The spin on the Libby case is that

[flamin lib]

there was no underlying crime and the RW talking heads are still saying that she wasn't covert.

First, she was covert. She testified to that under oath before Congress and Fitz introduced declassified documents from the CIA to that affect before sentencing. That argument is dead.

As for the underlying crime, it is obvious. A covert CIA agent was outed and a worldwide covert operation was shut down. Libby's crime was preventing the prosecutor from finding out who committed the crime.

It's as if your home was ransacked and your neighbor watched the whole thing and then told the police it was a tall skinny guy in a Prius when in fact it was a short dude in a pickup truck.

The police can't find the criminal but your house is still ransacked.

[MNDemNY]

1. We don't need no stinkin' underlying crimes. Perjury stands alone.

[JDPriestly]

7. Absolutely! Underlying crime is irrelevant.

Don't lie. If you are questioned by the police or a prosecutor, request an attorney. You have the right to be silent. You have the right to obtain legal counsel (although, depending on the facts, you may have to pay the attorney). You do not have the right to lie. Nobody has the right to lie to a federal prosecutor or to a grand jury. Nobody.

[cosmicone]

2. Very well put

But .... the bubbas/hicks/trailertrash/bible-thumpers who constitute the vast majority of bushbots won't get it.

[flamin lib]

6. That's why ya' gotta' bring it down to their level with a good ole boy

analogy. The crime is obvious. The criminal can't be prosecuted because Libby protected him. It's the same as accessory to murder. Libby didn't commit the crime but his actions helped it happen.

[AndyA]

3. I can tell the police where to look for the criminals.

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C. Ask for George and Dick.

[Buzz Clik]

4. Dear Asshats: He lied. If he lied about nothing, he's going to jail for nothing.

[JDPriestly]

11. And, assuming he lied about nothing, why did he lie?

If he forgot, he lied that he remembered. So the memory argument is not good. He could have said "I'm not sure, but I think that. . . . " He could have said "I don't really remember." But that he did not remember is unbelievable. The jury had no bias. The jury has spoken. Even if the case is reversed on a technicality, the fact remains: Libby lied to prevent Fitzgerald from finding out whether a crime had been committed. Normally, the presumption is that if someone flees the scene of a crime of obstructs the investigation, they are trying to avoid being found guilty or to protect someone they know to be guilty. That is just a sort of presumption, even if not a formal presumption. Libby could have rebutted that presumption (proved it to be wrong). He did not succeed in rebutting it.

[annabanana]

5. Jeez! Are they STILL serving that stinking fish head?

Are the cameramen laughing in the background yet? Is the script girl rolling on the floor over in the corner?

[flamin lib]

9. Yep they are. Saw it on Hard Ball yesterday. It had me yelling at

the TV. Again.

[BOSSHOG]

8. Me on the libby case

- If there were no underlying crime why did scooter HAVE to lie?
- If she were not covert why the need to out her?
- If no underlying crime exists, perjury is not a crime? A conservative value if you will?
- How can so many pundits know 110% sure that Ms Plame was not covert? My neighbor could be covert and I wouldn't know it.
- If Clinton told the truth nothing would have happened.
- If scooter told the truth cheney would be in jail.
- Scooter commited a crime against his country, he lied
- Joe Wilson commited a crime against the republican party, he told the truth.

[EstimatedProphet]

10. Republicans that get caught speeding claim that they weren't speeding

If they rob a bank and the police show up, they claim that they aren't even in the bank, WHILE THEY ARE IN THE BANK.

A Republican will mug someone right in front of you and then claim, while standing right in front of you with the victim, that it was someone else.

[Crunchy Frog]

12. If she wasn't covert, then that means she lied under oath.

If they really think she wasn't covert, then why aren't they agitating for her to be tried for perjury?

It must just be that they're too nice to stoop to that sort of thing. :sarcasm:

[EstimatedProphet]

13. Actually, some of them are

Somebody recently said she should be brought back in for perjury charges. Probably a freeper.