Journal pudge's Journal: "The Coverup Is Worse Than The Crime" 9
Several people have said this, in reference to Scooter Libby.
The problem is there was no crime. There was only -- supposedly -- a "coverup."
If you think there was a crime, you are wrong. Stop being wrong. There was no crime. There is no evidence of a crime. Fitzgerald declined to prosecute anyone for anything related to the leak because he had no evidence of any crime.
You can say you think there was a crime, but that's no more interesting than saying you think the moon landing was faked. It's possible, sure; just provide some evidence of it, and we can discuss it.
No, but yes. (Score:1)
If Libby lied to a grand jury, however, he should be prosecuted for perjury and obstruction, just like Bill Clinton was via impeachment. In both instances, no crime from the original investigation was ever proved to be committed, someone did something highly illegal during the investigation, and both people (should have) paid for it.
That said, there are many ways to look at these two c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
If Libby lied to a grand jury, however, he should be prosecuted for perjury and obstruction, just like Bill Clinton was via impeachment.
jhon:
Actually, Clinton was impeached independently from his perjury and obstruction trial. They were two different events.
What do you think he was impeached for? Also, I don't think he had a separate criminal trial on the charges. He was tried in a civil court for those charges, and he was issued a Contempt of Court citation and lost his law
Re: (Score:2)
Because Congress believed his offence was at the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors" required by the constitution to remove him from office. How this applies to Libby is beyond me. This attempt connect the two events is such a non-sequitur as to blow about 500 of my brain cells every time I attempt to understand how you connect them.
Again, look at your sentence: If Libby lied to a grand jury, however, he should be prosecuted for perjury and obstruction, just l
Re: (Score:2)
What do you think he was impeached for?
Because Congress believed his offence was at the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors" required by the constitution to remove him from office.
Right ... but what offense? Perjury and obstruction of justice. That is what his impeachment was for.
Again, look at your sentence: If Libby lied to a grand jury, however, he should be prosecuted for perjury and obstruction, just like Bill Clinton was via impeachment.
You suggest that Libby should be prosecuted for perjury and obstruction like "Clinton was via impeachment". Libby cannot be impeached.
That's beside the point. Similarly, Clinton could not have been prosecuted in a court of law. The point is just that both should be held accountable for their perjury and obstruction of justice.
Further, Clinton never went to a full blown criminal trial as he admitted (back in 01, I believe) that he intentionally gave testimony intended to mislead. This resulted in the loss of his licence to practice law in his home state and some fines.
Right, although it was under consideration to bring formal criminal charges, it never happened, probably because after the impeachment ordeal, no one had the stomach for it.
My guess is that the "criminal" aspects would have been resolved in a similar fashion to Clinton's criminal aspects had Libby admitted wrong doing. Similarly, I believe they would have likewise ended similarly had Clinton continued to deny his perjury.
Maybe. And that's unfortunate, beca
Re: (Score:1)
The impeachment process is nearly identical to a federal grand jury process (note I never even came close to stating that Libby should/could be impeached, which would make no sense). In both cases, investigations and hearings take place to determine if a crime has been committed, and if they believe one has, they bring up formal charges against the party. The trial in the Senate, then, is equ
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you start getting silly, like noting connections like both were male, both had hair -- I have to completely disagree. A better comparison would have been between Martha Stewart and Libby.
My understanding of the judicial system would suprise you and is most likely far more
Re: (Score:1)
I completely agree. Let's look at what I actually wrote.
What I wrote: If Libby lied to a grand jury, however, he should be prosecuted for perjury and obstruction, just like Bill Clinton was via impeachment.
What I did NOT write: If Libby lied to a grand jury, however, he should be prosecuted for perjury and obstruction, just like Bill Clinton was, via impeachment.
If you can't see the difference between those two statements, and how o
Re: (Score:2)
That said, there are many ways to look at these two cases; however, if we take as a given that both Libby and Clinton did, actually, lie to a grand jury, then if a person was pro-impeachment/conviction for Clinton, I believe he should be pro-trial/conviction for Libby. If one was anti-impeachment for Clinton, one should be anti-trial for Libby.
Of course, that's a big If. And yes, I think Libby should be convicted, if he lied. I just am not convinced beyond reasonable doubt that he did, and I cannot imagine how anyone else could be, either, given the (lack of) evidence.
... it was, legally, absolutely the right thing to do. But the offense should have been handled differently, not through the Congress, but through the civil courts. It was a waste of time and energy
That said, I now think the impeachment of Clinton was wrong. Not legally wrong