Full Version: Who will be indicted?
Word is that Fitzgerald will indict according to anonymous sources. Another interesting article documents the intense row between non-elected bureaucrats in various agencies and the Bush administration. There are also rumors that those who are indicted will resign so as to not embarrass the old boss. For those who are info-junkies like myself, the Washington Post has a great primer. 
Questions for debate:
1.)Who will be indicted?
2.)Should the individuals resign if they are indicted?
3.)Is there a cancer on the presidency?
4.)Are these charges making a mountain out of an anthill?
Questions for debate:
1.)Who will be indicted?
2.)Should the individuals resign if they are indicted?
3.)Is there a cancer on the presidency?
4.)Are these charges making a mountain out of an anthill?
1.)Who will be indicted?
My guess is that it will include, but may not be limited to Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.
2.)Should the individuals resign if they are indicted?
I think it would be hard to for anyone under indictment to continue without further damaging Bush.
3.)Is there a cancer on the presidency?
If you can believe John Dean’s book, Worse Than Watergate, the answer to this is a definite yes.
4.)Are these charges making a mountain out of an anthill?
I don't think so.
Some Republicans are trying to minimize whatever charges may be brought.
Take, for example, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison’s (we've got some strange ones and lame ones down here in Texas
) words on Meet the Press yesterday morning.
One of the funniest lines I’ve heard in some time was Trank Rich’ characterization of Senator Hutchenson’s words as a “Twinkie defense."
Meet the Press Transcript, 10-23-05
My guess is that it will include, but may not be limited to Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.
2.)Should the individuals resign if they are indicted?
I think it would be hard to for anyone under indictment to continue without further damaging Bush.
3.)Is there a cancer on the presidency?
If you can believe John Dean’s book, Worse Than Watergate, the answer to this is a definite yes.
4.)Are these charges making a mountain out of an anthill?
I don't think so.
Some Republicans are trying to minimize whatever charges may be brought.
Take, for example, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison’s (we've got some strange ones and lame ones down here in Texas
) words on Meet the Press yesterday morning.QUOTE
SEN. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON: Tim, you know, I think we have to remember something here. An indictment of any kind is not a guilty verdict, and I do think we have in this country the right to go to court and have due process and be innocent until proven guilty. And secondly, I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars. So they go to something that trips someone up because they said something in the first grand jury and then maybe they found new information or they forgot something and they tried to correct that in a second grand jury.
<snip>
MR. TIM RUSSERT: But the fact is perjury or obstruction of justice is a very serious crime and Republicans certainly thought so when charges were placed against Bill Clinton before the United States Senate. Senator Hutchison.
SEN. HUTCHISON: Well, there were charges against Bill Clinton besides perjury and obstruction of justice. And I'm not saying that those are not crimes. They are. But I also think that we are seeing in the judicial process—and look at Martha Stewart, for instance, where they couldn't find a crime and they indict on something that she said about something that wasn't a crime. I think that it is important, of course, that we have a perjury and an obstruction of justice crime, but I also think we are seeing grand juries and U.S. attorneys and district attorneys that go for technicalities, sort of a gotcha mentality in this country. And I think we have to weigh both sides of this issue very carefully and not just jump to conclusions, because someone is in the public arena, that they are guilty without being able to put their case forward. I really object to that.
<snip>
MR. TIM RUSSERT: But the fact is perjury or obstruction of justice is a very serious crime and Republicans certainly thought so when charges were placed against Bill Clinton before the United States Senate. Senator Hutchison.
SEN. HUTCHISON: Well, there were charges against Bill Clinton besides perjury and obstruction of justice. And I'm not saying that those are not crimes. They are. But I also think that we are seeing in the judicial process—and look at Martha Stewart, for instance, where they couldn't find a crime and they indict on something that she said about something that wasn't a crime. I think that it is important, of course, that we have a perjury and an obstruction of justice crime, but I also think we are seeing grand juries and U.S. attorneys and district attorneys that go for technicalities, sort of a gotcha mentality in this country. And I think we have to weigh both sides of this issue very carefully and not just jump to conclusions, because someone is in the public arena, that they are guilty without being able to put their case forward. I really object to that.
One of the funniest lines I’ve heard in some time was Trank Rich’ characterization of Senator Hutchenson’s words as a “Twinkie defense."
QUOTE
MR. FRANK RICH: I thought they're obviously--I thought they were a real bellwether, that they're extremely nervous. Those are the charges clearly they think are coming, and there's a story in The Washington Post by Walter Pincus today that gives further evidence that that might be the case. And so now they're trying to trivialize those crimes, and the Martha Stewart defense, which Senator Hutchison adds, to me, it's like a Twinkie defense. I don't think it's going to go very far. And it's clear to me that if there are indictments--and we don't know--this prosecutor has been leak-proof. He's sort of the un-Ken Starr in that way. It almost would have to involve these crimes because we have to assume that Robert Novak, even though he hasn't said so, told the prosecutor who talked to him long ago, and why then would that not be the end of the story if the only crime is the possible leaking of a covert CIA operative's name? There's been something else going on for months.
Meet the Press Transcript, 10-23-05
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Oct 24 2005, 09:54 PM)
Questions for debate:
1.)Who will be indicted?
2.)Should the individuals resign if they are indicted?
3.)Is there a cancer on the presidency?
4.)Are these charges making a mountain out of an anthill?
1.)Who will be indicted?
2.)Should the individuals resign if they are indicted?
3.)Is there a cancer on the presidency?
4.)Are these charges making a mountain out of an anthill?
1. Welcome to Indictment Week. My bet is that Karl Rove and Lewis "Scooter" Libby will be invited to spend the next year or so of their miserable lives in federal court and spending thousands of dollars to keep their flabby butts out of prison. Should be great fun!
2. Nah. Let 'em hang around the White House. They'll be the walking wounded. Can't you see Bush draping an arm over Rove's shoulders saying, "Karl, you're doing a heckuva job!" If the Dems can't seize the advantage over the stink coming from the rotting political corpses of Rove, Libby and probably Cheney then they should probably give it up. And isn't it odd how quiet Howard Dean has been lately?
3. No. There is a mental retardation on the presidency.
4. A guy like Patrick Fitzgerald doesn't make "mountains out of molehills." He could however make George W. Bush the lamest of lame duck presidents we've ever seen.
Guess we'll have some definitive answers to these questions in a matter of days.
EDIT: Profanity references removed. -Amlord.
1.)Who will be indicted?
I picked Libby and Rove but I think there will be others indicted as well. Cheney is a possibility now that we know he is the one who first revealed Plame's CIA connection to Libby. See this NYT Article. I've heard estimates of up to 12 indictments. The real issue, however, is not how many initial indictments there are, but whether the evidence is solid enough to pressure key individuals into cooperating leading to the unravelling of the entire conspiracy to create forged intelligence and the conspiracy to protect that crime by publicly intimidating any critic like Wilson who called the false intelligence into question.
2.)Should the individuals resign if they are indicted?
The responsible individuals should have resigned a long time ago but then GWB wouldn't have been elected if the facts had come out last year.
3.)Is there a cancer on the presidency?
This presidency is a cancer on the Republic.
4.)Are these charges making a mountain out of an anthill?
Hardly, this case goes to the heart of the issue of manufacturing evidence in order to deceive the Congress and the American people into supporting an aggressive war for the cynical purposes of the neoconservatives and the presidents political handlers. Unveiling the whole case in a court of law is another matter entirely, however. See this interesting bit of speculation.
I picked Libby and Rove but I think there will be others indicted as well. Cheney is a possibility now that we know he is the one who first revealed Plame's CIA connection to Libby. See this NYT Article. I've heard estimates of up to 12 indictments. The real issue, however, is not how many initial indictments there are, but whether the evidence is solid enough to pressure key individuals into cooperating leading to the unravelling of the entire conspiracy to create forged intelligence and the conspiracy to protect that crime by publicly intimidating any critic like Wilson who called the false intelligence into question.
2.)Should the individuals resign if they are indicted?
The responsible individuals should have resigned a long time ago but then GWB wouldn't have been elected if the facts had come out last year.
3.)Is there a cancer on the presidency?
This presidency is a cancer on the Republic.
4.)Are these charges making a mountain out of an anthill?
Hardly, this case goes to the heart of the issue of manufacturing evidence in order to deceive the Congress and the American people into supporting an aggressive war for the cynical purposes of the neoconservatives and the presidents political handlers. Unveiling the whole case in a court of law is another matter entirely, however. See this interesting bit of speculation.
1.)Who will be indicted?
I believe that Rove and Libby will be indicted. The NYT said yesterday that both received the infamous letter letting them know that there was a possibility of an indictment.
I don't think Cheney will be indicted unless he intentionally leaked Plame's name to Libby to smear Joe Wilson. Gawd, I would love to see Cheney indicted. That man should be ashamed of himself. There he is before a group of veterans (I think VFW) saying that Saddam Hussein has WMDs and will use them against us. Does he have any shame in the fact that such facts were wrong?
2.)Should the individuals resign if they are indicted?
Unquestionably they should resign. I think it would look horrible for the President to keep Rove on his staff. Tom DeLay has lost credibility. Rove will too, and he should resign to help the president (like Haldeman did for Nixon, although that didn't end up helping Nixon after all). Same goes for Libby. The indictments will taint the White House and the president should have them removed to keep his promise that he would. Initially he said he would remove anyone who was involved, but then changed his story. He also said he would restore integrity to the White House. Put your money where your mouth is, Georgie Boy.
3.)Is there a cancer on the presidency?
Yes. They were saying on Chris Matthews that this whole leak case will cause people to re-evaluate the war in Iraq and how this administration exaggerated intelligence to get us to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein.
4.)Are these charges making a mountain out of an anthill?
Nope. I think it's despicable what the republicans did to Joe Wilson. But this is their modus operandi. Outing a CIA operative (whether it violated the statute or not) affects negatively our national security. Bush is supposedly all about winning the war on terrorism, and this act was a direct violation of that. Tsk tsk.
I believe that Rove and Libby will be indicted. The NYT said yesterday that both received the infamous letter letting them know that there was a possibility of an indictment.
I don't think Cheney will be indicted unless he intentionally leaked Plame's name to Libby to smear Joe Wilson. Gawd, I would love to see Cheney indicted. That man should be ashamed of himself. There he is before a group of veterans (I think VFW) saying that Saddam Hussein has WMDs and will use them against us. Does he have any shame in the fact that such facts were wrong?
2.)Should the individuals resign if they are indicted?
Unquestionably they should resign. I think it would look horrible for the President to keep Rove on his staff. Tom DeLay has lost credibility. Rove will too, and he should resign to help the president (like Haldeman did for Nixon, although that didn't end up helping Nixon after all). Same goes for Libby. The indictments will taint the White House and the president should have them removed to keep his promise that he would. Initially he said he would remove anyone who was involved, but then changed his story. He also said he would restore integrity to the White House. Put your money where your mouth is, Georgie Boy.
3.)Is there a cancer on the presidency?
Yes. They were saying on Chris Matthews that this whole leak case will cause people to re-evaluate the war in Iraq and how this administration exaggerated intelligence to get us to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein.
4.)Are these charges making a mountain out of an anthill?
Nope. I think it's despicable what the republicans did to Joe Wilson. But this is their modus operandi. Outing a CIA operative (whether it violated the statute or not) affects negatively our national security. Bush is supposedly all about winning the war on terrorism, and this act was a direct violation of that. Tsk tsk.
The unknown in this situation is that Fitzgerald has spent considerable energy investigating the forged "Nigerian" documents that we acquired from an Italian journalist who received them mysteriously from someone who broke into the embassy in Roma and purportedly took them. In them end it was found that the entire thing was staged and the CIA or DIA (can't remember which, possibly both) determined that they were forgeries.
I believe that Fitzgerald will also be indicting people associated with the retention of and use of those letters in justifying the war. It was a known forgery and appears to have been introduced by Chalabi himself. I'm still not sure how bush managed to distance himself from that guy so quickly and thoroughly. This investigation, I think, will be looking into that relationship.
I believe that Fitzgerald will also be indicting people associated with the retention of and use of those letters in justifying the war. It was a known forgery and appears to have been introduced by Chalabi himself. I'm still not sure how bush managed to distance himself from that guy so quickly and thoroughly. This investigation, I think, will be looking into that relationship.
QUOTE
(La Herring Rouge)
The unknown in this situation is that Fitzgerald has spent considerable energy investigating the forged "Nigerian" documents that we acquired from an Italian journalist who received them mysteriously from someone who broke into the embassy in Roma and purportedly took them. In them end it was found that the entire thing was staged and the CIA or DIA (can't remember which, possibly both) determined that they were forgeries.
The unknown in this situation is that Fitzgerald has spent considerable energy investigating the forged "Nigerian" documents that we acquired from an Italian journalist who received them mysteriously from someone who broke into the embassy in Roma and purportedly took them. In them end it was found that the entire thing was staged and the CIA or DIA (can't remember which, possibly both) determined that they were forgeries.
This is an erroneous statement of the forgeries. The documents weren't taken in the breakin of the Niger embassy rather letterhead and official stamps were stolen to produce the forgeries. The IAEA was the first to pronounce the documents forgeries, followed by the CIA and the Italian news agency the received them and gave them to the US.
1.)Who will be indicted?
I think Libby will probably be indicted, maybe Rove.
2.)Should the individuals resign if they are indicted?
If indicted, they should respect the office in which they work and realize that they will not be able to do their job fully and capably while defending themselves in a court of law. Stepping down, if only temporarily would be the best thing to do, IMO.
3.)Is there a cancer on the presidency?
No..this is politics. One side vehemently disagrees with the other and will do what it takes to damage the other party. It goes on every day in Washington. The cancer is pervasive in our government and not reserved for one party or the other.
4.)Are these charges making a mountain out of an anthill?
No, the charges are not. If laws were broken, people MUST be held accountable. I do think the press and media are making more of it than it is, but then again they have audiences they must entertain and salaries to pay.
I think Libby will probably be indicted, maybe Rove.
2.)Should the individuals resign if they are indicted?
If indicted, they should respect the office in which they work and realize that they will not be able to do their job fully and capably while defending themselves in a court of law. Stepping down, if only temporarily would be the best thing to do, IMO.
3.)Is there a cancer on the presidency?
No..this is politics. One side vehemently disagrees with the other and will do what it takes to damage the other party. It goes on every day in Washington. The cancer is pervasive in our government and not reserved for one party or the other.
4.)Are these charges making a mountain out of an anthill?
No, the charges are not. If laws were broken, people MUST be held accountable. I do think the press and media are making more of it than it is, but then again they have audiences they must entertain and salaries to pay.
1.)Who will be indicted?
I'm fairly sure Libby will be indicted. If God is good, Rove might go down, as well. No way will Cheney be indicted. I think he will be implicated, but as he was only passing information on to Libby - who, presumably, had the security clearance to hear such intelligence - he committed no crime (at least, not in this instance).
2.)Should the individuals resign if they are indicted?
If they don't, President Bush will ask for their resignation, right? That is what he promised, isn't it?
3.)Is there a cancer on the presidency?
No, it's more serious. A cancer only affects an individual. The disease of this administration affects us all - and has already killed thousands.
4.)Are these charges making a mountain out of an anthill?
To an extent. These charges are addressing a mere foothill in the mountainous crimes of this administration. Sadly, these may be the only crimes punished - at least until this country once again has responsible leadership.
Cheney may not be out of the woods yet, though. I have a feeling that some - like Poppy Bush and Baker and maybe even Condi Rice - might like to see some of the neocon elements go. I'm thinking they'd dearly love to somehow salvage the current president's reputation and a situation like this might be enough to force Cheney out and let him be the scapegoat for just about everything that's wrong with the administration. Okay, I can dream, can't I?
I'm fairly sure Libby will be indicted. If God is good, Rove might go down, as well. No way will Cheney be indicted. I think he will be implicated, but as he was only passing information on to Libby - who, presumably, had the security clearance to hear such intelligence - he committed no crime (at least, not in this instance).
2.)Should the individuals resign if they are indicted?
If they don't, President Bush will ask for their resignation, right? That is what he promised, isn't it?
3.)Is there a cancer on the presidency?
No, it's more serious. A cancer only affects an individual. The disease of this administration affects us all - and has already killed thousands.
4.)Are these charges making a mountain out of an anthill?
To an extent. These charges are addressing a mere foothill in the mountainous crimes of this administration. Sadly, these may be the only crimes punished - at least until this country once again has responsible leadership.
Cheney may not be out of the woods yet, though. I have a feeling that some - like Poppy Bush and Baker and maybe even Condi Rice - might like to see some of the neocon elements go. I'm thinking they'd dearly love to somehow salvage the current president's reputation and a situation like this might be enough to force Cheney out and let him be the scapegoat for just about everything that's wrong with the administration. Okay, I can dream, can't I?
QUOTE(TedN5 @ Oct 26 2005, 01:59 AM)
QUOTE
(La Herring Rouge)
The unknown in this situation is that Fitzgerald has spent considerable energy investigating the forged "Nigerian" documents that we acquired from an Italian journalist who received them mysteriously from someone who broke into the embassy in Roma and purportedly took them. In them end it was found that the entire thing was staged and the CIA or DIA (can't remember which, possibly both) determined that they were forgeries.
The unknown in this situation is that Fitzgerald has spent considerable energy investigating the forged "Nigerian" documents that we acquired from an Italian journalist who received them mysteriously from someone who broke into the embassy in Roma and purportedly took them. In them end it was found that the entire thing was staged and the CIA or DIA (can't remember which, possibly both) determined that they were forgeries.
This is an erroneous statement of the forgeries. The documents weren't taken in the breakin of the Niger embassy rather letterhead and official stamps were stolen to produce the forgeries. The IAEA was the first to pronounce the documents forgeries, followed by the CIA and the Italian news agency the received them and gave them to the US.
you got me..I was lazy on that one. I knew I wasn't retelling it wonderfully but I was going for the gist. My bad and truly, thanks for straightening it for me
I'm thinking that the indictments will include a host of small fry AND Rove and Libby. It would be troublesome and contentious to go after the big guns...but implicating loads of people in their offices is an effective way to send the message to America that the chiefs knew what the indians were doing.
Well, the first domino has fallen.
I'll admit I rolled my eyes when I heard Rove hasn't been indicted, but that they want to "continue the investigation". Hm. For 3 more years, perhaps?
I didn't take the poll because I can't see Rove or Cheney actually being held accountable. I hope I'm wrong.
QUOTE
Lewis Libby, a senior aide to Vice President Dick Cheney who was indicted in the CIA leak investigation, has resigned and left the White House, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said on Friday.
Libby was indicted on five criminal counts of obstruction of justice, perjury and making false statements... Reuters
Libby was indicted on five criminal counts of obstruction of justice, perjury and making false statements... Reuters
I'll admit I rolled my eyes when I heard Rove hasn't been indicted, but that they want to "continue the investigation". Hm. For 3 more years, perhaps?
I didn't take the poll because I can't see Rove or Cheney actually being held accountable. I hope I'm wrong.
Gee - I'm trying to watch the White Sox victory parade and all the networks are cutting in with live coverage of the Libby indictment. Just like they did when Henry Cisneros and Mike Espy (Clinton cabinet officials) were indicted ... oh wait a minute, that didn't happen. 
The Libby indictment is serious, but a little Martha-Stewart-ish. Couldn't get him for 'outing a CIA agent' but he lied during the investigation.
Lanny Davis on CNN just said "Rove thought he was trading on public information to smear his political enemies. Paul Begala and I used to do that all the time." HA!
The Libby indictment is serious, but a little Martha-Stewart-ish. Couldn't get him for 'outing a CIA agent' but he lied during the investigation.
Lanny Davis on CNN just said "Rove thought he was trading on public information to smear his political enemies. Paul Begala and I used to do that all the time." HA!
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Oct 28 2005, 01:08 PM)
The Libby indictment is serious, but a little Martha-Stewart-ish. Couldn't get him for 'outing a CIA agent' but he lied during the investigation.
Lanny Davis on CNN just said "Rove thought he was trading on public information to smear his political enemies. Paul Begala and I used to do that all the time." HA!
Lanny Davis on CNN just said "Rove thought he was trading on public information to smear his political enemies. Paul Begala and I used to do that all the time." HA!
I completely disagree with you Carlito, this isn't Martha Stewart-ish at all. The fact that only indictments against Libby have been handed down thus far doesn't mean it is over. Far from it in fact. I'll quote Fitzgerald himself from his press conference when he was asked these very questions - link (NYT):
QUOTE
This grand jury's term has expired by statute; it could not be extended. But it's in ordinary course to keep a grand jury open to consider other matters, and that's what we will be doing.
Let me then ask your next question: Well, why is this a leak investigation that doesn't result in a charge? I've been trying to think about how to explain this, so let me try. I know baseball analogies are the fad these days. Let me try something.
If you saw a baseball game and you saw a pitcher wind up and throw a fastball and hit a batter right smack in the head, and it really, really hurt them, you'd want to know why the pitcher did that. And you'd wonder whether or not the person just reared back and decided, I've got bad blood with this batter. He hit two home runs off me. I'm just going to hit him in the head as hard as I can.
You also might wonder whether or not the pitcher just let go of the ball or his foot slipped, and he had no idea to throw the ball anywhere near the batter's head. And there's lots of shades of gray in between. You might learn that you wanted to hit the batter in the back and it hit him in the head because he moved. You might want to throw it under his chin, but it ended up hitting him on the head.
And what you'd want to do is have as much information as you could. You'd want to know: What happened in the dugout? Was this guy complaining about the person he threw at? Did he talk to anyone else? What was he thinking? How does he react? All those things you'd want to know. And then you'd make a decision as to whether this person should be banned from baseball, whether they should be suspended, whether you should do nothing at all and just say, Hey, the person threw a bad pitch. Get over it.
In this case, it's a lot more serious than baseball. And the damage wasn't to one person. It wasn't just Valerie Wilson. It was done to all of us. And as you sit back, you want to learn: Why was this information going out? Why were people taking this information about Valerie Wilson and giving it to reporters? Why did Mr. Libby say what he did? Why did he tell Judith Miller three times? Why did he tell the press secretary on Monday? Why did he tell Mr. Cooper? And was this something where he intended to cause whatever damage was caused? Or did they intend to do something else and where are the shades of gray?
And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He's trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked their view.
Let me then ask your next question: Well, why is this a leak investigation that doesn't result in a charge? I've been trying to think about how to explain this, so let me try. I know baseball analogies are the fad these days. Let me try something.
If you saw a baseball game and you saw a pitcher wind up and throw a fastball and hit a batter right smack in the head, and it really, really hurt them, you'd want to know why the pitcher did that. And you'd wonder whether or not the person just reared back and decided, I've got bad blood with this batter. He hit two home runs off me. I'm just going to hit him in the head as hard as I can.
You also might wonder whether or not the pitcher just let go of the ball or his foot slipped, and he had no idea to throw the ball anywhere near the batter's head. And there's lots of shades of gray in between. You might learn that you wanted to hit the batter in the back and it hit him in the head because he moved. You might want to throw it under his chin, but it ended up hitting him on the head.
And what you'd want to do is have as much information as you could. You'd want to know: What happened in the dugout? Was this guy complaining about the person he threw at? Did he talk to anyone else? What was he thinking? How does he react? All those things you'd want to know. And then you'd make a decision as to whether this person should be banned from baseball, whether they should be suspended, whether you should do nothing at all and just say, Hey, the person threw a bad pitch. Get over it.
In this case, it's a lot more serious than baseball. And the damage wasn't to one person. It wasn't just Valerie Wilson. It was done to all of us. And as you sit back, you want to learn: Why was this information going out? Why were people taking this information about Valerie Wilson and giving it to reporters? Why did Mr. Libby say what he did? Why did he tell Judith Miller three times? Why did he tell the press secretary on Monday? Why did he tell Mr. Cooper? And was this something where he intended to cause whatever damage was caused? Or did they intend to do something else and where are the shades of gray?
And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He's trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked their view.
Fitzgerald goes on to talk about the severity of the crimes:
QUOTE
I also want to take away from the notion that somehow we should take an obstruction charge less seriously than a leak charge.
This is a very serious matter and compromising national security information is a very serious matter. But the need to get to the bottom of what happened and whether national security was compromised by inadvertence, by recklessness, by maliciousness is extremely important. We need to know the truth. And anyone who would go into a grand jury and lie, obstruct and impede the investigation has committed a serious crime.I will say this: Mr. Libby is presumed innocent. He would not be guilty unless and until a jury of 12 people came back and returned a verdict saying so.
But if what we allege in the indictment is true, then what is charged is a very, very serious crime that will vindicate the public interest in finding out what happened here.
This is a very serious matter and compromising national security information is a very serious matter. But the need to get to the bottom of what happened and whether national security was compromised by inadvertence, by recklessness, by maliciousness is extremely important. We need to know the truth. And anyone who would go into a grand jury and lie, obstruct and impede the investigation has committed a serious crime.I will say this: Mr. Libby is presumed innocent. He would not be guilty unless and until a jury of 12 people came back and returned a verdict saying so.
But if what we allege in the indictment is true, then what is charged is a very, very serious crime that will vindicate the public interest in finding out what happened here.
You really ought to take the time to read his full statement, this isn't a trivial matter and I'm quite sure that more charges will be coming, possibly against other White House officials.
Even Rove's lawyer admits that he is going to remain under investigation and isn't in the clear.
It is my bet that these indictments will open up the entire case for war in Iraq presented by the White House and there is a chance that the American people might actually learn the truth. This has the feel of being the Watergate of our generation in my opinion. Once Libby begins to realize what kind of prison charges he could face and the lawyers start dealing, he might just flip on others. It is my understanding that several even smaller players have already done that allowing them to get Libby in the first place.
QUOTE
Rove thought he was trading on public information to smear his political enemies
If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you. Rove may have said that but he knew exactly what he was doing, it just hasn't been proven yet.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Oct 28 2005, 03:08 PM)
Gee - I'm trying to watch the White Sox victory parade and all the networks are cutting in with live coverage of the Libby indictment. Just like they did when Henry Cisneros and Mike Espy (Clinton cabinet officials) were indicted ... oh wait a minute, that didn't happen.
I don't know who is correct - carlitoswhey or Tim Russert, but in his article he says the following:
QUOTE
Russert: This is significant. It is the first time in 130 years a sitting White House official has been indicted - Orville Babcock, who worked for Ulysses S. Grant, was the last. So, it’s a big event.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Oct 28 2005, 03:08 PM)
The Libby indictment is serious, but a little Martha-Stewart-ish. Couldn't get him for 'outing a CIA agent' but he lied during the investigation.
Remember "Monicagate"? What goes around comes around. Kenneth Star's original investigation wasn't exactly about cigars and blue dresses. And, as we all were told - it was "not about sex" but about perjury and lying under oath.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Oct 28 2005, 03:08 PM)
Gee - I'm trying to watch the White Sox victory parade and all the networks are cutting in with live coverage of the Libby indictment. Just like they did when Henry Cisneros and Mike Espy (Clinton cabinet officials) were indicted ... oh wait a minute, that didn't happen.
The Libby indictment is serious, but a little Martha-Stewart-ish. Couldn't get him for 'outing a CIA agent' but he lied during the investigation.
Lanny Davis on CNN just said "Rove thought he was trading on public information to smear his political enemies. Paul Begala and I used to do that all the time." HA!
The Libby indictment is serious, but a little Martha-Stewart-ish. Couldn't get him for 'outing a CIA agent' but he lied during the investigation.
Lanny Davis on CNN just said "Rove thought he was trading on public information to smear his political enemies. Paul Begala and I used to do that all the time." HA!
Carlitoswhey you seem to be taking the tact that the administration most likely be taking in the next few weeks, that is, to minimize, minimize, minimize. Your bringing Martha Stewart into this is irrelevant. In fact you are echoing Kay Bailey Hutchison’s remarks on Meet the Press last Sunday--words Frank Rich (See my signature) called a “Twinkie defense.”
These are less than convincing talking points.Meet the Press Transcript 10-23-05
While Martha Stewart was charged with lying to investigators, she was not charged, as was Libby, with obstruction of justice and perjury. Quite a difference! Moreover, Martha did spend five months in prison and another five months+ under house arrest.
In his news conference today, Patrick Fitzgerald seemed to defend the seriousness of the charges.
QUOTE(Patrick Fitzgerald)
But I think what we see here today, when a vice president's chief of staff is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice, it does show the world that this is a country that takes its law seriously; that all citizens are bound by the law.
Transcript Patrick Fitzgerald Press Conference, 10-28-05
BTW: The investigation is not over.
BTW2: Nice try, but this is about the current regime--not Bill Clinton. It seems when every other defense is woefully inadequate, it's time to trot out that
Bill Clinton. 
Edited to add more on Bush Administration strategy:
QUOTE(George W. Bush)
In our system, each individual is presumed innocent and entitled to due process and a fair trial.
Bush must really think people are complete idiots. Generally, high school graduates are aware of “presumption of innocence,” a principle I fully embrace. Yet, I’ve heard this truism today until I’m sick of it.
From the accolades that came from the lips of Bush and Cheney, one might think that Scooter Libby won a Nobel Prize rather than being slapped with five criminal indictments.
QUOTE(George W. Bush)
Scooter has worked tirelessly on behalf of the American people and sacrificed much in the service to this country. He served the Vice President and me through extraordinary times in our nation's history.
Bush's Statements Above
And of course we get the same thing from Vice President Cheney.
QUOTE(Dick Cheney)
Scooter Libby is one of the most capable and talented individuals I have ever known. He has given many years of his life to public service and has served our nation tirelessly and with great distinction.
Cheney's Statement Above
I haven't posted in a while. Day to day life has gotten in the way. However I feel compelled to write something about this since we debated tirelessly about this topic during the summer.
If Libby is found guilty of perjury (which it appears is a strong case) he should go to jail. Anyone that argues otherwise is being partisan. It doesn’t matter that he’s being charged with something that is not about the initial investigation, the law is the law.
On the flip side, Libby really made some unwise statements. Had he just told the truth I believe the investigation ends with no prosecutions. I really wonder if this will be the last independent council. The only thing that kept Clinton out of jail for the same type of crime was that as sitting president the independent council turned the findings over to the Congress. Members of that grand jury said they would have indicted the president for perjury and obstruction of justice. They would have been for crimes that had nothing to do with the initial investigation.
Unless Libby is lying to cover something else up (which doesn’t appear likely in this case) this is going to be a story only a few people remember in a few years. The moral to the story; do not lie to a grand jury.
Here’s a question. I imagine it will be a long time before this goes to trial. Does Bush pardon Libby in 08? My guess is yes.
If Libby is found guilty of perjury (which it appears is a strong case) he should go to jail. Anyone that argues otherwise is being partisan. It doesn’t matter that he’s being charged with something that is not about the initial investigation, the law is the law.
On the flip side, Libby really made some unwise statements. Had he just told the truth I believe the investigation ends with no prosecutions. I really wonder if this will be the last independent council. The only thing that kept Clinton out of jail for the same type of crime was that as sitting president the independent council turned the findings over to the Congress. Members of that grand jury said they would have indicted the president for perjury and obstruction of justice. They would have been for crimes that had nothing to do with the initial investigation.
Unless Libby is lying to cover something else up (which doesn’t appear likely in this case) this is going to be a story only a few people remember in a few years. The moral to the story; do not lie to a grand jury.
Here’s a question. I imagine it will be a long time before this goes to trial. Does Bush pardon Libby in 08? My guess is yes.
I have tried to take some time to digest the grand jury indictments. There is no getting around the fact that I was disappointed that Rove wasn't indicted but, more importantly, these indictments for serious offenses do not allow for a trial that will reveal the motives behind the crimes. The trial, if one takes place, will be over a set of facts showing Libby's contradictions to other testimony, I doubt that motive will even be introduced. There is still some hope that Rove will be indicted and that his indictment will include something like conspiracy that might get to the heart of the coverup motivation, but I regard such an indictment as unlikely. See Rove Still Targeted.
Nevertheless, any fair minded person must ask themselves, why would a smart lawyer like Libby lie repeatedly to investigators and the grand jury? Who and what was he protecting? Was it the use of the forged documents to support the argument for war or was it the forgery itself?
Nevertheless, any fair minded person must ask themselves, why would a smart lawyer like Libby lie repeatedly to investigators and the grand jury? Who and what was he protecting? Was it the use of the forged documents to support the argument for war or was it the forgery itself?
QUOTE(nemov @ Oct 29 2005, 07:25 AM)
On the flip side, Libby really made some unwise statements. Had he just told the truth I believe the investigation ends with no prosecutions. I really wonder if this will be the last independent council. The only thing that kept Clinton out of jail for the same type of crime was that as sitting president the independent council turned the findings over to the Congress. Members of that grand jury said they would have indicted the president for perjury and obstruction of justice. They would have been for crimes that had nothing to do with the initial investigation.
You are wrong about this and it also appears top be the talking point working its way through GOP circles now nemov. If you actually take the time to read the indictment documents or if you had read the transcript from Fitzgerald's press conference I think it would be pretty clear to you that this isn't over and there will be further investigations and indictments (some of that linked above, you can find the rest easily enough).
The term of the grand jury is up and couldn't be extended any longer. The fact that Libby was indicted for purjury does not mean he can't later be indicted for more serious charges by another grand jury. It also doesn't mean that he won't roll on his superiors leading to charges against them.
Again if you read through the indictment documents you'll find out that Libby learned about Plame through Cheney. Certainly Cheney has the clearance to know this information but the question that remains unanswered is whether Cheney (and others) instructed Libby to leak this information to damage Wilson. Using only common sense I'd say that is very likely, Libby wouldn't act alone on something like that, I'm pretty sure he was taking orders.
In his press conference Fitzgerald said he'd be calling in a new grand jury and Rove's lawyer has admitted publicly that Rove is still a target in the investigation.
So what about this makes you think it is over again?
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Oct 28 2005, 05:51 PM)
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Oct 28 2005, 01:08 PM)
The Libby indictment is serious, but a little Martha-Stewart-ish. Couldn't get him for 'outing a CIA agent' but he lied during the investigation.
I completely disagree with you Carlito, this isn't Martha Stewart-ish at all. The fact that only indictments against Libby have been handed down thus far doesn't mean it is over. Far from it in fact. I'll quote Fitzgerald himself from his press conference when he was asked these very questions - link (NYT):.
You really ought to take the time to read his full statement, this isn't a trivial matter and I'm quite sure that more charges will be coming, possibly against other White House officials.
Even Rove's lawyer admits that he is going to remain under investigation and isn't in the clear.
Cube, thanks for posting this. I hadn't seen or heard the stuff from Fitzgerald. After reading it, I'm even more convinced that, whatever happens, this guy is going to see justice done. What an excellent prosecutor.
To clarify, I don't think that lying to the feds is trivial, but that is what happened to Martha Stewart - it just seems like an obvious parallel. And, despite what Fitzgerald is saying, I'm yet to be convinced that she was covert enough to be 'outed' but we shall see.
QUOTE(cube jockey)
QUOTE(carlitoswhey)
Rove thought he was trading on public information to smear his political enemies
If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you. Rove may have said that but he knew exactly what he was doing, it just hasn't been proven yet.
Well, Lanny Davis said it so he's the one looking for a bridge I guess.
QUOTE(carlito)
Lanny Davis on CNN just said "Rove thought he was trading on public information to smear his political enemies. Paul Begala and I used to do that all the time." HA!
QUOTE(English Horn @ Oct 28 2005, 06:09 PM)
Remember "Monicagate"? What goes around comes around. Kenneth Star's original investigation wasn't exactly about cigars and blue dresses. And, as we all were told - it was "not about sex" but about perjury and lying under oath.
OK, If I'm gonna get accused of parroting GOP "talking points" or even - God forbid - Kay Bailey Hutchison, y'all have to get this straight. Is Libby's indictment Monicagate, Watergate, or what? I am absolutely for Scooter Libby being indicted for lying if he lied. Great.
It. Is. Not. A. Trivial. Matter. OK, everybody? Not trivial. Not "outing a spy" but not trivial. Feel better?
As for the political ramifications, no one has ever heard of "Scooter" Libby. He has resigned. He is not the president. He will not be impeached. It's serious business, but this whole thing is way too confusing for most people to follow. Which is why our wonderful mainstream media have said the words "Karl Rove" and "indictment" next to each other for the past month. I bet 30% of americans believe that he actually has been indicted.
Since Scooter Libby has been indicted and has resigned, the questions here are no longer open for debate.
Thanks to all who participated.
Feel free to start a new discussion on the ramifications of these events.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.