<p>
This article is worth reading, it provides information and opinions on two sides of why Libby did what he is accused of doing. The idea that our government would bring the intimidation of a critic (Wilson) to this level is frightening to me. It threatens free speech.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It seems to me that the nefarious explanation is pretty much discounted by both commentators, Mr. B. So you can rest easy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I will rest when the traitors are out of the white house. What is that term “nolo contendre”? Will that be the way Libby will protect his bosses?</p>
<p>Do you think health issues will keep Cheney from testifying?</p>
<p>How do you think the families of the dead and wounded will react when they find out Bush set up this unnecessary war</p>
<p>Latin=I will not defend it</p>
<p>Dont’ admit it but don’t disupte it either.</p>
<p>NOLO CONTENDERE - No contest-has the same effect as a plea of guilty, as far as the criminal sentence is concerned, but may not be considered as an admission of guilt for any other purpose.</p>
<p>I remembered Spiro Agnew going that route but wasn’t sure of the spelling or exact meaning. I guess if he wanted to end it quick this might be one option.</p>
<p>Read the actual indictment:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf[/url]”>http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf</a></p>
<p>Who has ever been convicted under the 1982 law making it illegal to disclose a covert agent’s identity? I can’t find any names. </p>
<p>What I get from the indictment is Libby telling the grand jury (and investigators) that he learned about Plame from reporters, and whenever he passed along the information about Plame to reporters he qualified the information by saying he had learned it from other reporters. The indictment says that those statements were BS. He did not learn about Plame from other reporters. </p>
<p>The lesson here: Don’t BS investigators or a grand jury. Martha Stewart could have told him that.</p>
<p>So you think that Libby felt confident of Fitzgerald sticking his subpoena onto the press huh? I think he hadn’t counted on that…never thought it would happen. Judith Miller gave him some extra summer fun though didn’t she?</p>
<p>Mr B…I don’t think Libby would have much desire to “end it quickly” for that means some jail time and even though he is counting on the GWB Pardon…sitting in the ClubFed isn’t making $$$$. Delay and suffer the squeeze from Fitzgerald…look for action prior to the midterm elections.</p>
<p>What about the idea that, Libby intentionally made the mis statements because to acknowledge he had given out the name would mean he did break the 1982 law, so he chose to risk a lie to avoid being charged on outing a spy. And if he is convicted of lying then he will be indicted for the other crime, or they will hold that to his head as he testifys about wrong doings?</p>
<p>Did Rove acknowledge telling reporters about Wilson’s wife? Will both he and Cheney have to explain why they wanted to discredit Wilson?</p>
<p>Will Bush get an advocate on the supreme court in time?</p>
<p>stay tuned.</p>
<p>“GET” and advocate…you mean get another advocate right? Well he won’t have much to worry about if he get Scalia’s clone now will he? I agree this is worth paying for cable network news! Who needs NFL when you have Beltway Gladiator matches like these? What a spectacle.</p>
<p>“What about the idea that, Libby intentionally made the mis statements because to acknowledge he had given out the name would mean he did break the 1982 law, so he chose to risk a lie to avoid being charged on outing a spy.”</p>
<p>Mr. B I would agree with this and then some. Fitzgerald said in his press conference that he originally thought the investigation would take a year. If it had only taken a year and if he hadn’t been obstructed by Libby’s lies ( which is what he said in so many words ) then the investigation might have wrapped up right around the time of the election. I think Libby, Rove and Cheney were doing anything and everything to keep the American people from discovering that they had been lied to in Bush’s state of the Union message. Lying to Fitz was just a continuation of what they had started long ago with the run- up to the war. They had managed to launch a war by manipulation so why not manipulate an investigation as well. (I actually read the indictment yesterday and I am amazed at the brazeness of the lies - even Republicans with any amount of sense can’t read that and think Libby just couldn’t remember correctly - I’ll place bets right now on his conviction or ratting on Cheney )</p>
<p>I also read an interesting blog that pointed to a pattern in the way Fitzgerald prosecutes. He starts at the bottom with the easiest target and moves his way up.</p>
<p>Well if you think that Libby is going to drop a dime on Cheney then it would only be because of a plea offered to him. Your speculation then is that GWB will pardon Libby regardless of the consequences to Cheney? I am having trouble seeing that a trial in which Cheney will testify is worse for GWB than a plea giving up Cheney. Perhaps you can develop that one for me. I can see that Cheney could exit right w/ medical issues…ride his horse into the sunset.</p>
<p>I think we are at the very, very beginning of this process, and there will be lots more to bet on ahead.</p>
<p>OK…I love a good sport and this is major league isn’t it? I mean all the Bards characters are lining up.</p>
<p>I think it has already been demonstrated that Libby will give up noone, will not say anything incriminating, and will go off to jail in silence… no, wait a sec, that was Liddy, not Libby!!! Spookie, ain’t it? :)</p>
<p>Is there anyone who doesn’t think that Libby will come out of this in five years with a decent savings and investment and job? If convicted, I would rather he lost his investments and retirement and had to work at Wal-Mart for five years.</p>
<p>E.J.Dionne of WaPo agrees with my analysis in post 131.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/31/AR2005103101386.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/31/AR2005103101386.html</a>
Here’s an excerpt:</p>
<p>In his impressive presentation of the indictment of Lewis “Scooter” Libby last week, Patrick Fitzgerald expressed the wish that witnesses had testified when subpoenas were issued in August 2004, and “we would have been here in October 2004 instead of October 2005.”</p>
<p>Note the significance of the two dates: October 2004, before President Bush was reelected, and October 2005, after the president was reelected. Those dates make clear why Libby threw sand in the eyes of prosecutors, in the special counsel’s apt metaphor, and helped drag out the investigation.</p>
<p>As long as Bush still faced the voters, the White House wanted Americans to think that officials such as Libby, Karl Rove and Vice President Cheney had nothing to do with the leak campaign to discredit its arch-critic on Iraq, former ambassador Joseph Wilson.</p>
<p>What financial stress does Libby ever have to endure…I am certain that he can have a free pass w/ IRS forever after fallin on is sword. I mean just think of it. Miraculous deposits of cash or payments to the credit cards…like magic.</p>
<p>Liz, one big problem with both Dionne’s and your thinking: Suppose that Libby had told the entire truth and the timetable that Fitzgerald laid out was met … that would mean that NO indictments would have been handed out just before the election and that the air would have been clear for the Bush re-election. Dionne and other’s on the left continually gloss over the reality of the situation - the only thing that warranted an indictment was the alleged lies. Without the lies, the prosecutor could have folded up shop and gone home to sleep in his bed in Chicago.</p>
<p>Fundingfather,
that argument is just a rehash of Republican talking points. If you read the indictments, it is REALLY obvious that Libby lied. ( I know all the rules about innocent till proven guilty, but if Fitz didn’t have a clear case, he wouldn’t have indicted ) It is just pure bull**** that Libby says he was stressed and couldn’t get his scenarios straight. He lied about conversations with 2 reporters. </p>
<p>As Fitz said, the lies Libby told obstructed him from getting deeper into the investigation.</p>
<p>FF, in the end your party may prevail. In fact, in my gut I fear they will. They’ve managed to divert attention from this for two years. I remember because I followed all the events that are a part of this indictment. Wilson was a lone critic of the Bush administration back then and many people thought this would finally expose the corruption of the Bush administration. At the very least, I hope Americans realize that they’ve been lied to whether it’s legal or not.</p>