I don’t give a damn. My only comment on what seems to be the lead story of the day is that CNN’s headline
‘Scooter’ Libby guilty on four of five counts
is correct and the AP’s headline
Libby found guilty in CIA leak trial
is not.
We may have wished that it were a CIA leak trial, the jurors may have wished it, and the prosecutor may have wished it. Will wishing make it so? The AP, Washington Post, and New York Times are doing their darndedest to convince people of it.
Yeah, not too surprising though. I know for the next several years now, some will claim the convictions prove the allegation that Plame’s name was purposely leaked to harm Wilson.
He was found guilty of obstruction of justice and perjury, with regard to the investigation into the leaking of Valerie Plame’s identity. The verdict does not prove that the administration purposely leaked Plame’s identity to harm Wilson, but it does prove that at least one person within that administration thought that they had done something improper or bordering that it warranted obstructing the investigation.
Exactly, nykrindc. What it definitely does not prove is that there was any underlying crime. So, as far as I’m concerned, this is a whole bunch of nothing: politicians lie. Big whoop. This one got caught for doing it under oath before a prosecutor who was inclined to pursue the matter.
I don’t know Dave, the way I see this is as enforcing one of the most important precepts of our legal system, mainly, when under oath, do not lie. Politicians may lie, but when under oath they cannot. That is why I supported, to an extent the case against Bill Clinton. In this case, the jury decided that Libby obstructed the investigation and lied about when he found out about Valerie Plame. As such, I can’t easily dismiss it, even as it does bother me that there have been no indictments for the actual crime being investigated. Hence, I disagree that there was no crime here, lying under oath after all is a crime.
I suspect this is Fitzgerald’s view as well…at least from this quote of his cited by Michelle Malkin “Any lie under oath is serious. We cannot tolerate perjury…””
nykrindc, I think my position differs from yours only in emphasis. Was Libby’s lie a crime? Sure. Should it have been prosecuted? Probably. Does it deserve all of the attention it’s getting? That I don’t believe.
Patrick Fitzgerald has said there will be no additional prosecutions and he’s closing up shop. That means that, by definition, there is no underlying crime involved whatever other claims may be.
You’re bloody deluded mate. Really bloody deluded. A Sr. executive official perjured himself in a serious investigation. that’s not bloody trivia.