PDA

View Full Version : Cheney-Bush-Libby Quid pro quo


jAZ
07-03-2007, 02:40 PM
Do you think that there was some behind the scene deal between some combination of Bush, Cheney, Libby, staffers and/or lawyers... to assure Libby that he need not make a deal with the prosecutor... that if he was a loyal soldier and took the heat off Cheney... he would get a commuted sentence and then ultimately a pardon?

(poll forthcoming)

WoodDraw
07-03-2007, 03:06 PM
Nah, probably not. He obviously lied under oath and went to some effort to obstruct the investigation, but I think that was more incompetence on his part than any grand plan to cover up whatever was going on.

BucEyedPea
07-03-2007, 03:30 PM
We will never know the whole truth.
But I would not put it past this administration to have done so.

Cochise
07-03-2007, 03:42 PM
My feeling is basically what woodraw says. I don't feel like the Bush admin probably told him he would be pardoned if convicted, I think it was probably understood in an unspoken way.

The way everything planned out, the pardon is not some huge crime, in my opinion. The charges don't have anything to do with what was originally supposed to be investigated, he could have just been incompetent, and since we already know who the leaker was and the reporter already knew by the time Libby said anything, he didn't actually cause any harm.

Now, that being said, I wouldn't have done this, but I might have commuted half of the sentence or commuted it down to 1 year or something. He violated the letter of the law, if not the spirit. But the consequences of what he did IMO are minimal or null.

BucEyedPea
07-03-2007, 03:49 PM
I'd commute it to 6 months even. I'd halve the fines too so long as no one else was payin' them for him in a legal defense fund. I'd have the fine go to Valerie Plame as well.

Direckshun
07-03-2007, 04:34 PM
Do I think so? Yeah.

Do I know so? Not even close.

All I've got is speculation, and the knowledge that administrations frequently seal off any heads of power from provable responsibility.

I'm not going to be outraged by it. Libby was convicted and we all saw the pardon coming from a mile away -- hell I'm impressed he actually commuted the sentence. I'm sure Bush has been involved in shadier things, as has Clinton, Bush I, and the Presidents before them.

memyselfI
07-03-2007, 04:53 PM
Libby is a lawyer. Libby has been involved in cases requiring a pardon by the POTUS before. Libby knew EXACTLY the language necessary to 'coordinate' a deal without actually laying out specifics that would become a legal quagmire of a quid pro quo. Thus, he knew if he was going to be in legal danger for his actions he could confidently rest assured that it would go away when the time was right.

Dave Lane
07-03-2007, 05:29 PM
I thought for sure Patty was the 1. I love you Patty I want you as a best friend because no matter what i did I know you would have my back :thumb:

Dave

Mr. Laz
07-03-2007, 07:09 PM
absolutely there was a deal


someone went to libby on behalf of the administration and said something like "keep your mouth shut and we'll take care of you"

quickly followed by

"if we go down ...... you'll go down harder"

Logical
07-03-2007, 07:34 PM
The Bush/CheneyBots must be off today. Only 1 no vote?

Logical
07-03-2007, 07:37 PM
I got to vote yes, probably between Cheney and Libby, not likely Bush himself.

memyselfI
07-03-2007, 08:59 PM
The Bush/CheneyBots must be off today. Only 1 no vote?


They haven't been oiled and can't reach the keyboard?

http://www.bartcop.com/dist-amer-bushbots.jpg

patteeu
07-04-2007, 08:28 AM
Nah, probably not. He obviously lied under oath and went to some effort to obstruct the investigation, but I think that was more incompetence on his part than any grand plan to cover up whatever was going on.

I agree with this.

Simplex3
07-04-2007, 08:33 AM
Do I think so? Yeah.

Do I know so? Not even close.

All I've got is speculation, and the knowledge that administrations frequently seal off any heads of power from provable responsibility.

I'm not going to be outraged by it. Libby was convicted and we all saw the pardon coming from a mile away -- hell I'm impressed he actually commuted the sentence. I'm sure Bush has been involved in shadier things, as has Clinton, Bush I, and the Presidents before them.
:clap:

Any of you who are "outraged", or "offended", or otherwise climbing up on a soapbox over this and aren't equally as pissed off at Clinton for his, Bush I for his, Reagan for his, Carter for his, etc, etc, are half-wit jackass hypocrites.

jAZ
07-04-2007, 10:16 AM
I agree with this.
To you both, then...

What exactly do you mean "went to some effort to obstruct the investigation"? And how would that not constitute a "coverup"?

Hydrae
07-04-2007, 10:31 AM
:clap:

Any of you who are "outraged", or "offended", or otherwise climbing up on a soapbox over this and aren't equally as pissed off at Clinton for his, Bush I for his, Reagan for his, Carter for his, etc, etc, are half-wit jackass hypocrites.


Pardons on the way out the door are not the same as this situation, IMO.

Chief Henry
07-04-2007, 12:41 PM
:clap:

Any of you who are "outraged", or "offended", or otherwise climbing up on a soapbox over this and aren't equally as pissed off at Clinton for his, Bush I for his, Reagan for his, Carter for his, etc, etc, are half-wit jackass hypocrites.



You got that right, especially the part about jackass hypocrites.

mlyonsd
07-04-2007, 01:28 PM
To you both, then...

What exactly do you mean "went to some effort to obstruct the investigation"? And how would that not constitute a "coverup"?

If both were true wouldn't the obustruction of justice conviction detail what was covered up?

MadMax
07-05-2007, 02:18 AM
To you both, then...

What exactly do you mean "went to some effort to obstruct the investigation"? And how would that not constitute a "coverup"?

Hold Sandy Berger to the same standard is all I would ask???? I give 2 shits if all of em went to prison.

patteeu
07-05-2007, 10:55 AM
To you both, then...

What exactly do you mean "went to some effort to obstruct the investigation"? And how would that not constitute a "coverup"?

I almost posted a complaint about the poll based on what I considered some ambiguity in the word "coverup." Instead, I decided to assume that by "coverup" you meant something more substantial than just covering up for yourself.

My guess is that Libby feared trouble (either legal or just job jeopardy and embarassment) if he admitted discussing Plame with a couple of reporters and that he probably didn't expect those reporters to be coerced into testifying by the prosecutor so he thought he could get away with it.

I don't think he was covering up for anyone else and I don't think there were any signals about a commutation or pardon. I think that Libby might expect something like that, but I doubt that the President sent him a message indicating that he could count on it.

Edit: The other reason I picked a "no coverup" option was because I don't think Libby is covering up for others in an effort to earn a pardon, which seemed to be the gist of this poll question.

Ebolapox
07-05-2007, 12:15 PM
yes... squid pro ro!

<img src="http://www.on2.com/cms-data/images/Austin_Powers_512k_standard.JPG">

jAZ
07-05-2007, 12:55 PM
I almost posted a complaint about the poll based on what I considered some ambiguity in the word "coverup." Instead, I decided to assume that by "coverup" you meant something more substantial than just covering up for yourself.

My guess is that Libby feared trouble (either legal or just job jeopardy and embarassment) if he admitted discussing Plame with a couple of reporters and that he probably didn't expect those reporters to be coerced into testifying by the prosecutor so he thought he could get away with it.

I don't think he was covering up for anyone else and I don't think there were any signals about a commutation or pardon. I think that Libby might expect something like that, but I doubt that the President sent him a message indicating that he could count on it.

Edit: The other reason I picked a "no coverup" option was because I don't think Libby is covering up for others in an effort to earn a pardon, which seemed to be the gist of this poll question.
What exactly do you mean "went to some effort to obstruct the investigation"?

patteeu
07-05-2007, 03:19 PM
What exactly do you mean "went to some effort to obstruct the investigation"?

He was charged with obstruction right? Since I didn't have the opportunity to witness the trial, I'm assuming, based on the jury's verdict, that he's guilty as charged.

jAZ
07-05-2007, 05:17 PM
He was charged with obstruction right? Since I didn't have the opportunity to witness the trial, I'm assuming, based on the jury's verdict, that he's guilty as charged.
You accept the jury's decision that he knowingly lied to the FBI and perjured himself before the grand jury in order to obstruct the justice departments investigation and you simiarly reject Libby's assertion (as the jury did) that it was merely a memory lapse... correct?

patteeu
07-05-2007, 05:27 PM
You accept the jury's decision that he knowingly lied to the FBI and perjured himself before the grand jury in order to obstruct the justice departments investigation and you simiarly reject Libby's assertion (as the jury did) that it was merely a memory lapse... correct?

For the purposes of this poll, yes. Is there a point to your interrogation?

jAZ
07-05-2007, 05:33 PM
For the purposes of this poll, yes. Is there a point to your interrogation?
I expected you to fall into lock step on the "memory lapse" rationalization.

patteeu
07-05-2007, 05:40 PM
I expected you to fall into lock step on the "memory lapse" rationalization.

I don't know enough about it to have an opinion on it one way or another. I don't rule out embracing it at some point in the future though. :)

jAZ
07-05-2007, 05:53 PM
I don't know enough about it to have an opinion on it one way or another. I don't rule out embracing it at some point in the future though. :)
I do find it intersting (if completely unsuprising) that you have formed a firm opinion that Libby wasn't covering up actions by supriors when he "went to some effort to obstruct the investigation", but you aren't sure exactly why he did it because you "don't know enough about it" because you "didn't have the opportunity to witness the trial".

patteeu
07-05-2007, 05:58 PM
I do find it intersting (if completely unsuprising) that you have formed a firm opinion that Libby wasn't covering up actions by supriors when he "went to some effort to obstruct the investigation", but you aren't sure exactly why he did it because you "don't know enough about it" because you "didn't have the opportunity to witness the trial".

There is no evidence that he covered up anything (beyond the facts on which he was convicted). I'm comfortable with accepting those facts based on the jury's conviction. If I knew more about them, I might disagree with the jury's conclusion so I reserve the right to reconsider this position. You want to go beyond those facts into fantasy land. FWIW, if convincing evidence is produced that indicates that Libby was covering up some kind of vast WH conspiracy then I'll modify that conclusion too. I'm just not ready to accept that fantasy without a shred of evidence like you are.

jAZ
07-05-2007, 06:10 PM
There is no evidence that he covered up anything (beyond the facts on which he was convicted). I'm comfortable with accepting those facts based on the jury's conviction. If I knew more about them, I might disagree with the jury's conclusion so I reserve the right to reconsider this position. You want to go beyond those facts into fantasy land. FWIW, if convincing evidence is produced that indicates that Libby was covering up some kind of vast WH conspiracy then I'll modify that conclusion too. I'm just not ready to accept that fantasy without a shred of evidence like you are.
Are you even aware of what Libby lied about?

patteeu
07-05-2007, 06:29 PM
Are you even aware of what Libby lied about?

Yes, are you?

jAZ
07-05-2007, 09:26 PM
Yes, are you?
Yes, tell me what it is, IYO.

patteeu
07-05-2007, 09:38 PM
Yes, tell me what it is, IYO.

No thanks. What's your point?

jAZ
07-05-2007, 09:55 PM
No thanks. What's your point?
Whatever....

He lied by telling the grand jury that he heard the name of Valerie Plame from Tim Russert. But the fact was that he had heard it from Dick Cheney.

patteeu
07-05-2007, 10:01 PM
Whatever....

He lied by telling the grand jury that he heard the name of Valerie Plame from Tim Russert. But the fact was that he had heard it from Dick Cheney.

So what?

WilliamTheIrish
07-05-2007, 10:03 PM
Definitely a cover up and definitely a deal was struck.

However, plausible deniability precludes it being a deal that was 'struck' in that one could prove it in a court of law. (imo)

But c'mon.

jAZ
07-05-2007, 10:08 PM
A bit more descriptive explanation of the facts and charges Libby was convicted of (and which Bush and you both agree Libby was guilty of)...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Libby#Indictment.2C_trial.2C_conviction.2C_and_sentencing

Pursuant to the grand jury investigation, Libby had told FBI investigators that he first heard of Plame's CIA employment from journalist Tim Russert and that he had forgotten that Cheney had already told him that information.[60] The indictment alleges that those statements to federal investigators and the grand jury were false, in that Libby had numerous conversations about Plame's CIA employment before speaking to Russert; Russert did not tell Libby about Plame's CIA employment; Libby knew with certainty that Plame was employed by the CIA; and Libby told reporters that Plame worked for the CIA without making any disclaimer that he was uncertain of that fact.[61] The false statements counts in the Libby indictment charge that he made these claims to the FBI; the perjury counts charge that he repeated these claims to the grand jury; and the obstruction of justice count charges that Libby made these statements in order to impede the Fitzgerald's grand jury investigation.[3]

patteeu
07-05-2007, 10:14 PM
A bit more descriptive explanation of the facts and charges Libby was convicted of (and which Bush and you both agree Libby was guilty of)...

And your point is...?

jAZ
07-05-2007, 10:23 PM
So what?
You admit that Libby is guilty of obstructing an investigation (one where the prosecutor is seeking facts to prove or disprove the possibility that VP Cheney might have conspired to out Plame).

You admit that the obstruction resulted from the fact that Libby lied to the FBI and the grand jury about Cheney being the person who outed Plame's job to Libby himself. You admit that Libby knowingly tried to mislead the investigation away from Cheney by telling them that Russert was the source of Plame's name/job.

Yet, you claim that "no evidence (exists) that he covered up ... some kind of vast WH conspiracy".

That makes no sense.

The fact that he lied to obscure his boss's role in the outing is evidence (though certainly not alone, proof) of a conspriacy and a coverup.

patteeu
07-05-2007, 10:58 PM
You admit that Libby is guilty of obstructing an investigation (one where the prosecutor is seeking facts to prove or disprove the possibility that VP Cheney might have conspired to out Plame). You admit that the obstruction resulted from the fact that Libby's lied to the FBI and the grand jury about Cheney being the person who outed Plame's job to Libby himself. You admit that Libby knowingly tried to mislead the investigation away from Cheney by telling them that Russert was the source of Plame's name/job.

Yet, you claim that "no evidence (exists) that he covered up ... some kind of vast WH conspiracy".

That makes no sense. The fact that he lied to obscure his boss's role in the outing is evidence (though certainly not alone proof) of a conspriacy and a coverup.

He isn't accused of lying to cover up incriminating evidence of Cheney wrongdoing. He's accused of lying to cover up evidence that didn't actually get covered up, nor did it incriminate Cheney. The prosecutor knew the truth behind each of Libby's lies but failed to find evidence of a crime. I think it's more likely that he was either lying to avoid bad publicity or to avoid personal reprecussions (professional or legal) than it is that he was lying to protect his boss from nonexistant (or at least non-evidenced) crimes.

jAZ
07-05-2007, 11:19 PM
He isn't accused of lying to cover up incriminating evidence of Cheney wrongdoing.
That's exactly what he's "accused" of. Maybe you are attempting to hide behind some narrow definition of accused, but Fitzgerald certainly suspected that there was a potential act of wrongdoing by Cheney.

He was investigating that exact thing and that investigation was obstructed by Libby's lies and obstruction.

That's the point.

patteeu
07-06-2007, 06:16 AM
That's exactly what he's "accused" of. Maybe you are attempting to hide behind some narrow definition of accused, but Fitzgerald certainly suspected that there was a potential act of wrongdoing by Cheney.

He was investigating that exact thing and that investigation was obstructed by Libby's lies and obstruction.

That's the point.

My definition of accused is based on the official accusing document, the indictment. If you want to spin that as narrow, go ahead.

None of the things Libby is accused of lying about leave any mystery unsolved so they can't possibly be hiding illegal behavior. His lies are, in fact, hiding nothing.

Ugly Duck
07-06-2007, 07:22 AM
The prosecutor knew the truth behind each of Libby's lies but failed to find evidence of a crime.

The prosecutor said his investigation was obstructed by Scooter's lies so he was unable to collect evidence.

jAZ
07-06-2007, 10:23 AM
My definition of accused is based on the official accusing document, the indictment. If you want to spin that as narrow, go ahead.
Actually, it's the opposite. If you mean indicted, I recommend the word itself. No need to use a word that is broader than the word you really mean.
None of the things Libby is accused of lying about leave any mystery unsolved so they can't possibly be hiding illegal behavior. His lies are, in fact, hiding nothing.
His lies obstructed an investigation into further facts that might have exposed further prosecutable crimes. Fitzgerald put it well..


Well, why is this a leak investigation that doesn't result in a charge? I've been trying to think about how to explain this, so let me try. I know baseball analogies are the fad these days. Let me try something.

If you saw a baseball game and you saw a pitcher wind up and throw a fastball and hit a batter right smack in the head, and it really, really hurt them, you'd want to know why the pitcher did that.

...

And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He's trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked their view.

As you sit here now, if you're asking me what his motives were, I can't tell you; we haven't charged it.

So what you were saying is the harm in an obstruction investigation is it prevents us from making the fine judgments we want to make.

...

QUESTION: The indictment describes Lewis Libby giving classified information concerning the identify of a CIA agent to some individuals who were not eligible to receive that information. Can you explain why that does not, in and of itself, constitute a crime?

FITZGERALD: That's a good question. And I think, knowing that he gave the information to someone who was outside the government, not entitled to receive it, and knowing that the information was classified, is not enough.

FITZGERALD: You need to know at the time that he transmitted the information, he appreciated that it was classified information, that he knew it or acted, in certain statutes, with recklessness.

And that is sort of what gets back to my point. In trying to figure that out, you need to know what the truth is.

So our allegation is in trying to drill down and find out exactly what we got here, if we received false information, that process is frustrated.

But at the end of the day, I think I want to say one more thing, which is: When you do a criminal case, if you find a violation, it doesn't really, in the end, matter what statute you use if you vindicate the interest.

If Mr. Libby is proven to have done what we've alleged -- convicting him of obstruction of justice, perjury and false statements -- very serious felonies -- will vindicate the interest of the public in making sure he's held accountable.

It's not as if you say, "Well, this person was convicted but under the wrong statute."

FITZGERALD: I think -- but I will say this: The whole point here is that we're going to make fine distinctions and make sure that before we charge someone with a knowing, intentional crime, we want to focus on why they did it, what they knew and what they appreciated; we need to know the truth about what they said and what they knew.

jAZ
07-06-2007, 11:03 AM
Libby WAS part of a coverup, but no deal of any sort... Bush just decided to do this because he knows the law and knows justice... the coverup is cooincidence
ROFL

I just noticed this...

jAZ
07-06-2007, 11:19 AM
Further Fitzgerald transcripts... from his closing arguments...

There is a cloud over what the Vice President did that week. He wrote those columns. He had those meetings. He sent Libby off to Judith Miller at the St. Regis hotel. At that meeting, the two hour meeting, the defendant talked about the wife. We didnít put that cloud there. That cloud remains because a defendant has obstructed justice and lied about what happened. Did he come in straight and say what really happened? He came in and said, told the grand jury, I donít remember anything. I remember learning about the wife. I learned it from Russert as if it were new. I was sitting around thinking I donít even know if Wilsonís married. How do we know he has a wife?

Heís put the doubt into whatever happened that week, whatever is going on between the Vice President and the defendant, that cloud was there. Thatís not something that we put there. That cloud is something that we just canít pretend isnít there.

patteeu
07-06-2007, 12:34 PM
The prosecutor said his investigation was obstructed by Scooter's lies so he was unable to collect evidence.

On the basis of what? Everything that Libby lied about is known to the prosecutor so it can't possibly be hiding the key to any further prosecutions.

jAZ
07-06-2007, 12:44 PM
On the basis of what? Everything that Libby lied about is known to the prosecutor so it can't possibly be hiding the key to any further prosecutions.
That's a false assertion. Everything Libby was convicted of lying about... is not the same thing as everyting Libby lied about. But that he lied is evidence to support that he's willing to lie to obstruct an investigation into his boss. What else he lied about is a question that long with the other facts about Cheney, creates the "cloud".

patteeu
07-06-2007, 12:55 PM
Actually, it's the opposite. If you mean indicted, I recommend the word itself. No need to use a word that is broader than the word you really mean.

His lies obstructed an investigation into further facts that might have exposed further prosecutable crimes. Fitzgerald put it well..

To be honest, jAZ, I'm not at all surprised that you are willing to believe any baseless, speculative smear you hear about this administration even if you have to lie to yourself to do it. He is not accusing anyone of any specific wrongdoing, he's smearing the people he wanted to take down but couldn't with an unspecified "cloud." That's not an accusation, that's a hatchet job. There's a reason why we keep grand jury testimony secret and that's to prevent people from being damaged by testimony that tends to impune them when there ultimately aren't enough facts to back up an actual indictment. In this case, the prosecutor goes out of his way to impune those he can't prosecute, which IMO is violation of the spirit of our system if not a breach of ethics. I suspect that after a couple of years and millions of dollars with nothing but a perjury/obstruction case to show for it, he felt the need to justify the witchhunt he'd been engaged in ever since he found out that Richard Armitage was the actual leaker, just hours after the investigation started.

Getting back to Libby, the prosecutor obtained all the information he would have obtained from a truthful Libby by other means. None of that information led to an indictment. I haven't heard you or Fitzgerald or anyone else explain how Libby's failure to fully cooperate prevented any specific prosecution? I see speculation about clouds and unknowns, but I don't see any real identification of a crime that we know was committed but that hasn't been solved because Libby lied.

patteeu
07-06-2007, 01:14 PM
That's a false assertion. Everything Libby was convicted of lying about... is not the same thing as everyting Libby lied about. But that he lied is evidence to support that he's willing to lie to obstruct an investigation into his boss. What else he lied about is a question that long with the other facts about Cheney, creates the "cloud".

Do you have evidence of additional actual lies? It's not enough to say that Libby lied about one thing so therefore he must be lying about something else and that whatever it was, it must be covering up an as yet undetected crime that surely would be the smoking gun we need to bring down Cheney if not the entire Bush presidency.

Sorry, you don't get to assume lies into existence. Nor do you get to assume that those lies cover up some kind of crime that you've also assumed into existence. :shake:

Chief Henry
07-06-2007, 02:08 PM
On the basis of what? Everything that Libby lied about is known to the prosecutor so it can't possibly be hiding the key to any further prosecutions.



EXACTLY

jAZ
07-06-2007, 02:15 PM
...therefore he must be lying about something else and that whatever it was, it must be covering up an as yet undetected crime that surely would be the smoking gun we need to bring down Cheney if not the entire Bush presidency.
No one said anything "must" be. We are discussing your assertion that "there is no evidence that he covered up anything". All of the things we have discussed are evidence. They aren't "proof", but you claim that there wasn't even any evidence.

mlyonsd
07-06-2007, 06:12 PM
No one said anything "must" be. We are discussing your assertion that "there is no evidence that he covered up anything". All of the things we have discussed are evidence. They aren't "proof", but you claim that there wasn't even any evidence.

And you're considering a "cloud" as guilt.

jAZ
07-06-2007, 08:02 PM
And you're considering a "cloud" as guilt.
I hold two views...

1) Something is rotten, and signs are pointing to Cheney leading a group to conspire to out a CIA agent.

2) Cheney, Rove, Libby are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

patteeu
07-06-2007, 09:36 PM
No one said anything "must" be. We are discussing your assertion that "there is no evidence that he covered up anything". All of the things we have discussed are evidence. They aren't "proof", but you claim that there wasn't even any evidence.

No, we are discussing whether or not Libby's alleged and convicted wrongdoing somehow blocked the prosecutor from prosecuting or even finding an additional crime. Not only is there no evidence that Libby covered up anything, there's no evidence that there was anything to cover up in the first place.

jAZ
07-06-2007, 11:52 PM
No....
If you are saying "no" we aren't "discussing your assertion that 'there is no evidence that he covered up anything'".... then we are having 2 different conversations. Because that's exactly what I've been discussing since you made the comment.
Not only is there no evidence that Libby covered up anything...
He lied to the grand jury telling them that Tim Russert (lie) not Dick Cheney (fact) was where he learned of Plame. That lie is "evidence that Libby covered up" Dick Cheney as being his source.
...there's no evidence that there was anything to cover up in the first place.
In fact there are several pieces of evience (though no proof) "of (something) to cover up". First, Dick Cheney's involvement as the ultimate source. Second, he had authored (dictated to an asst) the talking points about Wilson himself to be given to the media. He wrote a note asking if Wilson's wife sent him (thus idenfitying her as working at the CIA). The #1 talking point on the list is question of "who sent him"?

That right there demonstrates his knowledge of her role on July 6th, his actively instructing his staff's media response to the column via talking points on the 8th, his outing Plame to Libby (who ultimately outed her to the media) and his directing the media to question who sent him (shortly after he asked if it was Plame).

All of this is evidence that Cheney may have been conspiring to identify Plame as working at the CIA and having the authority to send Wilson.

As I said (and as you have yet to acknowledge) this is not "proof". But it is evidence (if circumstantial).

patteeu
07-07-2007, 07:30 AM
He lied to the grand jury telling them that Tim Russert (lie) not Dick Cheney (fact) was where he learned of Plame. That lie is "evidence that Libby covered up" Dick Cheney as being his source.

He *may* have tried to cover that up (as opposed to lying for some other purpose), but the fact that you can recite it to me proves that he didn't succeed. Again, the prosecutor knows the truth behind each of Libby's lies and he still doesn't have a crime he can point to, much less an indictment to level at a perpetrator.

In fact there are several pieces of evience (though no proof) "of (something) to cover up". First, Dick Cheney's involvement as the ultimate source. Second, he had authored (dictated to an asst) the talking points about Wilson himself to be given to the media. He wrote a note asking if Wilson's wife sent him (thus idenfitying her as working at the CIA). The #1 talking point on the list is question of "who sent him"?

That right there demonstrates his knowledge of her role on July 6th, his actively instructing his staff's media response to the column via talking points on the 8th, his outing Plame to Libby (who ultimately outed her to the media) and his directing the media to question who sent him (shortly after he asked if it was Plame).

All of this is evidence that Cheney may have been conspiring to identify Plame as working at the CIA and having the authority to send Wilson.

As I said (and as you have yet to acknowledge) this is not "proof". But it is evidence (if circumstantial).

Not only is it not proof, but it's value as evidence is too low to be fairly characterized as such, IMO. It's something like saying the lone fact that a chinese man is chinese is evidence against him in a crime where the victim described her attacker as an asian. Sure, it's consistent with the crime, but there are billions of other people who are also asian so it doesn't really give us much help in finding the perpetrator. But your theory is even weaker than that because there is no apparent crime to begin with. It's like considering the ethnicity of that chinese man to be evidence against him because there *might* have been a crime committed by an asian at some point. That's some pretty weak stuff to be calling it evidence.

Nope, I'm sticking with my original assessment.

jAZ
07-07-2007, 12:23 PM
He *may* have tried to cover that up (as opposed to lying for some other purpose), but the fact that you can recite it to me proves that he didn't succeed. Again, the prosecutor knows the truth behind each of Libby's lies and he still doesn't have a crime he can point to, much less an indictment to level at a perpetrator.



Not only is it not proof, but it's value as evidence is too low to be fairly characterized as such, IMO. It's something like saying the lone fact that a chinese man is chinese is evidence against him in a crime where the victim described her attacker as an asian. Sure, it's consistent with the crime, but there are billions of other people who are also asian so it doesn't really give us much help in finding the perpetrator. But your theory is even weaker than that because there is no apparent crime to begin with. It's like considering the ethnicity of that chinese man to be evidence against him because there *might* have been a crime committed by an asian at some point. That's some pretty weak stuff to be calling it evidence.

Nope, I'm sticking with my original assessment.
Three things,

1) The Chinese man is spotted in the vicinity at the time with a possible motive.

2) The bar is one of investigate further or not. To look for the hard, smoking-gun evidence. Circumstantial evidence is plenty to make that judgement.

3) Given that the assement of the strength "evidence" is based on opinion, your's has proven over time to be in the rare minority.

patteeu
07-07-2007, 01:45 PM
One thing:

Libby's perjury/obstruction was a roadblock in the prosecutor's path, but with the help of throwing a journalist in jail, he was able to navigate around that roadblock to get a good look at the dead end on the other side.