http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/cia_leak_trial
Can Libby stay out of jail when appealing this verdict or will he have to report to the big house?
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/cia_leak_trial
Can Libby stay out of jail when appealing this verdict or will he have to report to the big house?
[/quote]
Didn’t we already establish that perjury and obstruction of justice isn’t a jailable offense anymore? Did you sleep through the 1990’s? The worst he will get is a temporary suspension of his law license.
Libby is guilty while Sandy Berger is free. What a world!
I just heard that the jury wrote a note to the judge asking “What is Libby actually being charged with”…
A mere three hours later, he’s found guilty
I’m not assuming Libby is innocent, I’m just curious how the jury was so unsure of the actual charges against him and so readily finding him guilty after being told.
[quote]derek wrote:
Libby is guilty while Sandy Berger is free. What a world![/quote]
Spot on! One guy (Libby) can’t remember a conversation from a couple of years ago. The other guy (Sandy Burglar) stuffs documents from the National Archives down his pants.
Who should be in a jail cell with a 300 lbs lonely con named Bubba?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
derek wrote:
Libby is guilty while Sandy Berger is free. What a world!
Spot on! One guy (Libby) can’t remember a conversation from a couple of years ago. The other guy (Sandy Burglar) stuffs documents from the National Archives down his pants.
Who should be in a jail cell with a 300 lbs lonely con named Bubba?
[/quote]
Clinton lost weight. You aren’t being fair.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
derek wrote:
Libby is guilty while Sandy Berger is free. What a world!
Spot on! One guy (Libby) can’t remember a conversation from a couple of years ago. The other guy (Sandy Burglar) stuffs documents from the National Archives down his pants.
Who should be in a jail cell with a 300 lbs lonely con named Bubba?
Clinton lost weight. You aren’t being fair.[/quote]
ROTFLMFAO!
Sandy and Libby should be sharing a cell.
Now I’m confused.
Again.
I thought you conservatis were so big on law and order?
So what gives?
It warms my heart to see a high level politician go to jail. It doesn’t happen nearly often enough.
[quote]etaco wrote:
It warms my heart to see a high level politician go to jail. It doesn’t happen nearly often enough.[/quote]
Ain’t that the truth.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Now I’m confused.
Again.
I thought you conservatis were so big on law and order?
So what gives?[/quote]
reckless,
I know the 300 pounds thing caught your eye.
Are you bubba?
JeffR
Is anyone here satisfied with this verdict, the investigation, or the trial itself?
I think we could all find common ground by saying that we aren’t satisfied.
I just don’t see this answering anything.
However, I want to highlight an enormous difference between a Conservative and a billy-boy, liberal democrat.
If libby is guilty, he should do time.
It doesn’t matter if he lied under oath about stealing a ho-ho.
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
If libby is guilty, he should do time.
[/quote]
Agreed.
However, I do see a disturbing trend of prosecutors essentially circumventing double-jeopardy by prosecuting perjury when they can’t get the conviction they originally wanted.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
derek wrote:
Libby is guilty while Sandy Berger is free. What a world!
Spot on! One guy (Libby) can’t remember a conversation from a couple of years ago. The other guy (Sandy Burglar) stuffs documents from the National Archives down his pants.
Who should be in a jail cell with a 300 lbs lonely con named Bubba?
[/quote]
You’ve never seen a spy movie have you?
(I can’t recall means "I plead the fifth) in spy/politician lingo).
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
(I can’t recall means "I plead the fifth) in spy/politician lingo).
[/quote]
Hell, Hillary “couldn’t recall” over 250 times.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Now I’m confused.
Again.
I thought you conservatis were so big on law and order?
So what gives?[/quote]
What gives is that Sandy Berger should also be in jail.
Should law and order not be even-handed?
the one they were confused about, the false statement was the one they didn’t convict him on.
it was the weakest of the 5 indictments and much harder to make the case on. so when they ask 'what exactly are we going for on this one, it suggests a very wise and intelligent jury that is being mindful of justice and the facts.
How come the actual leaker just kind of went, “Oh I’m such a dummy, doh” and slapped his head and they forgot about it, but a guy can’t rember or won’t talk about guys who didn’t commit a crime and he is massacred? It’s total partisan hackery. If he were a regular citizen they would not have persued a dead end like this.
[quote]
JeffR wrote:
If libby is guilty, he should do time.
nephorm wrote:
Agreed.
However, I do see a disturbing trend of prosecutors essentially circumventing double-jeopardy by prosecuting perjury when they can’t get the conviction they originally wanted.[/quote]
This is my major issue as well – the same problem I had with the Martha Stewart case…
ADDENDUM: People should also note that this type of case strongly incentivizes anyone under investigation to simply plead the 5th or “I can’t recall” until such time as he or she has had time to undertake a substantial review of all his or her communications on the subject over a year’s time – which can take quite a while and throw a complete monkey wrench into an investigation as delays allow for trails to grow cold.
ADDENDUM 2: The Washington Post has a very good summary editorial on the whole thing here:
Denis Collins, a juror on the case:
“It was said a number of times, ‘What are we doing with this guy here? Where’s Rove, where’s you know, where are these other guys?’”