Contrarian view on Libby prosecution

[GreenZoneLT]

I'm opposed to what happened to Libby for the same reason I was opposed to what happened to Henry Cisneros and Bill Clinton. Covering up something that is determined not to be a crime shouldn't BE a crime. If they couldn't indict him for a crime in the Plame outing, then they sure as heck shouldn't have been able to fall back on "obstruction." Obstruction of WHAT? An unfounded or illfounded investigation?

Oh, well, couldn't happen to a nicer fella, I guess. If anybody's got to get screwed by the police state, it might as well be one of the fascists.

[MonkeyFunk]

1. sorry, no

DA's, investigators, grand juries... they all need to be able to determine whether a crime was a committed. If one lies to them, they can't do that job.

[Horse with no Name]

2. What is so hard to understand here?

HE LIED. That is what he was convicted of. He is a lawyer. He knows you shouldn't do that.

[Kagemusha]

3. How can you determine something is not a crime if...

...you obstruct the investigation into it?

Obstruction of an illfounded investigation should be completely legal? Sure. Tell that to a judge. Good luck.

[Richard Steele]

4. "Determined not to be a crime"? When? By who? Cheney? FoxNews?

LYING to Federal Investigators is a CRIME. Period.

It's not that hard to understand.

[PhilipShore]

5. I dislike Libby -- but I think it was an unfair trial (Witch-hunt)

I wish he would of been "convicted" for his crimes for being a member of the PNAC. Hell, eveyone lies in DC, it is the only way to be successful.

If They threw everyone in jail in DC that lied: the House, the Senate and the White House -- would be empty.

[alcibiades_mystery]

15. Really? Everyone lies under oath regarding a federal investigation?

You have to be able to make distinctions between "lying" about a campaign pledge and lying to a Federal grand jury. Until you can make such simple distinctions, you will continue to make ridiculous statements, like your post here. Everyone lies, ho hum. Yeah, sometimes I lie to my wife about how many cigarettes I smoked in a day. That's different than impeding a federal investigation by perjuring oneself in front of a Federal grand jury, you know? Just a wee bit different, yes? Buy a category.

[Tesha]

23. And *THAT* is precisely why more people need to go to prison.

> Hell, eveyone lies in DC, it is the only way to be successful.

And *THAT* is precisely why more people in DC need to go to prison.

Until we convince people (and especiall people who are politicians)
that lying is wrong, we will remain screwed.

Tesha

[fasttense]

6. Yeah, I kind of have mixed feelings about it.

There is so much we don't know about the outing of Plame that it boggles the mind that the only thing this amazing republican prosecutor, Fitzgerald, was able to come up with is lying and obstruction. It just seems like such a waste. But at least we will have another immoral repuke behind bars.

[Bunny]

10. Try, try very hard, to follow this:

The reason "there is so much we don't know about the outing of Plame" is because SCOOTER LIED AND OBSTRUCTED THE INVESTIGATION!!!!

Jesus christ why is that so hard for people to grasp???

[H2O Man]

17. Wrong

Mr. Fitzgerald is not a "republican prosecutor." Nice try.

[Kingshakabobo]

7. Hey, you're entitled to your clueless, uninformed ignorant opinion.

It's a mostly free country.

[H2O Man]

8. Ha! n/t

[DefenseLawyer]

9. Obstruction

I think you are missing a step here. Obstruction of justice is the crime of intentionally thwarting an investigation. It was never said that there was no underlying crime, only that because of the obstruction of justice, it was not possible to indict. It seems a bit odd to argue that if a person obstructs justice to the point that the government can't make an underlying case, that the obstructer would be off the hook. If anything that seems to me to be the worst kind of obstruction.

[Caretha]

11. You're kidding, right?

uh, could I have a link to your info proving that "Covering up something that is determined not to be a crime shouldn't BE a crime", just so I can somehow follow your so called logic?

[alcibiades_mystery]

12. That's not a contrarian view...it's the conservative talking point view

You say "covering up something that is determined not to be a crime shouldn't BE a crime." Your premise is utterly false. Nobody ever determined that the underlying acts weren't criminal. The whole point of an OBSTRUCTION of justice charge is that the defendant has impeded that very determination. The prosecutor has stated this very point on numerous occasions: Libby's actions impeded the investigation that would have determined whether the underlying acts were criminal.

In essence, then, you are wrong on what happened. There was never a determination made regarding the underlying acts, other than that there was insufficient evidence to move forward. BUT - and this is the big BUT - Libby's actions impeded that very determination - a determination by the people of the United States of America was stymied by the illegal acts of I. Lewis Libby. You don't think that's a big deal? So, essentially you are saying that you don't believe in obstruction of justice (or perjury!) as a legitimate charge. You believe in a person's right to impede any investigation on behalf of the people, in any way that person can (shredding documents, lying under oath, destroying other sorts of evidence). You believe that these actions are more of a right than the right of the people of a jurisdiction to law and truth.

You're defending a wholly different country than the one most of us live in, in other words. You believe in a state of anarchy, most devious take all. I'll stick with truth, thank you very much.

[moc]

24. Thanks for stating this so well. The OP strikes me as very ill-informed.

I had to check his/her post count to see if s/he was a troll, spouting such right wing talking points.

[hlthe2b]

27. assumptions...

on post counts can be difficult, as you probably would also recall a few prominent long termers with thousands of posts who got bored or just felt the urge to out themselves one day in a very major way. But, yes, I absolutely agree that intended or not, the OP is a reflection of all the current RW talking points.

[mmonk]

13. I'm not opposed to what happened.

I only wish we were a stronger nation of laws where some weren't above the law. I'm very very very disappointed in this so called free nation. It's a nation of lies and injustice.

[porphyrian]

14. Officials can't lie under oath, sorry. - n/t

[izzybeans]

16. He was convicted of covering up a crime suggesting a crime has been committed

and the criminals run free.

[WilliamPitt]

18. Ah...um...who "determined" it wasn't a crime?

"Covering up something that is determined not to be a crime shouldn't BE a crime."

Who investigated?

(no one)

Who prosecuted?

(no one)

Etc.

P.S. How does anyone (GOP congress, corp media, or you) "determining" something isn't a crime come to carry any weight of law?

I must have missed a memo or two.

[Caretha]

20. I don't think there is enough money to buy this guy a clue

[Richard Steele]

22. Be fair- maybe he doesn't get much news, what with being stationed in Iraq and all.

If ya know what I mean.

[annabanana]

28. Aside from Fox, What CAN they get over there?

I would not be in the least surprised to discover that our troops are not getting the full story.

[baldguy]

19. What public officials do in carrying out the duties of their office is the publics' business.

Congress has the right & duty to investigate the publics' business. The investigations of Clinton, and Cisneros - and everything else they investigated members of the Clinton admin about - had nothing to do with the publics' business.

The Libby investigation has EVERYTHING to do with the publics' business - whether or not America should go to war, exposing a CIA agent, lying in the State of the Union address.

[Forkboy]

21. To quote Brad Pitt in Snatch...

"Ya got some tires on ya!"

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

25. ...

:spray:

Yes, I'm sure you're very concerned.

:rofl:

[dkofos]

26. Libby is a lawyer. He should understand PERJURY.

[WinkyDink]

29. Yes, you've said. Twice now.