Libby Indicted On 5 Counts; Resigns

[Paul Tao]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/28/leak.probe/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, resigned on Friday after a federal grand jury indicted him on charges related to the CIA leak investigation.

Libby was indicted on one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury and two counts of making false statements, court documents show.

[Cal Smith]

Interesting to see where this goes. Something I never understood was if her "undercover" identity was so important...........why would her and her husband do a nice photoshoot (http://roscoe.typepad.com/roscoeblog/images/valerieplame_joseph20wilson-thumb.jpg) for? Seems kind of ridiculous.

Also as most Democrats will contest. Lying under oath is really not that big of deal. Certainly not worth stepping down over (purely sarcasm)

[Lueda Alia]

Interesting to see where this goes. Something I never understood was if her "undercover" identity was so important...........why would her and her husband do a nice photoshoot (http://roscoe.typepad.com/roscoeblog/images/valerieplame_joseph20wilson-thumb.jpg) for? Seems kind of ridiculous.

Also as most Democrats will contest. Lying under oath is really not that big of deal. Certainly not worth stepping down over (purely sarcasm)Even now, you can't say, "I'm glad that someone who broke the law is being punished." I will never understand how people like you think.

And there is no reason to bring the past or democrats into this. It's quite funny how you always try to change the subject whenever something like this happens.

[Trainsaw]

Even now, you can't say, "I'm glad that someone who broke the law is being punished." I will never understand how people like you think.

And there is no reason to bring the past or democrats into this. It's quite funny how you always try to change the subject whenever something like this happens.
Because he'll pretty much kiss anyone on the right's ass, even if they obviously do wrong, "The Right can do no wrong! Its gotta be those god damn liberals trying to bring us down!". Supposively Rove isn't getting charged either.

[Paul Tao]

Interesting to see where this goes. Something I never understood was if her "undercover" identity was so important...........why would her and her husband do a nice photoshoot (http://roscoe.typepad.com/roscoeblog/images/valerieplame_joseph20wilson-thumb.jpg) for? Seems kind of ridiculous.

Also as most Democrats will contest. Lying under oath is really not that big of deal. Certainly not worth stepping down over (purely sarcasm)

Well, I think the outrage is more over the fact that Libby had something to do with the leaking than with the lying under oath. This is only the beginning anyways though, apparently there a lot more indictments to come. We'll see how this plays out.

[Cal Smith]

Even now, you can't say, "I'm glad that someone who broke the law is being punished." I will never understand how people like you think.

And there is no reason to bring the past or democrats into this. It's quite funny how you always try to change the subject whenever something like this happens.

Hmmmm.........he hasnt been found guilty of anything. We don't know if he broke the law or not, so instead of jumping the gun and jumping down my throat at least know what you're talking about.

If this goes to trial and he's found guilty then it's better to have him out of the administration and I hope he gets the full extent of the law if it warrants.

Perhaps if you'll understand the situation you'll understand how people like me think.

Because he'll pretty much kiss anyone on the right's ass, even if they obviously do wrong, "The Right can do no wrong! Its gotta be those god damn liberals trying to bring us down!". Supposively Rove isn't getting charged either.

Perhaps you should join her in at least getting a grasp around the situation. It's a "charge" he hasnt been found guilty and hasn't even been given a trial to present his side. All a grand jury does it look at the evidence that a prosecutor puts forward (you have no defense) and then the grand jury decideds if there is enough evidence to have a trial.

Get a clue or dont post and look stupid.

[siberianxkiss]

fitzgerald supposedly has a pretty good prosecutorial record. doesnt look good for libby

[Cal Smith]

Well, I think the outrage is more over the fact that Libby had something to do with the leaking than with the lying under oath.

That's what I would think, but in the link you posted it said the indictments did not involve the actual leak. From what little I have read and seen so far it has to do with Libby saying "well i didnt know she was uncover or worked for cia" to the grand jury................then on the other hand you have accounts of him tell people that she did.

This is only the beginning anyways though, apparently there a lot more indictments to come. We'll see how this plays out.

Thank God...........a refreshing splash of common sense.

[Paul Tao]

That's what I would think, but in the link you posted it said the indictments did not involve the actual leak. From what little I have read and seen so far it has to do with Libby saying "well i didnt know she was uncover or worked for cia" to the grand jury................then on the other hand you have accounts of him tell people that she did.



Thank God...........a refreshing splash of common sense.
If I didn't know any better, I'd think you were hitting on me.

[Cal Smith]

Like Fitzgerald said, and i agree, it is important to keep the identity of a cia officer secret for their security and the national security. But that beign the case that's why it's utterly ridiculous be posing in front of the Whitehouse in a convertable for an article.

If I didn't know any better, I'd think you were hitting on me.

Well I was hoping to get you in your birthday suit tonight being that it is your b-day :girlsmash

[Paul Tao]

Like Fitzgerald said, and i agree, it is important to keep the identity of a cia officer secret for their security and the national security. But that beign the case that's why it's utterly ridiculous be posing in front of the Whitehouse in a convertable for an article.
Well, that was in January 04, after she had already been outed. The secret was already out. I mean, Wilson had already written a book about it; I don't think one photo shoot would have done much else to hurt them.
Well I was hoping to get you in your birthday suit tonight being that it is your b-day :girlsmash

hahaha

[Cal Smith]

And there is no reason to bring the past or democrats into this. It's quite funny how you always try to change the subject whenever something like this happens.

it's not brining it up to to simply look at democrats. it's bringing it up for every idiot who stood by clinton through thick and thin after a judge found he lied under oath, but now want to put libby on a stake simply to hurt the bush administration after he's been charged with the same thing.

It goes the other way around too. Every idiot who wanted clinton to step down, and now trys to defend anyone found guilty in this case should expect them to step down and face the music.

[Lueda Alia]

I know exactly what's happening, and maybe you don't consider all this a punishment, but I do. He's had to resign, etc.

And I don't really care about Clinton. This has absolutely nothing to do with him or democrats, so it makes no sense to me that you bring them up.

And the Bush administration hurts istelf enough, we don't really need to do anything except just watch everything unfold.

[getupkid53]

Bush said he would fire anyone found of any wrong doing, right? I guess this isn't technically wrong doing because no one has been convicted, but I think its about damn time the president tries to separate himself from these evildoers......Their time has come

[Cal Smith]

I know exactly what's happening, and maybe you don't consider all this a punishment, but I do. He's had to resign, etc.

You dont know what's going on. If you did you wouldn't post, "I'm glad that someone who broke the law is being punished." You either dont know what's going on or you're just assuming he's guilty based on nothing (considering there hasnt been a trial and he has even preseneted his side). So take your pick? I think you just don't know what's going on.

And I don't really care about Clinton. This has absolutely nothing to do with him or democrats, so it makes no sense to me that you bring them up.

And the Bush administration hurts istelf enough, we don't really need to do anything except just watch everything unfold.

I got $20 bucks says you have an opinion on Clinton when he a judge found him guilty of lying under oath. And obviously now you've made your opinon apparent regarding Libby (even though he hasnt been found guilty). I'd be willing to bet those opinions don't match up in equality?

[Lueda Alia]

You dont know what's going on. If you did you wouldn't post, "I'm glad that someone who broke the law is being punished." You either dont know what's going on or you're just assuming he's guilty based on nothing (considering there hasnt been a trial and he has even preseneted his side). So take your pick? I think you just don't know what's going on.



I got $20 bucks says you have an opinion on Clinton when he a judge found him guilty of lying under oath. And obviously now you've made your opinon apparent regarding Libby (even though he hasnt been found guilty). I'd be willing to bet those opinions don't match up in equality?
I'm pretty sure you already know how I feel about Rove and everyone else (including Libby - because I've expressed my opinion on this before), so in my eyes, he isn't innocent, which is what I meant by my statement.

And um, do you just not get it? I simply couldn't care less about what happened to Clinton. Don't even get me started on that, not only because 1) it's not relevant to what this thread is about, but... 2) the situations are completely different.

[FightBackHarder]

Point is, don't assume guilt just because of your bias. Or at least, don't presume to be able to enter a political forum and have people take you serious when you do it. Innocent til proven guilty is the way this country works on left and right.

[Lueda Alia]

Point is, don't assume guilt just because of your bias. Or at least, don't presume to be able to enter a political forum and have people take you serious when you do it. Innocent til proven guilty is the way this country works on left and right.
I'm not biased, I'm convinced. Maybe I'm wrong, I'm not saying that's not a possibility. But so far, I believe he's guilty, and I'm allowed to have that opinion.

[Cal Smith]

I'm pretty sure you already know how I feel about Rove and everyone else (including Libby - because I've expressed my opinion on this before), so in my eyes, he isn't innocent, which is what I meant by my statement.

So.........you dont understand how I think because I don't, like you, assume their guilty? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. You just don't know what's going on and thought they were found guilty.

"I will never understand how people like you think."


2) the situations are completely different.

How foolish are you? When you have two people charged or found guilty of the exact same charge, you should expect punishement for both. You shouldn't excuse one for breaking the law and then condemn the other. You want to talk about being partisan......you are the worst and this thread is a prime example.

[Lueda Alia]

So.........you dont understand how I think because I don't, like you, assume their guilty? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. You just don't know what's going on and thought they were found guilty.

"I will never understand how people like you think."




How foolish are you? When you have two people charged or found guilty of the exact same charge, you should expect punishement for both. You shouldn't excuse one for breaking the law and then condemn the other. You want to talk about being partisan......you are the worst and this thread is a prime example.When did I say I'm excusing one for breaking the law? I've never said a thing concerning Clinton. You keep bringing it up, I'm simply telling you why I don't want to talk about it. Yet you keep bringing it up. Why are you so obsessed with changing the subject of this thread and also, why always bring up Democrats in things like this, when you really have no reason to? Is there no other way to defend your loved Republicans? You may give up the Clinton arguement because I'm telling you for the last time, that I couldn't care less about what he did, nor do I want to talk about "Democrats" when they have nothing to do with this situation.

And I explained why I don't understand people like you. Go read Brandon's reply, too.

[Cal Smith]

When did I say I'm excusing one for breaking the law? I've never said a thing concerning Clinton. You keep bringing it up, I'm simply telling you why I don't want to talk about it. Yet you keep bringing it up. Why are you so obsessed with changing the subject of this thread and also, why always bring up Democrats in things like this, when you really have no reason to? Is there no other way to defend your loved Republicans? You may give up the Clinton arguement because I'm telling you for the last time, that I couldn't care less about what he did, nor do I want to talk about "Democrats" when they have nothing to do with this situation.

And I'm just saying I think your full of BS and would bet my left arm you do have an opinion on the clinton case, and I've be wiling to bet it doesnt match up with what you think about this case.

And I explained why I don't understand people like you. Go read Brandon's reply, too.

Yes, and what you are arguing now doesnt match up well to what you said in your first post. Let's disect what you said, and i'll explain why.

Exihbit A: "Even now, you can't say, "I'm glad that someone who broke the law is being punished.""
----first as i pointed out he has not been found to have broken a law (you excused this away by saying you assume he's guilty)

Exihbit B:: "I will never understand how people like you think."
----But what makes me think you dont know what's really going on is this statement. It makes no sense for you not to understand that I dont "assume" he's guilty. Everyone should not assume he's guilty.

My Hypothesis: You have no clue how the legal system works and actually believe Libby had been found guilty. When I pointed out how a grand jury works you started falling back on excuses as to what you "really" meant.

[Lueda Alia]

And I'm just saying I think your full of BS and would bet my left arm you do have an opinion on the clinton case, and I've be wiling to bet it doesnt match up with what you think about this case.



Yes, and what you are arguing now doesnt match up well to what you said in your first post. Let's disect what you said, and i'll explain why.

Exihbit A: "Even now, you can't say, "I'm glad that someone who broke the law is being punished.""
----first as i pointed out he has not been found to have broken a law (you excused this away by saying you assume he's guilty)

Exihbit B:: "I will never understand how people like you think."
----But what makes me think you dont know what's really going on is this statement. It makes no sense for you not to understand that I dont "assume" he's guilty. Everyone should not assume he's guilty.

My Hypothesis: You have no clue how the legal system works and actually believe Libby had been found guilty. When I pointed out how a grand jury works you started falling back on excuses as to what you "really" meant.I never said I don't have an opinion on Clinton. Quote me. I only said I don't care to talk about it.

Secondly, I'm not making excuses to what I really meant, and I consider him guilty based on what I know, and if you had said that I can't base it on anything that's completely proven, then I agree (and I have - look above. I said it's only an opinion), so technically, you don't have to admit or say anything so far. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't say anything bad because of the past, though. But I take that back - the "accusation." We'll see. So can we continue with the debate now? Or do you want me to start another thread for this since this is clearly only between the two of us and you won't give this up even after this post?

I have a question - since you can't really say anything bad about someone that's not "convicted" yet - do you think that there's any possibility that Libby and Rove might be guilty? I've seen your posts so I already have the answer to my question, but your straight answer would be better, because I don't want to accuse you of not doubting that they might be guilty.

[Cal Smith]

I'm not biased, I'm convinced. Maybe I'm wrong, I'm not saying that's not a possibility. But so far, I believe he's guilty, and I'm allowed to have that opinion.

Not being biased......lol......lol........... what the hell are you talking about. You're being biased to the tee.

You say your convinced they're guilty. Well considering only one side of the story has even been presented (the prosecuters), and Libby has not been able to present anything to back up his side of the story..................yet you're convinced he's guilty. That in itself should be the defenition of biased because you have made up your mind without even hearing the other side.

[A picasso blue]

You dont know what's going on. If you did you wouldn't post, "I'm glad that someone who broke the law is being punished." You either dont know what's going on or you're just assuming he's guilty based on nothing (considering there hasnt been a trial and he has even preseneted his side). So take your pick? I think you just don't know what's going on.



I got $20 bucks says you have an opinion on Clinton when he a judge found him guilty of lying under oath. And obviously now you've made your opinon apparent regarding Libby (even though he hasnt been found guilty). I'd be willing to bet those opinions don't match up in equality?
in your first post, you made the fact that her identity was revealed seem ok cuz 'hey, they're doing a photo shoot!' well whoever did it still broke the law. so you basically just excused whoever committed the crime

[Lueda Alia]

Not being biased......lol......lol........... what the hell are you talking about. You're being biased to the tee.

You say your convinced they're guilty. Well considering only one side of the story has even been presented (the prosecuters), and Libby has not been able to present anything to back up his side of the story..................yet you're convinced he's guilty. That in itself should be the defenition of biased because you have made up your mind without even hearing the other side.
Oh no, I've been following this for quite a while now. My opinion is not based only on what's going on at this very moment.

And by the way, if you want me to take you seriously, act a little more mature.

[Cal Smith]

I have a question - since you can't really say anything bad about someone that's not "convicted" yet - do you think that there's any possibility that Libby and Rove might be guilty? I've seen your posts so I already have the answer to my question, but your straight answer would be better, because I don't want to accuse you of not doubting that they might be guilty.

There's nothing wrong with believing someone might be guilty............except..........a normal person at least waits till there's a case where both sides or heard, or there is just overwhelming; obvious evidence that someone is guilty. This case took 2 years in a grand jury, so obviously there is not the overwhelming evidence and you've yet to hear both sides.

And yes there is a pretty decent chance Libby is guilty (obviously if there is enough evidence to indict him there's a pretty good chance he did something wrong). There's less of a chance with Rove because after 2 years and no indictment on him it seems obvious those chances have faded, but they havent completely because as it's being said on the news the investigation is still open.

in your first post, you made the fact that her identity was revealed seem ok cuz 'hey, they're doing a photo shoot!' well whoever did it still broke the law. so you basically just excused whoever committed the crime

No, I made the argument that the importance of her identity was crucial seem irrelevant in this case(and I believe this). If you would read the whole conversation with Paul though I say, "Like Fitzgerald said, and i agree, it is important to keep the identity of a cia officer secret for their security and the national security. But that beign the case that's why it's utterly ridiculous be posing in front of the Whitehouse in a convertable for an article."

It had nothing to do with the leakers.

Oh no, I've been following this for quite a while now. My opinion is not based only on what's going on at this very moment.

And by the way, if you want me to take you seriously, act a little more mature.

I've stopped taking a lot of what you say seriously awhile back, so if you want to reverse the tables that's fine cause it doesnt matter to me much.

Again this is how I know your bull of BS. You say you've been following this for quite some time and are convienced Libby is guilty. Well if you truly were following this case remotely closesly you'd realize Libby's name itself did not enter the public arena until Judith Miller a couple of weeks ago (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/15/AR2005101501465.html) was released from jail when she admitted that's where she got her information. And in a case where there hasn't been many, if any, leaks coming out of the grand jury testimoney and Libby's name only coming up a couple weeks ago you'd have to almost have inside information in the case to even have the slightest inclination of Libby's guilt.

[A picasso blue]

anyway, i don't udnerstand why Novak gets off free. i know the information leak leads higher up but still..he has just as big a part in this as any others do

[I am all talk]

Oh no, I've been following this for quite a while now. My opinion is not based only on what's going on at this very moment.

And by the way, if you want me to take you seriously, act a little more mature.
please leave it to paul. You are making liberals look really bad right now.

[Lueda Alia]

There's nothing wrong with believing someone might be guilty............except..........a normal person at least waits till there's a case where both sides or heard, or there is just overwhelming; obvious evidence that someone is guilty. This case took 2 years in a grand jury, so obviously there is not the overwhelming evidence and you've yet to hear both sides.

And yes there is a pretty decent chance Libby is guilty (obviously if there is enough evidence to indict him there's a pretty good chance he did something wrong). There's less of a chance with Rove because after 2 years and no indictment on him it seems obvious those chances have faded, but they havent completely because as it's being said on the news the investigation is still open.



No, I made the argument that the importance of her identity was crucial seem irrelevant in this case(and I believe this). If you would read the whole conversation with Paul though I say, "Like Fitzgerald said, and i agree, it is important to keep the identity of a cia officer secret for their security and the national security. But that beign the case that's why it's utterly ridiculous be posing in front of the Whitehouse in a convertable for an article."

It had nothing to do with the leakers.



I've stopped taking a lot of what you say seriously awhile back, so if you want to reverse the tables that's fine cause it doesnt matter to me much.

Again this is how I know your bull of BS. You say you've been following this for quite some time and are convienced Libby is guilty. Well if you truly were following this case remotely closesly you'd realize Libby's name itself did not enter the public arena until Judith Miller a couple of weeks ago (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/15/AR2005101501465.html) was released from jail when she admitted that's where she got her information. And in a case where there hasn't been many, if any, leaks coming out of the grand jury testimoney and Libby's name only coming up a couple weeks ago you'd have to almost have inside information in the case to even have the slightest inclination of Libby's guilt.You know what, I wrote a post but I realize that if I continue with this, so will you. And I was hoping you had already given this up by now (especially since I took back what I said in my first post and admitted that it's an opinion - based on what I know - more than anything else), but you haven't, and knowing you, I very much doubt you will, so I'm dropping it now and you're better off on Ignore for me. However, I will say this much: Since the other person brought this up, it actually raised a good point. You accuse me of being partisan because I believe he's guilty, but you believe that Rove is innocent because you've been defending him during this whole time. Do you know that he is innocent for sure ? No, but you keep defending him. Do I know that he (and others) is guilty for sure? No, but I keep accusing them (but as you also said, chances are that Libby is guilty since he's been indicted). So how are our opinions any different? Or how is mine worse? We're both doing the same thing because we both have an opinion on whether someone is guilty or not.

[I am all talk]

How does "No" sound to you?
How does "you are presenting horrible arguments and misrepresenting the democratic party" sound to you?

[Lueda Alia]

And what if I said (as I have before), that I couldn't care less about the democratic party? And secondly, I'm not representing anyone else (if I have ever said that I am, then please feel free to quote me), so if you think that my arguements are horrible, then do you have any idea how stupid your post is?

[I am all talk]

And what if I said (as I have before), that I couldn't care less about the democratic party? And secondly, I'm not representing anyone else (if I have ever said that I am, then please feel free to quote me), so if you think that my arguements are horrible, then do you have any idea how stupid your post is?
by attempting to ignore Clinton's lying under oath and claiming that it has nothing to do with this you are, by default, taking a very (ignorant) democratic stance. And you are making horrible claims. Libby has not been punished. All this means is he has been charged. This is the first step. While I am by no means claiming his innocence, he has yet to face any of these charges in the court of law. Stop assuming his guilt before the trial has even started.

[Lueda Alia]

by attempting to ignore Clinton's lying under oath and claiming that it has nothing to do with this you are, by default, taking a very (ignorant) democratic stance. And you are making horrible claims. Libby has not been punished. All this means is he has been charged. This is the first step. While I am by no means claiming his innocence, he has yet to face any of these charges in the court of law. Stop assuming his guilt before the trial has even started.
Claims? I said, it's an opinion, which is why I took back what I said. Since when am I not allowed to assume that he is guilty? Plenty of people weren't sure that Micheal Jackson hadn't molested someone, but they believed he had. Way before his trial. So what's your point? I can't assume until something has been proven? I doubt I'd have to assume anything anymore if something has been proven, though.

And I explained why I think he's punished. And I also explained why I wasn't going to touch the Clinton subject. Honestly, why should I? I'm not claiming that Clinton was innocent, so what is the point of getting into it?

I really hope this can go back on topic now because there are plenty of things we can all say about what's going on instead of try to defend our beliefs. Such arguements will never end because neither side can prove that the other is wrong (yet). I'd be completely fine if I was asked why do I believe he's guilty (as I assume that whoever thinks that he's innocent, would be okay to answer why they think that way, too), but all I'm getting is why I can't have the opinion I have as if it's not allowed to make assumptions and or have opinions.


But I'll make an attempt to get this back on topic by posting something else that I just read:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/006881.php

[Cal Smith]

Since the other person brought this up, it actually raised a good point. You accuse me of being partisan because I believe he's guilty, but you believe that Rove is innocent because you've been defending him during this whole time. Do you know that he is innocent for sure ? No, but you keep defending him. Do I know that he (and others) is guilty for sure? No, but I keep accusing them (but as you also said, chances are that Libby is guilty since he's been indicted). So how are our opinions any different? Or how is mine worse? We're both doing the same thing because we both have an opinion on whether someone is guilty or not.

Hopefully you havent put me on ignore quite yet so I can answer you. Well I havent been defending Rove considering he hasn't been charged with anything, so yes considering there hasn't been a charge made it's a safe assumption. If down the road Rove is charged with something then you look at the evidence. I'm amazed how you "know" Rove is guilty...........yet after a 2 year grand jury investigation they can't even get enough on him to indicte him. AMAZING!!!!!!! But of coarse you're not biased you just know the evidence a little bit better than the grand jury.

As for Libby I dont assume he's guilty nor innocent. Common sense tells you that seeing as how they had enough evidence to indicte him there is a lot better chance he's guilty, but the rest of that sense tells you that there is a second side to the story that is yet unheard.