Scooter Libby convicted on 4 of 5 counts in CIA leak case.

@ycswid (279)
Canada
March 6, 2007 1:29pm CST
I just saw this on the CBC homepage and wondered what mylotters thought of this outcome. http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/03/-6/libby-verdict.html Is it what you expected? What does a guilty verdict say about this administration? What do you think would be a justified sentence? I'm Canadian so I'd love to hear from international and american mylotters.
2 people like this
3 responses
@Smith2028 (797)
• United States
8 Mar 07
Scooter Libby took a long fall for this. He was prosecuted for lying to a jury that was investigating a crime, yet no charges came of that. So this conviction basically is only admitting that he lied. It is a pure political conviction. Libby may have lied to the jury, but one must take into consideration that his testimony was given in the case of the Valerie Plame leak, which Richard Armitage had already admitted to. So one must ask, why did he have to testify anyway?
2 people like this
@SageMother (2277)
• United States
6 Mar 07
I just hope the investigation keeps going to reveal that the president had told his little henchmen to go after anyone who disagreed with him this way. I just bet that Libby was acting on orders to threaten that woman's family because her husband questioned the statistics that brought about the war in Iraq. It is time that this administration was held accountable for all the lives they have destroyed while trying to surpress the truth.
2 people like this
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
7 Jun 07
What is interesting is that in both the Libby Jury and the Martha Stewart Jury was several of the jurers felt that some one had to be punished for the crime they were to have lied about. This is dangerious because if the jury can find you guilty of a crime you that are charged with, based on the fact that another crime was committed by someone else but never convicted. Consider this example. There is an hit and run accident with injurys and property damage. You are questioned because you drive that road almost every day at the time the accident occured. You are questioned by the police and you answer their questions to the best of your ablity. They ask you if you were on the road and you tell them that you were there about 3 hours earlier. Later you are questioned by by the Sheriffs Department and give them the same information except you say that it was a Tuesday night and you worked until 5pm instead of 4pm, so you were on the road about 2 hours earlier than the accident. At the Grand Jury you repeat the same story. The DA showes you a credit card bill and it showes that you stopped at the gas station to fill up and it would put you on the road within minutes of the accident. They never find the person who was involved inthe hit and run. You are charged with lying to the police. During the trial the DA makes a point how bad the accident was and how this person was hurt. The jury convicts you of perjury because the person who was hurt is suffering and some one has to be to blame. Is that Justice?
@ycswid (279)
• Canada
11 Jun 07
Interesting perspective although I'm not sure I completely agree with your analogy. If the juror is saying guilty not based on the crime committed then I would say the Judge's charge was incomplete or incorrect as that is what the juror should be basing their verdict on not on their own judgment.
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
25 Jun 07
If this is truly a case of trying to acheive Justice why has the Special Prosecuter not charge Mr Armitrage with leaking the name. He has admitted to being the one who first leaked the name and the connection to the CIA. They never proved that Mr Libby released the name or have they charged him with that crime. It was never proved that the information he failed to provide was important to the case. This was a case of Bush Bashing and Congress trying to take power from the Executive Branch. Look at the time that is being spent on invesgating the US Attornies firing. Those people serve at the pleasure of the President and he can fire them at any time. It has come out that Congress complained about the same Attornies and wanted the President to do somethng about it. Now they want oversight and control. It is a power grab by Congress.