A Good Opening Day For The Libby Defense
Bob Woodward verified once again that Armitage was the leaker; Pincus pointed to Ari Fleischer; and Novak named Armitage, with a confirmation from Karl Rove.
Not that anyone on the Left wants to be bothered with, oh, facts or anything, but I note that none of these people work for Dick Cheney.
As always, stick with Tom Maguire for the latest….
I’m not sure why the fact that none of the three worked for Cheney shows anything from the left which is not factual. Dick Cheney is not single-handedly responsible for all of the mischief going on in the Bush administration, although it may seem that way.
As an aside: in today’s article about his possible testimony, the Times reported that Dick Cheney has the lowest approval rating of any President or Vice President in the history of New York Times/CBS polling.
But here is the interesting question: let’s suppose Libby is convicted on all counts. What conclusions or inferences would you draw from that regarding the Bush adminstration?
None whatsoever…I have had no faith in the jury system since at least the O.J. trial…
So despite the fact that Libby has been contradicted by every witness thus far, if he is convicted it is because of a flaw in the jury system?
Um, I think the trial is still going on, Peter. By all accounts, Libby had a very good opening day for his defense. If Libby is found innocent of all charges, what will that tell you about the Bush Administration? (See, it’s kind of a dumb question, no?)…
If Libby is convicted, I would conclude that Dick Cheney is guilty of subornation of perjury.
If Libby is acquitted, I would conclude that Dick Cheney is not guilty of subornation of perjury.
Interesting…despite the fact that Dick Cheney is not on trial…and you took issue with me pointing out that none of the three sources work for Dick Cheney earlier.
Umm, peter, well…ahem..
“Under federal criminal law (18 U.S.C.A. § 1622), five elements must be proved to convict a person of subornation of perjury. It first must be shown that the defendant made an agreement with a person to testify falsely. There must be proof that perjury has in fact been committed and that the statements of the perjurer were material. The prosecutor must also provide evidence that the perjurer made such statements willfully with knowledge of their falsity. Finally, there must be proof that the procurer had knowledge that the perjurer’s statements were false.”
http://www.answers.com/topic/subornation-of-perjury-2
I’m not a lawyer, but it seems to me that if Libby is found guilty, then each of the five criteria apply to Cheney.
We know that Cheney instructed Scott McClelland to exonerate Libby in a press conference. Instructing your press secretary to lie to the American people is not criminal: he’s not under oath. However, because Libby was following Cheney’s instructions to disclose Valerie Plame’s identity, which then entailed perjurious statements before the grand jury, it seems to me that (to paraphrase your favorite case) the glove fits, so you have to convict.
Libby is entitled to the presumption of innocence, and this is all hypothetical. However, in the event of a convicdtion I think it will be interesting to see how those who wanted to impeach Clinton for perjury will contort themselves into pretzels to justify how it is somehow OK for the Vice President to (at best) condone or (at worst) participate in perjury and the obstruction of justice.
Um, Peter, I’m sorry, but you’re missing the GIANT ELEPHANT (literally) in the room. Dick Cheney has not been charged with anything (nor will he be – that boat has long since sailed)…
And I love the way you say Cheney instructed Libby to disclose Plame’s identity, as if that were just a given…and then turn around and say Libby is entitled to the presumption of innonence…been reading the Times again, I see…
We know that Libby and Cheney discussed Valerie Plame’s identity before it was leaked. We know that Cheney instructed Libby to leak parts of the NIE to Judith Wilson in an effort to discredit Wilson. Is it your contention that Cheney did not know that Libby would reveal Valerie Plame’s identity to the press?
I thought that’s what this trial was all about!…no, look, here’s what I’m objecting to – you’re putting assertions by the prosecutor forward as if they were proven facts, are you not?…
They are assertions of the prosecutor which are backed by evidence and testimony (including Libby’s).
Are they proven? No: the verdict is not in. That’s why this is all hypothetical. My point is only that if there is a conviction, it points strongly to subornation of perjury by the Vice President.
Anything to say, Mark, about Cheney’s assertion that the OVP is a fourth branch of government heretofore unknown?
And the connection to the Libby Trial is…?
None, aside from Cheney himself. I just didn’t see a better place to ask it.
If you ignore the facts of the case, you can draw any conclusion from it that you’d like. The moon was blue last night, therefore Dick Cheney is Satan… …and Cheney didn’t say that the OVP was a fourth branch of government. What he actually said was that liberals were so stupid that a fourth of them couldn’t name one branch of the government if they had a copy of the constitution in their left hand and David Souter’s crotch in their right. Man, that Cheney is brutal.
Maybe many witnesses have condradicted Libby. But they are also contradicting themselves. I think this story was concocted by the media and it has back fired. Russert, Andrea Mitchell, Judy Miller, David Gregg….all of them. Mealy mouthed and slimy merchants of trash. Their overzealous pursuit of the extremely flawed Bush administration got them caught up in a mess the particpiated in a helped create.
This is a classic case of people getting caught talking behid someone’s back and out of school.