Libby Verdict

#27
#27
CSpindizzy said:
People are sent all over to discredit certain things. Even one agency itself will do something to discredit someone else. This is a daily occurence in DC. The fact is that Plame and Wilson did nothing legally wrong and Libby did. In the eyes of the law, Libby got what he deserved and in the eyes of America Wilson and Plame got what they deserved.
Click to expand...

I agree - Libby broke the law. As for the actions of Plame/Wilson vs the Whitehouse outting them - I see no real difference. Both smarmy acts IMHO.

I believe that once Wilson put his assertions in the public arena, he was fair game for an investigation into his motivations. Just as we want to know who's funding a particular pundit, we should know why Wilson was sent to Niger to objectively evaluate his claims. Typically it would be the press that does the outting - they got a little help in this case but I don't doubt they would have dug up the connection themselves (if they wanted to look).
 
#28
#28
lawgator1 said:
CS, if I acknowledge that your avatar really bugs me, will you deem it missioned accomplished and change it? I offer to do this as a sacrifice on my part for the benefit of all mankind.
Click to expand...

Changed....this is my one act of kindness a year to a gator fan. My neighbor will be disappointed since this favor was going to him. Que sera sera.
 
#29
#29
Had Wilson lied to federal investigators you would have a point. But it was a little beyond doing what the other side did. Fact is the evidence still was not solidly in favor of the White House. Doing what they did only created a more unfavorable situation for them. And now added with the results of Iraq, it's another black eye in an already battered and bruised administration. But at this point, anything on this subject does not matter. Bush is a lame duck. Libby could just come out and tell all only to save his own reputation and cloud even more what the history books say about Bush.
 
#30
#30
CSpindizzy said:
Had Wilson lied to federal investigators you would have a point. But it was a little beyond doing what the other side did. Fact is the evidence still was not solidly in favor of the White House. Doing what they did only created a more unfavorable situation for them. And now added with the results of Iraq, it's another black eye in an already battered and bruised administration. But at this point, anything on this subject does not matter. Bush is a lame duck. Libby could just come out and tell all only to save his own reputation and cloud even more what the history books say about Bush.
Click to expand...

I'm separating the investigation from the act. Libby clearly f'd up, broke the law and should pay the price.

The act of outting is no more aggregious than the actions of Plame/Wilson as far as I'm concerned.
 
#31
#31
Add that to sending soldiers to invade a nation on sketchy info for no legitimate reason....let's look at the grand scheme why don't we?

Plame/Wilson small potatoes compared to the other side when ALL factors added together.
 
#32
#32
Very interesting juror thoughts: I am reading that they believed that Libby was in fact the fall guy and that Cheney was behind the whole thing.
 
#33
#33
one of the jurors, Denis Collins, identified himself as a former reporter. He's authored at least one book,
Amazon.com: SPYING: The Secret History of History: Books: Denis Collins

About the Author
Denis Collins is a journalist who writes for the Washington Post, the San Jose Mercury News, and the Miami Herald. He lives in Washington, DC.
Click to expand...

This probably isn't relevant, but it does make me wonder how he made it through the jury selection process.
 
#34
#34
Well both sides had a crack at tossing him. Looks as if it benefitted Fitzgerald. I guess Libby's team hammering the reporters' memories didn't help their cause.
 
#35
#35
LG I saw that. It seems they had a feeling that Rove and Cheney needed to be up there rather than Libby. Perhaps Fitzgerald thought his case was better with Libby for many reasons - one that Libby was not widely known and thus people not already having a set opinion on him unlike Rove and Cheney. I'd think the risk of conviction would be less likely with higher public figures like those two.
 
#36
#36
Something that truly disturbs me in this is the same argument I'd pose to Clinton. If there was nothing wrong, and no crime committed, why lie in an investigation? You can both scream partisan witch hunt until you're blue in the face. So why lie and make the witch hunt look legit? Why give your enemies the ammunition they need if you did nothing wrong and this was just a tit for tat 'get back at the other guy' argument?

See I think this is where some people are clearly idiots. If you think you're in the right, stick to your guns and be honest. Kill the controversy before it develops. Libby and the WH were fools on this to let it go as far as they did. If what they did was perfectly legal, just come out and say that and get the issue over with. Playing little political games and lying didn't work for Clinton and it sure didn't work for the Administration.

Some are already saying this was a travesty of justice. I see it as justice being served. once again, authority and power in this country was told that you can play games against your opponents and be legal. But you can easily make a blatantly stupid mistake and have the law check your own actions.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top