Libby Sentenced: 2.5 years, $250k fine - Page 3

There's that whole presumption of innocence thing under our law. Which is why I am uncomfortable lightly throwing around the heavy terms I mentioned above when no criminal charges for the leak have been filed, perjury and obstruction charges notwithstanding. If there is anything out there to show that Fitzgerald or any other prosecutor would have filed criminal charges against Cheney, Rove, Bush, Armitage, or anyone else but for Libby's obstruction, I would be interested in seeing it. I don't believe he was charged with destroying any documents or erasing any files that could never be recovered. If Cheney or Rove ordered something, question Cheney or Rove about it.

Except for the fact that the lies Libby told were to FBI agents on October 14, 2004 and November 26, 2004 and to a grand jury on March 5 and March 24 of 2005. Only one interview happened prior to the election. For Libby's perjury to have had any effect on the election, the FBI agents would have had to spill the beans of an ongoing investigation within about two weeks after the first interview. How likely would that have been?

jv's making some good points, folks.

Side question...I don't get (as in, I'm not seeing, I'm ignorant on, etc) how outing Plame as a CIA operative undermined her husband, politically. Was she operating on US soil, or what?

I realize that's the spark that lit the fuse here, and not the explosion itself, but I'm curious how that affected things at the time.

Imo, pretty likely. Fitzgerald's case was hindered by Libby. Keep in mind he already had a bunch of background info on Libby from other sources before even interviewing him. His case would have made very different moves had Libby been forthcoming. Maybe all the details wouldn't have leaked, but I'm confident that Fitzgerald's investigation would have taken a different path. A path that pundits and the blogs could've analyzed and pushed as several news cycles (a cause and effect thing.)

I understand the presumption of innocence, and I'm not saying that perjury or obstruction automatically makes one guilty of the initial allegations. I'm saying that any value that an unsuccessful investigation of you has as proof of your innocence is severely undermined when you've been convicted of sabotaging said investigation.

True, but not the leaker to Judith Miller and others. And Armitage came clean. Libby did not.

Maybe, and it would be considered old news, but nonetheless it appears (to me anyway) to be emblematic of the strategy behind this whole operation: leave as little to chance as possible.

There was a tight conspiracy and very pronounced timeline, as borne out by testimony in the trial: Cheney learns about Plame/Wilson, the wheels turn, Cheney calls Libby, Libby sets about making it happen. It's not so much that he's the sole person, it's that he had a prominent role in this and instead of cooperating with the investigation, he -- a public official within the inner circle of the highest office in our country -- lied and obfuscated. To protect national security? No. To protect Cheney's role in the leaking of Plame's identity. Maybe not the only person, but an important person to hear from in an investigation whose focus has narrowed down a very specific chain of events that led to Plame being outed.

And in terms of him singing like a canary - maybe, maybe not. It's impossible to know, but he certainly has leverage in terms of how much he's willing to martyr himself for Cheney's wrongdoing.

Just because questions and issues pertaining to the trial are ignored by the mainstream media doesn't mean they're not relevant. His lies did prevent this act from being wholly investigated, because if charges were brought against Cheney, they would be impossible to prove given Libby's perjury and obstruction. So, yes, the lies did stop the investigation. Why waste anyone's time and money on a controversial case that is doomed to fail without key testimony?

I think you're right that people have impeachment fatique in the wake of Clinton's persecution, but compare this cover-up to Watergate. How is it any less important? We're talking about a possible conspiracy emanating from the vice president's bunker. Most of the witnesses served to shore up the context for the actions, but without Libby's truthful testimony, the crux of the entire case is lost.

I agree with Korn's quote too, but he essentially leaves it at: smells like wrongdoing, but we'll never know. My problem with that is: how is that OK with people?

My understanding of the framing of this was: Joe Wilson, a partisan hack, persuades his CIA functionary wife to send him on a frivolous junket to Niger for partisan reasons. It was entirely a "kill the messenger" operation.