Lewis Libby indicted

sceptre

lazydaisy wrote:

This is what I mean by intention and what the US law means by intention when it comes to perjury or lying under oath. They have to prove that the misinformation was deliberate and willfull. What do you mean by intent?

I've made it clear using US prosecution guidelines what has to be demonstrated to be so for that particular indictment to stick above, I've no intention of using an dictionary reference (even one from a site with a fine name like "legal-dictionary.com") or the boards.ie politics guidelines to debate what they have to prove as no-one's going to be referencing either in court when they've got their own guidelines to work with. Having said that, if the boards.ie politics guidelines are what you meant, keeping in mind that under those guidelines it's enough for someone to make a false statement and present it as factually true when they can demonstrably be shown to have known at the time that the statement was false, then that's what I've been working with as what needs to be demonstrated (as can be plainly seen from what I've posted). Can I assume that people are in general agreement that this is where the burden of proof lies with the added requirement of it being a material statement? That and nothing more?

lazydaisy

they can demonstrably be shown to have known at the time that the statement was false,

That's intent.

Here's an entertaining perspective on the whole thing if you're interested.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/27/AR2005102701857.html

bonkey

lazydaisy wrote:

Here's an entertaining perspective on the whole thing if you're interested.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/27/AR2005102701857.html

Excellent piece. Very funny.

Only one bit niggled...

Why should Scooter Libby go to jail -- involuntarily -- for having a conversation with you that you think the Constitution should protect and even encourage?

He shouldn't. But that's not what he's been charged with, so whats it got to do with anything?

jc

sceptre

lazydaisy wrote:

they can demonstrably be shown to have known at the time that the statement was false,

That's intent.

How's about this: because I've illustrated that what needs to be proved for these specific indictments is A, B and C (see above) and because, despite wasting time on it so far, I'm not interested in fannying about over whether a word includes a sub-definition of X or Y when all I need to know is what needs to be proved, which I do, heck, which I've demonstrated to be true, it does indeed mean intent. I've dedicated enough time to this irrelevancy already, keeping my position crystal clear all the time. Now that this presumably distracting issue is out of the way, leaving people utterly free to discuss the other three indictments on the table in a meaningful way, as well as the two for making false statements, if no-one's thinking of answering no" to the two questions I closed my last post above with then I'm done till someone has something interesting or relevant to say.

TomF

It grows more bizarre by the day. Now I read that the saintly Bob Woodward, gray eminence of Watergate fame with the Washington Post newspaper (Washington, D.C.) revealed recently that someone else told him about Valerie Plame-Wilson being a CIA operative before Libby may have told another somebody else. Woodward also thinks it is possible that he is the one who originally told Libby about her being in the CIA, and that the two of them may have thought they were indulging in ordinary Washington D.C. gossip.

Could this be the begin of the fizzle-out of the whole "Get Karl Rove" affair?

billy the squid

doubtful, here is what fitzgerald said at the indidtment press conference last month

Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when [syndicated columnist] Mr. [Robert] Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003.

But Mr. Novak was not the first reporter to be told that Wilson's wife, Valerie [Plame] Wilson, Ambassador Wilson's wife Valerie, worked at the CIA. Several other reporters were told.

In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson.

Like quoted above, the investigation into the whole affair was aware of the fact that several reporters knew.

For all we know Rove could have told woodward.

bonkey

TomF wrote:

Could this be the begin of the fizzle-out of the whole "Get Karl Rove" affair?

I'm always amused at all-but-dead threads being brought back to life to ask if the topic is dying out.

I would also ne remiss if I didn't point out that Libby's indictment is a seperate issue to who leaked what and why.

Ajnag

Ahh but in an ongoing case it's a question worth asking

For those who are intrested, this site has pretty good on-going coverage of the case:
www.rawstory.com

TomF

I'm amused, too, but by how this whole thing is slowly draining-away as an issue to remove Karl Rove from his position as Bush advisor. Here is the latest I've seen:

"But [Bob Woodward] has repeatedly emphasized on talk shows and in interviews that when all the facts become known, the Plame affair will be seen as much ado about very little."

"So who is ... Woodward's source—and why will his identity take the wind out of the brewing storm? ... former deputy secretary of State Richard Armitage...was one of a handful of top officials who had access to the information. He is an old source and friend of Woodward's, and he fits Novak's description of his source as "not a partisan gunslinger." Woodward has indicated that he knows the identity of Novak's source, which further suggests his source and Novak's were one and the same.

If Armitage was the original leaker, that undercuts the argument that outing Plame was a plot by the hard-liners in the veep's office to 'out' Plame. Armitage was, if anything, a foe of the neocons who did not want to go to war in Iraq. He had no motive to discredit Wilson. ... last month, Woodward was dismissive of the special prosecutor's investigation, suggesting that the original leak was not the result of a 'smear campaign' but rather a 'kind of gossip, as chatter ... I don't see an underlying crime here.'"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10117465/site/newsweek/

bonkey

TomF wrote:

I'm amused, too, but by how this whole thing is slowly draining-away as an issue to remove Karl Rove from his position as Bush advisor.

I wouldn't be too sure on it draining away. Although it didn't seem to get much media-coverage (although I was offline - in RL too - pretty much all weekend), It appears that Fitzgerald has apparently said he will be calling a second grand jury.

It should be remembered that no matter how some would like to see this whole investigation as "going after Rove", it should be remembered that there is no indication whatsoever that Fitzgerald is doing any such thing.

He is attempting to find the truth of what happened. He is also not permitted to make those findings public, which undermines any suggestion that the purpose of the investigation was to smear anyone, unless there are indictments ensuing.

So if this was ever a "get Rove" campaign, it could only be so if Rove were to be indicted, and from all evidence, Fitzgerald is not the type to call for indictment lightly to curry political favour with the Democrats (or any faction for that matter).

This may all fizzle, of course, but it is dissapointing that any interest in seeing that due dilligence has been paid with respect to the law and what occurred is demeaned by being assumed to be a smear- or hatchet-job.

former deputy secretary of State Richard Armitage...

Seen his name mentioned in a number of speculative articles in the past couple of days alright.

I wonder should Armitage find Fitzgerald going after him, will any reactions change? Will supporters turn to opposers? Will dismissers suddenly agree on how important it was to get to the truth, should Rove et al be cleared?

Me...I'll wait to see what is determined at the end, and judge it on both what was adjudged to have occurred. As it is unlikely that we will ever see a public report on the findings, it will be effectively impossible to judge them themselves.