Cool, haven’t had a chance to see any news this morning… damned evil alarm clock!
Now that I’m at work though, time to take a gander…
The scuttlebutt is indeed that Libby will be indicted for a violation of False Claims Act – 18 USC sec. 1001 – coincidentally, the same act under which Martha Stewart was charged.
I don’t know, but it didn’t seem as if the indictment would be for perjury, which would be the case if his sworn grand jury testimony had contradicted his notes, and they felt certain his notes were correct (minus some other indication the notes were incorrect, they would almost surely think contemporaneous notes prepared with no eye toward litigation would be accurate).
As I’ve said before, I have problems with the idea that you can commit a crime by lying (or misremembering - whatever) when you are not under oath. Aside from the fact that it simply offends my generally libertarian instincts, there could actually be incentive problems. Cases such as Martha Stewart’s and, seemingly, Libby’s, may discourage people (even innocent people) from talking to federal authorities at all, because they might fear that some error on their part may be characterized as a lie, and might thus mean criminal punishment. In some cases (though not in all), the person may conclude that the better course is just to say nothing. That may already often happen to witnesses who are themselves being investigated for a crime, since they are often advised to say nothing in any event. But 18 USC sec. 1001 risks also discouraging cooperation by people who are just seen as witnesses.
It's hard to tell just how serious a problem this might be, and 18 USC sec. 1001 does indeed have potentially beneficial effects, too, since it may often encourage witnesses to tell the truth. But it's worth recognizing that the law can also encourage witnesses to say as little as possible, an "anticooperative effect" that might undermine or overpower any beneficial effect the law might produce from cooperative witnesses.
Also, if no indictments come out for the underlying crimes around which everyone was speculating, it would seem the speculation was just that. These weren’t complicated cases, and if, after two years, the prosecutor couldn’t come up with evidence about who taked to which reporters, or whether, if they did, Ms. Plame’s identity was related to national security.
Basically, if there are no indictments on the “underlying crimes,” there is essentially zero chance there were any underlying crimes at all, and all this kerfluffle was as it as “dismissed” to be from the get go: much ado about nothing. Of course, it would be much ado about nothing that led to someone possibly lying/misremembering to a special prosecutor, but that’s an entirely separate issue.
So we’ll see. It will be interesting to see what the expected indictments say, who is inidicted, and what the charges are.
Boston,
I can’t believe the tripe you are spinning. If no indictments come out on the “underlying crimes” it does not mean that nothing happened. It means that if it did happen it isn’t in any way provable.
Surely you know the difference?
I love this spin, that nothing serious was done because indictments on certain issues didn’t happen.
I also like the spin that lying to the authorities, with respect to criminal investigations, should not necessarily be a crime, because it might encourage people to be quiet because they could inadvertantly make an error.
While a pile of horse shit.
You are a spinner of the highest order buddy.
If no indictments and no convictions occur it simply means that there wasn’t enough evidence of criminal actions to prosecute. This is not an exoneration just as in the same light the initial investigation is not an indication of guilt.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Boston,
I can’t believe the tripe you are spinning. If no indictments come out on the “underlying crimes” it does not mean that nothing happened. It means that if it did happen it isn’t in any way provable.
Surely you know the difference?
I love this spin, that nothing serious was done because indictments on certain issues didn’t happen.
I also like the spin that lying to the authorities, with respect to criminal investigations, should not necessarily be a crime, because it might encourage people to be quiet because they could inadvertantly make an error.
While a pile of horse shit.
You are a spinner of the highest order buddy.
If no indictments and no convictions occur it simply means that there wasn’t enough evidence of criminal actions to prosecute. This is not an exoneration just as in the same light the initial investigation is not an indication of guilt.[/quote]
So let me get this straight. Accused persons are now required to prove the negative in order to be “exonerated” under the vroom justice standard?
Some more speculation right before the current action, if there actually is any, today…
Charges Expected Against Libby
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051028/pl_nm/bush_leak_dc
Some snippets for the lazy…
Karl Rove, was not expected to be among those indicted on Friday, but special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has made clear to Rove that he remains under investigation and in legal jeopardy, lawyers in the case said.
Hmm, I guess lack of an indictment doesn’t mean it is all over just yet.
[i]The charges handed up by the grand jury will be the first in the two-year investigation, sparked by the public disclosure of Plame’s identity in a July 14, 2003, newspaper column by Robert Novak.
The leak case has put a spotlight on the sometimes aggressive tactics the White House uses to counter critics of the Iraq war. It has also focused attention on the administration’s shifting justifications for the 2003 invasion, from the threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction – which were never found – to a need to spread democracy.[/i]
Sometimes aggressive?
[i]t was unclear how Fitzgerald would keep the Rove investigation going since the current grand jury is scheduled to expire at the end of the day on Friday.
“The special counsel has advised Mr. Rove that he has made no decision about whether or not to bring charges and that Mr. Rove’s status has not changed,” Rove’s attorney, Robert Luskin, said in a statement.[/i]
Unclear? How many options are there?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Boston,
I can’t believe the tripe you are spinning. If no indictments come out on the “underlying crimes” it does not mean that nothing happened. It means that if it did happen it isn’t in any way provable.
Surely you know the difference?
I love this spin, that nothing serious was done because indictments on certain issues didn’t happen.
I also like the spin that lying to the authorities, with respect to criminal investigations, should not necessarily be a crime, because it might encourage people to be quiet because they could inadvertantly make an error.
While a pile of horse shit.
You are a spinner of the highest order buddy.
If no indictments and no convictions occur it simply means that there wasn’t enough evidence of criminal actions to prosecute. This is not an exoneration just as in the same light the initial investigation is not an indication of guilt.[/quote]
You speak of everyone spinning, yet you chase your tail constantly.
Now, the lack of indictments means absolutely nothing. It only proves that IT can’t be proven. And of course, you know IT to be truth .
It makes perfect sense how BB characterized things. I’ll tell you that if Libby is indeed prosecuted for forgetting something that was said 2,3,4 years ago that the next time a grand jury is impanelled, you’ll get nothing but I don’t recall.
Grow up vroomy. The big boom didn’t come and now you back pedal over yourself to cover your sorry ass.
You’re a joke
Why you want this to be something it isn’t is quite telling. You claim to just want the truth, yet if the truth doesn’t fit your ideology you dismiss it accordingly.
Oh yah–apology accepted.
The indictment is out - Libby, on two counts of making false statements, two counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/28/D8DH5FOG0.html
No one else, for anything. And no info on whether the grand jury has been extended either.
And nothing on any of the alleged crimes for which the special prosecutor was created. Nary a peep.
Now vroom,
If you’d like to see some real spinning, try this on for size:
Democrats used the indictments to launch a broader assault on White House credibility. “This case is bigger than the leak of highly classified information,” said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. “It is about how the Bush White House manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to bolster its case for the war in Iraq and to discredit anyone who dared to challenge the president.”
One could start from Reid’s initial sentence. It certainly is difficult to see how an indictment that didn’t even cover leaking of national-security-related information could be “bigger” than the leak of highly classified information. Then one could jump to something completely unrelated that one had already decided to make a central “talking point,” such as Iraq – all the while ignoring the fact that its both unconnected to an indictments for perjury and obstruction of justice – and of course ignoring anything factually specific whilst tossing pejorative statements.
Ah, spin.
Sas, you are competely right. Vroom is a spinning demon on a mission to dismantle America one spin at a time (can’t we get him sent to gitmo for some torture). Whatever Bostons says is unmitigated truth and whoever strays from his shining words of truth is a blind fool.
Now where is a restroom so I can go puke.
Wow. Perjury. Lying under oath.
Now why were the conservatives all pissed off at Clinton again?
[quote]Dedicated wrote:
Sas, you are competely right. Vroom is a spinning demon on a mission to dismantle America one spin at a time (can’t we get him sent to gitmo for some torture). Whatever Bostons says is unmitigated truth and whoever strays from his shining words of truth is a blind fool.
Now where is a restroom so I can go puke. [/quote]
Let me show you the way. First, you ‘spun’ my words almost to the quality of your buddy. Secondly, what about what I said in the post you referenced or any before is/was wrong?
Quick–show me.
Ancillary charges after all of the effort to discredit. NOTHING. Nothing there. With all the might they could muster–NOTHING.
But, I’m glad vroom’s got a buddy
[quote]harris447 wrote:
Wow. Perjury. Lying under oath.
Now why were the conservatives all pissed off at Clinton again?[/quote]
Clinton himself lied under oath. He was indicted. The Commander In Chief - indicted for perjury.
All you have to crow about here is the Veep’s advisor.
Hardly the same thing.
But I don’t think you hear anyone saying to let him off the hook. If Libby is actually guilty of a crime - then he should be punished. And that is way different than the Left making excuses for Clinton and his band of muderous thieves.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
Wow. Perjury. Lying under oath.
Now why were the conservatives all pissed off at Clinton again?[/quote]
I have a problem with perjury, but not so much with the other two.
Now, what does this have to do with national security or Iraq, or anything else on the list of Democratic talking points?
BTW, the special prosecutor left off the indictment on two counts of having stupid names…
No one over the age of 11 should be called “Scooter.”
And that point is just as related to national security as are the actual charges.
I can’t believe people think I’m the one making this into something it isn’t… what a farce. You should hear what is being said out in the real world or in the real world media – it would be much more upsetting to you than the stuff I say.
Trying to squelch and dicredit someone who is dissenting against the Bush march to war is exactly what this all points to. To try to say otherwise is pure head-in-the-sand-ism.
Here is a Yahoo news item on the indictments…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051028/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_investigation
The grand jury indictment charged Libby, 55, with one count of obstruction of justice, two of perjury and two false statement counts. If convicted on all five, he could face as much as 30 years in prison and $1.25 million in fines.
The first thing that comes to mind for me is that this is very serious. Libby is now facing things that have jumped way outside the realm of the merely political. I’m not joking when I say that I hope he has a “get out of jail free” card.
The important part, to me, is digging out the truth of the matter, not throwing this guy behind bars forever. The truth does trump the other issues involved though.
So, to those who have been telling me there is nothing to talk about, that this is all pure conjecture, I’ll accept your apology any time. Actually, I don’t want it, but since Sassy is such a retard I just had to say it.
By the way, apparently the issue with Rove is not over, though indictments were not issued today. That seems somewhat strange, but it does bode ill and it is always possible for new information to become available in that respect.
Funny thing about the 20-some-odd pages of the indictments - Outing Plame is not even mentioned.
But to appease the thinktards:
There must have been a crime - you just have to trust us. We have thought about this a lot, and we know that something had to have happened - we just can’t prove it. Just look at the Miers clusterfuck. If that doesn’t scream Rove and company is guilty of outing Plame - I don;t know what does.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Wow. Perjury. Lying under oath.
Now why were the conservatives all pissed off at Clinton again?
Clinton himself lied under oath. He was indicted. The Commander In Chief - indicted for perjury.
All you have to crow about here is the Veep’s advisor.
Hardly the same thing.
But I don’t think you hear anyone saying to let him off the hook. If Libby is actually guilty of a crime - then he should be punished. And that is way different than the Left making excuses for Clinton and his band of muderous thieves. [/quote]
Who, exactly, did Clinton murder? Was it upwards to 35,000 Iraqis and 2,000 American troops?
Oh, no. That was your guy.
Shithead.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I can’t believe people think I’m the one making this into something it isn’t… what a farce. You should hear what is being said out in the real world or in the real world media – it would be much more upsetting to you than the stuff I say.
Trying to squelch and dicredit someone who is dissenting against the Bush march to war is exactly what this all points to. To try to say otherwise is pure head-in-the-sand-ism.
Here is a Yahoo news item on the indictments…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051028/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_investigation
The grand jury indictment charged Libby, 55, with one count of obstruction of justice, two of perjury and two false statement counts. If convicted on all five, he could face as much as 30 years in prison and $1.25 million in fines.
The first thing that comes to mind for me is that this is very serious. Libby is now facing things that have jumped way outside the realm of the merely political. I’m not joking when I say that I hope he has a “get out of jail free” card.
The important part, to me, is digging out the truth of the matter, not throwing this guy behind bars forever. The truth does trump the other issues involved though.
So, to those who have been telling me there is nothing to talk about, that this is all pure conjecture, I’ll accept your apology any time. Actually, I don’t want it, but since Sassy is such a retard I just had to say it.
By the way, apparently the issue with Rove is not over, though indictments were not issued today. That seems somewhat strange, but it does bode ill and it is always possible for new information to become available in that respect.[/quote]
Seeing as I’m the retard and that must mean you’re the smart one let’s discuss to make sure I have this right.
??Who/what exactly is the ‘real word media’ that I/we are not hearing??
Anyway–you start a crap thread. I say it’s crap and that nothing more will come out of it except side charges. You call me a cheerleader. I reaffirm that this case will go nowhere. No laws have been broken. You call me a cheerleader. You find out there are no indictments related to your thread/the alleged crime, then insist that this only proves that they can not be proven, not that it didn’t happen. You accuse all those that opposed yuo of spinning. I claimed you to be the biggest spinner. Ancillary charges are filed and you claim victory and call everyone else an idiot if they can’t see the real issue here.
Did I get it all.
Do you really think he needs a get out of jail free card? Do you really think this qualifies as spending life behind bars serious?
You’re looking for the truth!!!Yah–good one.
And you still won’t concede Rove, you’ll throw out one last maybe/possibility for the rest of us to ponder.
You’re right, what could I have been thinking
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Funny thing about the 20-some-odd pages of the indictments - Outing Plame is not even mentioned.
But to appease the thinktards:
There must have been a crime - you just have to trust us. We have thought about this a lot, and we know that something had to have happened - we just can’t prove it. Just look at the Miers clusterfuck. If that doesn’t scream Rove and company is guilty of outing Plame - I don;t know what does. [/quote]
dude, i read a lot of your posts, and for someone who pretends to have great knowledge, you resort to name calling and insults more than anyone ive seen. “thinktards”, what is that, a name for somebody who doesnt always agree with your bullshit?
Let me ask you a simple question: If this was a democrat in trouble, what would you be saying? If he wasnt close to that criminal cheney what would you be saying? i guess you could go a step further and ask: if it was a democrat or another party in office would you agree with the war effort? Do you have a mind of your own? Or is it just as simple as being a fucking sheep and always “follow the leader”?(Bush, republican) even if you know deep down theyre wrong?
i guess im saying, step outside your preconcieved beliefs and afilliations, and look at a situation with an outsiders perspective so to speak. I had a history teacher who once told us that you could make people belive anything and turn them into anything. The more i read these political boards, the more i know he was right:(
You can spin this all you want.
The fact of the matter is that LYING to investigators about actions involving national security, during an investigations into said actions, is very troubling.
I doubt anyone truly believes that these indictments came about simply because Libby was unsure of a few facts and misspoke himself.
No, the problem here, and the right is quick to grasp it, is that a huge spotlight is being shined into some uncomfortable areas right now. So, the usual tactics of distract, deflect and discredit are being brought to bear.
Let’s compare this to Clinton, and point out how Clinton was in a higher position when he did it.
Let’s compare the indictments to the possible range available and point out it could have been even more damning.
Let’s suggest that because people aren’t indicted it proves they must be innocent. It doesn’t do much of anything, and I’m not claiming to know what did or didn’t happen, but I do have my opinion as does everyone else.
As many people have previously claimed, prior to the whole issue of indictments due to this investigation, the Bush administration appears to have had a war against Iraq in mind and went looking for ways to justify it.
The ongoing investigations and any trials into this issue are going to shine a very hot light onto the actions of the administration in this regard.
So, of course I’m talking about things which are at the very least months away, but gems of information are going to drop out of this affair like wax off of a slowly burning candle.
Every single negative truth that comes out is going to burn the republican party, at all levels, especially because of their repeated claims of being the ethical party, the one you can trust to do the right thing as compared to the democrats.
This is why republicans are foaming at the mouth like impotent fire distinguishers trying to find any way to put out the awful blaze afire due to all the recently mishandled crises.
The Bush administration may have been doing bad things to innocent little girl America…
Hey little girl is your daddy home
Did he go away and leave you all alone
I got a bad desire
I’m on fire
Tell me now baby is he good to you
Can he do to you the things that I do
I can take you higher
I’m on fire
Sometimes it’s like someone took a knife baby
edgy and dull and cut a six-inch valley
through the middle of my soul
At night I wake up with the sheets soaking wet
and a freight train running through the
middle of my head
Only you can cool my desire
I’m on fire
[If this doesn’t set the foamers off, I don’t know what will]