Scooter Libby convicted of 4 Federal felonies
Scooter Libby was found guilty of 4 of 5 charges today. That's a surprise to me: I was expecting a hung jury or at least a lot fewer charges given the amount of deliberation and the questions that were being asked by the jury last week. According to the jury:
- Libby "did knowingly and corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due ( Read more... )
Comments 46
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
Reply
"Obstruction of justice" is a generic charge, and does not require any underlying crime. That he was charged with obstruction of justice does not imply that there was an underlying crime, only that he obstructed an investigation into whether there was or wasn't a crime.
Even if we accept that all of the reporters are being wholly truthful and Libby was being wholly untruthful, I don't see how we get from here to "Libby isn't getting charged with the 'underlying crime' because he perjured and obstructed justice."
That was certainly Fitzgerald's claim, and those who assume Libby's guilt on whatever the "underlying crime" might have been obviously believe this hypothesis. But unless ( ... )
Reply
No it doesn't.
My claim has nothing to do with this verdict or with Fitzgerald's claims. It relies only on the terms that satisfy the Espionage Act.
"if national defense information which is involved because her affiliation with the CIA, whether or not she was covert, was classified, if that was intentionally transmitted, that would violate the statute known as Section 793, which is the Espionage Act."
If you believe that Libby violated the Espionage Act you need to believe:
- that Valerie Plame's covert identity was classified
- that Scooter Libby knew that Plame's identity was classified
- that Libby divulged this information to an uncleared source intentionally
I believe all three statements, which is why I believe that a "real crime" was committed. Now if you don't think that Libby violated the Espionage Act, then it seems that you either don't believe one of those statements, you don't believe that that's what the ( ... )
Reply
"
And all I'll say is that if national defense information which is involved because her affiliation with the CIA, whether or not she was covert, was classified, if that was intentionally transmitted, that would violate the statute known as Section 793, which is the Espionage Act.
"
And if that information was not classified, or it was not intentionally transmitted, then that would not violate the statute. Fitzgerald wouldn't even say that he believed that statute was actually violated. And obviously he was unable to make a plausible prima facie case that Libby actually violated the statute, otherwise the Grand Jury would have returned an indictment ( ... )
Reply
That's what I'm saying: you have to believe all three things to believe that a violation has occurred. I do. If you don't, you should tell me which of those things you don't think happened.
You and Fitzgerald can believe whatever you like, but the law isn't about belief.
Of course not. But you and I are not in court, nor will there ever be a court ruling. Therefore this *is* about belief.
And let's not get into a ridiculous circular argument about how a crime can only exist if it's been successfully prosecuted.
I'll entertain your hypotheticals once you answer my simple question. You, I, and Fitzgerald agree that the three requirements must be met for a violation to occur. Which one didn't occur, in your opinion?
Reply
http://soldiersangels.com/
If you have any objection to the organization (as far as I can tell it is _mostly_ non-ideological) then I can suggest some other alternatives.. ?
Thanks!
=darwin
Reply
Reply
( ... )
Reply
=darwin
Reply
Leave a comment