US News
Mar 6, 2007, 19:19 GMT
Former Cheney aide guilty in perjury case (Roundup)
And Also
Similar articles
- Former congressman released from prison
- Holder sworn in as US attorney general
- Holder confirmed as US attorney general
- Holder nomination held up in Senate Judiciary Committee (Roundup)
- Holder nomination held up in Senate Judiciary Committee
Latest Headlines in US
- 1. Fort Hood suspect charged with attempted murder
- 2. White House gate crashers in less festive mood in first interview
- 3. Suspect in US police killing shot dead (1st Lead)
- 4. Suspect in US police killing shot dead
- 5. In Pictures: 'World War II Fighter Recovered'
Older Talkback
page: 1
please let cheney be next
cheney will never fall he's to mean so mean he hates himself.
oh and his daughter is a fag as we know
Liberals have their trophy. A man was subpoenaed for his recollections and, because his recollections were wrong, he is going to jail. Never mind that the subject he discussed was NOT illegal. Never mind that the prosecutor once said that he did NOT work for the justice department, and, as such, he should have no legitimate prosecutorial powers.
Having said that, Louis Libby had every right to hide behind the 5th amendment, and, why he did not, only he knows. Instead, he cooperated and now he got hung.
Liberals, take heed to remember this abuse of the law, because it will, eventually, come back to bite them too. Does anyone actually believe that Louis Libby, a lifetime Washington lawyer, actually inteneded to lie to a grand jury for something he could NEVER be prosecuted for?
It was the CIA that first went to the Justice Department over this matter. This isn't about 'Liberals' vs. anyone. It's about Arch-Conservatives (the CIA) vs. arrogant Neo-Cons and Republicans who abused privileged information for the sake of a political vendetta. Libby blocked the investigation. 'I can't remember' is not an acceptable answer -- no matter who your employer is when you screw up. It ranks right up there with, 'Sorry, I'm drunk,' and 'Oh well, if it's really important they'll call back.'
I'm not one for political debates. In fact, I'm pretty apathetic to who wins any election. In 2000, I voted for Nader, because I thought the other two candidates were morons, and I thought there might be a marginal chance that he might get that 5% or whatever was necessary to have a third party get national campaign funding. Turns out I was wrong about that, but in any event, I don't believe my life was affected at all by which moron did get elected. That was the last year I will ever vote.
I wanted to make sure that you all knew that before I say what I have to say, so I don't get pegged as one thing or another, that I am not, in future postings. I am registered with the 'pontedly apathetic' party, we are currently welcoming new members. But I digress from the topic, and for that I apologize.
What does interest me is news, and the ways in which other people respond to it, and this story has a lot of both.
I just read an article by Bill O'Reilly on foxnews.com, in which he compared this story to the Clinton/Starr/Jones impeachment thing of (wow) almost ten years ago. And it's a valid comparison - same basic crime. In this article, however, he condemned the left for assuming too quickly conviction of Libby, when they took the exact opposite stance with Clinton. Well, to get angry about that is just dumb. The business of Major political figures on trial is so much a game that it should be televised on ESPN. The left and the right have already chosen their teams. You wouldn't root for the Yankees one day and the Red Sox the next. Interesting, though, that he would make this particular comparison. With Libby, the lying was a matter of national security; with Clinton it was a matter of family ethics. He’s not improving the image of his “evil empire” by doing that (it’s another Yankees/Red Sox reference, don’t get huffy).
SP4 Liberal Compassion – the 5th amendment begins, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger…” So, I’m sorry, but you’re wrong. Libby’s case falls under the umbrella of the exception, because his guys made it a time of war and public danger. He had no right to hide behind the 5th in this case.
That’s all I have to say for the moment, gotta get back to work.
Feel free to rip me apart.
Libby has just been found guilty in Court.
That leaves both Cheney and Bush tarred and feathered, alienated and isolated.
..Why trust liars?............why trust them at all?
Libby NEVER said he did not remember. That would have got him out of it. In fact, it is his recollections that got him here. Why a lifetime lawyer would even consent to testify is beyond me. All he had to do is just shut up.
Libby is a victim of his own bad judgement. He trusted folks, like reporters, whom he should never have trusted. It IS his fault for being convicted, but not for any of the reasons the liberal template press says.
By the way, what goes around, comes around.
SP is correct. Libby volunteered to testify, went in without a lawyer and got himself into a big perjury trap. He never once said 'I don't rememebr'. On the stand, the razor-sharp reporters had huge losses of memory, a common trait for journalists, eh, and a copious lack of notes (???). What a surprise.
Louis Libby was the most honest person in the courtroom. The liberals have their trophy. Now, it's going to be payback time. Other facts:
Karl Rove had nothing to do with any of this.
The prosecutor knew who leaked this information BEFORE he even went to Libby.
The state department knew who leaked this while Libby was being indicted.
What a miscarriage of justice.
Mike you're wrong ... It's a known fact that Karl Rove told Matt Cooper about Plames identity ... that came out in testimony.
Research it and learn for yourself.
Why don't you quote Pres. Bush saying that '... anyone involved in leaking the info on Plame would no longer work for his administration'?
That my friend would include Cheney, Libby and Rove. (again, given in testimony)
Now, tell us about 'integrity'
Ya know, all you Neo-Cons have ranted on and on for the last few years about the need for the Rule of Law in the world.
And now when you see it in action here at home, you simply can't stand it. Comedy.
correction:
1st line should read: 'The need for the US to impose the Rule of Law on the World.'
page: 1
Your Talkback on this Story