Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Well, I guess I'm just stupid, but I really don't understand how Mr Libby getting his story wrong impeded the investigation." I'll be nice and let that huge straight line alone. You don't get it because your interpretation is incorrect. Libby didn't get it "wrong", he LIED. Big difference. He threw up smoke screens that made it impossible for Fitzgerald to tell what happened, and that's a no no any way you cut it.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Well, there will be plenty of grounds, so you don't have to worry about that." Hell, I'm not worried, not at all.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <He threw up smoke screens that made it impossible for Fitzgerald to tell what happened, and that's a no no any way you cut it.> How? Please explain it to me. Please answer the specific quesitons I asked. Because I just don't see it.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj Libby was the scapegoat for the administration. He was sacrificed so that others would not be prosecuted. During the course of the Libby prosecution, a number of key players from the Bush administration got immunity from further investigation and proscecution as a result of their testimony and cooperation. Libby's conviction was the direct result of the administration using a low-level player in the whole mess as a fall guy to protect others with far more guilt on their hands.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "How? Please explain it to me. Please answer the specific quesitons I asked. Because I just don't see it." You know what? It really isn't up to me to justify this verdict to anyone. I didn't try this case. We all read about as it went along. We all saw Libby's statements that contradicted others'. Whenever his version didn't agree with someone else's he didn't simply get it "wrong", he lied. Period. David Gergen and Scott McClellan were on CNN last night. They agreed there is a lot more happening here than has been disclosed. They also don't think we'll ever find out what really went down, and this is from person, McClellan, who has spent time in this Administration. Libby got thrown under the bus.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Libby was the scapegoat for the administration. He was sacrificed so that others would not be prosecuted. During the course of the Libby prosecution, a number of key players from the Bush administration got immunity from further investigation and proscecution as a result of their testimony and cooperation. Libby's conviction was the direct result of the administration using a low-level player in the whole mess as a fall guy to protect others with far more guilt on their hands.> Interesting theory. Too bad there isn't any evidence to support it.
Originally Posted By jonvn Fell on his sword, as I said. We will find out in future years just how corrupt and venal this whole situation is. Libby will likely end up looking better than those who he was protecting.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It really isn't up to me to justify this verdict to anyone.> I'm not asking you to justify it. You've been doing that. What I'm asking is to have it explained, with specifics. I can see why you don't want to do that, since the specifics don't make any sense.
Originally Posted By jonvn "What I'm asking is to have it explained" It's already been explained to you. You can not engage in activities that impede a criminal investigation, regardless of whether or not an underlying crime can be determined to have occurred.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Whenever his version didn't agree with someone else's he didn't simply get it "wrong", he lied.> Then almost everone who testified lied, because almost everyone who testified disagreed at least partially with someone else. Some even disagreed with their own testimony.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It's already been explained to you.> With generalities, not with any specifics.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I'm not asking you to justify it. You've been doing that. What I'm asking is to have it explained, with specifics. I can see why you don't want to do that, since the specifics don't make any sense." It all makes perfect sense to me and countless others. He lied. Pretty simple concept.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder What's going on here with Doug is likely very similar to what Fitzgerald had to deal with re: Libby.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <What's going on here with Doug is likely very similar to what Fitzgerald had to deal with re: Libby.> Or not.
Originally Posted By jonvn I guess, Doug, you're just going to have to be perplexed because you were told already what it was like 3 times now.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>What was Fitzgerald supposed to do, wait for him to have lied about conversations with non-journalists?<< Essentially, yes. Past administrations have relied on the immunity of the press to leak any number of things. There have been celebrated cases where reporters were jailed for contempt of court. What I found striking in this instance is that these charges dealt almost exclusively with conversations with members of the press. Obviously, Libby and his superiors felt that they would get the same "pass" as others in the past. >>Ask why Libby felt it necessary to lie about so many conversations with reporters.<< I alluded to this in post #11. It turns out that Libby probably didn't really know who the source of the leak actually was, but was so anxious to cover his superiors that he ended up condemning himself. Regardless, lying under oath is lying under oath. That much is still clear to me, anyway.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Doug, you're just going to have to be perplexed because you were told already what it was like 3 times now.> I guess if someone doesn't understand the differences between specifics and generalities, it doesn't do any good to ask them specific questions.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Doug, if you're really going to be so disingenuous and continually ask why lying to a grand jury is wrong, don't wait too long for an answer.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Then almost everone who testified lied, because almost everyone who testified disagreed at least partially with someone else. Some even disagreed with their own testimony.<< The problem with this theory is that Libby didn't just get a few things "wrong." His testimony disagreed with at least nine others who were interviewed. If everyone else is saying "The sun was shining," and one guy is saying, "It rained that day," it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who is "getting their story wrong." It is possible that Libby simply suffers from a defective memory. But in a situation like this, it seems more likely he was lying.
