Let’s hear other side
Every paper I opened on the day it was reported had a front-page article on the Libby commutation — written in liberalspeak. Now I challenge the press to write and print in the same story in conservativespeak.
Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s up-front knowledge, the travesty of justice and how it was used by the left, the fact that the investigation itself should not have even taken place based on the legal facts, the subversion of the law for the left’s political gain, the criminalization of policy by abusing the legal system — all of these positions were ignored in the stories of the day.
How about it, press, are you going to tell the other side, or continue the misrepresentations?
David Cook, Loveland
You've mispelled the writers last name. It should be "Kook"
Posted by riptide on July 11, 2007 09:38 AMBeing a convicted felon ain't easy.
Posted by rick on July 11, 2007 09:42 AMApparently the truth is called liberalism. Does that mean conservative stands for "what we would like to believe, but can't be substantiated by fact."
Posted by Pat on July 11, 2007 10:23 AMAin't going to happen Mr Cook,. The closest we get to hearing the truth by the media in Denver is the RMN (other then radio). The liberals just think no matter what they do it's not wrong and they are "always" right. Maybe some day the media will see it but for now we just have to deal with it. I just don't see how the liberals can call themselves good Americans. Now watch the hateful nasty comments I get. Course they may not answer me at all thinking they are proving a point. I don't post very often because it is a waste of time with these people.
Posted by on July 11, 2007 10:28 AMDavid what is the other sides story. Let me try. CIA OPERATIVE NAME LEAKED BY HIGH RANKING MEMBER OF WHITE HOUSE. INVESTICATION BEGINS WITH QUESTIONING OF MEMBERS OF THE ADMINISTRATION. ONE IS FOUND TO OF LIED. FOUND GUILTY BY A JURY OF HIS PEERS. BUT THAT DON'T MATTER. THE BUSH ADMINISTATION IS ABOVE THE LAW. Hows that David.
Posted by larrymc on July 11, 2007 10:29 AMSo the public outing of a CIA agent isn't worth investigating? Compared to a potential illegal land deal in Arkansas? That ended up getting a president impeached because he lied about an affair with an intern, which was much different than what was originally being investigated. At least this time, the special prosecutor stayed on target.
Posted by Roger on July 11, 2007 10:35 AMlarrymc, Roger, et. al.
Fitzgerald learned early on that Plame was actually “outed” by former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage in interviews with Bob Woodward and Bob Novak. This fact has been widely reported.
How do you account for the fact that Fitzgerald did not charge Armitage with a crime?
Posted by James Jones on July 11, 2007 10:39 AMBoy, talk about misrepresentations!
"the fact that the investigation itself should not have even taken place based on the legal facts"
If an attorney comes to a federal court with more ego than substance, the judge will put them in their place. It's called a Rule 11 Sanction. And if Libby's attorney thought for a minute they had a chance of winning, they would have brought a motion for one.
They didn't and the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt, to a jury of Mr. Libby's peers, that he violated a Federal statute.
"the subversion of the law for the left’s political gain"
The only one subverting the law is a Republic administation. Tried by a republican appointed attorney. Convicted by a jury and let free in a blatent, politically motivated CYA move.
Apparently, belief in and support of, the rule of law and the American system of justice is not something that "conservatives" support. Go figure...
Did Armitage lie to a grand jury too ?
Posted by Sharon B. on July 11, 2007 10:42 AMAccording to Victoria Toensing, the person who wrote the agent-protection law in question, Plame didn't come close to qualifying as an outed CIA agent/operative. This view was consistently supported by other high ranking attorneys who helpd Toensing write the law. Plame was no secret, undercover, "007" as the libs would have you believe.
Plame, moreover, was publicly identified by Mr. Armitage, a fact known by Fitz (and the rest of the planet) very early on in his "investigation."
Bottom line: Libby was convicted for lieing during an investigation that should have never taken place.
Posted by hank on July 11, 2007 10:52 AMSharon B,
I have asked this questions a lot and have had a lot of funny answers.
But yours is tops so far.
Posted by James Jones on July 11, 2007 11:14 AMUgh, Republicans are disgusting, vile creatures who talk a good game about morals but in practice practice absolutely zero morals. Case in point the Libby affair. Here is a man that was brought up before a grand jury, which felt there was enough evidence to prosecute him, then he went before a jury, which found him guilty after a fair hearing. And now the Republicans are crawling out with excuses like cockroaches come crawling out when the lights go off.
This whole affair is yet another example of how pathetic and self-serving the Republican Party has become. I would not expect anything else from the G.O.P.
Hank-
So now it's up to lawyers to decide who was and who wasn't undercover?
"This view was consistently supported by other high ranking attorneys who helpd Toensing write the law."
Its funny how often crazy wingnuts disparage lawyers, then run to them when it helps bolster their case.
As for Plame, I'll take the word of the CIA over a bunch of administration hacks any day. Because, as you know, the CIA has stated TIME AND AGAIN that she was UNDERCOVER. Why is it so hard for you righties to get this through your thick skulls?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/
James Jones - I read just this morning how it is illegal to KNOWINGLY out an undercover agent. Evidently Armitage did not out her KNOWINGLY. Sounds like BS to me, he should be charged AFAIC.
Posted by Tbone on July 11, 2007 11:56 AMTbine,
So Armitage told Fitzgerald that he had "outed" Plame but couldn't be even charged because it couldn't be proved what he knew.
So what does that mean?
Prosecutors don't have to be able to read anyone's mind - they go by what is said or done.
Or does that mean that Armitage knew that Plame worked at the CIA but didn't know she was covert?
According to your link TBone, Novak published Plame's name in July, 2003.
MSNBC says the CIA says:
"Plame worked as an operations officer in the Directorate of Operations and was assigned to the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) in January 2002 at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia."
Then the CIA says "she traveled at least seven times to more than ten times." When overseas Plame traveled undercover, "sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias -- but always using cover -- whether official or non-official (NOC) -- with no ostensible relationship to the CIA.""the CIA lifted Ms Wilson's cover" and then "rolled back her cover" effective to the date of the leak.
How is "traveling in true name" being undercover?
How is working at the CIA HEADQUARTERS in 2002 considered undercover? Was she hiding from her boss?
How is allegedly working undercover in 2002 connected to being undercover in July of 2003 when her name was exposed?
Why did they have to play with the dates and "lift" and "roll back" the dates of her services?
Sounds like MSNBC did their very best in making the report Fitzpatrick used to sound credible. I noticed they didn't provide a link to the actual "CIA Report."
Have any charges been filed since this new revelation from the CIA back in May?
Many, many questions yet so few answers.
Posted by KW on July 11, 2007 12:53 PMMake that Fitzgerald, not Fitzpatrick.
Posted by KW on July 11, 2007 01:00 PM"So now it's up to lawyers to decide who was and who wasn't undercover?"
No, it not up to the lawers to decide who is protected by the undercover law, its up to the law to decide. The writers and authors of the law in question (Toensing, et al who also happened to be largely lawyers) specifically defined who is covered via the explicit and detailed description of various criteria and standards. Obviously, not all CIA employees are undercover agents and so the protection law as written does not cover them. Plame failed the undercover test(s) because she did not meet some of the very important undercover criteria as detailed in the law. One of the criteria involved both time and geography neither of which could be subject to debate. Plame was either in some specific place at some specific time or she wasn't. There is no wiggle room for any debate. And who better than the very author of the law, Toensing, to explain just that?
Plame didn't qualify as an outed undercover operative and such charges were NEVER brought against Libby. As a prosecutor, you simply can't bring what cant be brought.
That's why Armitage remains uncharged.
Plame was no "007" and under the law and was not entitled to "007" protections. Again, who better than the law's author to explain just that? And Toensing did exactly that on many occassions.
Posted by hank on July 11, 2007 01:11 PMJames Jones continued to insist that the following has any bearing whatsoever on the fact that Libby lied to the FBI BEFORE Fitzgerald was even appointed:
"Fitzgerald learned early on that Plame was actually “outed” by former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage in interviews with Bob Woodward and Bob Novak. This fact has been widely reported."
Tell us how that excuses all the other leakers James...
The things these "Law and Order" types will say to excuse criminals continues to surprise me.
Posted by Charles B on July 11, 2007 01:14 PMhank dragged out a familiar dead horse to have his way with:
"Bottom line: Libby was convicted for lieing during an investigation that should have never taken place."
You don't think it should be a crime to out a covert agent?
Posted by Charles B on July 11, 2007 01:15 PMJames Jones also asked with feigned ignorance:
"How do you account for the fact that Fitzgerald did not charge Armitage with a crime?"
How about you read the pertinent document and tell us James. You keep making meaningless points and then apparently don't bother to read my clear rebuttals.
You're thick.
Posted by Charles B on July 11, 2007 01:18 PMhank,
Sorry, but it doesn't matter a bit what Tonsing thinks. The CIA thought a crime had been committed. That's why you have an investigation, to find out if there was, and by whom.
Libby lied, and all of your contorted apologetics won't change that.
This thread is pathetic. So much willful ignorance.
Posted by Charles B on July 11, 2007 01:21 PMKW,
Who is in a better position to know the Plame's status? You or the CIA? The CIA thought there was a crime committed, but we should believe you instead?
You're a Joke KW.
Posted by Charles B on July 11, 2007 01:22 PMThis case was brought by a republican prosecutor detailed by a republican justice department, and tried in front of a republican judge by a jury of peers.
Dont you guys think claims of political bias are even a little bit of stretch?
Posted by flimflam on July 11, 2007 01:34 PMI definitely trust my judgement over the likes of you, CB.
Posted by KW on July 11, 2007 01:49 PMNo, its not a matter of what Toensing thinks, although she might enjoy considerable credibility as the author of the law. Nor is it a matter of what the CIA thinks either. Its not a matter of what anyone "thinks" or says. Its a matter of the law as written. And the law is very specific and in print. Plame failed the cover test as explicitly stated in the law and, therefore, neither enjoyed or received any cover protections. And since Plame didn't qualify as an outed CIA operative enjoying such protections of an outed undercover agent, nobody--neither Libby nor Armitage--have been charged with having done so. Based on the law, no outing crime was committed and charges can't be brought against anyone.
Posted by hank on July 11, 2007 02:08 PMKW & hank,
The only reasonable conclusion that fits the fact that no one was charged with "outing" is that Plame was not "covert" as described in the law.
The other possibilites (e.g., the prosecutor couldn't tell what Arimtage knew when he disclosed) are not plausible.
The important lesson is the danger to the body politic of establishing prosecutors with no real accountablitly to established branches of government.
It can only be partisanship that blinds reasonable people (no need to name names - I'm certain you know who here is not in that group)to the real lesson of the Libby case.
That short-sightedness is of itself dangerous.
Posted by James Jones on July 11, 2007 02:23 PMA good letter. Thank you for your comments.
Posted by Brian Stuckey on July 11, 2007 02:41 PMFor those of you conspicuously not "up to speed" on the undercover CIA law in question, may I suggest:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2305-2005Jan11.html
There are many more articles written by very authortative sources on this law and not one maintains that Plame qualified as a protected "007" undercover agent. I know that this drives the libs and hate-Bush crowd totally nuts (many enjoy a very good head-start)...but the law is the law.
Neither Libby, nor Armitage, nor Novak or anyone else can be prosecuted for outing a non-outable/non-covert CIA employee. Plame was no "007," she was an ordinary desk jockey entitled to no such protections under the law.
And please note that NOBODY has been charged or is being prosecuted for "outing" Plame. There is a good reason for that. What "isn't" simply "isn't," unless we have trouble understanding the meaning of what "is" is. And nobody can make an isn't and is. Get my drift?
Posted by hank on July 11, 2007 02:46 PMKeep pushing that rock up the hill, Hank ole' boy.
Tell me this, why did Brewster Jennings have to shut down operations if Plame was just a desk jockey? If she was just a desk jockey, how did she have the power to send her husband to Niger as you whacko's claim?
I'm just glad that our national security isn't in your hands. Why do you hate America so?
Posted by on July 11, 2007 03:00 PM"The only reasonable conclusion that fits the fact that no one was charged with "outing" is that Plame was not "covert" as described in the law."
I vote we start applying this premise to all of our laws. If no one was charged with the crime then the crime obviously did not happen.
Posted by flimflam on July 11, 2007 03:28 PMflimflam,
We don't need to vote to "start applying" the presumption of innocence - it's already axiomatic.
Posted by James Jones on July 11, 2007 04:19 PMSorry about your confusion sir, but the presumption of innocence has exactly zero to do with the presumption that if no one is charged with a crime that said crime was not committed. That theory seems to involve some kind of alternate universe.
Posted by flimflam on July 11, 2007 05:08 PMflim - Big dif here. We already have a confession of sorts. Fitz knows who did the alledged crime.
It isn' t like he can't figure out who should be charged. He just knows there wasn't any crime.
Posted by KW on July 11, 2007 05:24 PMKW said:
"I definitely trust my judgement over the likes of you, CB."
That's irrelevant. What about your judgment vs. the career professionals at the CIA?
Posted by Charles B on July 11, 2007 05:56 PM"The only reasonable conclusion that fits the fact that no one was charged with "outing" is that Plame was not "covert" as described in the law."
Why don't you read the court brief and then come back and claim again she wasn't covert.
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070529_Unclassified_Plame_employement.pdf
Are you genetically unable to admit you're wrong? (It would explain a lot).
Here's a snippet:
"While assigned to CPD, Ms. Wilson engaged in temporary duty (TDY) travel overseas on official business. She traveled at least seven times to more than ten countries. When traveling overseas, Ms. Wilson always traveled under a cover identity — sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias — but always using cover — whether official or non-official cover (NOC) — with no ostensible relationship to the CIA.
"At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure in the media of Ms. Wilson's employment relationship with the CIA on 14 July 2003, Ms. Wilson was a covert employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States."
Posted by Charles B on July 11, 2007 06:05 PMHank said erroneously:
"There are many more articles written by very authortative (sic) sources on this law and not one maintains that Plame qualified as a protected "007" undercover agent."
What about the court filing?
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070529_Unclassified_Plame_employement.pdf
Of course all this is a red herring, as Scooter Libby was tried and convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice. That the "underlying crime" was not charged is meaningless except that it may be the reason that nobody was charged.
But you keep twisting yourself into pretzels for what purpose? Because you like criminals?
Posted by Charles B on July 11, 2007 06:09 PMKW said without evidence and contrary to the record that:
"It isn' t like he can't figure out who should be charged. He just knows there wasn't any crime"
Of course, he says the exact opposite, but reality is no obstacle for an Authoritarian Bush Cultist like poor KW.
Posted by Charles B on July 11, 2007 06:12 PM"Ms. Wilson always traveled under a cover identity — sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias — but always using cover — whether official or non-official cover (NOC) — with no ostensible relationship to the CIA."
So she's using her real name, yet she's undercover, while working at the CIA headquarters in 2002, whether officially or non-officially with the CIA.
Yeah, thanks CB, you cleared that one right up. Maybe you should explain it to Fitzgerald then.
Posted by KW on July 11, 2007 06:23 PMLet's see now:
1. Libbey was put under oath to testify before a Grand Jury.
2.. ANY deliberate lie under oath is, by definition, perjury.
3. Libby lied under oath, deliberately.
4. Libby was charged with the felony crime of perjury for lying under oath to a Grand Jury.
5. Libby was tried in a Court of Law on the felony crime charges of perjury.
6. Libby was found guilty as charged, of the felony crime of perjury, in a Court of Law
7. Libby was sentenced, after trial and conviction in a Court of Law for the felony crime of perjury, to 30 months imprisonment, a fine, and other conditions.
8. Exercising the Constitutional privilege of Executive Clemency, the President commuted Libbys sentence to no prison time, with the fine and other conditions remaining.
Libby is, presently, a felon, convicted in a Court of Law of the felony crime of perjury
That's all there is to it, kiddies. Or, as the old saying goes, K.I.S.S. Don't matter a corn shuck in the fire place why, for whom - or whatever - the felony crime of perjury was committed in the first place.
Ain't none o them thar dead horses bout causes an sich agonna get up an win the Triple Crown nohow. So, I cain't se no sense in agoin on abeatin em all over agin an agin nohow.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 11, 2007 07:01 PMOld Grouch,
.. ANY deliberate lie under oath is, by definition, perjury.
Is not true at law.
PERJURY - When a person, having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the U.S. authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; 18 USC
Did you catch the bit about
"contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true"
So it is not "any" lies. Lies about immaterial matters are not perjury as described in the law which, it seems should be obvious.
There was no underlying crime in regard to Libby's testimony. The interesting question then is how was his testimony material to anything?
Granted - it is probably not an interesting question for a man with your perspective.
I am quite certain we have been over this one earlier.
Nearly forgot - you do require other people to research so here goes:
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p032.htm
Posted by James Jones on July 11, 2007 07:27 PMflimflam
"That theory seems to involve some kind of alternate universe."
It is in a way. It is from a universe where a man cannot found guilty by consensus of public opinion but remains innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
It is universe where the state cannot use the courts to criminalize political differences and punish people with unpopular ideas.
Libby is a Republican. He is what you are good enough to describe as not a man at all but a cockroach.
What rights do Cockroaches have?
Why should some nicety like the rule of law interfere with what the just who have already determined the truth.
Libby has been found guilty on this page of outing a covert agent more time then you can count and yet he has never been charged with the crime.
There have been, on this page, numerous calls for the execution of Vice-preident Cheney based on his presumed treason in outing Plame.
But then what else can a just society do with cockroaches?
There is danger in this that is beyond your acknowldegment.
flimflam.
I see that I misattibiuted Sean's "cockroach" statement to you.
For the record
He is what you are good enough to describe as not a man at all but a cockroach.
Should have been
Libby has been described on this page as a cockroach.
Posted by James Jones on July 11, 2007 08:14 PMJonesy,
Not even worth a, "nice try".
The phrases, "deliberate lie", and " wilfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes . . . (something) . . . does not believe to be true" say - and mean - one and the same thing. The statements are synonymous. There is no fundamental difference.
"Deliberately", and "willfully", are synonyms as well. They also mean one and the same thing.
"Lie" and "does not believe to be true" are also synonyms that mean one and the same thing.
The legal phraseology as quoted says - and means - one and the same thing as "deliberate lie".
As with most of your presentations, the phraseology is a non-argument, as usual.
James Jones ridiculously says: "Libby has been found guilty on this page of outing a covert agent more time then you can count and yet he has never been charged with the crime."
I presume what he would have said if his thinking were muddled is that there are posts in this thread that claim that Libby was guilty of illegally outing Plame.
While Libby clearly did "out" Plame, Fitzgerald did not find sufficient evidence that he knew at the time that Plame was covert, so Libby was not indicted for that crime.
Jones asks why Armitage was not indicted. Of course, that question has been answered dozens of times in this forum but leave it to Jones to ask it again.
Armitage was not indicted for the same reason that Libby was not indicted, that is, because Fitzgerald said he could not find enough evidence to show that either one knew of Plame's covert status when they outed her.
Jones says: "The only reasonable conclusion that fits the fact that no one was charged with "outing" is that Plame was not "covert" as described in the law.
The other possibilites (e.g., the prosecutor couldn't tell what Arimtage knew when he disclosed) are not plausible."
It has been shown many times on this forum that Plame was indeed a covert agent. That was stated clearly the the CIA and by Fitzgerald in the indictment. But leave it to Jones to raise the issue once again.
Where in the world Jones gets the idea that it was not plausible for Fitzgerald to not know whether Libby, or Armitage, knew of Plame's covert status when they outed her is beyond me. Perhaps he claims it says that some place in the bible.
As Fitzgerald and others have repeatedly pointed out, and as common sense makes clear, it is very difficult to prove the state of person's knowledge unless, for example, you have a witness to whom the person told what his state of knowledge was, or, for another example, unless the person wrote something which shows his state of knowledge, or, of course, unless the witness testifies as to his state of knowledge.
This business of proving a person's state of knowledge is a very common evidentiary problem in the prosecution of crimes.
What we do know is that Libby lied under oath about certain matters. Whether he lied under oath about whether he knew Plame was covert is something we don't know because we lack any of the above kinds of evidence. But since he lied with abandon about other matters, would you put that past him?
In any event, the man, a lawyer and a confidant of the president, lied under oath, meaning that he tried to subvert our system of justice. While president Bush indicated that people in his administration would be held accountable, his actions show that President Bush's promises once again are worth nothing.
Bush thought thirty months was too long. so how many months did he think would not be too long? Not six months, not three months, but zero months. It seems lying under oath is not considered very serious by our president, that is, when it is done by a good friend of his who was part of his administration.
To say that it is politics to prosecute a man who has committed perjury is laughable. And despicable.
Posted by Truth on July 11, 2007 09:15 PMOld Grouch,
You have missed the point entirely. It's probably my fault to some extent because the digested version I gave you
"contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true"
was too long. i should have condensed it further to ask you to focus just on this
"material matter"
You see it has nothing to do with whether "Deliberately" and "willfully",or "Lie" and "does not believe to be true" are synonyms .
Nothing at all.
The point is that if testimony under oath is a lie, (or the thing the person says and does not believe to be true) and is told either deliberately (or willfully) and it is not material then it does not typically rise to the standard of perjury.
That is a point of interest in the Libby case.
Truth,
"It has been shown many times on this forum that Plame was indeed a covert agent. That was stated clearly the the CIA and by Fitzgerald in the indictment. But leave it to Jones to raise the issue once again."
Libby has been found guilty repeatedly on this forum. That much is true.
Fitzgerald did not state clearly that Plame was covert. You made that up.
In fact it is telling that Fitzgerald ducked the question of Plame's status during the trail.
Libby's defense team asked Fitzgerald to produce evidence that Plame was actually a covert agent at the CIA. They also asked Fitzgerald to provide an estimate of the damage caused to national security by the revelation of Plame's identity.
Fitzgerald refused both requests.
The trial Judge Walton asked Fitzgerald for his rationale in not providing that information:
'Does the government intend to introduce any evidence that would relate to either damage or potential damage that the alleged revelations by Mr. Libby caused, or do you intend to introduce any evidence related to Ms. Wilson's status and whether it was classified or she was in a covert status or anything of that nature?
The short answer was "No."
On January 31, Judge Walton said: “I to this day don’t know what her actual status was.” But then he probably doesn't read this forum.
Plame workd for the CIA was not covert. Libby's lies could not be material because no crime was committed and he should not have been charged with perjury. Finally, his conviction was an injustice.
Juries some times make mistakes - that's why the executive branch has the ability to over-rule with a pardon.
Bush was wrong to commute the sentence. He should have given Libby a full pardon. He may yet correct that mistake.
JJ,
You're a funny little guy. No matter how many times your "facts" are shown to be bogus, you keep repeating them.
I guess I'll just put you on "ignore" here on out...
Posted by Charles B on July 12, 2007 08:06 AMJonesy,
As usual, the only "point" is that in your own imagination.
The JURY convicted. THEY decide the facts. And THEY decided that whatever the lie(s) were, it was a matter of "material".
That's what a Court trial is all about; making a determination of guilt or innocence of the charges, according to the JURY'S determination of the facts, guided by the Judge's instructions concerning the law. (Or, in cases tried "to the Court", the Judge's determination in both areas.)
As to justice making mistakes: At times it does. So what? Your contentions that this is the case in the Libby matter are frivilous, at best.
Who "outed" whom WAS NOT a matter of res gestae in Libby's trial. The res gestae of that case was, simply, did Libby lie - commit perjury - under oath. He did. Guilty as charged. All the rest is silly blather.
But, do feel free to blather on. Reading your tripe is what makes the forum fun. Your zealous defense of the most egregiously nonsensical foofaraw is incomparable.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 12, 2007 08:30 AMOLd Grouch,
You're still not there.
The jury convicted Libby of perjury. No one has said otherwise.
You said that
"ANY deliberate lie under oath is, by definition, perjury."
That's not true. You have mis-defined perjury. thishas nothing to do with my imagination it is simply a matter of undersatnding the definition of the terms used.
I have produced a definitin and provided you the link to assure yourself that it is authentic.
The lie has to be about a material fact as I have point out.
The Libby jury found him guilty of perjury which means the concluded he was gutily of telling a material lie.
I have corrected your understanding of the law in this way several times but you sem for some reason to be really struggeling with the concept that not all lies told under oath are perjury.
A lie told about something that is of no concern to the court is not typically considered perjury. This fact is interesting especially in the Libby case where no one was charged with a crime aside from perjury.
This is an obvious point and changing the subject will not make it evaporate.
Posted by James Jones on July 12, 2007 10:18 AMTaking a different tack here.
If the police investigate your neighbor for, say bank robbery, and you believe the neighbor is guilty, but you lie to the police and impede their investigation, can you be charged with a crime?
Lets say the neighbor isn`t a bank robber and is completely cleared. Are you, as a liar, who tried to shield him still guilty?
Posted by Sharon B. on July 12, 2007 11:34 AMSharon B,
You would not be gulity of perjury since you were not under oath.
You might be charged with impeding an investigation or even obstructing justice. The officers would have to decide.
I love how some of you get on each other's case arguing details that actually have nothing to do with the actual letter. It's like you have to one-up each other rather than actually being right.
I also love the throwing around of "007 status", mostly because they don't realize that spies aren't James Bond running around in his tux. "00" designation meant you had a license to kill (or, in the books, that you had killed in the line of duty). I doubt Plame ever shot a gun in the line of duty.
Posted by Roger on July 12, 2007 02:36 PMOG:
"That's all there is to it, kiddies. Or, as the old saying goes, K.I.S.S. Don't matter a corn shuck in the fire place why, for whom - or whatever - the felony crime of perjury was committed in the first place."
Here, here Old Grouch! This issue is about as dead as it can get. People need to move on. Including the couple of senators that want to investigate if Libby is blackmailing the whitehouse to get his commute. Give it a rest already.
Posted by KW on July 12, 2007 03:23 PMKW,
I thought I did put it to rest. Jonesy keeps insisting on the idea that synonyms are not interchangeable. But then, in another posting, - the one on "Bush's Twin Messages" - he does tell us, quote, "I'm not troubled by reality . . . ."
Truer words were never spoken. And we have reams of his pathetic imaginations to prove it.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 12, 2007 05:41 PMJJ so if I lied to a grand jury about my innocent neighbor, say the money was found and never stolen, then I am a felon for protecting him. I see.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 12, 2007 09:02 PMKW
The only antidote for falsehood is the truth.
When the Old Grouch redefines perjury so as to create guilt, the true definition has to be brought forward.
When Truth reports that Ftizgerald stated clearly in the idictment that Plame was covert, then the fact that Ftizgerald made a point of avoiding the question had to be made clear.
As long as these falsehoods are propogated, the responsibility to speak the truth remains active.
Otherwise, the falsehoods become understood as reality, the truth will not be known and people will suffer.
Posted by James Jones on July 13, 2007 05:52 AMSharon B
In your first concoction you had yourself speaking with the police during an investigation. You didn't get the answer you were looking for because you hadn't thought about the question.
So you made up version 2 where you are now testfying under oath before a grand jury.
Then you sprung the clever trap by applying the first response to the second version.
So you have proved that you can concoct any story as you like, revise it as often as required and conclude what you wanted to believe in the first place.
But we already know that. Truth is just not in you.
Old Grouch,
You have probably learned the definition of perjury in this thread which I will consider progress of a sort.
You day you may learn the value of truth and the honour of integrity. That would be real progress.
Posted by James Jones on July 13, 2007 06:05 AMJJ, sorry you got lost there and missed the irony.
If a person lies to a grand jury and is found, out, I`ll bet they can be convicted, no matter the rest of the story.
re-read my posts. I had you, not me talking to the police.
And when you get confused, don`t resort to insults. Didn`t you all want a thug free forum?
How quickly you reverted.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 13, 2007 11:15 AMJonsey,
You really are unbelievable. But then again, you have told us all that you are. So what's new.
It's too bad that you must have failed basic English composition somewhere along the line; and never learned about synonyms. A definition by or with synonym is still a definition.
And since you have yourself said: "I am not troubled by reality . . .", what do you know about either truth or integrity that you can criticize others?
Your ignorance is exceeded only by your monumental arrogance.
Hi Sharon,
Down on the posting, "Bush's Twin Messages" - which now seems to be off line, or into the archives, I'm not sure which - Jones says; and I quote: "I am not troubled by reality . . . ." I doubt he intended to give himself away that clearly; but then again, there is the old "Freudian slip" from time to time.
As to the insults, that's the only way he can answer when he's caught in one of the involuted and convoluted fantasies of his own devising.
The simple Dictionary definition, from Webster's New World is: "perjury [
For Jonesy, the words, "deliberate", and "willful" seem to have totally different meanings - since he's not troubled by reality in dealing with anything that he can find fault with otherwise, or that he never learned in his earlier years, such as synonyms, for instance. Even though they are perfectly interchangeable synonyms, and are used as such in many ways throughout legal forms - indeed often joined in phraseology for emphasis - Jonsey insists he's "teaching" something by insisting that they are "different" in some way.
Sort of like his venture into defining a "human person" a while back. And the hilarious one about chipmunks not being able to be human, because a chipmunk could not compose the "Moonlight Sonata".
But, one just has to take him with his own limits. I'm sure your experience with both children and grand-children can give you recall of the times when one stamped a foot - or otherwise demonstrated - while either shouting, or pouting, "It has to be what I say it is, because I say so.". Poor litle Jimmy just hasn't managed to grow out of that stage yet, whatever be his chronological years.
I think the best thing to do is just ignore him completely - especially when he thrusts himself in, totally un-necessarily and totally without any real knowlege or understanding of what was said - to just show off by criticizing something someone else has posted. And, since he can't give a straight answer most of the time when asked a question about what he writes himself - since he doesn't know what he's talking about most of the time to begin with - it's just best to let him rant and ramble; and get on by addressing those who are actually exchanging ideas.
As with any other snotty, spoiled little brat, he does become tiresome after a certain amount of time.
Besides which, this Libby thing is, as someone posted elsewhere, so beaten up already that there isn't much left of the carcass to bury. But for those who think it's going to get up and win the next Preakness, I guess it's their best bet.
Have a good day, and a nice weekend.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 13, 2007 11:58 AM
For some reason or other, the software that edits this blog doesn't like brackets, or short references to Latin, I guess. So, I'll try to fill in the blanks, without tripping the censor.
"perjury, the willful telling of a lie under oath".
Read the rest as written from there on.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 13, 2007 12:07 PMOG, I thought my example was rather clear, but some people hate to be tricked.
Posted by on July 13, 2007 07:06 PMOG, that was me above.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 13, 2007 08:39 PM