Indictments Pool

Parent Cafe
61

<p>Driver, I’ll make book that when the dust settles, it will be you who will have been living unequivocally in La-La land. It’s already the case, the point will be merely proved.</p>

62

<p>On the Times: I don’t think Sulzberger is going to roll over on this one. He’s getting slammed in his own paper by Dowd, Keller and Calame. He’ll take it for now, but there will be a reaction later.</p>

<p>Lizschup Thanks for the article. I still think that there’s more to the Judith Miller connection than an “entanglement” on any level with Libby and that more will be revealed. I don’t have any particular affection for Miller, but it does seem a little out of context to be crucifying her now for her WMD articles. </p>

<p>On Libby’s likely indictment: Libby impresses me as a careful person and it just doesn’t make sense that he would be so sloppy in his testimony to a grand jury. </p>

<p>Mickey Kaus writes in Slate: “Obvious problem #2: Would Libby really have been dumb enough to contradict his own notes (which the prosecutor has had from the start) under oath? …” I guess we’ll find out soon.</p>

<p>On the whole mess: “Sought to discredit” a phrase that we see again and again, applies equally to both sides.I keep hearing the West Side Story refrain: But they began it, but they began it. </p>

<p>I’m heavy on Slate today. Michael Kinsey has an entertaining synopsis.
<a href=“http://slate.msn.com/id/2128916/[/url]”>http://slate.msn.com/id/2128916/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Driver, thanks for the links on the grand jury process. (Also, before I forget, thanks for the Monty Python index link from the other thread. I’m sure there’s an applicable episode here too. I was in hysterics over News for Parrots. Especially having just seen a parrot with avian flu as the headliner on the BBC.)</p>

63

<p>

There may be something to this. I just heard an interview with a former undercover CIA operative who said that he was outed by a Dem staffer in '97 who faxed his name and affiliation to the press. When he went to the CIA to complain about it, the answer that he got was “this happens all the time - just forget about it”.</p>

64

<p>BUSH DYNASTY and CIA history. Somehow this is all connected I do believe. This problem is long and incestuous but is coming to a head…looking pretty stinky. Where is Colin Powell today? Where is George Tenet today? How 'bout Wolfowitz? Neocons unite…the grand Evangelical Mullah temples will be rocking this weekend now won’t they? Stamp out the Mullahs “overthere” and pull in the power base, the core of the party in the US. Theocracy is the word. We hate it in IRAN but we accept and promote it at home.</p>

65

<p>somehow this is so hollow, so disappointing. A 2 year investigation and all you have is somebody lied to you in the course of the investigation…</p>

66

<p>Obstruction
Perjury
False Statement</p>

<p>Fmr. Ambassador Wilson must be wearing a bullet proof vest…like the ones GIs wear over in IRAQ.</p>

67

<p>Odds pay out at 6 to 1; and 15 to 1. There may be more to follow.</p>

68

<p>“The over-arching obstruction of justice count alleges that while testifying under oath before the
grand jury on March 5 and March 24 2004, Libby knowingly and corruptly endeavored to influence,
obstruct and impede the grand jury’s investigation by misleading and deceiving the grand jury as to
when, and the manner and means by which, he acquired, and subsequently disclosed to the media,
information concerning the employment of Valerie Wilson by the CIA.”</p>

<p>If you read the actual statement or the prosecutor, it’s obvious that this isn’t just “somebody lying to you in the course of the investigtation.” The indictment goes on to explain exactly what Libby did, and how he did, indeed, knowingly leak Plame’s name to reporters. Why isn’t he indicted for the actual leaking? My guess is that it’s part of his plea bargain.
We may never know what Rove gave up to escape indictment - or he still
may be.</p>

69

<p>Also from the statement,</p>

<p>“If convicted, the crimes charged in the indictment carry the following maximum penalties on
each count: obstruction of justice – 10 years in prison, and making false statements and perjury –5 years
in prison, and each count carries a maximum fine of $250,000, making the maximum penalty for
conviction on all counts 30 years in prison and a $1.25 million fine. Note, however, that the Court
would determine the appropriate sentence to be imposed.”</p>

<p>Hey, it beats the penalty for treason.</p>

70

<p>The plea bargain may be to “out” Cheney (and maybe others). Any oddsmakers on whether Libby will fall on his sword?</p>

<p>I love the part about “knowingly and corruptly”. ;)</p>

71

<p>NJRes, yeah, lying to someone about a consensual sex act while investigating allegations about financial improprieties got someone impeached. </p>

<p>These lies only compromised a U.S. agent, any source that she worked with over the years, were part of a politics by vendetta, and served to cloak the fabrication of intelligence to support going to war. Life’s a…dontcha know?</p>

72

<p>…and the lies only came from the Chief of Staff for the Vice President of the United States.</p>

73

<p>Libby has probably done all the implicating he’s planning to do. He continued to go to work in the WH every day this week. I’m sure he’s been briefed on his ""obligations, and he needs his friends now more than ever. Something about aspens and being joined at the roots…</p>

74

<p>I think that Fitzgerald is not only going after the lie, but the “why.”
He’ not finished.</p>

75

<p>I’m really glad that he’s “innocent until proven guilty”. He can contest the “knowingly and corruptibly”, in which case the whole thing gets played out in court, with Cheney and Rove and whoever on the stand. Or he can plead guilty, in which case he will have to stipulate as to who knew and when they knew it.</p>

<p>I do love our legal system. ;)</p>

76

<p>Does anyone know when the trial will be? I thought I heard a year from now. </p>

<p>For those that don’t follow politics, Libby is one of the so-called Neocons (scroll to the bottom of the page) :
<a href=“PREDIKSI168: Situs Judi Slot Online Gacor Hari Ini Dan Slot88 Gampang Menang”>PREDIKSI168: Situs Judi Slot Online Gacor Hari Ini Dan Slot88 Gampang Menang;

77

<p>A Neo-con. Oh my God…I had no idea…It all makes so much sense now.</p>

78

<p>You’re being sarcastic, driver, but Libby’s hawkishness is directly related to the case at hand. All of the PNAC guys have been wanting to use miliarty force to dominate the middle east long before Bush II was crowned, and it’s no surprise that they would go after someone who might make their goal more difficult to sell to the American public.</p>

79

<p>A.S.A.P. thank you for that reply - articulated so much better than I could have done.</p>

80

<p>It was good that you posted that link. I hope some of the high school students who are interested in the direction this administration is taking us will explore it fully. It really does “all make so much sense…” when you know where the people running things are coming from, idealogically.</p>