I'm not sure it was either. But the point remains that, regardless of what went before, Libby did perjure himself.
Mario F. made the point in this point and I just haven't seen a response to that yet.
I'm not sure it was either. But the point remains that, regardless of what went before, Libby did perjure himself.
Mario F. made the point in this point and I just haven't seen a response to that yet.
7. It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.
40. There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.*
I do.
A CIA covert operative's identity was revealed, a violation of the IIPA. Plame was a covert CIA operative, according to the testimony of the CIA Director to the US House Committee on Gov. Reform 2007.
Also the investigation in which Libby perjured himself was instigated at the CIA’s request.
The leak damaged her career, could have risked her associate’s lives and possibly national security (she worked in a dept. trying to stop WMD being used against the US, ironic huh?).
The only motivation I can see was it was done in retaliation to her husband publishing information/opinion that contradicted the Bush administrations case for war in Iraq.
Or done by accident, but I do not accept incompetence as an excuse, as Libby claims, at this level.
"Man alone suffers so excruciatingly in the world that he was compelled to invent laughter."
Friedrich Nietzsche
"I spent a lot of my money on booze, birds and fast cars......the rest I squandered."
George Best
"If you are going through hell....keep going."
Winston Churchill
7. It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.
40. There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.*
Because there is not enough evidence to prosecute?
Prahaps Libby's lies to the grand jury clouded the issue enough to ensure that there would never be enough hard evidence to prosecute.
I think Libby was give a harsh sentance (30 months compared to Martha Stewarts 5 months) because of this.
Under the current administration we have had CIA renditions (kidnappings), outsourced torture and indefinite imprisonment without charge.Originally Posted by Dave_Sinkula
You have sham trials at Gitmo. Where after nearly 6 years wait 2/3 of your lawyers are kicked out before the trial begins, (because they are not US based) the rules change mid way thru ect, ect.
So why not?
"Man alone suffers so excruciatingly in the world that he was compelled to invent laughter."
Friedrich Nietzsche
"I spent a lot of my money on booze, birds and fast cars......the rest I squandered."
George Best
"If you are going through hell....keep going."
Winston Churchill
If you don't care, why are you posting?
Well, Mario posted an explanation of a fact (i.e. that Libby was convicted of perjury).
There's nothing to respond to with your allegation. You've basically implied that the Libby trial was a "show trial" with a pre-determined outcome. However your logic is inherently flawed. Stalin was in power, and had total control over the trial. How does that equate to this situation where a member of the ruling party was made to stand trial by the opposition? It makes no sense whatsoever.
7. It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.
40. There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/PerjuryPerjury is the act of lying or making verifiably false statements on a material matter under oath or affirmation in a court of law or in any of various sworn statements in writing.
Under the definition of Wikipedia, I would be inclined to say yes, due to the part that defines perjury as "making verifiably false statements" if that means it counts even if you make a mistake and they verify you are wrong.(law) The deliberate giving of false or misleading testimony under oath
According to wiktionary, no. He did not.
I apologize for not giving a simple yes or no answer. Does perjury count for cases where the witness believes his testimony to be true, and is mistaken? I'm under the impression it does not, or at the very least, people are not charged for it. Does obstruction of justice count as a valid charge for such a witness who believes he's cooperating in an investigation?
The man (Armitage) confessed. Are you being obtuse on purpose?
Last edited by MacGyver; 07-05-2007 at 01:39 AM.
Armitage was _one_ of the leakers, and the only one to confess (without the promise of immunity).
Armitige admits to ‘inadvertently’ leaking that Plame worked for the CIA to Novak. Novak states he confirmed this with a snr White House Official, presumably Libby and a CIA agent, Harlow.
According to M Cooper of Time magazine the leak came from Karl Rove and was confirmed by Libby.
Fleischer also leaked to NBC and Time (was given immunity).
Libby was convicted of;Originally Posted by MacGyver
FOUR counts of perjury
Obstruction of justice
Making false statements
Given that he was counseled by some very expensive lawyers I do not think it was a series of honest mistakes.
Neither did the jury, judge or US dept of Justice.
What makes you so sure it was all just an honest mistake?
"Man alone suffers so excruciatingly in the world that he was compelled to invent laughter."
Friedrich Nietzsche
"I spent a lot of my money on booze, birds and fast cars......the rest I squandered."
George Best
"If you are going through hell....keep going."
Winston Churchill
Expensive lawyers improve your memory?
I've already spoken of what I perceive as a bias by the jurors, prosecutor, and judge. I have yet to see anything discussed with that regard.
He had no motive to lie.
How about you find me the exact lies that he is accused of telling, and we look at it a little deeper?
Wictionary is wrong. Wikipedia links to the exact text of the law, which includes the word material.
So what is to be decided is whether the matter was material.
MacGyver, if I understand correctly, holds the position that, since the original trial was about a non-crime, nothing that went on in the trial could possibly be material.
novacain, I think, has argued that there was an original crime, so the lie was about material things.
I hold no further position on this issue. However, I think the Stalin comparison might as well be Godwin's law.
All the buzzt!
CornedBee
"There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
- Flon's Law
Title 18 of the United States Code -- PART I--CRIMES -- CHAPTER 79--PERJURY
I don't claim to be a law expert, but my opinion of this is that under this definition Libby is not guilty of perjury if he made a mistake in statements under oath, but believed said statements to be true.
Therefore the real situation here is whether or not he purposefully made untrue statements. If he did, then yes, he's guilty of perjury. If not, then he was wrongly convicted of perjury.
And that is why I take his motive to lie, or lack thereof, so seriously. First he had no motive imo. Secondly, if he got all his statements correct and admitted that whatever they said he messed up on, he messed up on.......
How would that change the situation with regard to the investigation?
It wouldn't. He wouldn't be charged in any investigation of a crime, and nor will Armitage. This whole trial was a sham.
The only statements that I can perceive to be coming "from the other side" in this discussion are as follows:
- The US justice system couldn't allow something as bad as what I'm alleging to occur.
- Libby did indeed lie to cover up for someone.
The first point is rather humorous, since I hear about the system failing all the time, including from people who think that the death penalty is terrible and mistakes occur more frequently than we would want to believe in such cases.
The last point is just ridiculous. If it is such, and the prosecutor doesn't do more, that mistake is worse than anything else he's done on the matter. If there is a "someone else", then I demand someone here that holds to this Queatrix-like conspiracy theory that they name this "someone else" or provide something that reasonably suggests there is a "someone else".
Last edited by MacGyver; 07-05-2007 at 04:44 AM.
7. It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.
40. There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.*
I don't know. I just can't imagine even the US justice system to be so broken that sham trials akin to Stalin's are possible.
All the buzzt!
CornedBee
"There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
- Flon's Law
Interestingly enough, I consider myself a Constitutionalist -- however, I'll probably never see any of those folks in office, so I choose the lesser of two evils -- Republican. I do really like most of the views these two folks have, though -- just from what the wiki articles have.
If you look at all the twenty something parties that are [active] in the US, the Constituionalists are by far the most conservative, and make the Republicans look like VERY liberal Democrats.
Like I said, though, our moral decay in this country will prohibit any of these folks taking the Presidency.