, ultimately their decision was based on the fact that 9, count 'em, 9 witnesses who admitted to fuzzy memories of their own agreed on the central fact that Libby gave them Plame's name, including his alibi, Tim Russert.
5)The assertion that the Plame/Wilson affair was a minor matter to Libby is not credible when one examines the attention to which high level administration officials afforded it. Libby's own notes and testimony of administration officials make this clear.
6)Armitage was not indicted because in order for his leak to be a crime, he would need to have prior knowledge that the agent involved was covert, plus he would have to leak the information with the intention of blowing her cover. Both Novak and Armitage have made it clear that neither was the case.
I could go on, but covers the basics. Thanks for listening all. |
|
|
Frog, you can't really call it the Hillary method. Reagan used it during Iran/Contra and I'm sure it was used before that. |
|
|
Frog, you can't really call it the Hillary method. Reagan used it during Iran/Contra and I'm sure it was used before that. |
|
|
This trial was a waste of time and money. It was and is so stupid, I cannot believe even the liberals fell for it. I think they know in their hearts how wrong the whole thing is but would never admit it. This 3rd grade gossip is joke. |
|
because they wanted to be sure.
i think if you wer on trial, you'd rather a jury discuss and think rather than crucify, right?
but boy, the comments on this case are slim.
because you know the truth now.
dick cheney is a traitor. |
|
I don't see how a reasonable person could buy Libby's story of misremberingm what, nine conversations?
Don't lie under oath or to the FBI, kids.
|
|
Oh I put Libby Libby Libby at the Table Table Table I wanted Cheney Cheney Cheney but wasn't Able Able Able. |
|
|
the getaway car would be a Crown Vic because if it was good enough fer Paw it's good enough fer me. |
|
|
I wouldn't be surprised to find out that "old Tim" drove the getaway car for Sandy Berger. |
|
|
is that Tim Russert was thought to be an honest and truthful guy. I've never really read him as being particularly clean and shiny when it comes to honesty. I regarded that old folksy schtick he pulls off as just that. Part of his "ole Russ drive a Crown Vic" when he coulda drove a Mercedes and I am just a chip off of the ole Russ". |
|
|
Compared to Burger he should get community service raking leaves. One leaf oughtta about do it. Maybe a finger wag but I doubt even the Burgler got that. |
|
Well this farce called the judicial process was most definitely not about justice or even real crime...
What I wonder is what were the defense lawyers doing when people were interviewed to sit on the jury?
Obviously the jury was a collection of short bus riders... |
|
|
Frog, you can't really call it the Hillary method. Reagan used it during Iran/Contra and I'm sure it was used before that. |
|
The lib blogs, or libbys as I call them, have been all over themselves with the comments made by the one juror, Denis Collins, a former Washington Post reporter.
How this guy got on the jury I'll never know.
He and the libbys are beside themselves because he so desperately tried finding a link between Libby and Rove or Cheyney or Bush. Unfortunately, he had to follow the rule of law and deal with the facts at hand, not the ones he had hoped to find.
I would guess there was a book deal in the works. Wouldn't be surprised if there is one out in a few weeks.
It's good to see the libbys in such ecstasy, because there is a long and unsatisfying cigarette to follow with their names on it.
(They smoke 'em all'a'time on PuffPost.) |
|
You changed the subject. When did the prosecution stipulate that Plame was not covert in 2003 as they should have? Or, when did the judge allow the defense to present evidence to the effect that Plame was not covert in 2003? I missed that part. Unless the trial record is clear on Plame's status, Libby would be a fool to take the stand. He couldn't defend himself on the important question of his motive without Plame's status known. The prosecution never claimed that Plame was covert because they couldn't. What the prosecution did was, get the judge to put the whole question off limits. But Plame's "covert" status goes directly to Libby's motive. If Plame was not covert, and she was not, then according to the disclosure act there's no underlying crime, and no motive for Libby to lie about it.
|
|
It took 10 days for the jury to conclude their verdict?
Come on.
No wonder. The analytical capability of Americans are just way below that of some East Asian and European countries.
Give the case to a bunch of 15 year old folks, they would decide right away that no crime committed in this case.
Ideology does matter, and it corrupts also our court and justice system, especially when you prosecute a political issue like the Iraq war.
Pay attention to the following Nancy Reid's statement:
=== The Democrats are already giving press releases. The gist of Harry Reid's was that it's about time someone in the Bush administration was held accountable for manipulating on the way to war (ignoring, of course, that that's not what Libby was found guilty of). He also called on Bush not to pardon Libby, even though the White House hasn't even spoken up yet. ===
So, it's all about Iraq war.
The liberals smell "blood" and a potential for a double orgasm. It's Cheney's turn--they wish desperately.
|
|
A sad day, indeed. The comments made by jurors make it blindingly clear that Libby was convicted as proxy for Rove, Cheney, et al. They just had to hit the adminstration for the supposed "leak" of Valerie Plame, and Libby was just the unlucky effigy.
This whole case was an embarassment from the beginning. Three year investigation, and all he could come up with was Libby's perjury? It's a sad day for the rule of law indeed. |
|
|
I will be interested in what Ann has to say, even if the rest of the right is not. Ann might not be mature enough to forgoe the word 'faggot' but she is right on many points. One of those being that while the Dem's are busy throwing certain Republicans in jail for being Republican; very few of the Republican leadership is interested in fighting back. Why? Our leadership is afraid of the press. |
|
The following people have emboldened the enemy:
1) The libby jury 2) Wa Po on their Walter Reed expose 3) US Attorney's who got fired
Irrespective of facts or justice, only one thing matters - the administration looking good for the voters. Anything that would jeopardize that emboldens the enemy.
|
|
|
I for one will NEVER, talk to police without a written guarantee that I will not be prosecuted if I "mis-remember." People don't EVER give up your 5th amendment right not to answer. Because, as we now know, if you don't remember EXACTLY, you can be prosecuted (persecuted). That is how you keep from incriminating yourself. From now on out all people in the Executive Branch should take the fifth. The President cannot order them to give up their right to not self incriminate. It is now criminal to be forgetful. |
|
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The judge in the criminal trial of Lewis "Scooter" Libby is making it clear for the historic record that he thought the defendant would take the stand, and that the presumption figured strongly into his decisions about classified material he would have allowed into evidence.
U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton also suggests the defense could have improved the prospects for acquittal of their client had they called Vice President Dick Cheney to the stand.
Defense lawyer Theodore V. Wells, Jr., said he recommended to Libby over lunch that he not take the stand to defend himself against charges that he lied to investigators in a CIA leak probe. Wells said the defense will rests its case tomorrow. Presiding U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton asked Libby, Cheney's former chief of staff, if he knew he had a right to testify in his defense and if had declined of his free will. "Yes, sir," Libby said in a barely audible voice. The decision puts added pressure on defense attorneys' closing arguments. The defense presented its witnesses in less than two days, relying on six reporters who said Libby didn't tell them about undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame, and a deputy to Libby who said Libby's job was overwhelming. The defense did little to support its contention in opening statements by Wells that Libby was made a scapegoat by the White House and that other officials sharing information about Plame, such as senior White House adviser Karl Rove, received more protection. |
|
angel66 wrote: "why didn't libby take the stand?"
Answer: Because Libby was not allowed to rebut the major point of his supposed motive to lie about talks with reporters. The more Libby actually knew about Valerie Plame, and her role at CIA, the less his motive to lie to prosecutors about what he said to reporters. But, he was NOT ALLOWED to talk about Valerie Plame. The trial didn't allow it. If Libby couldn't talk about his lack of motive, if he couldn't talk about Plame, what's the point of getting on the stand? That simple.
|
|
|
How retarded is this? Everybody else can pretend that somehow they are really really smart... sort of like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Me... I think that Valerie Plame would do a spread in a famous magazine if it would win her more media attention. I just hope she would think to turn her ID badge away from the camera. Just list her names as her initials. VP. The jury would think that these were pictures of the Vice President, Old Joe would be taking the pictures, and Libby would be accused of telling everybody that these are not pictures of the vice president. He's worked for the vice president and he looks nothing like this. |
|
...should ask why LIBBY DID NOT TAKE THE STAND AND CLEAR HIS GOOD NAME from the evil republican prosecutor.
if you were innocent of a crime, wouldn't you move hell or highwater to clear your name?
ask again. why didn't libby take the stand?
crickets.
|
|
|
This should have been dismissed immediately and the prosecutor brought up on charges of prosecutorial misconduct. There was never any crime committed, so how can someone "obstuct justice" when there is nothing to obstruct. I think a 5 yr old should have been able to get Libby off this insanity! |
|
trojan140,
...and what truly guilty people (with law degrees) usually say is: I can't recall that...I just don't remember...that doesn't ring a bell for me....
In other words, the Hillary Method.
|
|
|
It took ten days b/c they were confused? Were they thinking let him appeal and let the next jury deal with it? It is obvious that Libby was not intentionally lying. It is easy to have a faulty memory about a conversation that was not important to you at the time of the conversation. That is all that this case was about. Was the jury thinking, "Hey, the government spent all this money on this case we might as well give them the guilty verdict." |
|
I think the jury probably didn't accept that there is such an incestuous relationship between the federal bureaucracy and the press, that Scooter Libby can mix up the two sources. I think there is that kind of overly close relationship, but the jury didn't buy it.
|
|
|
|