Originally Posted By DlandDug I also find it humorous that Libby, convicted, is a "high ranking member of the Administration," but Libby, the fall guy, is a "low level staffer." At least one juror has gone on record that he wanted to try and convict much bigger fish (Karl Rove, to be specific*). But if Libby was being served up on a platter, you can't blame the jury for settling with a minnow. *>>Juror Denis Collins summed up the dilemma that he and his associates faced behind closed doors. "There was a frustration that we were trying someone for telling a lie apparently about an event that never became important enough to file charges anywhere else," he said Wednesday on ABC's Good Morning America... "There was a tremendous amount of sympathy for Mr. Libby on the jury. It was said a number of times, 'What are we doing with this guy here? Where's Rove? Where are these other guys?'"<< <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/07/national/w090150S04.DTL" target="_blank">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/07/national/w090150S04.DTL</a>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <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.> If you're really going to be so disingenuous as to mischaracterize my question, I'm obviously not going to get an honest answer from you. I know why lying to a grand jury is wrong; what I don't understand is how specifically Mr Libby's mistatements impeded the investigation.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <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."> And if it was as clear cut as you're implying it was, I'd agree. But it wasn't.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "If you're really going to be so disingenuous as to mischaracterize my question, I'm obviously not going to get an honest answer from you. I know why lying to a grand jury is wrong; what I don't understand is how specifically Mr Libby's mistatements impeded the investigation." Seriously, what part about lying to investigators and the grand jury don't you get? I've conducted hundreds of investigations, done thousands of interviews. When someone lied to us they were trying to protect themselves and/or others. They were trying to direct us away from the damning truth. They had something to hide. Always. Same thing with Libby. And to do so is a crime.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>And if it was as clear cut as you're implying it was, I'd agree. But it wasn't.<< I guess this will have to remain a simple misunderstanding. Many here believe that when Libby perjured himself, it impeded the investigation. Perhaps your belief that there wasn't anything to the investigation made this a moot point. But any time one lies under oath, it is liable to lead to conviction.
Originally Posted By DlandDug I also misspoke about Libby's disagreements with nine other witnesses. What was actually said was: >>Jurors decided Libby could simply not be believed. It was not plausible, they said, that Libby forgot nine conversations about Plame.<< (From the same article above.) Whether these were with nine different individuals, or nine times with many of the same is really immaterial. The fact is that the jury felt he was lying, which was the basis of his conviction.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/07/cia.leak/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITI CS/03/07/cia.leak/index.html</a> Here's a link to the Gergen/McClellan interview I mentioned earlier.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Seriously, what part about lying to investigators and the grand jury don't you get?> The part where it prevented Mr Fitzgerald from determining Ms Plame's status and who leaked her name to Mr Novak. And how Mr Libby's mistatements protected anyone else.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Many here believe that when Libby perjured himself, it impeded the investigation.> Of course they do. But they seem completely unable to explain why with any specifics.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Especially since you refuse to acknowledge the answers you've already been given.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I acknowledge them all the answers. I'm simply pointing out that they lack specifics.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Qute from David Gergen -- "Why would Scooter Libby lie, as the jury determined? Why would he not take the stand? Why would the vice president not take the stand? There's clearly something they do not wish to discuss. And I don't know what that is."
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I wonder if we'll ever get te answers to Gergen's questions. If there's nothing to hide, this administration has a funny way of showing it.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj We'll probably find the answers to these questions when we find the WMDs in Iraq.
Originally Posted By jonvn "if someone doesn't understand the differences between specifics and generalities" It's not so much as not knowing the difference, as you being unable to apply the general case to the specific. In any event, it's been explained to you. IF you can't grasp it, it's your problem.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Many here believe that when Libby perjured himself, it impeded the investigation." That many would also include the jury, which convicted him of all but one count.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>The part where it prevented Mr Fitzgerald from determining Ms Plame's status and who leaked her name to Mr Novak.<< That's certainly a valid observation. Pity it is not germaine to the topic at hand. Whatever Plame's status, or who ultimately leaked to Novak are fascinating to speculate about, but when Libby lied under oath about them, he left himself open to conviction. It doesn't matter what the truth of these matters is; what matters is that he demonstrably lied. I cannot be more specific than that. >>And how Mr Libby's mistatements protected anyone else.<< There is an assumption that when someone lies in a situation that could lead to criminal prosecution, they must have a compelling reason. In Libby's position, it seems almost certainly the case that he did so to protect higher ups.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <If there's nothing to hide, this administration has a funny way of showing it.> I don't see where the administration is hiding anything. As to why the Vice President didn't take the stand, I would think that is pretty obvious - he had nothing to do with the matter.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It's not so much as not knowing the difference, as you being unable to apply the general case to the specific.> Why don't you lay it out for me? Why don't you explain how the generalities apply to the specifics?
