Libby indicted on Perjury, mking a false statement and Obstruction of justice.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I think that barring any new relevatory evidence, the investigation is probably over.

My two cents.

Stop spinning you conservative HACK!  

[J. J.]

Quit defending these crooks unless you want to be considered a crook too.

Who's defending anybody?  Oh, yes, Fitzgerald, when he said, "innocent until proven guilty."

Now, let's see, I've expressed admiration for Fitzgerald, support for the investigation, and have said that I feel perjury is a serious crime.  How is that defending anyone (other than Fitzgerald)?  Do you think Fitzgerald is one of the "crooks?"

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The thing is Libby is obstructing justice, otherwise there'd be a lot more charges.

Did the thought ever cross your mind that in order to prove obstruction of justice, Fitz would have to know what information Libby was trying to keep out of sight?  So if Fitz knows the info was actually incriminating, then why hasn't Fitz brought charges?

Remember, Fitz had to prove that Libby intentionally leaked Plame's identity with the intention of destroying her cover.  That is extremely hard to prove.  And in this case, it is obvious Libby leaked her name for other intentions.

Seems to me Libby got caught lying to protect information that was politically incriminating but not criminally incriminating, and in the process, committed several felonies.  

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

jfern,

here is an article which was pubished while I was responding to you.  Everyone in the article shares my opinion, go argue with them:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/28/D8DH7S7G9.html

Charges Don't Directly Address CIA Leak
Oct 28 3:37 PM US/Eastern

By GINA HOLLAND
Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON


Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's first charges in the White House leak case don't get to the heart of his two-year probe: the leak.

The indictment of vice presidential adviser I. Lewis "Scooter' Libby Jr. is built on charges of obstruction of justice, making false statements and perjury _ and it will rest primarily on testimony from a handful of Washington reporters.

"In some ways it seems less satisfying," said Michael Cahill, a Brooklyn Law School professor, adding that false statements might have impeded the probe into whether top Bush administration officials knowingly revealed the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame.

Steven Reich, a New York attorney and former senior associate counsel to President Bill Clinton, said Fitzgerald has his reasons for not charging anyone with the leak. "Either he thought there was not a crime, or he thought he couldn't prove it. No one will know which but him," he said.

It may have been smart strategy, however, for the prosecutor to go with safer charges, considering the stakes in investigating the highest levels of the White House.

"Perjury and false statement can be remarkably easy to prove," said Andrew D. Levy, a criminal defense lawyer in Baltimore who teaches at the University of Maryland. "So often it's the cover-up that ensnares people."

Levy said the indictment is "very narrow, very focused: it follows, very provable."

The indictment alleges that Libby lied about his conversations with reporters. Witnesses at the trial will likely include Tim Russert of NBC News, Matt Cooper of Time Magazine and New York Times reporter Judith Miller, all of whom testified before the grand jury that returned Friday's indictment.

Erwin Chemerinsky, a Duke Law School professor, said it is not unusual for criminal probes to change their focus.

"What brought down the Nixon administration wasn't the burglary itself, but the cover-up of it," Chemerinsky said, adding that what caused Clinton's impeachment "wasn't that he had an affair with Monica Lewinsky but he lied about it."

The charges in the Friday indictment are similar to the ones used in Martha Stewart's criminal case. She was convicted last year for obstructing justice and lying about why she sold ImClone Systems stock, just before a negative government decision on an ImClone drug. She served a five-month prison term followed by home confinement.

"Very rarely do obstruction of justice cases and perjury cases come as neatly tied as Martha Stewart's ... it is by no means a slam dunk," said Viet Dinh, a law professor at Georgetown University and former Justice Department lawyer in the Bush administration.

The prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Libby "knowingly and willfully" made false statements and lied to the grand jury. He could claim that any misstatements were not intentional.

"These are sophisticated people," Mark A. Godsey, a University of Cincinnati law professor, said of the top White House advisers. "Playing dumb, the jury might not buy that. At the same time they're extremely busy. Are they in the loop or not in the loop?"

Libby, a Columbia University law school graduate, has not been in trouble before.

"Although it always helps a criminal defendant not to have a criminal record, a D.C. jury will be open to the idea that politicians are willing to lie," said Gabriel J. Chin, a criminal law professor at the University of Arizona.

[Blue Rectangle]

Fitzgerald said that the reason he wasn't able to charge Libby with actual leaking was that Libby obstructed justice.

This point might be lost on the desperate Bush adminstration apoligists. You can stop defending these crooks already.

So in other words, Fitzgerald has no evidence against Libby.  This is why Cooper and Miller were cleared by Rove and Libby to testify.  There's no evidence of a crime.

When you can't get a conviction without the cooperation of the accused, you have no case.

[Gabu]

I have a radical idea: why don't we sit back, relax, and see what happens?

[A18]

I have a radical idea: why don't we sit back, relax, and see what happens?

What an absurd thought. Clearly baseless speculation is the only rational course.

[Smash255]

Its not over.  It is possiblle nmore indictments could come, their are still questions involving what Cheney's involvment was (if any) While the bulk of the work is done in the investigation & basically seems like loose ends need to be tied up, sometimes big things can come from those loose ends.  Also it is possible that this could held to a jury and if that happens everything will come out again, and more information will come out.  It is a good day as far as Rove is concerned, but it certaintly is not over.

[Smash255]

Just heard on CNN according to a Wash Post article that Fitzgerald was about to bring charges on Rove untill Rove came up with documents at the last minute.  As a result Fitzgerald put the indicment to Rove on pause, in order to review those documents.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Just heard on CNN according to a Wash Post article that Fitzgerald was about to bring charges on Rove untill Rove came up with documents at the last minute.  As a result Fitzgerald put the indicment to Rove on pause, in order to review those documents.

Yes, even Rove's lawyer admits that Rove is still under investigation.

[Smash255]

Just heard on CNN according to a Wash Post article that Fitzgerald was about to bring charges on Rove untill Rove came up with documents at the last minute.  As a result Fitzgerald put the indicment to Rove on pause, in order to review those documents.

Yes, even Rove's lawyer admits that Rove is still under investigation.

Yup, what we should do is wait for the investigation to be finished and wait for any possible trial (Libby will more than likley try tp plead out, but I'm not so sure Fitzgerald will accept a plea to a lesser charge espeecially if his evidence is quote strong)

[ATFFL]

Just heard on CNN according to a Wash Post article that Fitzgerald was about to bring charges on Rove untill Rove came up with documents at the last minute.  As a result Fitzgerald put the indicment to Rove on pause, in order to review those documents.

Yes, even Rove's lawyer admits that Rove is still under investigation.

Yup, what we should do is wait for the investigation to be finished and wait for any possible trial (Libby will more than likley try tp plead out, but I'm not so sure Fitzgerald will accept a plea to a lesser charge espeecially if his evidence is quote strong)

Getting another indictment will not be as easy.  Fitzgerald will have to empanel a new grand jury and present them the full evidence relying on either recalling Rove and other witnesses or reading the transcripts from the first trial into the record.

This is definitely possible.  However, this, combined with some of his statements, I think any further indictments are likely to follow information coming out in a trial than with further investigation.

[Sam Spade]

Just heard on CNN according to a Wash Post article that Fitzgerald was about to bring charges on Rove untill Rove came up with documents at the last minute.  As a result Fitzgerald put the indicment to Rove on pause, in order to review those documents.

Yes, even Rove's lawyer admits that Rove is still under investigation.

Yup, what we should do is wait for the investigation to be finished and wait for any possible trial (Libby will more than likley try tp plead out, but I'm not so sure Fitzgerald will accept a plea to a lesser charge espeecially if his evidence is quote strong)

Getting another indictment will not be as easy.  Fitzgerald will have to empanel a new grand jury and present them the full evidence relying on either recalling Rove and other witnesses or reading the transcripts from the first trial into the record.

This is definitely possible.  However, this, combined with some of his statements, I think any further indictments are likely to follow information coming out in a trial than with further investigation.

I tend to agree with this analysis.

[Smash255]

Just heard on CNN according to a Wash Post article that Fitzgerald was about to bring charges on Rove untill Rove came up with documents at the last minute.  As a result Fitzgerald put the indicment to Rove on pause, in order to review those documents.

Yes, even Rove's lawyer admits that Rove is still under investigation.

Yup, what we should do is wait for the investigation to be finished and wait for any possible trial (Libby will more than likley try tp plead out, but I'm not so sure Fitzgerald will accept a plea to a lesser charge espeecially if his evidence is quote strong)

Getting another indictment will not be as easy.  Fitzgerald will have to empanel a new grand jury and present them the full evidence relying on either recalling Rove and other witnesses or reading the transcripts from the first trial into the record.

This is definitely possible.  However, this, combined with some of his statements, I think any further indictments are likely to follow information coming out in a trial than with further investigation.

I agree that it will be more likely to see addiotional indictments through a trial then during the next few weeks, howeevr it does remain possible that we could see more in the next few weeks.  Basically atr this point he has to tie uyp a few loose ends and the bulk of the investigation is over.  The loose ends could turn up a key piece of evidence.  Also it is possible that the  grand jury has already voted on other indictments, but they are not released yet for one to finish up the paper work involved in the indictment or to go over any last minute documents that he may have received.  Now neither of the last two are all that likely, but we simply don't know until Fitzgerald says the investigation is over.  And then as you said its not really over depending on what comes out of a trial if it indeed goes that far.

At this point I think its not going to be what most Democrats want to see in it relating directly to the release of a CIA agent (although passing on classified information is still a possibility), but its not going to be what the Republicans want either (with this being it).  I feel more charges are going to come that will be related to the coverup of the leak.  Just my opinon, but I feel this isn;t over.

[J. J.]

There are real problems with further indictments.  All of the ones today related to Libby's testimony and interviews with investigators, not the actions Libby took as Chief of Staff. 

So far, none of the governmental actions have been found to be illegal and Rove's comments to reporters came after Libby had talked to them.  It's a tough case to make. 

[Smash255]

There are real problems with further indictments.  All of the ones today related to Libby's testimony and interviews with investigators, not the actions Libby took as Chief of Staff. 

So far, none of the governmental actions have been found to be illegal and Rove's comments to reporters came after Libby had talked to them.  It's a tough case to make. 

More could come out in a trial.  One reason why their might not have been the evidence at this point to charge Libby in regards to the actual leak could be ibecause of the fact Libby lied about the whole situation, more evidence probably comes out in the trial (if it goes that far) and due to completley differnet charges double jeopardy I believe doesn't apply.  It also leaves the Novak situation in the air.  Unless I am mistaken I believe Rove was the initial source for Novak and Libby was the confirmation source

[J. J.]

There are real problems with further indictments.  All of the ones today related to Libby's testimony and interviews with investigators, not the actions Libby took as Chief of Staff. 

So far, none of the governmental actions have been found to be illegal and Rove's comments to reporters came after Libby had talked to them.  It's a tough case to make. 

More could come out in a trial.  One reason why their might not have been the evidence at this point to charge Libby in regards to the actual leak could be ibecause of the fact Libby lied about the whole situation, more evidence probably comes out in the trial (if it goes that far) and due to completley differnet charges double jeopardy I believe doesn't apply.  It also leaves the Novak situation in the air.  Unless I am mistaken I believe Rove was the initial source for Novak and Libby was the confirmation source

You are not mistaken, but Rove's answer to Novak was, "I heard that (according to Rove)."  There was another official who confirmed it (according to Novak).  The problem is, when Rove said it, Libby was already talking to Miller, possibly other reporters as well, and had been for one to weeks.

[Smash255]

There are real problems with further indictments.  All of the ones today related to Libby's testimony and interviews with investigators, not the actions Libby took as Chief of Staff. 

So far, none of the governmental actions have been found to be illegal and Rove's comments to reporters came after Libby had talked to them.  It's a tough case to make. 

More could come out in a trial.  One reason why their might not have been the evidence at this point to charge Libby in regards to the actual leak could be ibecause of the fact Libby lied about the whole situation, more evidence probably comes out in the trial (if it goes that far) and due to completley differnet charges double jeopardy I believe doesn't apply.  It also leaves the Novak situation in the air.  Unless I am mistaken I believe Rove was the initial source for Novak and Libby was the confirmation source

You are not mistaken, but Rove's answer to Novak was, "I heard that (according to Rove)."  There was another official who confirmed it (according to Novak).  The problem is, when Rove said it, Libby was already talking to Miller, possibly other reporters as well, and had been for one to weeks.

One sticking point could be  if Novak's versoin of the conversation with Rove differs from the "I heard that" recollection from Rove.  Their could be, but I don't recall any leaked information regarding Novak's recollection of his conversation with Rove.  So one thing that could be a sticking point is  what the actual conversation between Rove & Novak was (if it differs from what Rove has stated).  If the actual conversation was a bit more detailed than Rove's version he could be in hot water to that, also even confirming what could be classified information could bring up legal issues even when someone else has leaked it already as in this case (in part because it wasn't exposed at this time).  Their is just so many in's & out's in this case & while you can say some can breathe a bit easier no one is safe until not only when the investigation is over, but when any possible trial is over.

[ATFFL]

There has to be more to it than that, Smash.  There needs to be proof that Rove is the one who is wrong, and he is willfully lying, and not Novak.

If you just know one of them is wrong, but not which, it is an unprovable case.  Rove can get up there and say he is right and Novak is the one who is wrong and why isn't Novak on trial?

Libby's testimony is, apparently, contradicted by his own notes.  A much stronger case than anything against Rove at the moment.

If the documents Rove's attorney reportedly turn over on Wednesday back up his testimony, it is that much harder to prove a case against Rove.

[J. J.]

One sticking point could be  if Novak's versoin of the conversation with Rove differs from the "I heard that" recollection from Rove.  Their could be, but I don't recall any leaked information regarding Novak's recollection of his conversation with Rove.  So one thing that could be a sticking point is  what the actual conversation between Rove & Novak was (if it differs from what Rove has stated).  If the actual conversation was a bit more detailed than Rove's version he could be in hot water to that, also even confirming what could be classified information could bring up legal issues even when someone else has leaked it already as in this case (in part because it wasn't exposed at this time).  Their is just so many in's & out's in this case & while you can say some can breathe a bit easier no one is safe until not only when the investigation is over, but when any possible trial is over.

Novak testified and has claimed (publicly) prior to calling Rove, he had heard about it from another administration official.  So Rove's statements are consistent with that scenario.

Novak not only testified, but, in all probability, had notes of the Rove conversation.  If Rove lied, it should have come out with that evidence.  Because the standard was so low for indictment, some crime might have happened, it is unlikely that there is material conflict. 

Further, Novak contacted the CIA, prior to running his column, contacted the CIA, who confirmed that Plame worked there.  The links are here:

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/robertnovak/2003/07/14/160881.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair_timeline

It's going to be terribly hard to hold Rove responsible for telling Novak something that he confirmed with the CIA spokesman.  They told Novak not to use her name (and I agree that it was shabby that he did) but, if the CIA, when contacted by a nationally known journalist, doesn't say "No comment" or outright "I've never heard of any Valerie Plame or Valerie Wilson," but instead confirm it, you can't really call her employment a secret. 

[Smash255]

There has to be more to it than that, Smash.  There needs to be proof that Rove is the one who is wrong, and he is willfully lying, and not Novak.

If you just know one of them is wrong, but not which, it is an unprovable case.  Rove can get up there and say he is right and Novak is the one who is wrong and why isn't Novak on trial?

Libby's testimony is, apparently, contradicted by his own notes.  A much stronger case than anything against Rove at the moment.

If the documents Rove's attorney reportedly turn over on Wednesday back up his testimony, it is that much harder to prove a case against Rove.

I know that.  I'm just saying at this point their is quite a bit of stuff that is still secret that went on during the investigation.  Their is alot of stuff we still don't know, and for that case probably will never know.  While it does look better for Rove now, we simply don't know nearly enough to call him safe.  their is still more that can come out regarding the evidence (it is possible Fitzgerald is still reviewing evidence in regards to Rove) and if this thing ever goes to trial more can come out then involving Rove.  It's just too early to simply think Rove is out of the woods.