The Scooter Libby Trial (Congress, FBI, Clinton, Murray)

[Dd714]

Originally Posted by mb919

That's because none of this stuff ever was the focus of this trial. AGAIN, Libby is on trial for obstruction of justice for lying to a grand jury under oath- NOT for outing Plame. This trial isn't even to try to determine what Plame's status was. The reason the trial lost focus was because of Libby's convoluted defenses and Fitzgerald's ease in trashing 2 hours of defense work with 4 questions.

I would be shocked if this didn't result in a conviction, but I would be much less shocked to see him get pardoned before doing a day of jail time No one in this administration seems to be under the rule of law, so why should Libby be any different?

Yes that was the point of my post, but remember lots of the posters here are making an assumption that the focus of the trial IS to indict public enemy number 1 Cheney, or Bush, or portray it as "THEE VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY". Yes Libby will probably be convicted for lying and it will end there. Maybe he will be pardoned, who knows. But the point is that it will probably end there. Hard to continue further when you have the VP quoted as saying "who is this guy, I never heard of him before"; you have Plame, supposed some covert James Bond operative, driving her SUV into CIA Langley headquarters to work at a desk every day; and you have an NBC reporter laughing and saying everyone knew she worked in the CIA; and then the very basis of the original argument - that Bush lied that Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake/nuclear ingredients from Nigereria to bolster the invastion of Iraq, was deemed true!

[UB50]

Originally Posted by Dd714

Yes that was the point of my post, but remember lots of the posters here are making an assumption that the focus of the trial IS to indict public enemy number 1 Cheney, or Bush, or portray it as "THEE VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY". Yes Libby will probably be convicted for lying and it will end there. Maybe he will be pardoned, who knows. But the point is that it will probably end there. Hard to continue further when you have the VP quoted as saying "who is this guy, I never heard of him before"; you have Plame, supposed some covert James Bond operative, driving her SUV into CIA Langley headquarters to work at a desk every day; and you have an NBC reporter laughing and saying everyone knew she worked in the CIA; and then the very basis of the original argument - that Bush lied that Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake/nuclear ingredients from Nigereria to bolster the invastion of Iraq, was deemed true!

There is still another indictment from the original grand jury. Who do you think they indicted now that you've heard what you've heard?

[mb919]

Originally Posted by UB50

There is still another indictment from the original grand jury. Who do you think they indicted now that you've heard what you've heard?

I think it's Cheney, considering how much light this trial has shone on how the OVP and the White House operates. His hands were all over this.

Either that, or it's Rove. But I have a sneaking suspicion that he slithered his way out this because he's just an extra-slippery kind of guy.

[mb919]

Originally Posted by Dd714

Yes that was the point of my post, but remember lots of the posters here are making an assumption that the focus of the trial IS to indict public enemy number 1 Cheney, or Bush, or portray it as "THEE VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY". Yes Libby will probably be convicted for lying and it will end there. Maybe he will be pardoned, who knows. But the point is that it will probably end there. Hard to continue further when you have the VP quoted as saying "who is this guy, I never heard of him before"; you have Plame, supposed some covert James Bond operative, driving her SUV into CIA Langley headquarters to work at a desk every day; and you have an NBC reporter laughing and saying everyone knew she worked in the CIA; and then the very basis of the original argument - that Bush lied that Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake/nuclear ingredients from Nigereria to bolster the invastion of Iraq, was deemed true!

Well, any posters of any political stripe who are making assumptions shouldn't be letting their assumptions get in the way of facts. However, I think for the libs' part, they are so tired of seeing this rogue White House turn this country into a glorified banana republic so they can recklessly pursue their wars of choice. The Libby trial does hold out some hope for these warmongers to be held accountable, and I think some people are just getting ahead of themselves.

I wouldn't put any stock into any quotes that come from this VP. If Cheney's opening his mouth, he's probably lying.

As far as the yellowcake is concerned- it might have been true that he was TRYING to buy it, but that's not what the cooked intelligence and the 2003 SOTU speech said. That said he already HAD bought it and was well into the process of manufacturing WMDs, and that certainly was not true.

For as much as the chickenhawk crowd wants this to go away, I'm not so sure it will.

[UB50]

I only occasionally look at one "right winger" website, but they seem to be avoiding much discussion of this. It is interesting to see that they are not as gung ho on the Iraq war as they once were.

Ahem. I wonder what made some of them change their minds?

[UB50]

Nice summary of the case in tomorrow's New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/20/wa...=1&oref=slogin

[silas777]

Originally Posted by UB50

Is anyone following this? I've been reading the news recaps almost every day but that's about it.

I'm wondering if this is going to lead to the top -- like Cheney or Bush? I was kind of surprised when Catherine Martin testified and it came out that Cheney dictated what was to be said.

Any comments?

its a nonevent a prosecuter on fishing expedition who is now embarrassed and has to try someone for something, unbelievable that it can happen and this prosucter himself isnt disbarred.

[mb919]

Originally Posted by mayeagley

its a nonevent a prosecuter on fishing expedition who is now embarrassed and has to try someone for something, unbelievable that it can happen and this prosucter himself isnt disbarred.

Really? Because IMHO he put together a great, methodical case with a powerhouse summation, and has Deadeye right in his line of vision. He's certainly discredited Libby enough to eliminate him as a witness in any Cheney trial. And, there's still that sealed indictment thingy, too...

Funny how the wingnut blogosphere doesn't match your smugness, either, and you know they'd be cackling like hyenas if there was even a chance that this would prove to be a "nonevent". They are eerily silent about this.

The neocon house of cards is about to come tumblin' down. It's Fitzmas, baby!

[UB50]

Did you read that NYT story? Very interesting, how they declassified material after knowing that the CIA was against it, and without telling the CIA they were declassifying it.

I didn't read anything on the case today -- but has it gone to the jury? Or is there still more summation tomorrow?

[mb919]

Originally Posted by UB50

Did you read that NYT story? Very interesting, how they declassified material after knowing that the CIA was against it, and without telling the CIA they were declassifying it.

I didn't read anything on the case today -- but has it gone to the jury? Or is there still more summation tomorrow?

I believe tomorrow is wrapping up summation and jury instruction.