NationStates Jolt Archive

At least one lawyer in Washington DC thinks so.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5220

If the representations shown in this article are true, Fitzgerald has some explaining to do.

Perhaps he had better cough up the documents. I've seen many a case dismissed during discovery because the prosecutor won't let go of known paperwork at the defense's request.

At least one lawyer in Washington DC thinks so.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5220

If the representations shown in this article are true, Fitzgerald has some explaining to do.

Perhaps he had better cough up the documents. I've seen many a case dismissed during discovery because the prosecutor won't let go of known paperwork at the defense's request.

Meh.

Every case has discovery disputes.

The article is full of wishful thinking by a consistent Bush apologist. Ms. Feldman is far from objective.

At least one lawyer in Washington DC thinks so.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5220

If the representations shown in this article are true, Fitzgerald has some explaining to do.

Perhaps he had better cough up the documents. I've seen many a case dismissed during discovery because the prosecutor won't let go of known paperwork at the defense's request.

Oh come on. Did you really READ the article you posted? Basically, everything depends on Fitzgerald being a dim partisan hack or patsy(something his career doesn't suggest in any way,) or that Wilson, (proclaimed a hero by this President's father. His ambassadorship to 2 nations made him uniquely qualified for his mission, with or without his wife's backing,) just had some personaly vendetta and that his wife (career CIA, was a NOC, still operated as a consultant under the umbrella of a ficticious CIA cover business/operation. CIA has, to my knowledge, never denied that she was out of the country...and even if she was, those trips would be classified even if her identity no longer was,) was just some gadabout with loose lips.

There's a lot of scum in the Bush Administration, but I happen to believe that Scooter isn't one of them. Poor bastard was just in the wrong place at the right time.

Assuming this find turns out to be true, Libby might still face some kind of trial, but the severity of the result would obviously decrease. As we all know, Martha Stewart did a little time for lying (or what was percieved to be lying) about a crime that didn't actually occur.

I think this is beginning to set a dangerous prescedent in our judicial system. Even if there was no actual crime committed, if you lie (or forget, even) in a statement to authorities, you can be prosecuted for it.

With Scooter's case in mind, the fellow had been repeatedly questioned over the course of more than a year about numerous issues. If you can go to prison for bungling one of those statements... I dunno, something seems inherently wrong with the concept.

Oh come on. Did you really READ the article you posted?

Yes, I did.

I'm thinking though, that if the prosecutor doesn't cough up the papers, it will be all too easy to ask for dismissal and have it granted.

There's a lot of scum in the Bush Administration, but I happen to believe that Scooter isn't one of them. Poor bastard was just in the wrong place at the right time.

Assuming this find turns out to be true, Libby might still face some kind of trial, but the severity of the result would obviously decrease. As we all know, Martha Stewart did a little time for lying (or what was percieved to be lying) about a crime that didn't actually occur.

I think this is beginning to set a dangerous prescedent in our judicial system. Even if there was no actual crime committed, if you lie (or forget, even) in a statement to authorities, you can be prosecuted for it.

With Scooter's case in mind, the fellow had been repeatedly questioned over the course of more than a year about numerous issues. If you can go to prison for bungling one of those statements... I dunno, something seems inherently wrong with the concept.

Yeah. Lying under oath or to federal investigators should be A-OK. :rolleyes: :headbang:

Do you have any idea of the number and the nature of the lies for which Ms. Stewart was sent to jail? She was convicted on numerous counts.

(BTW, I assume you opposed the impeachment of Bill Clinton.)

Yes, I did.

I'm thinking though, that if the prosecutor doesn't cough up the papers, it will be all too easy to ask for dismissal and have it granted.

Gee, this was the strategy that Timothy McViegh's lawyers used. Worked great, didn't it?

Oh, come on. That's not what I meant and you know it.

If an investigation has been drawn out over a long period of time, and one of your statements doesn't match up, is that really grounds to send you to prison?

Obviously, if you give off-the-wall testimony, you ought to be prosecuted for it, however, this bit reflects with my stance on minimum sentences.

I oppose minimum sentences in most aspects because no two crimes are the same. Lying under oath could be blatant (as with Clinton) or relatively incidental (as with Libby). I believe that, before being prosecuted for it, you should have to be determined that you willfully lied and or mislead the federals before you can be charged with the crime.

Speaking of Clinton, I supported his impeachment for misconduct in the oval office, not for lying under oath. There's a lot of history in that room, and there's something that just strikes me as being wrong about getting a pole-polishing there too.

Gee, this was the strategy that Timothy McViegh's lawyers used. Worked great, didn't it?

I've seen it work the majority of the time.

Oh, come on. That's not what I meant and you know it.

If an investigation has been drawn out over a long period of time, and one of your statements doesn't match up, is that really grounds to send you to prison?

Obviously, if you give off-the-wall testimony, you ought to be prosecuted for it, however, this bit reflects with my stance on minimum sentences.

I oppose minimum sentences in most aspects because no two crimes are the same. Lying under oath could be blatant (as with Clinton) or relatively incidental (as with Libby). I believe that, before being prosecuted for it, you should have to be determined that you willfully lied and or mislead the federals before you can be charged with the crime.

Speaking of Clinton, I supported his impeachment for misconduct in the oval office, not for lying under oath. There's a lot of history in that room, and there's something that just strikes me as being wrong about getting a pole-polishing there too.

How do you know Libby's lies were merely incidental? Have you seen his testimony?

How do you know Libby's lies were merely incidental? Have you seen his testimony?
If you've read the article, you'll note that papers already in the hands of the defense FROM the prosecution's investigation reveal that others also leaked Plame's name - hard and fast evidence of leaking.

Yet they haven't been indicted at all.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

I have not read it word-for-word as I've been unable to locate a published copy. However, from the synopsis/summary of the testimony, it would seem to me that his lies were less an intentional evasion of the truth and more forgetting or erroneously reporting.

If you can find a copy of the entire testimony for me, that would be excellent.

Oh, come on. That's not what I meant and you know it.

If an investigation has been drawn out over a long period of time, and one of your statements doesn't match up, is that really grounds to send you to prison?

Obviously, if you give off-the-wall testimony, you ought to be prosecuted for it, however, this bit reflects with my stance on minimum sentences.

I oppose minimum sentences in most aspects because no two crimes are the same. Lying under oath could be blatant (as with Clinton) or relatively incidental (as with Libby). I believe that, before being prosecuted for it, you should have to be determined that you willfully lied and or mislead the federals before you can be charged with the crime.

Speaking of Clinton, I supported his impeachment for misconduct in the oval office, not for lying under oath. There's a lot of history in that room, and there's something that just strikes me as being wrong about getting a pole-polishing there too.

Um. That is the standard now. :headbang: :headbang:

I have not read it word-for-word as I've been unable to locate a published copy. However, from the synopsis/summary of the testimony, it would seem to me that his lies were less an intentional evasion of the truth and more forgetting or erroneously reporting.

If you can find a copy of the entire testimony for me, that would be excellent.

The problem is that it falls on the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was a matter of intent. And the jury has to believe it.

Intent in such a case is far more difficult to prove than most realize. It can be done (and we don't have access so far to everything the prosecutor will rely on in his case), and has been done in the past, but the defense attorney himself has gotten people off by convincing the jury that the prosecution could not prove intent.

In fact, Libby has the best lawyer you could possibly have in a case like this.

Again, I haven't been able to get my hands on a verbatim transcript of the testimony, but with my limited knowledge of the affair, I believe that that was not the case. The forces at work wanted to hammer someone for the whole affair, and Libby happened to stick his neck out too far; that's my take.

Of course, if the testimony reveals otherwise, I'll have to abandon this position.

Of course, if the testimony reveals otherwise, I'll have to abandon this position.
Fair enough.
*nods*

Required reading for interested parties and the OP'r alike ...:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=467235

N'joy.

I don't know, he's white, rich, influential, and this is America we're talking about...

Well, to be fair, I looked at the contributors for that site, and it's implied, at least I think it is anyway, that they're conservative. Not exactly unbiased. That and the fact that they used words like "hooey" imply that it's biased. That makes it sound like an opinion article, as opposed to an actual news story. Let's see this from a more reliable source.