Yesterday, June 5, 2007, Scooter Lobby was sentenced to 30 months in prison for lying to the grand jury in relation to the Valerie Plame case.

Questions for debate:
1. Is the sentence fair?
2. Should he be pardoned?
3. Did the relevation that Valerie Plame was indeed a covert operative when she was outed change your opinion(s) surrounding this case?

1. He was found guilty of perjury so I would think it was a sentence that falls into guidelines layed out by the courts.

2. I don't think he should be pardoned.

3. I think this was more political games at play than anything else.

It's funny, there was a certain somebody who lied to a grand jury and he never served any jail time.

1) No- he should serve the rest of his life in prison- dating the guy with the most cigarettes! Rove next, then Cheney!

2) Absolutely not-= he outed an agent for political reasons- the sentence is WAY too light. Now on to his bosses!

3) ONly the most blind apologists for the GW regime have ever really tried to make this claim- it is pretty obvious that she was an agent, and she was outed for political reasons. Luckily- those folks now have about 0 credibility in our society- as evidenced by GWs job rating.

The GW regime is as corrupt as any in US history- and he quicker we throw them in jail, and bankrupt them, the better off we will all be.

Oh yeah sleeper- lieing about a BJ and outing a covert agent has a HUGE degree of damage to the pubic/natiobnal security thang going on- you do realize this- right?

Absolutely. Prosecutors rely on the honesty of witnesses to form a case. Lying can significantly hamper the criminal justice system! The sentence fairly reflects the damage done.

In reality, no one deserves to be pardoned, assuming the criminal proceeding's, and the laws those proceedings are based on, are fair.

Given that, I doubt a pardon will occur. Bush would have to spend too much political capital in order to make it happen.

No, the fact that she was covert had nothing to do with whether Libby concealed evidence from prosecutors.

1. Is the sentence fair?

Yes, but with a caveat. The stipulation or condition is that I think there were at least two other individuals who were more culpable - Dick Cheney and Karl Rove.

2. Should he be pardoned?

No!

Given Bush's record on pardons, I'm not sure he will pardon Libby, but I would like to see him start serving his sentence now just in case Bush decides to grant one just as the White House door is slamming on his silly butt on his way to Hilliary Clinton's inauguration.



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/28/...ain889049.shtml

3. Did the relevation that Valerie Plame was indeed a covert operative when she was outed change your opinion(s) surrounding this case?

No, the charge was perjury. Think Robert Novak, Richard Armitage, Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.

1. Is the sentence fair?
Given that he was convicted for obstructing justice in the pursuit of a potentially treasonous act, no. I'd say the punishment was fair and equitable.

2. Should he be pardoned?
Not at all. But then I believe people should be held accountable for their actions.

3. Did the relevation that Valerie Plame was indeed a covert operative when she was outed change your opinion(s) surrounding this case?
Given that I believed all along she was covert, no. But had the opposite been true, I believe the sentence could have been lighter.

Perjury is perjury. It does not matter what you lied about, only that you lied under oath to a grand jury.

The reality is Sleeper that we don't have "equal" punishment for "equal" crimes in his county - never have. It doesn't matter whether the charge is murder of perjury. Some people are sentenced to death for aggravated murder, others get life with parole or without parole or maybe 25-to-life. Trying to create a perfect world, with perfectly balanced judicial outcomes just "ain't" going to happen. Those who spend a lot of time harping on it face only frustration.

What do you gain by bringing up Clinton nine years after the fact? No, Clinton didn't serve any time in jail. But there will always be a stain, no pun intended, on his presidency when historians get around to assessing it. That's punishment of a different sort, but still punishment. It's punishment because Clinton realizes - lives with the fact - that this will damage his legacy.

That said I understand the tactics involved in introducing an extraneous wedge into issues. That seems to have happened also with linking the DeLay thread to the William Jefferson thread. It's becoming an annoying habit.

Is the sentence fair?
As long as its within the parameters of the federal sentencing guidelines, yes. I think Scooter's friends in the media and people working his legal defense fund really hurt him. Judges don't have to sequester themselves and Libby was sentenced by one. His supporters (1) publicly demanded Libby be pardoned (2) blamed the prosecution (3) praised Libby, calling him a patriotic American after he was convicted. (link) If this isn't annoying enough Judge Walton "received more than 150 letters" from Libby fans and haters, including some high-ranking officials.

Should he be pardoned?
Should Elliot Abrams have ever been able to serve this Bush presidency as a Special Assistant, Senior Director at NSC, and Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy?

Did the revelation that Valerie Plame was indeed a covert operative when she was ousted change your opinion(s) surrounding this case?
N/A

1. Is the sentence fair?

Probably. I feel for the guy because he has a couple of young children whose lives he won't be able to follow for that times, but that happens to anyone with young children who is sentenced to any prison/jail time.

Clearly, however, it doesn't seem just to have just Libby pay when one or two fellows up the organizational chart appear to be just as culpable.

2. Should he be pardoned?

Did he admit guilt? No. Did he agree to identify the other parties involved so that they would also be held accountable? I don't think so. But then, that doesn't seem to be criteria a president necessarily follows in determining whether to pardon somebody, at least when it comes to high profile cases.

3. Did the relevation that Valerie Plame was indeed a covert operative when she was outed change your opinion(s) surrounding this case?

No, because I believed from the outset that it was a crime that someone in the administration outed Plame. What angers me is that Libby and not Cheney or Rove will be serving time for the crime.* It's just another example of the Bush regime's lack of respect for obeying the laws that the rest of us are obligated to follow (Nixon and Clinton notwithstanding). Too often these days a president and his minions demonstrate contempt for the law in its various forms and do not get punished for it. Scooter Libby just happens to be the sacrificial goat in this instance.

*And not actually the crime itself, but lying about it.

As I was saying, viola, Judge Walton's sarcastic footnote to Borked Bork's amicus brief:


Yeah, dozens of briefs and apparently their content didn't make the impression Libby's friends were hoping for.

The real questions are:
Why wasn't Novak found guilty of outing a covert agent?
Why wasn't Armitage found guilty of outing a covert agent?
Why is Fitzgerald such an incompetent boob?

Actually, I think it hillarious that WJC keeps being compared to GWB. It simply shows how low the bar has been brought down. An act of treason? Oh yeah, well Billy Boy lied about sex! See, we're even.

Yep, except the con job that led up to Iraq has cost 3,500 US military lives so far. This deal about outing a CIA agent was part of the con job. I don't think 30 months pays the cost -- it's more like eternity. So, better repent and quick before it's too late, huh?

Thirty months is plenty of time to write a hot expose, telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Call it a memoir. Entitle it "A Million Little Morons."

My opinon has changed somewhat, but that's not important. Justice is often not served in this world. It is in the next, according to what Libby believes -- unless that's a big con job too. Either way, write the book. It'll take the mind off the other things that have to be done for survival while in the slammer, and it might save the everlasting behind.

Meanwhile, WJC lied about sex! Oh, the shame of it

If you'd have paid attention to the details of this case, you'd know. Patrick Fitzgerald made it very, very clear why he could not charge anyone - because of Libby's lying. He made the reference to an umpire getting sand thrown in his face while making a call at the plate. He couldn't make the call because someone threw sand in his face and that someone was Libby.

All the armchair lawyers like to talk about the relevance of Libby's testimoney to the original charges as if they have a clue. They don't. Fitzgerald was widely regarded as being one of the best before indicting Libby. Suddenly, he was an idiot. Do the math.

Had Libby told the truth, it was much more likely someone would have gotten charged with the original crime. Any comparisons to Billy Jeff are absurd. And I find it pretty sad when your only defense of Libby is republicans are no different than democrats. And people wonder why the republican party sucks as bad as it does now.

Questions for debate:
1. Is the sentence fair?

No. Each of the crimes Libby was charged with carry a penalty of up to five years each. Considering the seriousness of the crime he was covering for, he should be doing no less than ten years... and that would be lenient.

2. Should he be pardoned?

Of course not. He comitted those crimes while covering for the betrayal of our national security, not an extra-marital affair. Because of his actions, the investigation was stymied and the traitors are still operating with impunity.


3. Did the relevation that Valerie Plame was indeed a covert operative when she was outed change your opinion(s) surrounding this case?

There was no revelation, only ditto-heads trying to shuffle the incident under the rug claimed she was not covert. That's like saying that 'Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11' was a 'revelation'.

For those who were snowed, I hope that such a 'revelation' gets them to realize what kind of treacherous people comprise this administration.



Clinton submitted false testimony in the form of previous transcripts. He did not, in fact, commit perjury, but he did lie otherwise.

-Just a small technical note.

We KNOW Armitage is the leaker. Why can't we put him in jail again? We know Novak wrote the article... yadda yadda.

1. The sentence may or may not be fair. I cannot see how my opinion on that matters. I think it is good that he was sentenced to jail time. How much is certainly debateable.
2. He should not be pardoned. Presidential Pardons are used far too frequently these days. They should be reserved for extreme cases, and this does not qualify.
3. Of course. This was a case of national security.

1. Yes the sentence is fair.

2. No, he should not be pardoned. Presidential pardons are used much to often. It seems that these pardons are used as payback for past political favors.

3. No. THis was not a case of National Security as some try and portray. IMO it was a case of political payback because the desired results of the Nigeria trip were not acheived.

Questions for debate:
1. Is the sentence fair?
No. At worst, Libby did the same thing that the prosecutor in this case did. Lied. Fitzgerald lied to the grand jury when he brought Libby before them, on the basis that Fitz was seeking to identify the perpetrator of the leak. Fitz knew the perp on Day 2 (?) of his investigation. All the investigation after that was a lie.

2. Should he be pardoned?
Yes, and Fitz should serve the 30 months.

3. Did the relevation that Valerie Plame was indeed a covert operative when she was outed change your opinion(s) surrounding this case?
No, because it doesn't change the identity of the leaker (Armitage) or Fitz's knowledge of that identity. If anything, it makes Fitz's behaviour more egregious, because his elephant hunting expedition meant that the actual leaker wasn't punished.

1. Is the sentence fair?

No, because the prosecution wasn't fair and the verdict wasn't fair. It was a set-up from the word go. Fitzgerald needed someone to indict for a crime that quite possibly wasn't a crime at all, so he went after Libby. Never should have gone to trial.


2. Should he be pardoned?


Absolutely, tomorrow and that's a day late. This is a gross miscarriage of justice.


3. Did the relevation that Valerie Plame was indeed a covert operative when she was outed change your opinion(s) surrounding this case?


This is probably the topic for another thread, but if Valerie Plame was indeed a "covert agent" then one wonders just what in the hell her husband was thinking when he wrote an editorial in the Washington Post. The absolutely last thing a "covert agent" needs is attention drawn to them and the fact that Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame were married was public knowledge. This entire thing stinks to high heaven and Libby is paying the price for it. If Bush is serious about serious things, he'd pardon Libby and then launch a real investigation into who in the CIA and State Department is leaking stuff that is truly damaging to national security. And, while he's at it, he might want to look into the truthfulness of Valerie Plame's sworn testimony before Congress. Somebody's got to do it and I doubt seriously that "Nosehair" Waxman is about to do it.


Aquilla

You are stating that the revelation that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA as a NOC operative did not compromise any CIA intelligence efforts?

That's a 'yes', 'no', or 'I don't know' question.

If was really a case about Nat'l Security then Armitage and Novak would be in jail or worse by now.

This was never about Nat'l Sec.

So, contrary to what Fitzgerald said, you somehow know better?

There are a ton of reasons why Armitage wasn't dragged into this. Maybe he didn't know Plame was covert (passing on what he thought was mundane information) versus Libby knowing it. Just because you don't like the reason doesn't mean there isn't a good one. My bet is, you probably know just a little less about this case and the law than Fitzgerald.

I stated that this was not a National Security issue.

Like you, the truthful answer to YOUR question would be "I don't know".

I suspect that's correct. I also suspect Fitzgerald bungled this case none-the-less and as a result of his elephant hunt gone bad ended up winging a field mouse.

Of course I'm not calling for anyone's head here. I'm just wondering why people who are actually guilty of outing the agent aren't being punished.

Because it wasn't a crime under the federal statutes. From USA Today.........



So, according to the people that actually wrote the law, there was no crime here. Now, I don't know how one can "obstruct justice" when there's no crime for "justice" to address in the first place, but obviously Fitzgerald had to get someone for something.

You know, it's distressing to me how so many people here are screaming at the top of their lungs about "denial of justice" to terrorists who want to kill a bunch of people are dancing in the streets because they "got Libby" without any crime being committed in the first place. Oh no, this isn't a political thing at all.

Aquilla

The USA article is two years old. Is Hayden lying to Congress about Plame's covert status? Did Plame herself commit perjury by telling Congress she was covert? Let me guess. Congress is in on the White House witch hunt, too?

As to Fitzgerald's misdirection, perhaps this isn't over. Cheney is seeking immunity. This is what sucks about checks and balances. It takes a long time to bring everything to light, and by the time you do, if you do, those who abuse power have realized their prerogatives. Libby lying was a straightforward, easy conviction. I don't presume the White House is going to suddenly start cooperating fully with Congress on RNC emails and other issues.

In the meantime Libby supporters harrass the judge. Go, go faithful.

1. Is the sentence fair?

Too short.


2. Should he be pardoned?

Didn't Bush profess shock when he 'learned' a CIA agent was outed? Didn't he promise that anyone in his admin. who was found guilty would be gone?! It will be hard for him to explain why he suddenly excuses such outrageous & traiterous behavior in his own administration. That said, since it's such a stupid political move, I think Bush just might pardon him.


3. Did the relevation that Valerie Plame was indeed a covert operative when she was outed change your opinion(s) surrounding this case?

Didn't the question of whether she was covert only come up a long time AFTER this story broke? After the Rove spin machine got on the story?

1. No. I think 2 1/2 years isn't nearly sufficient. I advocate Tar & Feathering for him. Scooter ain't the only one either.

2. No. He should not be pardoned. I think most of Bu-Chen Co needs to be knocked down a knotch or two. Some of 'em need to be drug out into the street and shot in the head like the dirty treasonous traitor dogs they are.

3. No. If you or me or any US Army Officer had done what they done, he/she would be spending the rest of his/her life in prison in Kansas. American history is written in Blood & Lead. Bu-Chen Co needs to have a little lesson spelled out for 'em. IMHO.

So what you are saying is that no CIA efforts were compromised as a result of her outing?

How do you know that when all available information suggests otherwise?

Please post the information from which you've drawn that conclusion.

Here are the sources that state unequivocally that our national security was compromised;


http://www.rawstory.com/news/2005/Outed_CI...ng_on_0213.html

Judge Tatel;


Larry Johnson, CIA (retired);


Established by court documents;


http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exe...ew.cgi/48/17531

My 'opinion' that our national security was compromised is well-substantiated given that it is established that at the time of her outing she was;

A) Undercover
Working in the CPD

... and imediately after her outing, foreign intelligence agencies became aware of what kind of information we had by back-checking her contacts.

If you do not understand how that works and why her status was so sensitive, I will explain it to you.

Meanwhile, since you suggest that there was not a threat to national security, please link to any documents that support your position.

Thanks.

I don't care how old the article is. If she wasn't covert under the statute then, she isn't now. regardless of what she claiims. Read the statute.




So, under this statute, she wasn't considered "covert" despite what she may have told the Waxman inquisition. Thus, there was no criminal activity involved in this in the first place. I do have some problems with some of the things she did claim in her testimony, but that would be more appropriate in another thread I think.


Aquilla

No, I answered I don't know.


Your question:


My answer:

I don't have a problem reading the statute, Aquilla. I have a problem with USA Today's outdated article. According to Cummings (D-MD) the current director of the CIA told Waxman (D-CA) and Reyes (D-TX) that Plame was covert. Either Cummings, Waxman, Reyes and Hayden are lying, or Plame was covert. What's it going to take to prove that, ask the White House to declassify material?

Don't you all think she was compromised? Her identity. Her role as an agent.

That ain't right. In a time of war, that's treason.

Oh, yeah, we're at war. Somebody ought to march Scooter Libby out into the street and ........

I don't want to be inflamatory.

I appreciate your hyperbole Grimes, but we don't progress as a people by imitating thug nations. Due process is as important in Libby's case as any other.

BTW: I don't consider a pardon part of due process.

Come on, Lesly. You know better than that. The law is the law and the statute is what it is. And, it was the same thing at the time of the USA Today article. The statute says five years and under that law, Valerie Plame was not defined as "covert". There is nothing there that says "or if the DCI says the person is covert". We don't, or at least we're not supposed to prosecute people who haven't broken the law, even if they are evil Republicans who work for Dick Cheney. Now I'm sure some on the left would like to make that a crime, but until someone can show me a federal statute that says it is, well, it's not.

Aquilla

Why Scooter? Why not Armitage? Why not Novak?

That's an interesting question, but Libby is the one who has been convicted.

Here's an interesting take on the pardon.

On Hardball last night, former U. S. Attorney Joe DiGinova, a Libby supporter said:



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19226375/

He got it half right. Bush is in a box. He loses ever way he goes.

BTW: I have no problem jailing Novak, but there's not enough of him left to worry about.

Oy vey. Some cheese with that?


I guess it will take declassifying Plame's file to prove she was covert. But maybe you and USA Today know better than me, Democratic politicians and the DCI, and the White House is just too inept to take advantage of this lying going on behind their backs, even though according to our unitary Executive it can declassify information at will per Executive Order 13292.

Lesly, the statute is clear, crystal clear. Even the people who wrote the law in the first place have said there's not violation in the Plame case under that law. She wasn't a covert agent under that law, by the definition of "covert" at the time of her supposed "outing". Now, if you don't like that law then lobby Waxman and company to change it, but until that happens, there was no violation here. Libby got railroaded, plain and simple and if Bush doesn't pardon him the next President will. President Thompson will pardon him most likely on Inauguration Day.

Hoisting another one!

Aquilla

Ah, I took this; "I stated that this was not a National Security issue. ", as your answer.

How could it not be a national security issue if our national security was compromised?



Yet a crime was nonetheless committed by her outing;

"Former Senator Thompson persists with the lie that there was no “violation” of the intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA). But his claim is debunked by Federal Judge Reginald Walton and Federal Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who, after reviewing the classified personnel file of Valerie Plame Wilson, stated that she was in fact covered by the IIPA when Robert Novak printed her name in July of 2003."

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/23618

Ah, the great Reagan hope when you really need an Eisenhower.

Aquilla this is twice you've brought this up. If, by chance, you are wrong, would you please tell us how you want your crow served, so that we can have it ready ahead of time?

If Bush does not pardon Libby, do you think that President Clinton, Obama, Edwards or Gore, will offer one? I know, even the thought is disconcerting.

Uh huh. And Sanford and Toensing know she wasn't covert because they didn't looked into her file.


Although you've hinted at a Republican witch hunt several times already the subject of Plame's covert status is not a personal sticking point for me, Aquilla. It is simply a fact. My liking or disliking the statute has no bearing on Plame's status. Just like speculation from the statute's authors has no bearing on her status.

Much as I hate to take issue with a website that has a banner that reads "IMPEACH", I'm afraid I must take issue with the claims made in this ::::cough:::: non-partisan "source". First of all, nobody was ever charged with violating the IIPA even though Fitzgerald knew who it was that "leaked" Plame's name to the press. Instead, they went after Libby.

Well, much as I hate to dispute an "IMPEACH" website with a source who actually knows what the hell they're talking about, I will. Let's see what the chief counsel for the Senate Intelligence Committee who actually drafted the IIPA legislation had to say. Her name is Victoria Toensing, and you can read all about her here. Now, she's a Republican which may by definition of your "IMPEACH" wedsite reference automatically make her evil, but the fact of the matter is that she was an integral part of drafting that legislation. Now, what does she have to say about this entire Libby case? Quite a bit actually. From the Washington Post......



There's quite a bit more there, pretty extensive "indictment". Of course, all she did was to help craft the legislation in the first place, not nearly the credibility she would have if she was calling for the impeachment of President Bush.

And, BoF, should your nightmare scenario come to pass, you can puree my crow. I won't be eating much in the way of solid foods.

And on to Lesly.......



Lesly, her "status" as defined by the CIA or the prosecutor is not relevant to the statute. It requires a "permanent foreign assignment" within the past 5 years. That's what it says, not what the CIA says or the prosecutor says. It is perfectly clear from the evidence that Valerie Plame had not held a foreign assignment as a covert agent less than 5 years before the Novak column appeared. That's the law, despite what the CIA may claim or the prosecutor or this judge. There was NO VIOLATION of the IIPA in this case.


Aquilla

Any GOP excuse for a pardon just doesn't hold water. Hunter Rose pointed out the fact that Plame was an undercover agent, thus destroying the widely used notion that she wasn't "outed" and thus, no crime was commited. It's also quite interesting for me, to hear of the likes of Mitt Romney who confuse exactly what it was that Libby was convicted of. I e-mailed this to Jaime a few weeks back as I was just beside myself with disbelief. If I can figure this out, I think a major presidential candidate should too.



CNN article

The problem with this reason for pardoning is that it would undo a conviction for a reason why Libby was not convicted. Libby wasn't convicted as being the leaker, he was convicted of obstruction of justice and perjury by lying to the FBI and a grand jury. On top of that, three reporters testimony contradicted his. Perhaps the Mitt should "catch" this:


New York Times article.

I also find it quite interesting that Romney has yet to correct his flawed statement of the facts of this case.

I think you legal scholars need to call Fitzgerald's office right away to straighten out this miscarriage of justice. One of you need to teach him the law so he gets it right.

As stated and linked, Plame did serve multiple times overseas fulfilling that portion of the statute. The reason Armitage or Novak aren't getting punished is because they didn't knowingly out a covert CIA agent. However, we can't know that Libby didn't knowingly out her because he lied like a cheap rug. That is the difference. Had Libby simply 'fessed up and said he had no idea she was covert, there may not been a case (although that's doubtful). But he didn't do that. He clearly lied. Given the fact that he lied, why would he lie about something that couldn't get him into trouble?

For the life of me, I can't figure out how the party that will impeach a president because of statements in a civil case don't have the principle to be consistent. Libby lied - that's a fact. Was he the one to knowingly out Plame? We'll never know because he's a liar.

I'm sure some true "legal scholars" have contacted Fitzgerald's office and attempted to point out to him the true facts of the law. "Fulfilling a portion of the statute" doesn't cut it when we're talking about criminal charges against a person who hasn't broken any law, other than that of the wacko left who thinks even working for Cheney is a crime. The statute says FIVE YEARS. Not FOUR and not SIX, but FIVE. Number of fingers on your hand, either one, left or right. Now, according to USA Today's article old as it may be......




And it continues.......



So, where's the crime? Other than of course working for Cheney which we all know is a crime. We know this because the left-wing wacko blogs that get quoted here as "sources" tell us to.


Aquilla

Was it? We probably will not get a straight answer on that one. Would you, if in a postion of leadership within the intelligence community, give a straight answer?



My initial answers to this threadhat I do not disagree.

Well, I see that you are the sort who will dismiss the Ten Comandments as partisan simply because they are posted on a 'left-wing' site. Sad you did not take the time to consider the authors of the letter from which the excerpt is derived. Those who drafted the letter, and Fitzgerald and Judge Walton who determined that the IIPA applied are relatively independent of political patronage.



I'm quite familiar with Ms. Toensing. She was, and is, an attorney, not a Judge. Perhaps the MSM doesn't do it's job by letting people know that attorneys are not the arbiters of the law, judges are.
Ms. Toensing has been a consistent ally of far right-wing projects including the push to impeach Clinton over lying about a blowjob. The people who drafted the letter I excerpted are a bipartisan group.

Ms. Toesing has no standing to determine whether or not the IIPA applied here for more than one reason;

1) Her past affiliations strongly suggest a direct conflict of interest as all of her political allies (including Robert Novak) have a vested interest in this case.
2) Ms. Toesing did not have full access to and consideration of the facts that both Fitzgerald and Judge Walton extensively reviewed.
3) She was neither the Judge, nor the Jury in this case.

... and I'm certain there are more.

Again;
Those who drafted the letter, and Fitzgerald and Judge Walton who determined that the IIPA applied are relatively independent of political patronage. Your attempt to so baldly deflect from the major partisan discrepancy with this; "Now, she's a Republican which may by definition of your "IMPEACH" wedsite reference automatically make her evil", is tantamount to an admission that she is highly partisan. Those tepid psychological tricks don't work on me.



Baseless tripe. The actual Grand Jury, those who are more intimately aware of the facts of the case than you or I may ever be, was convinced that a greater crime took place, and that 'Libby wasn't the guy that should have been there'. They convicted him of obstructing the investigation into the real crime... a crime that may have been uncovered if not for Libby's criminal efforts.


Nice try Aquilla, but wishing she wasn'