Comments on: Libby – The Smoking Gun?

By: Decision ‘08 » Blog Archive » Wall Street Expects Libby Indicment, But Not Rove

Tue, 25 Oct 2005 17:33:59 +0000

[...] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your ownsite. [...]

By: mtl

mtl — Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:44:24 +0000

Does this stike you as similar to the Rove attempt(successful) to get back to the grand jury to amend his statements?

Clearly the 82 and 17 acts are out, now the players are cutting their loses.

Rove could have been in trouble for perjury, until he returned to correct his earlier statements. That would leave obstruction, but obstruction of a non-crime.

Libby has been trying to get back to the gj, and had to get a reason to do so. Presto, as Rove got back after discovering notes that refreshed his memory, so Libby makes the same play.

Bush felt it was the VP’s office that screwed this, he told them to get Rove off the hook, and then they could do whatever they wanted to.

In order for a perjruy charge to hold up, Fitz couldn’t let Libby back-if one amends earlier statements-it really is hard to show an “on-going” atttempt to lie. Libby’s lawyer was the one who leaked the info, but would not have done so unless Libby was sure Cheney was in the clear.

They now know that Fitz won’t pursue the 82/17 acts, and thus the more minor damage control begins.

Fitz is happy, becuase he gets the truth, finally. He won’t seek an obstruction charge, without an actual crime that was being concealed. Publicly, the roles of all are told…

except Joe Wilson’s.

All in all, an effective investigation.

Factor in the Prosecutor not wishing to call the Director of the CIA or a sitting VP, in order to prove that there was obstruction committed by people who were being investigated, who were also innocent of the initial charges…

By: peter

peter — Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:37:34 +0000

Knemon: agreed — I didn’t mean to imply that people here contort the facts to fit their ideology — I was thinking more about Senator Hutchinson et. al. — sorry if I was unclear –

By: John Hay

John Hay — Tue, 25 Oct 2005 13:29:24 +0000

I agree that people should face the music if they’ve actually done something – whether its a technicality or not. While the original issue was not a crime I believe, some people’s response to the investigation was (apparently). They faced a character test and blinked. It is a sad thing.

By: too many steves

too many steves — Tue, 25 Oct 2005 10:32:56 +0000

knemon, i’m with you and just don’t get it except to say that these folks apparently haven’t grown up enough to understand that they are the proverbial kid-caught-with-hand-in-cookie-jar. and, yet, there they stand saying “cookies? what cookies?”.

By: Knemon

Knemon — Tue, 25 Oct 2005 09:01:55 +0000

Why, why, why do they lie? And by “they,” I mean pretty much anyone in a position of power caught in flagrante.

Gonna get drunk in the middle of the week and watch “Nixon” for the hundredth time … if all the copies aren’t out from the store tomorrow.

peter, I don’t think you’re going to find anybody here making those contortions.

By: peter

peter — Tue, 25 Oct 2005 02:49:22 +0000

I agree — Kay Bailey Hutchinson’s remarks yesterday which suggested that perjury is akin to a technicality were pathetic. Perjury is perjury, whether the (alleged) perjurer is Bill Clinton, Scooter Libby, or Karl Rove. It is amusing, if that is the word, to see those who were gung-ho in supporting Lawrence Walsh and Kenneth Starr contort themselves to suggest that Patrick Fitzgerald is a hyper-aggressive, politically motivated prosecutor. As ye sow…