The Libby trial thread.

[Raoul Duke]

It looks like it's going to start next Tuesday. It's going to open a window onto the pre-war Iraq WMD lies, and nicely set up the subsequent congressional hearings into the same subject. We're going to get our first look behind the spin and the media control into how the Bush administration was operating around that time, although most of the estimated six week run will be procedural uninteresting stuff. Any thoughts?

[Migi e!]

So, are you saying that this "trial" is nothing but political? A sneaky way to try to nail Bush & that's ok with you?

[Raoul Duke]

So, are you saying that this "trial" is nothing but political? A sneaky way to try to nail Bush & that's ok with you?

The trial itself is a simple obstruction of justice/perjury trial. In and of itself, it's a pretty clear cut-and-dried case and the guy will be found guilty. But the backstory it opens up, the WMD lies that led us to war, will raise passions on both sides of the political debate. The righties don't want to hear it -- they don't want to know that the war they support(ed) was launched on a bunch of lies. For the leftie, it's the first window that opens directly onto events at the time and the first look we get at what actually was going on, so it'll be fascinating.

[Pragmatist]

A sneaky way to try to nail Bush & that's ok with you?

You got a better way?

[Migi e!]

The trial itself is a simple obstruction of justice/perjury trial. In and of itself, it's a pretty clear cut-and-dried case and the guy will be found guilty. But the backstory it opens up, the WMD lies that led us to war, will raise passions on both sides of the political debate. The righties don't want to hear it -- they don't want to know that the war they support(ed) was launched on a bunch of lies. For the leftie, it's the first window that opens directly onto events at the time and the first look we get at what actually was going on, so it'll be fascinating.

The "backstory" should be that the special prosecutor knew that Libby didn't leak the name of Valerie Plame but Richard Armitage did & the prosecutor knew it before he indicted Libby, that's the underbelly & political "gotcha" story that needs to be told.
Obstruction of justice & perjury aren't important enough to cause all of this hullabaloo anymore, Clinton took care of that.
While I still believe that perjury goes to the very heart of our justice system & is a very serious crime, it isn't so important anymore, sad as that is.
If this prosecutor did indict Libby for a purely political agenda, then he should go the way of Nifong.

[Migi e!]

You got a better way?

Hearings on Capitol Hill. If they believe they have the goods on Bush, then why not do it the right way rather than make our justice system a joke, more of a joke that it is now.

[northhunter]

Just so everyone remembers this is nothing about who leaked anything. It's now well known Libby never leaked anything. It's about him getting his story mixed up on who he talked to about what and when he did it. I seem to remember some people saying Clinton's perjury was really no big deal. Will Libby get the same consideration?

[Raoul Duke]

The "backstory" should be that the special prosecutor knew that Libby didn't leak the name of Valerie Plame but Richard Armitage did & the prosecutor knew it before he indicted Libby, that's the underbelly & political "gotcha" story that needs to be told.
Obstruction of justice & perjury aren't important enough to cause all of this hullabaloo anymore, Clinton took care of that.
While I still believe that perjury goes to the very heart of our justice system & is a very serious crime, it isn't so important anymore, sad as that is.
If this prosecutor did indict Libby for a purely political agenda, then he should go the way of Nifong.

It was known to the FBI and the John Ashkkkroft DOJ that Armitage was the original leaker three months before Fitzgerald took over. The decision to continue the investigation was taken by Ashkkkroft, because the FBI had uncovered evidence of a White House plot to discredit and punish Joe Wilson. Eventually the evidence got so close to Ashkkroft's boss in the WH that he had to recuse himself and appoint a prosecutor, who simply carried on the investigation.

The prosecutor knew that Libby did indeed leak Plame's name to the media on the instructions (presumably) of Cheney, but when he was making the fine judgements of motive and intent needed to decide whether to bring charges relating to Plame's outing, Libby "threw sand in his eyes", as he said at the Libby press conference, which is why Libby is charged with obstruction of justice.

[Raoul Duke]

Just so everyone remembers this is nothing about who leaked anything. It's now well known Libby never leaked anything. It's about him getting his story mixed up on who he talked to about what and when he did it. I seem to remember some people saying Clinton's perjury was really no big deal. Will Libby get the same consideration?

It's now well known that Libby leaked her name to several reporters, who will all testify so at the trial. He's also charged with obstruction of justice. The idea that he got his story mixed up will seem hilarious when the evidence comes out at the trial.

[Migi e!]

It was known to the FBI and the John Ashkkkroft DOJ that Armitage was the original leaker three months before Fitzgerald took over. The decision to continue the investigation was taken by Ashkkkroft, because the FBI had uncovered evidence of a White House plot to discredit and punish Joe Wilson. Eventually the evidence got so close to Ashkkroft's boss in the WH that he had to recuse himself and appoint a prosecutor, who simply carried on the investigation.

The prosecutor knew that Libby did indeed leak Plame's name to the media on the instructions (presumably) of Cheney, but when he was making the fine judgements of motive and intent needed to decide whether to bring charges relating to Plame's outing, Libby "threw sand in his eyes", as he said at the Libby press conference, which is why Libby is charged with obstruction of justice.

There's so much wrong with your post that I don't know where to start with it. So, maybe we should just wait for the final outcome of the trial before we make rash judgements....I mean, that is what we're supposed to do, right?