If he is convicted he will be disbarred. Just thought of that.
Libby indicted..
- Thread starter headscratcher4
- Start date
-
- Tags
- indicted
If he is convicted he will be disbarred. Just thought of that.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
)davefoc
Philosopher
In response to davefoc's theory that Libby might delay and play for a pardon:
One fact of American law is that significant evidence of guilt can often be overcome with very skillful lawyers. And Libby just might be willing to bet on that coupled with a pretty good shot at a pardon rather than flip on his buddies.
On the other hand if the Bush administration passes the word that a pardon is coming, maybe Tricky and CD are right. Libby takes the best deal he can get from Fitzgerald that doesn't require any significant disclosure and just cools his heels for a year or so until the pardon shows up.
The biggest wildcard in that scenario might be Fitzgerald. If Fitzgerald decides to play hard ball and not accept anything other than a full honest description of what went on and who the players were, I still think the Libby hangs tough and plays for an acquittal and a pardon if necessary.
One fact of American law is that significant evidence of guilt can often be overcome with very skillful lawyers. And Libby just might be willing to bet on that coupled with a pretty good shot at a pardon rather than flip on his buddies.
On the other hand if the Bush administration passes the word that a pardon is coming, maybe Tricky and CD are right. Libby takes the best deal he can get from Fitzgerald that doesn't require any significant disclosure and just cools his heels for a year or so until the pardon shows up.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
A deal might not involve Libby flipping on his buddies, it might just involve a reduced sentence in exchange for not putting the system to the expense and effort of winning a contested case. I don't think that's uncommon in the US, but I may be too influenced by Laura Norder. If the decision is Fitzgerald's to make, and he treats this as he would any other case, he might go for a deal.
To my mind, the biggest wildcard is Libby. It's his cock that's on the block. This isn't some ex-POW Vietnam vet we're talking about, it's someone with no record of serious stress. Didn't even lose one of his homes to Katrina, as far as I've heard. I have this image of Fitzgerald and Libby sitting across an interview table and Fitzgerald saying ... nothing. Just looking. With that 2000-yard stare that says "I cut my teeth on Mafiosi". Libby speaks. Speaks again. Starts blabbering. Starts crying and begging for a chance to sell out his friends to save himself. "Do it to her!.
But I only mention that image because it pleases me so. For all I know Libby will take it like a man, or an arrogant trust-fund brat, whatever.
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
[George H.W. Bush] Pardon him, son. It worked with Caspar Weinberger. [/GHWB]
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
You're doing a heck of a job there, Upchurch.
Mmm, now I know what to wish for next time I see a shooting star... Nice little 1984 reference, by the way...
delphi_ote
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 5,994
The honorable thing to do would have been to have not done any of this in the first place. These are not honorable people.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
The question that interests me most is, do they realize that? Or are they deluded into thinking they're doing the right thing? In the pit of their minds, do they realize how dishonorably they're acting, or do they just not see it? Are they in denial even to themselves?
davefoc
Philosopher
My cut at this is that they do not see themselves as dishonorable. They have adopted a kind of morality where the promotion of themselves and their ideas is a higher priority than absolute truth. I think, just about every politician arrives at that place to some degree.
What is interesting here is that Libby told a lie that had a good chance of being detected. Why would he have done that? It seems a cover story with less risk could have been found. Probably, the improbability of a successful leak investigation played a role in his thinking. Prior to this I believe there had not been any successful high level leak investigations My own thought here though, is that Libby lied because he was used to lying. Lying had been standard operating procedure in the White House for a long time before this and Libby was conditioned to think that he could lie without repercussions. Even now, he seems intent on following a path that involves more lying to explain away the lies that got himself into this mess.
For what it is worth, it seems that Clinton pretty much went down the same path, He finally told the truth when confronted with overwhelming evidence but he returned immediately to lying, IMHO, when he no longer felt in jeopardy of being detected. There may be some difference in the kind of lying that Clinton engaged in. I think Clinton lied about some political issues, obviously about sex, and he lied about the pardons but it seems like the lying that was part of the Clinton administration was more compartmentalized. I think lying has played a very significant role in the overall strategy of the Bush administration.
What is interesting here is that Libby told a lie that had a good chance of being detected. Why would he have done that? It seems a cover story with less risk could have been found. Probably, the improbability of a successful leak investigation played a role in his thinking. Prior to this I believe there had not been any successful high level leak investigations My own thought here though, is that Libby lied because he was used to lying. Lying had been standard operating procedure in the White House for a long time before this and Libby was conditioned to think that he could lie without repercussions. Even now, he seems intent on following a path that involves more lying to explain away the lies that got himself into this mess.
For what it is worth, it seems that Clinton pretty much went down the same path, He finally told the truth when confronted with overwhelming evidence but he returned immediately to lying, IMHO, when he no longer felt in jeopardy of being detected. There may be some difference in the kind of lying that Clinton engaged in. I think Clinton lied about some political issues, obviously about sex, and he lied about the pardons but it seems like the lying that was part of the Clinton administration was more compartmentalized. I think lying has played a very significant role in the overall strategy of the Bush administration.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
That's a pretty good cut. The whole thing about morality is that it is personal. I think most people would agree that there are lies and there are Lies. It is okay to lie if it is for the greater good, or for the good of people you value higher than others. The classic example is a prisoner of war lying to protect his battalion.
So in his own twisted way, Libby and most of the other Bush crowd seem to have decided that they are lying for the greater good. It is, IMHO, a twisted morality, but a morality nevertheless. They are protecting their buddies, i.e. rich people. Perhaps they feel like having a wide class separation is good for America, creating jobs and all. I disagree with their concept of morality and will do what I can to see that they are replaced at the first opportunity. But I still doubt that anyone is doing what they did simply because they wish to be evil.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
Don't we all operate that way at some level or another? Many, if not most, would agree that defending our country against invasion might require killing some other humans. "Enlightened self-interest" is another term for it.
But what we need to avoid it the position that certain ends justify any means. The ends and the means need to be balanced to find the greater good. It's a tough balancing act, and people put the fulcrum at different places.
Euromutt
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2005
- Messages
- 1,092
This is not based on any personal liking for Libby, but I really don't care for this kind of indictment. That is, indictments on charges of "perjury" and/or "obstruction of justice" when no actual crime has (shown to have) been committed, and there is therefore no criminal investigation to derail.
I thought the charges of perjury against Clinton were horses**t, because while I don't contest that he lied, he lied in response to questions that Starr had absolutely no business asking him in the first place. I thought the conviction of Martha Stewart for obstruction was horses**t, since the prosecution couldn't actually show she committed insider trading. And I think the indictment against Libby is horses**t. I'm really not impressed by Fitzgerald's performance. When this Plame thing blew up two years ago, I looked up the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 and tentatively concluded, based on what I could unearth, that Plame did not meet the definition of "covert agent" under the Act, and that therefore no crime had been committed. That took me thirty minutes, so what in Ghu's name has Fitzgerald been doing for two years?! Call me old-fashioned, but I rather think that the first task of law-enforcement and prosecution is to establish whether a crime actually took place before they start trolling for suspects. (And that's speaking as a former staff member on a prosecutor's staff.)
I should clarify, though, that I make a distinction between "nothing illegal took place" and "nothing untoward took place." Dragging Plame into the "sixteen words" controversy was an act of utmost petty vindictiveness on the White House's part, it was unethical, it deserves censure, and those responsible should not even be given the opportunity to resign; they should be handed their pink slips and told they'll never work inside the Beltway again. But that's not the same as prosecuting them on some trumped-up charge.
I should also add that I won't accept that same argument from anybody (especially Republicans) who ever opined that Clinton should have been indicted for perjury.
I thought the charges of perjury against Clinton were horses**t, because while I don't contest that he lied, he lied in response to questions that Starr had absolutely no business asking him in the first place. I thought the conviction of Martha Stewart for obstruction was horses**t, since the prosecution couldn't actually show she committed insider trading. And I think the indictment against Libby is horses**t. I'm really not impressed by Fitzgerald's performance. When this Plame thing blew up two years ago, I looked up the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 and tentatively concluded, based on what I could unearth, that Plame did not meet the definition of "covert agent" under the Act, and that therefore no crime had been committed. That took me thirty minutes, so what in Ghu's name has Fitzgerald been doing for two years?! Call me old-fashioned, but I rather think that the first task of law-enforcement and prosecution is to establish whether a crime actually took place before they start trolling for suspects. (And that's speaking as a former staff member on a prosecutor's staff.)
I should clarify, though, that I make a distinction between "nothing illegal took place" and "nothing untoward took place." Dragging Plame into the "sixteen words" controversy was an act of utmost petty vindictiveness on the White House's part, it was unethical, it deserves censure, and those responsible should not even be given the opportunity to resign; they should be handed their pink slips and told they'll never work inside the Beltway again. But that's not the same as prosecuting them on some trumped-up charge.
I should also add that I won't accept that same argument from anybody (especially Republicans) who ever opined that Clinton should have been indicted for perjury.
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2001
- Messages
- 14,862
Politicians lie as reflexively as children lie... it's probably out of their mouths before they even have a chance to consider what they're saying.
Unlike most children, however, we reinforce the lying behavior in politicians by how we vote.
Unlike most children, however, we reinforce the lying behavior in politicians by how we vote.
delphi_ote
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 5,994
But isn't the investigation ongoing?
davefoc
Philosopher
Euromutt wrote:
I tend to disagree with at least part of this. I think that perjury charges in this case were exactly the right kind of tool to move an investigation along. If people won't testify or don't testify honestly how is it possible to investigate a crime like this?
Part of your point here might have been that there was no underlying crime to investigate in this case. If that was your point I think that that is probably not correct.
First I doubt that the CIA would have asked for an investigation if they had not thought that releasing the information that Plame was an operative was not at least a serious breech. Secondly, I don't think any responsible prosecutor would have pursued this investigation unless there was a good chance that a crime had been committed. And thirdly I doubt that the bush administration would have worked to keep the source of the leak secret if they didn't believe that releasing Plame's name wasn't a serious breech of the public trust at least, if not a crime.
As to whether the release of Plame's name could have been prosecuted or not seems problematic at this point but I think there is a better chance that a prosecutable crime was committed here than the Republican talking point on this would lead one to believe.
The guy that wrote this article seems to think so anyway:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fiderer/whom-should-i-believe-vi_b_9456.html
At any rate I think your point is more applicable to the Clinton situation. He was required to testify on a situation where it was later determined that his testimony was not relevant. So he was tried for perjury in a civil case where the actual testimony was judged irrelevant to the case. Compare that to this situation where a plan may have been put in place to out a CIA agent for political gain. While I thought that Clinton's perjury was a serious issue the potential crimes involved in this case are much more serious.
If nothing else, you have to give the Republican spin meisters a few points for hutzpah with their perjury doesn't matter talking point. Easily the single most hypocritical political spin of my life. I can't quite figure out how they can even spit it out with a straight face.
I tend to disagree with at least part of this. I think that perjury charges in this case were exactly the right kind of tool to move an investigation along. If people won't testify or don't testify honestly how is it possible to investigate a crime like this?
Part of your point here might have been that there was no underlying crime to investigate in this case. If that was your point I think that that is probably not correct.
First I doubt that the CIA would have asked for an investigation if they had not thought that releasing the information that Plame was an operative was not at least a serious breech. Secondly, I don't think any responsible prosecutor would have pursued this investigation unless there was a good chance that a crime had been committed. And thirdly I doubt that the bush administration would have worked to keep the source of the leak secret if they didn't believe that releasing Plame's name wasn't a serious breech of the public trust at least, if not a crime.
As to whether the release of Plame's name could have been prosecuted or not seems problematic at this point but I think there is a better chance that a prosecutable crime was committed here than the Republican talking point on this would lead one to believe.
The guy that wrote this article seems to think so anyway:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fiderer/whom-should-i-believe-vi_b_9456.html
At any rate I think your point is more applicable to the Clinton situation. He was required to testify on a situation where it was later determined that his testimony was not relevant. So he was tried for perjury in a civil case where the actual testimony was judged irrelevant to the case. Compare that to this situation where a plan may have been put in place to out a CIA agent for political gain. While I thought that Clinton's perjury was a serious issue the potential crimes involved in this case are much more serious.
If nothing else, you have to give the Republican spin meisters a few points for hutzpah with their perjury doesn't matter talking point. Easily the single most hypocritical political spin of my life. I can't quite figure out how they can even spit it out with a straight face.
Euromutt
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2005
- Messages
- 1,092
Let me qualify my earlier comment; I won't contend, at this point in time, that no violation of the law occurred. I will, however, contend, that no violation of the law has (yet) been shown to have occurred, and I'm inclined to think--on the basis of my personal experience working as a flunkey in a prosecutorial organization--that two years should be more than enough time to establish whether or not the identification of Valerie Plame as an employee of the CIA actually constituted a violation of the law. Based on what I've read, it appears that Plame does not meet the definition of "covert agent" set out in the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, since she had not worked outside the US in the five years prior to July 2003. Now, I might be misinformed on this point, but I would think that two years would be enough time for a special prosecutor to establish this one way or the other. How hard can it be to find the appropriate people at Langley, place a copy of the Act in front of them and ask "Did Valerie Plame meet the definition of 'covert operative' as of July 2003, yes or no?"?
In that regard, there is what I consider to be an extremely disturbing element in prosecutorial culture in the US, which is a tendency to first identify a suspect and only then go looking for something to nail him on, and keeping on trolling until something is found, no matter how trivial it would be if taken by itself. I would say this started with the conviction of Al Capone for tax evasion, the only thing the feds could actually pin on him. Now, I understand that in the case of organized crime bosses, this may be the only practical approach available, but I think such an approach should be used sparingly, not as matter of routine. Unfortunately, as I understand it, Fitzgerald made his mark nailing organized crime bosses, and I suspect that the tendency to employ this approach may be particularly strong in him.
As for the CIA, I suspect the culture towards secrecy may be a lot stronger than is actually supported by the law. Somone on another board told me a fellow student of his did an internship at Langley one summer; this guy didn't do anything remotely covert, but everyone around him was officially discouraged from mentioning his involvement with the Agency. Intelligence agencies love to keep things secret, and I bet the CIA's pretty annoyed at Plame's status being exposed, but it's not the CIA's call whether or not that should illegal.
And yeah, the White House seems to have been hell-bent on covering up who leaked Plame's name to the press, but as you yourself say, Dave, that's because the leak was arguably a serious breach of public trust, whether it was illegal or not.
davefoc
Philosopher
Euromutt, what you say strikes me as reasonable.
The thought has occurred to me that more evidence exists that the release of Plame's identity as a CIA operative was a violation of law but that evidence as not been publically released so as to not release any more information about her CIA role than was necessary for the purposes of the prosecution.
The thought has occurred to me that more evidence exists that the release of Plame's identity as a CIA operative was a violation of law but that evidence as not been publically released so as to not release any more information about her CIA role than was necessary for the purposes of the prosecution.
joe1347
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2005
- Messages
- 381
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7606.shtml
Bush's Increasing Mental Lapses and Temper Tantrums Worry White House Aides
By DOUG THOMPSON
Nov 2, 2005, 05:26
"An uncivil war rages inside the walls of the West Wing of the White House, a bitter, acrimonious war driven by a failed agenda, destroyed credibility, dwindling public support and a President who lapses into Alzheimer-like periods of incoherent babbling. . . "
I'm surprised that the indictment would have that much of an effect on the Administration. Possibly it's more horrible war-related news.
Bush's Increasing Mental Lapses and Temper Tantrums Worry White House Aides
By DOUG THOMPSON
Nov 2, 2005, 05:26
"An uncivil war rages inside the walls of the West Wing of the White House, a bitter, acrimonious war driven by a failed agenda, destroyed credibility, dwindling public support and a President who lapses into Alzheimer-like periods of incoherent babbling. . . "
I'm surprised that the indictment would have that much of an effect on the Administration. Possibly it's more horrible war-related news.