I'm confused... is it at all even possible for Libby to win this thing?

[sepia_steel]

Doesn't he have witnesses and facts working clearly against him? How can he actually say 'I didn't do it'?

[maxsolomon]

1. stall & delay until he's pardoned

doesn't matter if he can win. he can't lose.

[sepia_steel]

4. I thought you had to be convicted of a crime to be pardoned.

He can be pardoned from court preceedings?

[msturgis524]

10. I don't think so

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
I think Ford pardoned Nixon, even though he hadn't been tried. Later on it was said that his acceptance of the pardoned amounted to him admitting guilt.

[sofa king]

21. Nope. Example: Caspar Weinberger

Caspar was in an excellent position to rat out Bush the Smarter for his complicity in Iran-Contra. However, Reagan indictees successfully delayed the investigation not just through the end of Reagan's term, but through the majority of Bush's term as well.

Shortly before Weinberger was scheduled to go on trial, Bush pardoned him along with many others, effectively killing the investigation and protecting whatever role he himself had in that most egregious scandal.

http://www.fas.org/news/iran/1992/921224-260039.htm

This is why impeachment of the President is such an important matter now. Once impeached, some legal circles suggest that the President cannot thereafter pardon others implicated in the same crimes.

It occurs to me that at this point, both sides have an interest in delaying the case until January, 2007 (regular court procedure makes that a near-certainty, anyway). The criminals want to delay things as long as possible. We Democrats may want to delay things until 2007, in hopes that a majority can be regained in Congress. If we can do that, then we can bring impeachment charges before the President pardons everyone involved.

We stand a chance of bagging 'em all, including the President, with no immunity and no possibility of pardon.

Ass-pounding prison for the rest of their lives. Visualize it.

[bmcatt]

7. Pardon eliminates 5th amendment coverage

(I believe...)

Posted elsewhere, but I think that, if Libby's pardoned, Fitzgerald gets to haul him before a grand jury and force him to testify truthfully. After all, he can no longer incriminate himself so he either testifies truthfully or gets spanked with another perjury indictment.

I'm not a lawyer, but this seems more than reasonable. I think Libby's screwed, no matter what happens.

[sepia_steel]

9. Thanks for that info

i hope you're right.

[bmcatt]

14. I hope I'm right too

:-)

I'd suspect I am because the whole purpose of the 5th is to prevent self-incrimination. If he's pardoned, there's no possible self-incrimination (like with double-jeopardy), so he has no grounds to say that he *won't* talk about it. If the then lies under oath once more, he's committed a new crime.

I've certainly got my fingers crossed for this.

Let me say, though, that, from what I've read about Fitzgerald, I don't see that he wouldn't have thought about this and tried to make sure that he could still work even if Libby got a presidential pardon. He doesn't strike me as someone who'd be oblivious to the way this *could* be played and, like any good chess player, is ready for that as well.

[rock]

17. And that's why bushsucks* won't pardon him!

Among other reasons.

[Options Remain]

2. i think Fitz knew he wasn't going to get any cooperation

and set this up accordingly. They may have just put their proverbial foot in the beartrap by letting this go to court.

[Jane Austin]

3. I think it's possible for his lawyers to drag things out past the 2006

elections, when bush can safely pardon him.

Sounds like that's what they have in mind, with talk this morning about reporters and First Amendment questions that will have to be litigated.

[sepia_steel]

6. I think doing that would serve to help us, not hurt us, though

wouldn't it? A shroud of doubt would still linger over the WH.

[Jane Austin]

15. I do think it will help us, but it would hurt them more to have a trial

and a conviction.

In short, I think it's a lose-lose prospect for them.

[JDPriestly]

5. It's a game. He is playing poker with the next 30 years of his life.

Sad, isn't it. If he pleads guilty, he avoids a trial. The longer he waits to plead, the more advantage he is likely to get from the prosecutor, he thinks. He may be wrong here because it's possible that Fitzgerald wants a trial in order to make public the evidence he has acquired against Libby and in order to get more evidence. We will just have to wait and see. By pleading not guilty, assuming he sticks to that pleading, Libby is insuring that this story will be in the press repeatedly in the months to come -- meaning the months running up to the 2006 election. So, he's probably bargaining with more than than the prosecutor on this. He's also putting pressure on the Republicans to get his head out of the noose somehow. It is going to be interesting -- quite a tug of war with Libby in the center.

[sepia_steel]

8. but he already pleaded innocent today. nt

[wrathofkahn]

22. He pleaded "not guilty," and that's different

All he needs is reasonable doubt in one mind out of 12 and he off scot-free. If he's acquitted, it doesn't prove his innocence; it only shows that someone wasn't able to convince 12 people that he was guilty.

Remember, a perjury conviction requires intent on behalf of the accused perjurer. The fact that two stories don't add up is not in and of itself prima fascia evidence of perjury. The prosecutor has to prove the intent was to deceive.


Classic example: four people stand on four corners of the same intersection, and all four witness the same traffic accident at that intersection. They may all relate different stories of how the accident took place, but none of them are perjuring themselves, assuming that they're not deliberately trying to distort the facts surrounding what happened.



There's more to it than what what appears to be an open-and-shut case.

[sepia_steel]

28. Sorry, don't know why I posted that.

thanks fo rhe correction.

[win_in_06]

29. Not Guilty is the same as Innocent

Because in the US you are innocent until proven guilty.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Retired AF Dem]

16. He wasn't delt a sure losing hand

It is very hard to convince a jury that someone had lied. Does Fitz have other witnesses that will collaborate that Libby was lying? If not I would raise the pot with the cards Libby is holding.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801210.html

[JDPriestly]

33. Read the indictment. He discussed the Plame matter too many times.

He was virtually obsessed with Plame as the LA Times observed in the last couple of weeks. (Sorry I don't have the date, page of that article.) It is impossible that he did not recall having discussed it with Judy Miller, etc. I think that is impossible in view of the number of people he discussed Plame with. Who knows how many more people are out there with whom he discussed Plame? And who knows what they remember? His problems are just beginning. You are right, of course, you cannot predict what a jury will decide. Crooks do go free -- and not rarely.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sepia_steel]

13. The case against him seems airtight to me.

various poeple, under oath, and their stories didn't contradict themselves like Libby's did. We shall see, we've seen travesties before, of course.

[jbnow]

18. They'll make it complex

Especially with a jury trial. Some information used would need to be declassified to be presented in the trial. The administration could fight about that and about who could testify.
They'll want the reporters notes and logs and the reporters/papers will fight that.

If everything Fitz saw and heard could be presented the case would be simple.

[NYCGirl]

19. But there are notes — lots of them. Which is why Libby finds himself in

this predicament.

[kentuck]

20. He doesn't have to win..

All he has to do is hold out til the end of Bush's term. He has info that will damage a lot of people. Don't doubt that.

Supposedly, his next appearance before the judge will be in February. At that time, the judge will probably set the court date for August or September, not too close to the mid-term election.

Whatever happens, he will either appeal to extend or he will be found innocent, the trial will go on to the end of the Bush term. At that time, Bush will pardon him as payoff for keeping his mouth shut.

The only glitch in the plan would be if someone else were indicted. They all know how to extend the trial with appeals, etc. And they know they will be pardoned. However, if the investigation were to continue after Bush leaves office, that might be a different story. But, what Party would want to continue such an investigation?

[yellowcanine]

23. He might convince a jury that he forgot - not a lie if you forgot. All it

takes is one juror to have reasonable doubt and he walks on a mistrial.

[Jacobin]

24. Think: Michael Jackson

He'll stall the trial past the 2006 elections if he can, then plead guilty before a trial, so Cheney doesn't have to perjure himself and then Smirky will pardon him.

Presto!!

Problems solved.

At least I think that's what they're thinking, unless Fitz nails Rove in which case it all gets more interesting

[Love Bug]

25. I'm still waiting for him to be charged with outing Valerie Plame

So far his indictments have to do with his dealings with the grand jury, not outing Valerie Plame. I'm hoping there are more indictments in store for him and some for Rove, too.

[Yupster]

26. That's what lawyers are for

A good set of lawyers can usually put up a pretty credible defense regardless of the evidence.

They'll find a weakness in the case somewhere and try to drive a wedge through it.

Think OJ.

[Beer Snob-50]

27. no matter what scooters scentence

shrub is going to commute it when he leaves office

[ticapnews]

30. He will have a trial with a jury of his peers...

These are his peers. Frankly, I am a little concerned...

[Silverhair]

31. Yes, it is possible. If is probable is another story.

At this point, I will not attempt to guess at the probabilities.

[DocSavage]

32. It is

still up to the Govt to "Prove beyound a resonable doubt". It will be a jury trial. And if his lawyers can get the jury on his side, he can get off. If it were me, I would push push the "remember what you were doing 2 years ago on July 16th at 4:20 in the afternoon. Oh, and if you are wrong, you lied.

[sepia_steel]

34. Thanks for the responses,

especially about the pardoning bit.

[brooklynite]

35. Important reminder - he's not charged with leaking...

which could be factually determined. He's charged with lying about whatever he said about leaking to investigators and in the Grand Jury (which we don't know the details of, other than through Fitzgerald's summary). If he can convince the jury that it was all an "honest mistake" and too long ago to remember what he did, he could potentially walk...

[powergirl]

36. He's got two choices - snitch someone out - or plea

I think that if he comes anywhere near prison time, he will bring down everyone in that corrupt nasty administration with him. Didn't Caesar say "There's no honor among theives." Libby and those fellow porno novel writers arelying pieces of sh#@ and won't bat an eye to sell out one of their own to save their own skins.:grr: