| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Libby found guilty in CIA leak trial |
| 2007-03-06 |
| WASHINGTON - Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was convicted Tuesday of obstruction, perjury and lying to the FBI in an investigation into the leak of a CIA operative's identity. Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was accused of lying and obstructing the investigation into the 2003 leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity to reporters. He was acquitted of one count of lying to the FBI. Libby had little reaction to the verdict. He stood expressionless as the jury left the room. The verdict was read on the 10th day of deliberations. Libby faces up to 30 years in prison, though under federal sentencing guidelines likely will receive far less. U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton ordered a pre-sentencing report be completed by May 15. Judges use such reports to help determine sentences. Libby faced two counts of perjury, two counts of lying to the FBI and one count of obstruction of justice. Prosecutors said he discussed Plame's name with reporters and, fearing prosecution, made up a story to make those discussions seem innocuous. Libby's defense team said he learned about Plame from Cheney, forgot about it, then learned it again a month later from NBC newsman Tim Russert. Anything he told reporters about Plame, Libby said, was just chatter and rumors, not official government information. Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said that was a lie. But Libby's defense team had argued that it would be unfair to convict Libby in a case where so many witnesses changed their stories or had memory problems. Libby's defense attorney, Theodore Wells, said he would ask the court for a new trial by April 13. Such requests are common following criminal convictions. |
| Posted by:tu3031 |
| #15 Scooter ought to get new attorneys & have them file "incompetent defense" as the main basis for an appeal, That's the only possible explanation for their having allowed a journalist who's worked for the WaPo to get on the jury. |
| Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) 2007-03-06 23:29 |
| #14 American politics and the MSM coverage of same is about as phalked up as Britany's head. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2007-03-06 18:16 |
| #13 LOL! |
| Posted by: cajunbelle 2007-03-06 17:07 |
| #12 Libby probably owns some land in Vegas that Harry has his eye on... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2007-03-06 16:45 |
| #11 Dirty Harry Reid is warning Bush not to pardon Libby. NOW they're AGAINST pardons? |
| Posted by: cajunbelle 2007-03-06 16:24 |
| #10 EM, Armitage didnÂ’t commit a crime in this saga. Yeah -- It was a comment on the irony that you picked up on. The whole thing that is really weird for me is that the Fitzgerald probe was designed to figure out what Mr. Armitage later on admitted to -- who was the one that first told the information to reporters before it was "out and known" common information. So, during the probe, Libby gives reason for Fitzgerald to question his testimony and so he is put on trial for it ... and, pending appeal, convicted of false testimony and obstructing the investigation. And yet, no trial is pending for the actual end-product that was originally sought by the investigation. It seems that this should be a poor end to the saga ... unless I'm missing or overly confused by something. |
| Posted by: ExtremeModerate 2007-03-06 14:57 |
| #9 The Prosecuter should be disbarred and tried and forced to pay back the money spent by all regarding this trial. He's allowed this monkey-trial to go on despite the fact that he's known (a) no crime was actually committed as she wasn't an undercover agent (b) Armitage leaked. That is inexcusable. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2007-03-06 14:57 |
| #8 ...convicted Tuesday of obstruction, perjury and lying... And Bill Clinton was guilty of ... ? Guess who'll serve time? |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-03-06 14:55 |
| #7 Another step closer to the reconning. |
| Posted by: SR-71 2007-03-06 14:51 |
| #6 I love the left getting their panites in a wad saying the Bush "Should not Pardon Libby because of the pre-war intelligence manipulation." Umm the trial was not about that unless I missed something. Yep appeal and then aquit. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2007-03-06 14:38 |
| #5 "And the trial for Mr. Armitage is, when?" EM, Armitage didnÂ’t commit a crime in this saga. Ironic? Yes. Double standard? No. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2007-03-06 14:17 |
| #4 Based on a few snippets I heard of an interview with one of the jurors (an "author and journalist", no less), it sounds like the jury itself was pretty predisposed to the "guilt" prior to deliberation. Apparently they were asking "Where's Rove?" "Where's Cheney?" I'm not a lawyer, but that sounds kind of "appeal-ish". |
| Posted by: Mullah Richard 2007-03-06 14:01 |
| #3 Bad jury selection. Appeal should straighten this out. |
| Posted by: Phineter Thraviger 2007-03-06 13:34 |
| #2 Something's out of whack. It has been out of whack for a LONG time. Different sets of rules for the Dems vs the Repubs. Personally, I'd like to establish and apply my own set of rules to both sides. But I would pay particularly close attention to the Dems. Scumbags. |
| Posted by: Chiper Threreger8956 2007-03-06 13:24 |
| #1 And the trial for Mr. Armitage is, when? And for Sandy Berger ... oh wait, they already had his and gave him some community service hours to take care of ... :-( Something's out of whack. |
| Posted by: ExtremeModerate 2007-03-06 12:45 |