NO PARDON FOR LIBBY

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Craig234

I have not read the case briefing, I will admit that.

Don't admit it; fix it. Read the easily available summary from Fitzgerald and see if it fits the story you are invesnting for Libby.

There's no law saying you have to post on a topic you are not informed about. You can say nothing until you are informed enough to make a good comment, and that's often advisable.

But whether or not it was "intentional" has yet to be proven in a court of law.

Meaningful discussion can occur on topics which have not been proven in a court of law. That's a particularly useless, and hypocritcal, argument to make.

It's never been proven in a court of law whether Nixon ordered the break-ins of Ellsberg's psychiatrist or the democrats' office at the Watergate.

Does that mean we should all say nothing about the issues based on the evidence we have?

Try to take off the ideologica blinders just a little that make you post in ways lashing out with foolishness at any perceived 'enemies' of your side.

Why do you think you are right to make people who have made the effort to get the facts rebut your invented stories because you have not?

Go read the summary from Fitzgerald, and *then* come back with your views whatever they are. For now, you are just posting tidbits of what you imagine might be the case.

I am not posting tidbits of my imagination. I am posting based on what I have read and heard on the radio. I'll try to find some time to do more reading on the topic.
Don't expect me to change my mind, this whole thing has a bad smell to it. They knew it was Armitage all along but still went after everyone else.
Have a nice afternoon.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

File this one under "Duh"

Prosecutor: Libby Wants to Load Up Trial
Oct 06 2:24 PM US/Eastern

By PETE YOST
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON

Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff intends to load up his criminal trial with information about nine national security matters, the names of foreign leaders and details about various terrorist groups, say court filings in the Valerie Plame leak case.
The papers filed this week hint at what has been taking place behind closed doors as Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald tries to limit the amount of classified data that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby is permitted to use at his trial in January.

U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton is asking whether classified evidence would overlap Libby's likely trial testimony. Libby's lawyers have already said he will take the witness stand to deny lying to the FBI in its investigation of the Plame leak.

Even if prosecutors agreed ahead of time about the importance of "the nine national security matters" he wants to disclose, Libby would be entitled to introduce additional evidence, his lawyers wrote.

In court documents, prosecutors argued that it would be "unnecessarily wasteful of time" to allow Libby to present "names of foreign leaders or government officials of other countries, or the names and histories of various terrorist groups."

The danger for prosecutors is that the sheer volume and extreme sensitivity of classified information Libby wants to introduce could scuttle the trial.

Once the judge identifies classified information Libby is entitled to present in order to get a fair trial, U.S. intelligence agencies must rule on whether the secrets can be declassified. The case would collapse if the intelligence agencies refuse to declassify the information.

Libby is charged with five felony counts of perjury, obstruction and making false statements to the FBI.

He is accused of lying about how he learned of Plame's CIA employment and what he told reporters about her when her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, was accusing the Bush administration of twisting prewar intelligence to help sell the public on waging war against Iraq.

Libby plans to use what his lawyers call "a memory defense" and he must be allowed to demonstrate how busy he was, his attorneys say.

Any incorrect information the former White House aide gave investigators about his conversations with reporters was due to "the crush of Mr. Libby's duties," his lawyers said. Libby's main assertion in his statements to investigators was that he learned about the CIA identity of Wilson's wife from reporters.

Prosecutors say there is no dispute that Libby was busy, but that he should not be allowed at the trial to describe so much classified information _ "as if each particular item overwhelmed his ability to remember and to not fabricate other conversations."

Fitzgerald wrote that Libby's proposals for introducing classified information are "so extraordinary both in breadth ... and in depth" that the evidence takes on "a misleading aura, is confusing" if presented to a jury.