This analysis by Michael N. Levy in the Washington Post is both good news and bad news:
Two massive hurdles stand in Fitzgerald's way. First, the indictment's 22 pages fundamentally boil down to allegations that Libby lied, both to FBI agents and to the grand jury, about what happened during conversations with two different reporters: one with NBC's Tim Russert on July 10 or 11, 2003, and one with Time's Matthew Cooper on July 12, 2003. In the absence of a tape recording of these private, off-the-record conversations, the prosecutor's hurdle will be to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the reporters' recollections of these conversations represent what actually happened; in other words, that Libby's testimony was false. This could easily amount to little more than a "he said/she said" swearing contest, and juries justifiably often demand far more from prosecutors before deciding to send someone to prison.
Second, even if Fitzgerald is able to persuade the jurors to accept Russert's and Cooper's recollections of events, the fact that Libby testified falsely does not, by itself, make him guilty of anything. Under the law, Libby cannot be convicted of perjury, making false statements or obstruction of justice unless the prosecutor can persuade the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Libby knew he was lying at the moment those words left his mouth and that he uttered those words with the intention of deceiving the FBI and the grand jury. It's not nearly enough to prove that Libby got it wrong. Fitzgerald's team must prove that he did it on purpose.(emphasis in original)
The good news is that it is highly unlikely that Fitzgerald will be able to do either of these things - prove Libby lied and/or prove he did it on purpose - and thus an honorable man is likely to be spared the indignity of either a jail sentence of a false plea of guilty in order to avoid worse troubles. The bad news is that this will take a year or more to sort out - meaning the Democrats will have this to play around with all the way through the 2006 mid-terms.
President Bush and Administration will have to remain above it all - they can't jump in and fight for Libby - and that just irks me no end. The man who should be under indictment is Joe Wilson: a man who spread slanderous lies about his mission to Niger. It must be remembered that it was Wilson's bald-faced lie that Vice President Cheney ordered him to Niger which really got the ball rolling here - but for Wilson's lies, Libby never would have even noticed the existence of Wilson or his wife. As for me, I'm going to defend Libby - there was no underlying crime and unless there is proof-positive that Libby lied under oath, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by Mark Noonan at November 7, 2005 05:52 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/crawford.cgi/5932
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Prosecutorial Hurdles in the Libby Case:
Stuck On Stupid linked with "Broadway Joe" Wilson Lies? Who'd Believe It?
Joe Wilson outed his own wife according to General Paul Vallely. And Joe Wilson is furious. He wants a retraction from World Net Daily who reported the story and General Vallely. The article is at World Net Daily. It seems that Wilson's Lawyer wants a...
[Read More]
Tracked on November 7, 2005 08:34 AM
Stuck On Stupid linked with CIA Leaks Attributed To Dem Staffers
The American Spectator is reporting this morning that Democrat Staffers in the Senate Intelligence Committee and House Intelligence Committee are leaking secrets to the MSM. This from the Prowler at the Spectator: Word out of the Senate is that some Re...
[Read More]
Tracked on November 7, 2005 08:40 AM
Stuck On Stupid linked with "Broadway Joe" Wilson Lies? Who'd Believe It?
Joe Wilson outed his own wife according to General Paul Vallely. And Joe Wilson is furious. He wants a retraction from World Net Daily who reported the story and General Vallely. The article is at World Net Daily. It seems that Wilson's Lawyer wants a...
[Read More]
Tracked on November 7, 2005 11:17 AM
Comments
That is quite commendable that you would back Libby even though he committed a crime.I know we should just Back the Bush Administration no matter what, but I am convicted.We are supposed to be honest,God fearing people and what Libby did may not be against the Law,it's wrong in the eyes of the Lord.
Posted by: Kendra at November 7, 2005 06:33 AM
Can't we (supporters of our military, country and President) file a law suit against Wilson for treason and also for undermining our consitution. Aiding the enemy and for lying under oath?
Posted by: semby at November 7, 2005 07:30 AM
Mark,
If, as you so fervently hope, Libby and Rove go free they will be (in the eyes of the public) like that other icon of the right, OJ Simpson who roams free in spite of the fact that everybody knows he's guilty as sin. Keep up your cheerleading though, I'm sure it bolsters the morale of the Bush troops.
Let's be realistic though; even with Libby and Rove gone there won't be any significant changes in the direction of the White House. I believe that the only really noticable difference will be external to the White House, in the parking lot where 2 additional parking spaces will be freed up in the Morally Handicapped section.
Posted by:
phil at November 7, 2005 07:52 AM
Retired General Paul Vallely had a great interview with Shaun Hannity today. In 2002 Joe Wilson told Gen. Vallely that his wifed worked for the CIA, while both were in the FOX news green room. Gen. Vallely had brought up a great point. Why didn't Fitzgerald call Joe Wilson to testify under oath. The answer is obvious. Since it is on record that Joe Wilson has been caught lying about everything since day one, Fitzgerald knew that if he put Wilson under oath and allowed him to testify, he would also have to indict Wilson for lying to the grand jury.
Posted by: james allegro at November 7, 2005 07:35 PM
Kendra wrote:
"That is quite commendable that you would back Libby even though he committed a crime...what Libby did may not be against the Law,it's wrong in the eyes of the Lord."
Kendra, clearly you THINK Libby commited a crime, but do you KNOW that Libby commited a crime? Isn't that what his proverbial day in court is about? Having heard neither court reports or the Lord weigh in, I'll reserve judgement until some FACTS are on the record from BOTH sides. Hmmm... what if he is ACTUALLY innocent?
Posted by: Podunkct at November 7, 2005 09:17 PM
phil wrote:
"...[Libby and Rove] will be (in the eyes of the public) like that other icon of the right, OJ Simpson who roams free in spite of the fact that everybody knows he's guilty as sin..."
Hey phil, OJ may have gotten away with murder, but he did at least spend some time in court. Libby has not even made a public response to the charges. Don't let your hatred get in the way of giving a fair hearing to all parties. You don't know what his side of the story is yet.
Oh, and by the way, OJ as an icon of the right????!!!! Are you drunk?
Posted by: Podunkct at November 7, 2005 09:25 PM
Please report any inappropriate comments to abuse (at) blogsforbush (dot) com. Be sure to include the title of the blog entry, the name of the commenter, and the text of the offending comment.
Post a comment
That is quite commendable that you would back Libby even though he committed a crime.I know we should just Back the Bush Administration no matter what, but I am convicted.We are supposed to be honest,God fearing people and what Libby did may not be against the Law,it's wrong in the eyes of the Lord.
Can't we (supporters of our military, country and President) file a law suit against Wilson for treason and also for undermining our consitution. Aiding the enemy and for lying under oath?
Mark,
If, as you so fervently hope, Libby and Rove go free they will be (in the eyes of the public) like that other icon of the right, OJ Simpson who roams free in spite of the fact that everybody knows he's guilty as sin. Keep up your cheerleading though, I'm sure it bolsters the morale of the Bush troops.
Let's be realistic though; even with Libby and Rove gone there won't be any significant changes in the direction of the White House. I believe that the only really noticable difference will be external to the White House, in the parking lot where 2 additional parking spaces will be freed up in the Morally Handicapped section.
Retired General Paul Vallely had a great interview with Shaun Hannity today. In 2002 Joe Wilson told Gen. Vallely that his wifed worked for the CIA, while both were in the FOX news green room. Gen. Vallely had brought up a great point. Why didn't Fitzgerald call Joe Wilson to testify under oath. The answer is obvious. Since it is on record that Joe Wilson has been caught lying about everything since day one, Fitzgerald knew that if he put Wilson under oath and allowed him to testify, he would also have to indict Wilson for lying to the grand jury.
Kendra wrote:
"That is quite commendable that you would back Libby even though he committed a crime...what Libby did may not be against the Law,it's wrong in the eyes of the Lord."
Kendra, clearly you THINK Libby commited a crime, but do you KNOW that Libby commited a crime? Isn't that what his proverbial day in court is about? Having heard neither court reports or the Lord weigh in, I'll reserve judgement until some FACTS are on the record from BOTH sides. Hmmm... what if he is ACTUALLY innocent?
phil wrote:
"...[Libby and Rove] will be (in the eyes of the public) like that other icon of the right, OJ Simpson who roams free in spite of the fact that everybody knows he's guilty as sin..."
Hey phil, OJ may have gotten away with murder, but he did at least spend some time in court. Libby has not even made a public response to the charges. Don't let your hatred get in the way of giving a fair hearing to all parties. You don't know what his side of the story is yet.
Oh, and by the way, OJ as an icon of the right????!!!! Are you drunk?