WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A federal jury Tuesday found I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, guilty on four of five counts in his perjury and obstruction of justice trial.

Libby was convicted of:

# obstruction of justice when he intentionally deceived a grand jury investigating the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame;

# making a false statement by intentionally lying to FBI agents about a conversation with NBC newsman Tim Russert;

# perjury when he lied in court about his conversation with Russert;

# a second count of perjury when he lied in court about conversations with other reporters.

Jurors, who deliberated for 10 days, cleared Libby of a second count of making a false statement relating to a conversation he had with writer Matt Cooper, formerly of Time magazine. (Watch a juror explain how there was sympathy for "fall guy" Libby Video)

story (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/06/cia.leak/index.html)

Nice. It's a shame he's the only fall guy, though.

bwhhahahahahahaha! How many yrs?????????????????
And no, me watches nothing about sympathy for that piece of shit!

bwhhahahahahahaha! How many yrs?????????????????
And no, me watches nothing about sympathy for that piece of shit!

"He faces up to 30 years in prison when he is sentenced June 5 but under federal sentencing guidelines is likely to face far less. Defense attorneys immediately promised to ask for a new trial or appeal the conviction."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070306/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_trial

The obligatory Soap-on-a-Rope consolation prize for Libby

http://www.middlemanmedia.com/images/eldsoap.gif

:nice:

Funny how the libs want to see Libby go to jail for lying under oath but have a million and one excuses for Billy boy or Hillary lying under oath......

Funny how the cons rush to the defense of libby when he lied under oath ... no doubt because there were no blow jobs (that we know about)

And when, exactly, did Hillary lie under oath ?

I doubt that Libby will do any time. His lawyers will delay until Bush pardons him.

Perhaps this verdict will give Pelosi the motivation to initiate impeachment proceedings against George W. Bush.

Republicans have wet dreams about that.

Funny how the cons rush to the defense of libby when he lied under oath ... no doubt because there were no blow jobs (that we know about)

And when, exactly, did Hillary lie under oath ?

Funny how you forgot about her law firm billing record when she claimed she couldnt find them......

show me where I am defending anyone......all I said was that you libs are wanting someone to go to jail for something someone in your party was also found guilty of then go on to make excuses for them......:nice:

Fall guy for what? He fell on a sword of his own. His crime was one of his own making.

all I said was that you libs are wanting someone to go to jail for something someone in your party was also found guilty of then go on to make excuses for them......:nice:

Thank god skytrooper isnt a judge.

Funny how you forgot about her law firm billing record when she claimed she couldnt find them......

show me where I am defending anyone......all I said was that you libs are wanting someone to go to jail for something someone in your party was also found guilty of then go on to make excuses for them......:nice:

When was Hillary found guilty ?

Maybe its just me, but it sure seems like Bush's inner circle has engaged in the most corruption and serious official deceit of any administration since Reagan's

When was Hillary found guilty ? "I'm sorry,I don't recall"

Bush's inner circle has engaged in the most corruption and serious official deceit of any administration since Reagan'sit's not like Clinton himself lied to a grand jury or that Sandy Burgler was stuffing secret documents in his shorts or something :|

"I'm sorry,I don't recall"

it's not like Clinton himself lied to a grand jury or that Sandy Burgler was stuffing secret documents in his shorts or something :|

oh ... you dont want to go there ... but if you insist



9 Bush administration officials fall under the “indicted/convicted/pled guilty” category;

13 Bush administration officials fall under the “resigned due to investigation” category;

3 Bush administration nominees “failed due to scandal.”

He has a way to go to match Reagans scorecard

14 Reagan administration era convictions in the Iran-contra scandal

2 Reagan officials convicted for illegal lobbying

16 Reagan officials convicted in Housing and Urban Development scandal

32 Total Reagan era convictions

And I'm not even counting the indictments and forced resignations

And let us not forget Reagan's testimony during Iran-contra

"I don't recall"

Perhaps this verdict will give Pelosi the motivation to initiate impeachment proceedings against George W. Bush.

It won't. This verdict represents the death rattle of a scandal. The investigation could have been wrapped up in a few weeks, because that's how long it took Fitz to find the original leaker, Armitage, and to determine that a crime didn't happen. That's pretty poor motivation. Oh, I'm sure they'll try to milk this for all they can get, but it's basically over.

Funny how the libs want to see Libby go to jail for lying under oath but have a million and one excuses for Billy boy or Hillary lying under oath......

skytrooper, you still haven't figured it out? :confused: Libby's case was about a nat'l security investigation, not about an extramarital affair (which although Clinton perjured himself about, it still is his personal business!).

I want to know why no one was charged with blowing an agent's cover or divulging classified information (especially to people not authorized to receive it). One of the jurors speaking on behalf of all of them said this morning on GMA that Libby appeared to be a fall guy. Pat Fitzgerald got some splainin' to do.

veracity says: Case Open! But, this critic could be all wrong. :shrug:

oh ... you dont want to go there ... but if you insist I do want to go there

link (http://prorev.com/legacy.htm)
- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation - Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions (no controlling legal authority...lol)
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

STARR-RAY INVESTIGATION

- Number of Starr-Ray investigation convictions or guilty pleas (including one governor, one associate attorney general and two Clinton business partners): 14
- Number of Clinton Cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 5
- Number of Reagan cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 4
- Number of top officials jailed in the Teapot Dome Scandal: 3

CLINTON MACHINE CRIMES
FOR WHICH CONVICTIONS
HAVE BEEN OBTAINED

Drug trafficking (3), racketeering, extortion, bribery (4), tax evasion, kickbacks, embezzlement (2), fraud (12), conspiracy (5), fraudulent loans, illegal gifts (1), illegal campaign contributions (5), money laundering (6), perjury, obstruction of justice.


"I don't recall"
I really loved this one:

Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court or before Congress said that they didn't remember, didn't know, or something similar.

Bill Kennedy 116
Harold Ickes 148
Ricki Seidman 160
Bruce Lindsey 161
Bill Burton 191
Mark Gearan 221
Mack McLarty 233
Neil Egglseston 250
Hillary Clinton 250
John Podesta 264
Jennifer O'Connor 343
Dwight Holton 348
Patsy Thomasson 420
Jeff Eller 697

Lets not forget, scooter was convicted of having a bad memory so lets examine Bill's

FROM THE WASHINGTON TIMES: In the portions of President Clinton's Jan. 17 deposition that have been made public in the Paula Jones case, his memory failed him 267 times. This is a list of his answers and how many times he gave each one.

I don't remember - 71
I don't know - 62
I'm not sure - 17
I have no idea - 10
I don't believe so - 9
I don't recall - 8
I don't think so - 8
I don't have any specific recollection - 6
I have no recollection - 4
Not to my knowledge - 4
I just don't remember - 4
I don't believe - 4
I have no specific recollection - 3
I might have - 3
I don't have any recollection of that - 2 I don't have a specific memory - 2
I don't have any memory of that - 2
I just can't say - 2
I have no direct knowledge of that - 2
I don't have any idea - 2
Not that I recall - 2
I don't believe I did - 2
I can't remember - 2
I can't say - 2
I do not remember doing so - 2
Not that I remember - 2
I'm not aware - 1
I honestly don't know - 1
I don't believe that I did - 1
I'm fairly sure - 1
I have no other recollection - 1
I'm not positive - 1
I certainly don't think so - 1
I don't really remember - 1
I would have no way of remembering that - 1
That's what I believe happened - 1
To my knowledge, no - 1
To the best of my knowledge - 1
To the best of my memory - 1
I honestly don't recall - 1
I honestly don't remember - 1
That's all I know - 1
I don't have an independent recollection of that - 1
I don't actually have an independent memory of that - 1
As far as I know - 1
I don't believe I ever did that - 1
That's all I know about that - 1
I'm just not sure - 1
Nothing that I remember - 1
I simply don't know - 1
I would have no idea - 1
I don't know anything about that - 1
I don't have any direct knowledge of that - 1
I just don't know - 1
I really don't know - 1
I can't deny that, I just -- I have no memory of that at all - 1




I went there

I want to know why no one was charged with blowing an agent's cover or divulging classified information (especially to people not authorized to receive it).


Well, it looks like Media Matters answered my question:

Libby's guilty verdict: Media myths and falsehoods to watch for

...

No underlying crime was committed.

Since a federal grand jury indicted Libby in October 2005, numerous media figures have stated that the nature of the charges against him prove that special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's investigation of the CIA leak case found that no underlying crime had been committed. But this assertion ignores Fitzgerald's explanation that Libby's obstructions prevented him -- and the grand jury -- from determining whether the alleged leak violated federal law.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200703060008

Well, it looks like Media Matters answered my question:

Poor Fitz. He had the leaker within a few weeks of starting the investigation *cough* witch hunt *cough*, but it wasn't his assigned target. So now he has to provide cover for himself.

It won't. This verdict represents the death rattle of a scandal. The investigation could have been wrapped up in a few weeks, because that's how long it took Fitz to find the original leaker, Armitage, and to determine that a crime didn't happen. That's pretty poor motivation. Oh, I'm sure they'll try to milk this for all they can get, but it's basically over.


Why don't you think outing an undercover CIA agent is a serious crime, when it is?

Is it because a Republican administration did it? Well of course it is!

Funny how the libs want to see Libby go to jail for lying under oath but have a million and one excuses for Billy boy or Hillary lying under oath......

I don't want to see Libby go to jail for lying under oath. Then again, I'm only part liberal. I would like to see every person responsible for outing Mrs. Wilson executed in a manner consistent with past precedents for persons having committed high treason after a fair and full trial.

I don't want to see Libby go to jail for lying under oath. Then again, I'm only part liberal. I would like to see every person responsible for outing Mrs. Wilson executed in a manner consistent with past precedents for persons having committed high treason after a fair and full trial.

Libby wouldn't have done disclosed who Valerie Wilson was unless he had the blessings of his boss, VP Dick Cheney. Yep, that's my opinion, but it's also the opinion of the jurors who believe that Libby appears to be a fall guy.


edit:

^ Let me clarify: The jury's opinion and my opinion agreeing that Libby seems to be the fall guy. I have not heard or read that any juror contended that Cheney gave Libby the go-ahead to out Valerie.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/_images/splash/insidious_traitors.mov


Hear papa Bush say it himself...

Why don't you think outing an undercover CIA agent is a serious crime, when it is?

Of course it's a serious crime. The problem is that Plame wasn't an undercover CIA agent at the time she was "outed". Even Fitzgerald and that ass Joe Wilson himself have stated so. That's why nobody was prosecuted for "outing" Plame.


Is it because a Republican administration did it? Well of course it is!

See explanation above.

Why do lefties like yourself have to intentionally lie about what Plame's position was at the CIA?

I've also noticed that in recent years the liberal media has outed numerous classified programs and even real agents yet none of this has caused the crazed leftists any loss of sleep.
Why is that?
The answer is obvious. You can't tie Bush to all these other outings which proves you and the other kook lefties outrage is simply feigned and just another venue for you to attack Bush.

Maybe its just me, but it sure seems like Bush's inner circle has engaged in the most corruption and serious official deceit of any administration since Reagan's
In fact Scooter Libby is the highest ranking offical of any presidental admininstration convicted of any crime since North and Secord who [of course]served in the Reagan Adminstration.

In fact Scooter Libby is the highest ranking offical of any presidental admininstration convicted of any crime since North and Secord who [of course]served in the Reagan Adminstration.


Bill Clinton admitted to making false statements to a grand jury. That counts.

I think Libby should go to jail now,so that if Bush is going to pardon Libby he would have to do before the election and not wait until after the election like his sleazy daddy did in pardoning North and Secord.

If Bush pardons Libby before the election ,I think that will secure that no Republican will be elected president for at least ten years.

Bill Clinton admitted to making false statements to a grand jury. That counts.
Bill Clinton was not convicted of any crime.

Bill Clinton was not convicted of any crime.


Yeah, he just admitted them first in a deal to avoid being charged, tried, and convicted.

Why don't you think outing an undercover CIA agent is a serious crime, when it is?

Is it because a Republican administration did it? Well of course it is!

Doing that is indeed a serious crime. In this case, Fitz had the perp within weeks of starting the investigation. He failed, however, to indict that perp for doing the deed. When you have a prosecutor who has all the evidence he needs to prove a certain person performed a certain action, yet decides not to indict that person, the only conclusion is that, in the prosecutor's legal opinion (despite what the hordes of lesser authorities think) the action did not constitute a crime. Otherwise, Armitage would be in shackles today.

I think Libby should go to jail now,so that if Bush is going to pardon Libby he would have to do before the election and not wait until after the election like his sleazy daddy did in pardoning North and Secord.

If Bush pardons Libby before the election ,I think that will secure that no Republican will be elected president for at least ten years.

So, in other words, your opinion of what should happen to Libby is based on its potential impact on George Bush, and not on the particulars of Libby's case? That has been the thrust of this investigation from the beginning. The false outrage had nothing to do with protecting Valerie Plame, and everything to do with "getting" Rove, Cheney, or Bush. :nonono:

Yeah, he just admitted them first in a deal to avoid being charged, tried, and convicted.

Sounds like a smart thing to do imo.

So, in other words, your opinion of what should happen to Libby is based on its potential impact on George Bush, and not on the particulars of Libby's case? That has been the thrust of this investigation from the beginning. The false outrage had nothing to do with protecting Valerie Plame, and everything to do with "getting" Rove, Cheney, or Bush. :nonono:
First off,Libby put himself in this mess,no one else did.

Second,there might be a vendetta involved : Libby was the lawyer for Marc Rich and was involved in Clinton's pardoning Rich,Fitzgerald was involved in the Justice Deaprtment's case on Rich and might be getting some payback.

But it's you conservatives who whined the most about the Rich pardon so I'd think you'd approve in that sense.:shrug:

Third,Libby was guilty,no amount of your moral relativsm is going to change that fact.

Fourth, a jury saw all the evidence and had their legal duties read to them,you didn't.

Fifth,I only said that Libby should go to jail right away so that Bush can't pardon Libby after the election was over like his sleazy daddy did with North and Secord.

What's wrong with that?

It would seem to me that if you have the courage of your convictons you'd agree with me that if Libby is going to be pardoned he should be pardoned before the election.

Of course,it's possible you don't have the courage of your convictions and only want what will help Republicans get elected regardless of it being right or wrong,or moral or immoral and to hell with everything else.

But you are not like that.....are you?

First off,Libby put himself in this mess,no one else did.

Second,there might be a vendetta involved : Libby was the lawyer for Marc Rich and was involved in Clinton's pardoning Rich,Fitzgerald was involved in the Justice Deaprtment's case on Rich and might be getting some payback.

But it's you conservatives who whined the most about the Rich pardon so I'd think you'd approve in that sense.:shrug:


Payback through the legal system is wrong. Clinton was wrong to target his enemies with tax audits, and it's wrong to do it, simple as that.


Third,Libby was guilty,no amount of your moral relativsm is going to change that fact.

Fourth, a jury saw all the evidence and had their legal duties read to them,you didn't.


I don't think I have anywhere said he wasn't. Feel free to check it out for yourself.


Fifth,I only said that Libby should go to jail right away so that Bush can't pardon Libby after the election was over like his sleazy daddy did with North and Secord.

What's wrong with that?

It would seem to me that if you have the courage of your convictons you'd agree with me that if Libby is going to be pardoned he should be pardoned before the election.

Of course,it's possible you don't have the courage of your convictions and only want what will help Republicans get elected regardless of it being right or wrong,or moral or immoral and to hell with everything else.

But you are not like that.....are you?

I haven't decided yet whether Libby should be pardoned at all. I think presidential pardons should be reserved for egregious cases of injustice, not payoffs for cronies, like what Clinton did. If Libby really did lie under oath, he should take whatever punishment is appropriate. I think it to be wrong that he should serve jail time when Bill Clinton, who was impeached for the same thing, merely lost his law license, but that's the way it works. That being said, I don't like presidents pardoning people at the last minute. They have the perogative to do so, however.

he's been found guilty in a court of law. that means he lied under oath. not sure where you are getting the "if he did", hadit.

he's been found guilty in a court of law. that means he lied under oath. not sure where you are getting the "if he did", hadit.


It's all part of their agenda to pretend the R's can do no wrong..

I hope Libby receives the maximum penalty, and when the hell is Cheney, Bush, and Rove going to be tried for their role is this act of treason?

And why didn't Fitzgerald bring charges against them? It looks like he's nothing but a player in their game...:nonono:

it's damage control to appease the outraged majority is all. at a real level regarding government misconduct, they are all in it together (including the dems) and common knowledge that even the "fall guy" libby won't spend one minute in jail.

Sounds like a smart thing to do imo.

The smart thing is not to violate the law.
The larger point is that leftists claim to be on some moral crusade against law breaking and corruption yet they defend the most corrupt administration in US history and are lining up to vote for the other half of that administration again.

It's all part of their agenda to pretend the R's can do no wrong..

I hope Libby receives the maximum penalty, and when the hell is Cheney, Bush, and Rove going to be tried for their role is this act of treason?

And why didn't Fitzgerald bring charges against them? It looks like he's nothing but a player in their game...:nonono:

When are you guys going to get it through your heads? Fitz knew who the leaker was within a few weeks of starting this whole witch hunt. It was Armitage, and Fitz decided not to charge him. By continuing the investigation the way he did, and by your statement above, we can only conclude that this whole thing was NEVER about Valerie Plame, and it was NEVER about who may or may not have "outed" her. It was from the very beginning ONLY about trying to "get" Rove, Cheney, or Bush. It was political from the get go, and guess what, it's also over. Rove, Cheney, and Bush are not targets any more. Fitz was just a player in the game, he was sent to get Cheney, and failed.

When are you guys going to get it through your heads? Fitz knew who the leaker was within a few weeks of starting this whole witch hunt. It was Armitage, and Fitz decided not to charge him. By continuing the investigation the way he did, and by your statement above, we can only conclude that this whole thing was NEVER about Valerie Plame, and it was NEVER about who may or may not have "outed" her. It was from the very beginning ONLY about trying to "get" Rove, Cheney, or Bush. It was political from the get go, and guess what, it's also over. Rove, Cheney, and Bush are not targets any more. Fitz was just a player in the game, he was sent to get Cheney, and failed.

Doesn't change the fact that Libby lied under oath, something that most of you spent years lashing out at Clinton for.

But, then, it's only bad when other people do it, right?

The smart thing is not to violate the law.


Then I guess Libby shouldn't have lied under oath.

he's been found guilty in a court of law. that means he lied under oath. not sure where you are getting the "if he did", hadit.

I'm talking in the context of a pardon. You can be convicted wrongly, and in this case it seems to come down to a difference of opinion. Libby claims he didn't remember specific details and the prosecution says he lied about them. The jury agreed with the prosecution in this case. Juries can be wrong, as we saw with the infamous OJ trial. But until proven otherwise, Libby is guilty of lying under oath and obstructing justice.

Doesn't change the fact that Libby lied under oath, something that most of you spent years lashing out at Clinton for.

But, then, it's only bad when other people do it, right?


Boo, you're a smart person, and I would expect you to be able to read what I've written about Libby. Please do so before you accuse me of partisan hypocrisy. Nowhere have I urged leniency for him. Since you brought up Clinton, I seem to remember being told over and over again that his trial and impeachment wasn't about perjury or obstruction of justice, but was only a political witch hunt. Do you really want to open that can of worms?

I'm talking in the context of a pardon. You can be convicted wrongly, and in this case it seems to come down to a difference of opinion. Libby claims he didn't remember specific details and the prosecution says he lied about them. The jury agreed with the prosecution in this case. Juries can be wrong, as we saw with the infamous OJ trial. But until proven otherwise, Libby is guilty of lying under oath and obstructing justice.


More specifically, Libby was also convicted of lying to the FBI. Also, the obstruction of justice charge that he was convicted of is very significant, because in my estimation it implies that Libby prevented Fitzgerald or the grand jury from finding out what actually occurred, and how. Libby's conviction is similar to Martha Stewart's, who like Libby was not convicted of the overlying accusation against her (insider trading), but of obstructing justice and making false statements.

The smart thing is not to violate the law.
The larger point is that leftists claim to be on some moral crusade against law breaking and corruption yet they defend the most corrupt administration in US history and are lining up to vote for the other half of that administration again.

Really? Who's running for prez in the Bush Admin in '08?

The smart thing is not to violate the law.
The larger point is that leftists claim to be on some moral crusade against law breaking and corruption yet they defend the most corrupt administration in US history and are lining up to vote for the other half of that administration again.

How many 10's of billions of dollars were handed to Al Gore's company in no-bid contracts during Clinton's administration? How many "slam-dunk" pieces of evidence used to coerce the Congress to hand over power to the Executive branch were found to be forged, mis-stated, or made up during Clinton's administration?
I do enjoy how the answer for every single corrupt thing done in Washington is "well we hate Clinton." The issue here is Libby and the current administration and what to do about the incredible amount of damage that is done when someone sacrifices our intelligence services for political hackery. And Clinton isn't involved at all.

Really? Who's running for prez in the Bush Admin in '08?

That would be a big, fat, NO ONE. I think you were confused because the previous admin's corruption eclipsed that of the present. Don't worry, many others are likewise confused.

When are you guys going to get it through your heads? Fitz knew who the leaker was within a few weeks of starting this whole witch hunt. It was Armitage, and Fitz decided not to charge him. By continuing the investigation the way he did, and by your statement above, we can only conclude that this whole thing was NEVER about Valerie Plame, and it was NEVER about who may or may not have "outed" her. It was from the very beginning ONLY about trying to "get" Rove, Cheney, or Bush. It was political from the get go, and guess what, it's also over. Rove, Cheney, and Bush are not targets any more. Fitz was just a player in the game, he was sent to get Cheney, and failed.

Exactly.

They'll never get it because they are propogating a lie. They know this or they're deluding themselves.


Then I guess Libby shouldn't have lied under oath.

Indeed. What is at issue is whether he intentionally did so, you know, like Clinton intentionally did.


Really? Who's running for prez in the Bush Admin in '08?

Oh, I'm sorry. You didn't understand because you don't know your history.
I was speaking about the Clinton administration.
I shouldn't assume that you are informed.


How many 10's of billions of dollars were handed to Al Gore's company in no-bid contracts during Clinton's administration?

Hmm. Are you speaking of the Elk Hills-Occidental Petroleum scandal?


Additionally, in case you weren't aware, no bid contracts were handed out during Clintons term as well, to HALLIBURTON.

How many "slam-dunk" pieces of evidence used to coerce the Congress to hand over power to the Executive branch were found to be forged, mis-stated, or made up during Clinton's administration?

I don't know. How many? Regardless, the list of Clinton scandals is well known and long. What's astounding is that you either give them a pass for their corruption or you are in denial over it.


I do enjoy how the answer for every single corrupt thing done in Washington is "well we hate Clinton."

Yeah yeah yeah......Like how Corporate Avenger and his friends turn every thread into a Bush/Iraq thread?

The issue here is Libby and the current administration and what to do about the incredible amount of damage that is done when someone sacrifices our intelligence services for political hackery.

Unfortunately for you and the other leftists here, despite all the huffing and puffing from the left no damage has been done. No crime was committed.

On the contrary, there have been numerous damaging leaks to our national security about various programs, fronts, and real agents working and the left is completely silent about it.....As a matter of fact and most hilarious, they support these illegal leaks in some cases.


And Clinton isn't involved at all.

Nobody argued that he was.

Indeed. What is at issue is whether he intentionally did so, you know, like Clinton intentionally did.


He got his day in court -- he was afforded Due Process -- and he was found guilty. Why are you opposed to his getting Due Process?