|
Banned
|
irateplatypus, where do you get the opinion that is so contrary to what special counsel Fitzgerald, the judge, the grand jury, and the convicting jury determined happened? I find nothing similar to it, except in opinion pieces....
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by irateplatypus
.....scooter libby was investigated thoroughly for years and years. the prosecution found NOTHING related to national security leaks for which mr. libby could be held legally accountable.
he was eventually indicted on 5 offenses, all of which supposedly occurred DURING the investigation of a incident for which the prosecution couldn't build a case against him. in the end, he was convicted of 4 of the 5 counts and sentenced to 30 months in prison, 2 years probation and a $250K fine. keep in mind that these punishments were given in response to obstructions during the investigative process... not for being guilty of the crime for which he was being investigated.....
|
Libby was obviously convicted of blocking the investigation from determining asnswers to the questions detailed in Fitzgerald's senyencing memorandum.....why is that so hard for you to accept....and do you think that the investigation should have simply stopped when Libby blocked the path to obtaining answers?
Are you not aware that others have been convicted and sentenced. in other cases, for soing exactly what Libby was convicted for doing?
<h2>If you were Fitzgerald, how would you have reacted when it became obvious that Libby was lying and obstructing?</h2>
....but, Libby, Fitzgerald said, after the jury had already convicted him, chose not to do what everyone else who was questioned, seemed to be doing..... on page 4 of the sentencing memorandum, what Fitzgerald told the court, Libby decided to do, instead.....at every opportunity......</b>
Judge Sentelle...the guy who committed the ethics breech by pushing out republican watergate prosecutor Fiske, and replacing him with the compromised incompetent, Ken Starr...the partisan witch hunter who spent seven years and $60 million to find....????...a man openly bribed by Richard M. Scaife while he was still serving as white water special counsel...... he almost accepted the job as Dean of Pepperdine Law School in Malibu...... but he's there now, isn't he?
....and Sentelle was one of the three judges who today found that Libby did not have a strong enough appeal argument to receive a stay of his sentence....
.....but..... you think that he does deserve a stay or a commutation by our president, because... Armitage ..........
Quote:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...28/ai_18116298
The senator, the judge, his wife and the coverage: Hillary and Bill aren't the only ones with some explaining to do in the Whitewater saga - Sen. Lauch Faircloth, Judge David Sentelle, Pres. Bill Clinton, Hilary Rodham Clinton and the Whitewater case
Washington Monthly, March, 1996 by George III Clifford
In July 1994, Senator Lauch Faircloth and Judge David Sentelle lunched together in the quietly elegant Senate dining room. Just days later, a three-judge panel headed by Sentelle removed Robert B. Fiske Jr., a moderate Republican, from his position as independent counsel in the Whitewater affair - and replaced him with an active Republican partisan, Kenneth Starr.
Sentelle was supposed to be making his decisions free from political influence. Faircloth was a leader of the Republican charge against the Clintons on Whitewater; just weeks before, he had written Attorney General Janet Reno to complain about Fiske. So the lunch raised considerable controversy: Had Faircloth used the occasion to lobby or pressure Sentelle? Fiske's axing - after nine months and $2.5 million worth of work that had yet to produce material damaging to the Clintons - was precisely what Faircloth was after.
A year later came the news that approximately five months after the lunch and Fiske's replacement, Faircloth had hired Jane Oldham Sentelle, the judge's wife, as a receptionist for his Senate office. She had started in January 1995 at a salary of $20,000, which was later raised to $22,500......
|
Quote:
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-s...memo052507.pdf
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
) CR. NO. 05-394 (RBW)
v. ))
I. LEWIS LIBBY, )
also known as Scooter Libby )
GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by its attorney, PATRICK J. FITZGERALD,
.....It was apparent from early in the investigation that classified information relating to
a covert intelligence agent had been disclosed without authorization. Also early in the
investigation, investigators learned the identities of three officials – Deputy Secretary of State
Richard Armitage, Senior Adviser to the President Karl Rove, and Mr. Libby, the Vice-
President’s Chief of Staff – who had disclosed information regarding Ms. Wilson’s CIA
employment to reporters. What was not apparent, however, were the answers to a series of
questions central to whether criminal charges arising from the unauthorized disclosure of Ms.
Wilson’s identity as an intelligence agent were both viable and appropriate. These questions
included the following:
• Were Mr. Armitage, Mr. Rove, and Mr. Libby the only government officials
to disclose information about Ms. Plame’s CIA employment to reporters?
------------------------------------- 2
• Was each particular disclosure by the government officials to journalists
deliberate, reckless or inadvertent?
• How did those government officials learn about Ms. Wilson’s CIA
employment?
• What did those government officials know about the classified nature of Ms.
Wilson’s employment?
• Precisely what information regarding Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment did
government officials disclose to reporters, and to how many reporters?
<h2>• Were the disclosures made as part of a concerted effort to disclose this
information? and
• Did other government officials direct or approve these disclosures?</h2>
Consistent with the seriousness of the allegations, the criminal investigation that
followed sought both documentary and testimonial evidence from a wide range of sources.
The unusual nature and context of this investigation required witnesses to divulge
extraordinarily sensitive information to investigators. The President, Vice President, and
many of their closest advisers met with investigators and disclosed communications and
deliberations that occurred at the highest level of our government. Multiple government
agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency, disclosed classified information to
investigators. Journalists disclosed sources. Witnesses disclosed sensitive personal
information relevant to the investigation. The need to balance the important and varied
interests affected by this investigation at times led to difficult negotiations resulting in
________________________________________ 3
compromises by both witnesses and investigators, and in the case of certain journalist
witnesses, to litigation over the journalists’ claims of privilege to protect their sources.
In many respects, the manner in which witnesses from the President to ordinary
citizens participated in this criminal investigation, disclosing to investigators information that
few of them were eager to share, with the guidance of the courts when disputes arose, is a
testament to the strength of a fundamental principle of our nation’s justice system: that the
law is entitled to every man’s evidence. Inherent in this principle is the obligation of a
witness to tell the truth, particularly under oath. As the Supreme Court said in United States
v. Mandujano, 425 U.S. 564, 576 (1975):
In this constitutional process of securing a witness' testimony, perjury simply has no
place whatsoever. Perjured testimony is an obvious and flagrant affront to the basic
concepts of judicial proceedings. Effective restraints against this type of egregious
offense are therefore imperative. The power of subpoena, broad as it is, and the power
of contempt for refusing to answer, drastic as that is -- and even the solemnity of the
oath -- cannot insure truthful answers. Hence, Congress has made the giving of false
answers a criminal act punishable by severe penalties; in no other way can criminal
conduct be flushed into the open where the law can deal with it.
See also Nix v. Whiteside, 457 U.S. 157, 185 (1986) (“[t]his Court long ago noted: ‘All
perjured relevant testimony is at war with justice, since it may produce a judgment not resting
on truth. . . .’”) (quoting In re Michael, 326 U.S. 224, 227 (1945)). Despite the many
competing public and private interests implicated by this investigation, and the high stakes
for many of those asked to provide information, witnesses from all stations in life were
required to accept and comply with their legal obligations.
__________________________________________ 4
It is against this background that Mr. Libby’s conduct must be judged. As an
experienced attorney, Mr. Libby knew well both the seriousness of this investigation and the
range of options available to him as the investigation progressed. He, of course, could have
told the truth, even if, as was the case for many other witnesses, doing so risked the
possibility of criminal prosecution, or personal or political embarrassment. He also could
have declined to speak to the FBI agents, invoked his Fifth Amendment rights before the
grand jury, or challenged any lines of inquiry he believed improper. And the evidence at
trial showed that Mr. Libby had access to counsel and had adequate time to review relevant
documents and contemplate his conduct before he testified.
Regrettably, Mr. Libby chose the one option that the law prohibited: he lied. He lied
repeatedly to FBI agents and in sworn grand jury testimony, and he lied about multiple facts
central to an assessment of his role in the disclosure of Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment. He
lied about when he learned of Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment, about how he learned of her
CIA employment, about who he told of her CIA employment, and about what he said when
he disclosed it. In short, Mr. Libby lied about nearly everything that mattered.
These lies had two direct results. First, they made impossible an accurate evaluation
of the role that Mr. Libby and those with whom he worked played in the disclosure of
information regarding Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment and about the motivations for their
actions. Second, the lies required the government to expend substantial time and resources.....
__________________________________________ 5
|
....and it wasn't Bush "haters" who investigated, tried, convicted, and were sending Libby to jail, was it? Not a one......
Last edited by host; 07-02-2007 at 07:18 PM..
|