Scooter Libby trial

[George Klass]

What do you guys make of this whole deal? It's turned into a "who said what to who and when did he say it?" thing.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070212/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_trial

[purpleplymouth]

We are in the midst of a criminal trial concerning the leaking of CIA covert operative Valerie Plame’s name to the press. The man on trial did not do the leaking. The man who did the leaking is not on trial. The woman who is the subject of the fictional leak was probably not covert. The person who leaked her name did so in the course of gossip and almost certainly did not, as the law requires, ‘know that the government had taken affirmative measures to conceal’ her identity (because if she wasn’t covert, the government would have taken no such steps). Accordingly, there was no crime. And yet, a prosecutor presents evidence, a jury lobs questions and ‘Scooter’ Libby may go to jail for 30 years... Libby’s crime, according to [Independent Counsel, Patrick] Fitzgerald, is perjury and obstruction of justice. The grounds? People’s memories of who said what to whom more than three years ago differ. Good Lord, may I never be subject to a grand jury inquest, as I forget appointments, names, faces, passwords, jokes, what I told my husband yesterday and whether or not I paid the phone bill last month. Where, I wonder, are all the folks who worry about attracting good people to government service? Libby gave up a lucrative private practice to serve his country and now may lose everything, including his liberty, for the trouble. This trial is a farce and an outrage.” —Mona Charen (javascript:ol('http://PatriotPost.US/opinion/entrylist.asp?source_id%3d32');)

[nos351]

Much to do about nothing. As usual the lawyer and the media make the money.

[George Klass]

Libby feels that he is being made the scape goat on this thing, and maybe he is I don't know. But to me, it's alot more than "much ado about nothing". The underlying point of the whole mess is that Cheney was trying to manipulate the news, what was being reported to the public. This whole thing started with Plame's hisband writing an editorial in the NY Times that contradicted the White House on the Iraqi nuke deal out of Africa (or something like that). Cheney did what he usually does, tried to snow the public by leaking (or having someone leak) all of this stuff. This administration's hands are not clean in this whole episode, and remember who Libby was working for at the time.

[Jimmy Biggs]

Plame's hubby was doin a little cut the legs from under the President himself

[nos351]

Those prosecutors are always trying to make a name for themselves. Always looking for the smoking gun. Bulk of the investigation is over. If this isnt politcally motivated I dont know what is.

[nos351]

Now if we are going to have an investigation lets investigate the intelligence that led to the Iraq war. Pictures, memos, timelines, etc.

[George Klass]

Well, it is political motivation, you are right. But not the Libby trial. The original "leak" was the political motivation, done to try and shore up public opinion and to counteract what Plame's hubby wrote.

Peraonally, I love it when these public servants, these vanguards of ethics, these straight arrow law and order types, fight it out in court, don't you? This must be very difficult for you Democrat haters. For once, they weren't involved, LOL.

[nos351]

These penny ante investigations bore me lets get to the good stuff. Like where is all the oil money going?

[George Klass]

The Iraq war, and all of the BS and lies that led up to it, will be investigated to death over the next 20 odd years. Whether it's the government that is doing the investigations or the political writers and historians, that will be interesting to follow. The government usually doesn't like to investigate themselves too closely, since all of them, the Dems and the Repubs, are so deeply in cahoots with each other.

[nos351]

You have a point, but what gets me is the so called liberal media(I disagree with that premise) never presses anyone on an issue when interviewing. They may ask tough questions but allow the politicos to give BS answers and move on. I guess no one would let them interview if they put their feet to the fire.

[George Klass]

I agree with you nos351. But in this case, it's not the liberal interviewers that are in question, but the conservative interviewers.

[ShadowMaster]

This must be very difficult for you Democrat haters. For once, they weren't involved, LOL.Yeah. I'm sure.