Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>In this case, however, the "liar" and the "killer" are one and the same.<< That hasn't been established. Libby might (or might not) have lied to protect others than himself. Perhaps whenever "Official A"'s identity is revealed more will become clear.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan And although I don't know how often it's done, technically you could lie about ANYTHING under oath and be prosecuted for perjury. Imagine someone was investigating a shady real estate deal, and in the course of events they asked if you'd cheated on your wife. You lie and say you haven't, and then that lie could take all eyes off the shady real estate deal (the murder, in this example.) That could happen. So yes, you could be investigated for murder but lie about something unrelated and be charged with perjury.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Libby in this case is more like a suspected hit man. The prosecutor is looking to find out who told him to perform the hit and why. The prosecutor is looking at the conspiracy, not just at the individual crime. The prosecutor can't indict the godfather because the wiseguy lied.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Still waiting for those links to quotes of Wilson lying about Cheney sending him to Niger.>> Agent, are you really going to argue that Wilson isn't a liar and a anti war moonbat that had no business going on a trip to Niger? As far as him claiming Cheney and the White House sent him, here is where all that came from.... <a href="http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh071305.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh0 71305.shtml</a> In his post, Marshall quotes Wilson’s 7/6/03 op-ed, in which Wilson doesn’t exactly claim that Cheney authorized his trip. But Wilson did stress the alleged involvement of Cheney’s office—and you know how that Washington press corps can be! By the time of that evening’s World News Tonight, ABC’s Geoff Morrell was saying this: MORRELL (7/6/03): Ambassador Joe Wilson says, at the request of Vice President Cheney's office, the CIA sent him to Niger in February 2002. He spent eight days there investigating a British intelligence report that Iraq tried to obtain from Niger yellowcake uranium, which can be used to build a nuclear weapon. It wasn’t exactly Wilson’s fault. But viewers might start to believe something false; they might start to believe that Cheney’s office sent Wilson off to Niger. And the following morning, Wilson’s juices were clearly flowing when he glad-handed (and semi-misstated) on CNN’s American Morning: BILL HEMMER (7/7/03): Ambassador Joseph Wilson is back with us here on American Morning live in D.C. Good to have you back! Good morning to you! WILSON: Hi, Bill, and welcome to Soledad [O’Brien]. HEMMER: Well, it's great to have her. O'BRIEN: Thank you very much. Appreciate that. HEMMER: It's a wonderful day for us here at American Morning! You went to Niger several years ago. You concluded essentially that Iraq could not buy this uranium from that country. Why not? WILSON: Well, I went in, actually in February of 2002 was my most recent trip there—at the request, I was told, of the office of the vice president, which had seen a report in intelligence channels about this purported memorandum of agreement on uranium sales from Niger to Iraq. Was Wilson trying to mislead viewers? We wouldn’t make that charge, but Republicans had every right to correct a misimpression that clearly was out there—the misimpression that Cheney’s office had sent Wilson off to Niger. ABC made the claim that Sunday night—and Wilson seemed to say it the next morning. And by the way, Wilson was wildly misstating something else about Cheney, as he himself would later admit. He kept insisting, in every forum, that Cheney must have seen a report about his trip to Niger; a year later, the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously agreed that this wasn’t true, and Wilson admitted that he had been wrong to make this claim all over the land. At any rate, many Americans were getting the impression that Cheney had sent Wilson off to Niger. The White House had every right to correct this impression at the time Rove spoke with Cooper. If the shoe had been on the other foot, Dems would have corrected it too.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer So Wilson didn't lie and say that Cheney sent him. Thanks for clearing that up, Beau.
Originally Posted By Spree ^When trying to convey a false message whether or not ones exact words are false or not one is still lying.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Looks like Wilson, in this ONE instance, hinted that Cheney sent him. Wilson, flat out lies in other instances... but that's what " anti war children of the 60's " do. Here is what Wilson said in an interview. WILSON: Well, I went in, actually in February of 2002 was my most recent trip there—at the request, I was told, of the office of the vice president
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>When trying to convey a false message whether or not ones exact words are false or not one is still lying<< So are you saying that Bush lied when he justified the war to the American people ?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>at the request, I was told, of the office of the vice president<< The Vice President asked the CIA to investigate the claims, didn't he? If someone at the CIA said to him, "The VP is asking us to send someone to investigate these claims", then what Wilson said is true.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <That hasn't been established.> So you agree with me that Tom was wrong in his accusation?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The prosecutor can't indict the godfather because the wiseguy lied.> Another faulty analogy. The prosecutor may not be able to indict the godfather for the hit, but he could definitely indict the hit man for it. But Libby wasn't indicted for the hit, only for lying about his knowledge of it. I really don't see who Libby is supposed to be protecting with the lies he is supposed to have told. It seems much more to me that this is just different people remembering events differently than any grand conspiracy.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>It seems much more to me that this is just different people remembering events differently than any grand conspiracy.<< I think the indictment pretty clearly lays out why this isn't a case of people just remembering events differently.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I think the indictment pretty clearly lays out why this isn't a case of people just remembering events differently.> And I disagree.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Is there anything specific (and in context) that you can point to that makes it seem like it is just a difference in memories, or is it a general feeling you have about the indictment in it's entirety?
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "I really don't see who Libby is supposed to be protecting with the lies he is supposed to have told." Bingo. The whole point here is that Libby told so many versions of basically the same event, it's impossible to tell if he's covering for himself or someone else. What they know for sure is that he should not have been talking about Plame to the press. Why he did that has been made impossible to get at because of Libby's multiple stories. Your analogy question about killing someone and then lying is roughly true. If someone is involved in a killing but tells so many different versions of the event that it makes it hard to figure out just what happened, then yeah, only a simple obstruction charge could result. Here, Fitzergald knows and/or feels Libby did a bad thing, but since Libby's told so many different versions about it he's obscured any path to the truth. Hence, the obstruction. And the definition of "so many" is subjective. All it takes is more than one to confuse things.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/22/LI2005042201099.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/22/LI2005042201099.html</a> << Registration required. Interesting 'opinion' column today from EL Dionne Jr in today's washington post. I'm not registered either so I'll just extract the more pertinent points. >> Journalistic Shield Aided Cover-Up Has anyone noticed that the cover-up worked? 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". Note the significance of the two dates: Octobeer 2004, "before" President Bush was re-elected, and October 2005, "after" the president was re-elected. Those dates make it clear why Libby threw sand in the eyes of prosecutors, in the special counsel's apt meaphor, and helped drag this investigation on. As long as Bush still faced the voters, the white house wanted americans to think that officials such as Libby, Karl Rove and VP Cheney had nothing to do with the leak campaign to discredit its arch-critic on Iraq, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. And Libby, the good soldier, pursued a brilliant strategy to slow the inquiry down. As long as he was claiming that journalists were responsible for spreading around the name and past CIA employment of Wilson's wife, Libby knew that at least some news organizations would resist having reporters testify. The journalistic "shield" was converted into a shield for the bush administration's cover-up. Bush and his disciples would like everyone to assume that Libby was some kind of lone operator who, for this one time in his life abandoned his usual caution. They pray that Libby will be the only official facing legal charges and that political interest in the case will dissipate. You can tell the president worries this won't work because on Monday, he did what he usually does when he's in trouble. He sought to divide the country and set up a bruising ideological fight. He did so by nominating a staunchly conservative judge to the supreme court. Anything that "unites the base" and distracts from the Fitzgerald investigation is good news for Bush. The Fitzgerald indictment makes perfectly clear that the White House misled the public as to it's involvement in sliming Wilson and in talking about Plame. Bush and Cheney should come clean about (yes, the old phrase still applies) what they knew and when they knew about the operation to discredit Wilson. And he shouldn't hide behind those "legalisms" that republicans were so eager to condemn in the Clinton years. Fitzgerald has made it clear that he wants to keep this case going if doing so would bring us closer to the truth. Lawyers not involved in the case suggest that the indictment is written in a way that could encourage Libby, facing up to thirty years in prison, to cooperate in that effort. But there's a catch. If Libby, through nods and winks, knows that at the end of Bush's term, the president will issue an unconditional pardon, he will have no interest in helping Fitzgerald and every interest in shutting up. If Bush truly wants the public to know all the facts in the leak case, as he has claimed in the past, he will announce now that he will not pardon Libby. That would let Fitzgerald finish his work unimpeded, and we will all have a chance, at last, to learn how and why this sad affair came to pass. << Of course, bush doesn't want the public to know all the facts, because those facts implicate his administration, his VP, and perhaps even him - it's another in a ceaseless stream of white house lies. And of course, bush won't be making any announcements about not granting Libby any end-of-term pardons. This scenario laid out above seems very likely to me - fitzgerald seeks to use prison time as leverage to extract "truth" from Libby (because obviously basic honor adn integrity aren't enough of a motivation for members of this administration). Libby stonewalls, is convicted and sentenced, and Bush pardons him on the way out the door. Sure it's corrupt, but when has that ever stopped this bunch before?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Is there anything specific (and in context) that you can point to that makes it seem like it is just a difference in memories, or is it a general feeling you have about the indictment in it's entirety?> Yes, there are several specific things I can point to, but I don't have the time or desire to write an essaying outlining it. I doubt it would change your mind.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <What they know for sure is that he should not have been talking about Plame to the press.> But again, they didn't charge him with anything for doing that. <If someone is involved in a killing but tells so many different versions of the event that it makes it hard to figure out just what happened, then yeah, only a simple obstruction charge could result.> If that was the case, however, then it would be irresponsible of the prosecutor to state that someone was murdered, or for reporters to claim I was responsible.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Interesting 'opinion' column today from EL Dionne Jr in today's washington post.> Interesting if you're into paranoid liberal fantasies, maybe. A bunch of hooey for the rest of us.
