Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Squeezing Libby? For what?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Laura PourMeADrink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 09:11 AM
Original message
Squeezing Libby? For what?
Just brainstorming here, but what could Libby be squeezed for? I can't think of a good outcome on a squeeze:

1. That someone told him to lie to the Grand Jury?
Libby is indicted for lying. He could, however unlikely, cop a plea by saying Cheney or Rove told him to lie to the Grand Jury. Ordering someone to lie most certainly is a crime. But how could Libby prove he was told to lie?

2. That someone told him to spread Plame's name?
Libby was not indicted for disclosing her name. Fitz could not pin that on him because Libby did not admit he did it and therefore could not prove intent. Therefore, if Libby was sqeezed and said, "Ok, Cheney or Rove told me to spread her name," would intent be any clearer? Could the intentional outing crime stick then? And if you were Cheney or Rove, wouldn't your defense be that Libby is just making this up to get a shorter sentence. And SURELY there would be no documentation to prove it. It would be a "he said, he said."

3. That Libby knew Rove spread Plame to Cooper on purpose?
Once again, same problems as #2, "he said - he said," no documentation to prove it, and no clear proof of intent by Rove.


Unless the noted scribe Libby has some super double secret documents somewhere?

Another thing I don't get is what about all the other journalists? Who were they told by?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 09:30 AM
Response to Original message
1. #3 is the biggie for me
It shows how careful Fitz is being. He is only going for the sure shots. That being said, it's not over until the fat lady sings. He still has the right of discovery during the trial, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HawkerHurricane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Nope.
The defendant has the right of discovery. The prosecuter does not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HereSince1628 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. Fitz can still bring additional charges against Libby.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oilwellian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 09:42 AM
Response to Original message
2. Here's the main question...
When Cheney knew Fitz had Scooter's notes naming him as the one who passed on Plame's identity, why didn't he come forward and correct it? Why did Cheney support Scooter's lies under oath? :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laura PourMeADrink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Do you mean just a week or two ago? When did Cheney know
he was named as Libby's source in the notes? Libby had testified long before, right? Please expand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oilwellian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Yes, Libby's notes
Cheney knew Libby committed perjury and yet said nothing. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laura PourMeADrink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-05 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Well, that is assuming Libby told Cheney what he told the GJ
Were they allowed to discuss their testimonies among themselves? If yes, Cheney would have to admit that he asked Libby what Libby said to the GJ.

You are right. This is the big issue. We all know that there is NO way that the two of them didn't discuss their testimony. We also know that in all likelyhood, Fitz asked Cheney who he told. Cheney said "I told Libby" and the Libby notes backed Cheney up on this.

Why then, did Libby still lie? Because Cheney didn't tell Libby that he (Cheney) had outed him (Libby).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim__ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 11:10 AM
Response to Original message
7. My guess as to what Fitz could get from Libby
Cheney told Libby. But, Libby claims that Russert told him. Maybe Fitz doesn't have the details of that conversation. Libby could give that up; and that might implicate Cheney. As for it being he said, he said; Fitz might already have that - from Hannah or Wurmser (sp). Libby's version might be the final nail in Cheney's coffin.

Even if Fitz doesn't have another source; once Libby gives him details; Fitz can use those details to prod other people. Once he has a pretty good idea of what actually happened; he can try to back it up and use the info to trip up other people who are lying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LunaC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-05 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. In TV-land it goes like this.....
A crime has been committed. The perps have been identified and separated from one another. Each is told that The Other Guy is pointing the finger at THEM! (cue Sam Waterston saying "You better level with me or you're taking the Fall all by yourself...") Trickle, trickle, trickle.

The prosecutor goes back and forth, playing one perp against the other, and with each new tidbit of info they volunteer, the Big Picture starts to emerge with greater clarity until the crime is solved. Cue closing credits. Dissolve into commercial.

Fitz has effectively cornered the perps - Rove and Libby can't strategize with one another any more and it's every man for himself. Rove has taken the bait, is fishing for a plea bargain and is cooperating, hence no indictments for right now. Rove is playing the part of Big Pussy in the Soprano’s!

Libby, on the other hand, is playing hard-ass so he’s been treated to “the squeeze”….tell the truth or face hard jail time. While he professes his innocence and demands his day in court, a public trial is the Cabal’s worst nightmare…no one can risk having their dirty little secrets revealed under oath and WH hierarchy refusing to testify “on the grounds that it may incriminate me” will be damning testimony in and of itself.

Libby. Rock. Hard place. He wonders about the witness protection program but realizes his days are numbered. There is no good ending to this story for him. And Rove isn't entirely off the hook yet either.

This is just the first few minutes into the drama and we've gone into a commercial break. There's more to come. Someone is going to crack sooner or later.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cassiepriam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-05 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Keep going... how does it end!!??
Great post!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LunaC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 12:51 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Somebody squeals
Rove's wife will beg him to "think of the children." He'll give up Cheney (to protect Bush*) in exchange for a reduced sentence - 3 to 5 yrs. instead of a hard 30 - and he'll still be able to attend his daughter's school plays, graduation and marriage ceremonies when he gets out.

Cheney gets indicted and resigns and the whole PNAC conspiracy gets exposed (just for the hell of it, I sent Fitz a copy of PNAC 101 to give "context and perspective" to his investigation.) A new investigation is opened to determine if their stealth coup of the WH and march to a phony war was treasonous.

With astronomical prices at the gas pump, credit card fees doubling, and low, middle and fixed-income families and retirees having to choose between food, heating or meds this winter (while billions continue to get sucked into the black hole known as Iraq), the Dems take over Congress in the 2006 mid-terms.

Impeachment proceedings are initiated, Bush* is removed from office (with no authority to grant pardons) and Rove is out of a job.

In TV-land, the Bad Guys NEVER win and Justice is ALWAYS served!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cassiepriam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 05:35 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. THANKS! I needed your posts, especially that ending!
Your ending would happen in a normal sane world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jane Austin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #11
17. Rove's wife?
Rove has one kid, a son, I believe.

You must mean Libby's wife. They have younger kids.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LunaC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 09:18 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. I stand corrected
This right-wing sites says he has two daughters

http://www.politixgroup.com/comm244.htm

But a further search and a more reliable source proves you right. Rove has a 16 yr. old son.

http://marriage.about.com/od/politics/p/karlrove.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cassiepriam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 05:51 AM
Response to Reply #9
14. PS Maybe there should be a DU soap opera thread, just for fun!
Keep our spirits up!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 12:58 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. It wasn't illegal to tell Libby, he had clearance.
But if Libby admits Cheney said "go get that bastard, and make it look like his wife manipulated the trip". BAM conspiracy, several counts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laura PourMeADrink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 06:53 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. right. but that can happen even though libby wasn't accused of
the crime of outing her? only of lying. That doesn't matter? so in your scenario, cheney is indicted for the actual outing crime? But you see, Cheney would never admit that in a zillion years. So unless libby has it written or recorded, I can't see your scenario happening. (unfortunately).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. No, I am not saying that Cheney will be charged with the outing.
What I am saying is that Cheney will be charged with criminal conspiracy to disclose classified information to those not authorized to receive it. Cheney was asking for information from the CIA and the State Department about Wilson, he also asked for and received confirmation of Valerie's position at the CIA. What was his intent? What did he plan on doing with the information. Certainly he can't argue that "I was just curious". What did he do with the information once he had it? What did Libby do with the information once he had it? See what I mean?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 06:17 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC