DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Mucho on June 05, 2007, 06:15:17 PM
-
Maybe not in this forum, but in some places:
"Truth Matters"
David Corn1 hour, 57 minutes ago
The Nation -- I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby stood before federal district court Judge Reggie Walton. It was finally the moment for Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff to speak. The sentencing hearing was coming to an end; Walton was about to pronounce the punishment Libby would face for having obstructed justice in the CIA leak case. Libby, who did not testify during the trial, thanked the court for showing him and his defense team consideration during the proceedings. He told the judge, "It is...my hope the court will consider...my whole life."
That was it. No apology. No expression of remorse.
Then Walton sentenced Libby to 30 months in jail and a $250,000 fine. Libby didn't flinch. His wife, Harriet Grant, cried. Notable conservatives in the front row of the crowded courtroom--Mary Matalin, Barbara Comstock, and Victoria Toensing--appeared shocked.
Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald had asked Walton to incarcerate Libby for 30 to 37 months. At the hearing, prior to Walton's ruling, Libby's defense attorneys--Ted Wells and William Jeffress Jr.--contended that Libby should get off with probation. They threw several arguments at the judge. First, they claimed that the toughest sentencing guides should not be applied to Libby, echoing an argument put forward by Libby's champions in rightwing circles: Nobody was ever charged with leaking the identity of Valerie Plame Wilson, so the whole case was not such a big deal. Walton did not bite. Citing appeals court decisions, he noted that in an obstruction of justice case it's the investigation that counts, not the ultimate outcome of the investigation. "Your position," Walton told Jeffress, "would seem to promote someone aggressively engaging in obstruction behavior."
Next, Jeffress asserted that no one really knew if Valerie Wilson had been a covert CIA officer covered by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act and suggested this ought to be a mitigating factor. (In a recent court filing, Fitzgerald declared, "It was clear from very early in the investigation that Ms. Wilson qualified under the relevant statute [the Intelligence Identities Protection Act] as a covert agent whose identity had been disclosed by public officials, including Mr. Libby, to the press.") Walton, with his voice rising, outlined the case: "The CIA believes one of its agents was improperly outed....They had a legitimate concern. So they contact the Justice Department and they say this needs to be investigated....And the Justice Department...goes to investigate and they make inquiries....And that person lies." Walton went on: "When law enforcement officials...initiate an investigation...it is the obligation of the American citizenry to be honest and forthright." And Fitzgerald, wearing a gray rumpled suit, added that Libby's lie to those investigating the Plame leak created "a house of mirrors" and made it more difficult for the investigators to "sort out the truth."
Walton indicated that as a matter of law he was sticking with the tougher sentencing guidelines. Next, the issue was whether he ought to use judicial discretion and cut Libby any slack. Fitzgerald argued that Walton's sentence should "make a clear statement that truth matters." He noted that Libby had lied persistently during the leak investigation and had subsequently displayed no contrition. The sentence, the prosecutor continued, should also send the message "that one's status in life does not matter" when it comes to justice. Realizing what Wells and Jeffress were about to argue, Fitzgerald declared that a public servant ought not to receive special treatment. Libby, he said, deserved no more consideration than a social worker, a teacher, a cop. Fitzgerald recognized that Libby had worked long and hard in a variety of government jobs, but he said, "We need the truth from government officials."
Wells had one last shot. The dynamic and dramatic African-American defense attorney said he had "no quarrel with Mr. Fitzgerald's statement that truth matters." But, he added, "it is entirely appropriate for a sentencing judge to take into consideration the good works and the good deeds a person has done." He contended that Libby for decades had engaged in "exceptional public service." He reminded the judge that more than 150 people had submitted to the court letters hailing Libby. This band includes prominent conservative and neoconservative hawks, including Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Henry Kissinger, John Bolton, Doug Feith.
But Wells did not read the letters from these notables. He chose six others. In this group were retired Admiral Joseph Lopez, who praised Libby as a "linchpin" during the first Persian Gulf War; Seth Carus, a biowarfare expert who asserted "Libby has done more to enable the United States to address the challenge of bioterrorism than any other single person"; Robert Blackwill, a former Bush National Security Council official, who said that at the White House no one was "more driven by...sound policy reasoning than Libby"; and Paul Wolfowitz, the former deputy defense secretary, who extolled Libby's "decisive contribution" to forging the post-Cold War world. (Wells' use of Wolfowitz, the scandal-struck and outgoing World Bank president, as a character reference prompted smirks among reporters in the courtroom.)
None of the testimonials Wells read referred to the Iraq war. And Wells told the court that though the Libby case was not about the war, it did "seem that Libby was the poster child for all that has gone wrong with this terrible war." Wells essentially argued that was punishment enough. He noted that Libby has "been exposed...to overwhelming negative press coverage" and has "endured public scorn and ridicule." He pointed out that Libby has received hate mail. And that whether Libby goes to jail or not, he will no longer be able to serve his two great loves: working in the government and practicing law. "He has fallen from public grace," Wells exclaimed. "It's a tragic fall....There's no need to incarcerate Mr. Libby."
Walton accepted none of this. He acknowledged Libby had been a public servant for years, foregoing income he could have obtained in private practice. But, the judge noted, "we expect a lot" of senior government officials. Libby's high position, Walton remarked, came with high obligations. Walton derided the attacks launched by Libby partisans and commentators against the CIA leak investigation, the trial, and the verdict. "The evidence overwhelmingly indicates Mr. Libby's culpability," he declared. He blasted Libby for discussing Valerie Wilson with reporters without considering that she might have been an undercover officer. "Government officials must realize," he said, "if they're going to step over the line...there are consequences."
In the end, Walton explained, Libby's government service and his violation of the obligations of his office balanced each other out. There would be no mitigation in the sentencing. He announced his decision: two-and-a-half years in jail and a quarter of a million dollars.
Libby was not hauled off to jail. His lawyers asked Walton to permit Libby to remain free on bond while they appeal the conviction. Walton indicated he was not sympathetic to this position. But he noted that it would take the Bureau of Prisons 45 to 60 days to find a spot for Libby. Consequently, he said, the defense could file a motion on this point by Thursday, and he scheduled a hearing on this question for next week. Presuming Walton does not change his mind at that hearing, Libby will have to surrender himself and begin his jail term sometime in the next two months.
After the sentencing hearing was concluded, Libby exchanged hugs with his wife and friends. His lawyers said they would make no statements. They quickly left the courthouse. Fitzgerald and his team exited the courtroom without answering questions. A few minutes later, I spotted Fitzgerald alone in a courthouse hallway. He was checking messages on his cellphone. Anything to say? I and another reporter asked. He shrugged sheepishly and stuttered, "I...I..." He closed his cell phone. "Just can't." He had an apologetic look on his face. Then he left the building.
Minutes later, as television camera crews in front of the courthouse were breaking down their equipment, a motorcade sped past. In a dark limousine was Cheney, on his way to a meeting on Capitol Hill. His former aide--who had helped Cheney guide the country into the Iraq war--was heading to jail, having been convicted of obstructing an investigation that had targeted Cheney among others. Cheney was still in power. His office had, as of that moment, issued no comment on Libby's sentence.
Fitzgerald got from Walton the message he wanted: Libby lied; this lying was consequential; it demanded serious punishment. One of the Bush officials responsible for a war that many Americans believe was sold with lies will be imprisoned for lying. Still, Libby's conviction and sentencing will have little impact on popular opinion, for most of the public has already reached a verdict on Bush, Cheney and their administration. The Libby case is merely an affirmation of the (widely-held) view that the Bush crowd is not an honest one.
Now the Libby saga enters the real endgame: pardon or no pardon. Bush has a week until the question is truly forced upon him. If next Thursday's hearing changes nothing, Libby will be awaiting a vacancy in a federal penitentiary. This will drive the Libby Lobby to pump up the volume on its call for a pardon. Conservative pundits will go wild. Republican presidential candidates will demand freedom for Libby. (Former Senator Fred Thompson is a member of the Libby Legal Defense Trust and has hosted a fundraiser for Libby.) What will Cheney say? What will Bush do? It appears Bush will not be able to opt for on-the-sly, last-minute sort of pardon that his father awarded Iran-contra figures shortly before leaving office and that President Bill Clinton handed to fugitive financier Marc Rich as the Clinton presidency was ending. If Bush wants to pardon Libby, he will have to do it in full public glare. He will have to explain why a convicted liar--who shares blame for the mess in Iraq--ought to go free.
When Bush first ran for president in 2000, he vowed to bring accountability and ethics back to the White House. A pardon of Libby would be a telling moment in his long departure from that promise.
*****
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070605/cm_thenation/3202364
-
<<He reminded the judge that more than 150 people had submitted to the court letters hailing Libby. This band includes prominent conservative and neoconservative hawks, including Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Henry Kissinger, John Bolton, Doug Feith.>>
For those letters alone, I would have tacked five years onto his sentence. It's like a Rogue's Gallery of neo-fascist Amerika.
-
For those letters alone, I would have tacked five years onto his sentence. It's like a Rogue's Gallery of neo-fascist Amerika.
Judge must have disagreed with you. Apparently disagreed with Fitzgerald as well. The Judge gave him just barely above the minimum sentence.
-
For those letters alone, I would have tacked five years onto his sentence. It's like a Rogue's Gallery of neo-fascist Amerika.
Judge must have disagreed with you. Apparently disagreed with Fitzgerald as well. The Judge gave him just barely above the minimum sentence.
Must be a GOP appointed then
-
Must be a GOP appointed then
And an Uncle Tom as well.
-
Must be a GOP appointed then
And an Uncle Tom as well.
Well, that goes without saying
-
What will Bush do? It appears Bush will not be able to opt for on-the-sly, last-minute sort of pardon that his father awarded Iran-contra figures shortly before leaving office and that President Bill Clinton handed to fugitive financier Marc Rich as the Clinton presidency was ending. If Bush wants to pardon Libby, he will have to do it in full public glare. He will have to explain why a convicted liar--who shares blame for the mess in Iraq--ought to go free.
================================================================
I fail to see why Juniorbush would have a reason NOT to pardon Scooter Scumbag. He doesn't care about his reputation, or this country. I tghink he'd enjoy flipping a final bird at the rest of us. No one respects Juniorbush much anymore. He has screwed up at everything he has done or tried to do for eight years. I am pretty sure that Cheney will be pressuring Juniorbush to pardon his flunky.
He won't explain a damned thing, either.
I will be surprised if Scooter isn't pardoned. But we will just have to wait and see.
-
Truth does matter. I'm enjoying the fact that truth won out in this case of someone high up in politics, because it wins out in the cases of many, many other people. They get sentenced and go directly to jail, no ifs ands or buts. All this drama about poor Scooter, his poor wife, his poor children. Spare me. Most people have families who will miss them. Most people don't have a think tank supporting them during their terms in the pen.
-
Who is running this railroad?
Scooter Libbey is not guilty of a crime as most of us understand crime, to require that he remember everything he is told or says in sequential order is extremely unreasonable.
To require that he discuss no one with reporters unless he is certain that they are not Covert CIA agents is rediculous.
Everyone involved in this prosicution should be held to scorn.
Anyone who agrees that ,"The Libby case is merely an affirmation of the (widely-held) view that the Bush crowd is not an honest one." and therefore the incarceration of any of his staff is justice deserves a serios self examination .
Under rules like these there are no citizens who deserve to be free.
-
Plane. I know that you know better than the jury that heard all the evidence and decided Scooter was quilty because your prejudices trump reason. Nevertheless the lying asshole is going to jail and many more of your heroes will soon follow.
-
Plane. I know that you know better than the jury that heard all the evidence and decided Scooter was quilty because your prejudices trump reason. Nevertheless the lying asshole is going to jail and many more of your heroes will soon follow.
Reason was trumped by prejudice alright , and this statement ;
"One of the Bush officials responsible for a war that many Americans believe was sold with lies will be imprisoned for lying. Still, Libby's conviction and sentencing will have little impact on popular opinion, for most of the public has already reached a verdict on Bush, Cheney and their administration. The Libby case is merely an affirmation of the (widely-held) view that the Bush crowd is not an honest one."
...is nearly an admission by the author that he understands it to be so.
Who is happy that Scooter Lbbey is being punished so harshly? Who even knew who he was befre he became this scapegoat?
Shame on all this Schadenfreude.
-
KJV: But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream.
--Amos 5:24
MHC: 2:1-8 The evil passions of the heart break out in various forms; but the Lord looks to our motives, as well as our conduct. Those that deal cruelly, shall be cruelly dealt with. Other nations were reckoned with for injuries done to men; Judah is reckoned with for dishonour done to God. Judah despised the law of the Lord; and he justly gave them up to strong delusion; nor was it any excuse for their sin, that they were the lies, the idols, after which their fathers walked. The worst abominations and most grievous oppressions have been committed by some of the professed worshippers of the Lord. Such conduct leads many to unbelief and vile idolatry.
---Amos 2:1
-
Plane. I know that you know better than the jury that heard all the evidence and decided Scooter was quilty
Well, all of the evidence that the judge allowed them to hear, anyway.
And what is quilty? Sewn and stuffed?
-
<<Scooter Libbey is not guilty of a crime as most of us understand crime, to require that he remember everything he is told or says in sequential order is extremely unreasonable.>>
So, in your opinion, did the old Scootmeister lie to the investigators or not? Did the jury make a correct finding of fact (that the Scootster lied) or were they bamboozled or otherwise misled into a wrong conclusion of fact?
-
<<Scooter Libbey is not guilty of a crime as most of us understand crime, to require that he remember everything he is told or says in sequential order is extremely unreasonable.>>
So, in your opinion, did the old Scootmeister lie to the investigators or not? Did the jury make a correct finding of fact (that the Scootster lied) or were they bamboozled or otherwise misled into a wrong conclusion of fact?
This was a DC jury , they re very likely complicit in this , did you note this statement?
"One of the Bush officials responsible for a war that many Americans believe was sold with lies will be imprisoned for lying. Still, Libby's conviction and sentencing will have little impact on popular opinion, for most of the public has already reached a verdict on Bush, Cheney and their administration. The Libby case is merely an affirmation of the (widely-held) view that the Bush crowd is not an honest one."
Libbey is just the one the Mob could catch, he is being punished for the stuff real and imagined that the whole administration is supposed to be guilty of , he is being a scapegoat.
So no there is no reason to beleive that he lied nor intended to deceive. The "lie" he told is as easily understood as an honest mistake as it is anything like a lie.It is in fact an inconsequential mistatement.
The Judge actually required that he should not have spoken of a person without knowing that the person was not a covert agent of the CIA ,;
He blasted Libby for discussing Valerie Wilson with reporters without considering that she might have been an undercover officer. "
... think about that , could this be anything but proof that the judge is stupid ? Or is it evidence that the judge was eager to smack someone? If the Jury, judge and Prosicutor understood the circumstance the same way as this reporter , then there was no need for evidence.
Note also ;
"Fitzgerald and his team exited the courtroom without answering questions. A few minutes later, I spotted Fitzgerald alone in a courthouse hallway. He was checking messages on his cellphone. Anything to say? I and another reporter asked. He shrugged sheepishly and stuttered, "I...I..." He closed his cell phone. "Just can't." He had an apologetic look on his face. Then he left the building.
Shamed he is , this will haunt him for all his life.
-
<<So no there is no reason to beleive that he lied nor intended to deceive. The "lie" he told is as easily understood as an honest mistake as it is anything like a lie.It is in fact an inconsequential mistatement.>>
I think if the jury had concluded, as you seem to have, that Libby made an "honest mistake" they could not possibly have found that he lied to an investigator. Much less that there is not even room for any reasonable doubt on the subject.
The jury in fact made a finding of fact that Libby lied to an investigator. That there wasn't even room for a reasonable doubt as to that. WERE they wrong or not? He lied to the investigator or he didn't lie to the investigator. Which do you think it is?
-
<<So no there is no reason to beleive that he lied nor intended to deceive. The "lie" he told is as easily understood as an honest mistake as it is anything like a lie.It is in fact an inconsequential mistatement.>>
I think if the jury had concluded, as you seem to have, that Libby made an "honest mistake" they could not possibly have found that he lied to an investigator. Much less that there is not even room for any reasonable doubt on the subject.
The jury in fact made a finding of fact that Libby lied to an investigator. That there wasn't even room for a reasonable doubt as to that. WERE they wrong or not? He lied to the investigator or he didn't lie to the investigator. Which do you think it is?
Can you repeat what this lie was?
Without recourse to Google?
The idea that this was a "consequential " lie is rediculous , the judge expressed a rediculous standard of innocence and ther Jury presumed him guilty , the Scotsbourough boys were not railroaded so badly.
"Juror Denis Collins on Wednesday summed up the dilemma that he and his associates faced behind closed doors.
"There was a frustration that we were trying someone for telling a lie apparently about an event that never became important enough to file charges anywhere else," he said on ABC's "Good Morning America."
"I would hope that the message sent by this jury shouldn't be that big a message," he said.
"There was a tremendous amount of sympathy for Mr. Libby on the jury. It was said a number of times, 'What are we doing with this guy here? Where's Rove? Where are these other guys?'" Collins said. "I'm not saying we didn't think Mr. Libby was guilty of the things we found him guilty of. It seemed like he was, as Mr. Wells put it, he was the fall guy."
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070307/D8NNB2PO0.html
-
Plane:
<<Note also ;
Quote
"Fitzgerald and his team exited the courtroom without answering questions. A few minutes later, I spotted Fitzgerald alone in a courthouse hallway. He was checking messages on his cellphone. Anything to say? I and another reporter asked. He shrugged sheepishly and stuttered, "I...I..." He closed his cell phone. "Just can't." He had an apologetic look on his face. Then he left the building.
Shamed he is , this will haunt him for all his life.>>
I thought at first you meant Scooter would be shamed...had to read it again, and of course it's the prosecutor you think is the bad guy in all this. RULE OF LAW doesn't mean much to you all, does it? Not if it gets one of yours. Scooter had the same opportunity any citizen had: He could have told the truth to various investigators, to a grand jury, to the court, but he did not. He lied and continued to lie. And you excuse him because...he's one of your own, I guess.
This is a victory for democracy.
-
Plane:
<<Note also ;
Quote
"Fitzgerald and his team exited the courtroom without answering questions. A few minutes later, I spotted Fitzgerald alone in a courthouse hallway. He was checking messages on his cellphone. Anything to say? I and another reporter asked. He shrugged sheepishly and stuttered, "I...I..." He closed his cell phone. "Just can't." He had an apologetic look on his face. Then he left the building.
Shamed he is , this will haunt him for all his life.>>
I thought at first you meant Scooter would be shamed...had to read it again, and of course it's the prosecutor you think is the bad guy in all this. RULE OF LAW doesn't mean much to you all, does it? Not if it gets one of yours. Scooter had the same opportunity any citizen had: He could have told the truth to various investigators, to a grand jury, to the court, but he did not. He lied and continued to lie. And you excuse him because...he's one of your own, I guess.
This is a victory for democracy.
No, it was actually Fitzgerald who left the room looking embarrased at what has been done.
It is a shame for all who take joy in the punishment of one for the imagined crimes of another.
The court of Sctotsbourough Alabama , and its jury was no better.
Can you admit in self examination that you are glad for his suffering because he is an associate of someone you hate?
-
In typical reckless fashion, Lanya scoffs at and scorns Libby and his family and their suffering a 30-month prison term will impose. Just what was the lie he told? How central was it to Fitzgerald's investigation? As central as Bill Clinton's dodge to that civil lawsuit?
-
"He said, “some jurors said at one point, ‘We wish we weren’t judging Libby…this sucks.†More than once he said many jurors found Libby “sympathetic.â€
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/oj-style-juror-gives-his-thoughts-on-guilty-libby-verdict
"Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward testified under oath Monday in the CIA leak case that a senior administration official told him about CIA operative Valerie Plame and her position at the agency nearly a month before her identity was disclosed.
In a more than two-hour deposition, Woodward told Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald that the official casually told him in mid-June 2003 that Plame worked as a CIA analyst on weapons of mass destruction, and that he did not believe the information to be classified or sensitive, according to a statement Woodward released yesterday.
Fitzgerald interviewed Woodward about the previously undisclosed conversation after the official alerted the prosecutor to it on Nov. 3 — one week after Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was indicted in the investigation
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/woodward-got-the-word-before-rove-libby
-
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/01/potential_juror.html
Is there any possibility for a change of venue for the appeal?
-
No. Changes of venue apply exclusively to tainted jury pools for whom the factual questions in the trial have been exposed extensively and which leads to pre-formation of impressions and conclusions. On the other hand, appellate judges, distinguished as being trained professionals presumptively immune from the effects of publicity, do not engage in fact-finding but rather simply construe the facts that the record objectively establishes, and determine their significance in light of the applicable legal principles.
-
No. Changes of venue apply exclusively to tainted jury pools for whom the factual questions in the trial have been exposed extensively and which leads to pre-formation of impressions and conclusions. On the other hand, appellate judges, distinguished as being trained professionals presumptively immune from the effects of publicity, do not engage in fact-finding but rather simply construe the facts that the record objectively establishes, and determine their significance in light of the applicable legal principles.
That's too bad.
It seems to me that DC is a single industry town , and that the jury is tainted just because the case is so involved in that industry and there is little jury pool that is disintrested in the question.
A juror who votes guilty , but then later expresses resons for doing so that are inappropriate , produces grounds for appeal?
-
<<Can you repeat what this lie was?
Without recourse to Google?>>
Well without recourse to Google, I'd guess that the lie was either what he told a reporter or who told him what he'd told a reporter. How would my personal ability to recall the minute details of this criminal's felonious misdeeds possibly affect his guilt or innocence?
<<The idea that this was a "consequential " lie is rediculous . . . >>
Any lie told to an investigator is of course potentially "consequential," as the investigator has to piece together a thousand facts to make up a case, and the importance of each of the thousand pieces in the overall case may not be immediately apparent. It's probably for this reason that the law created the offence of telling lies ( and not "consequential lies") to federal investigators. Otherwise every investigation could be stymied at will by lying, the defence to which would be that the lie was not "consequential" or did not appear so to the liar at the time.
Do you believe that the law should be amended so that no one is guilty of an offence in lying to a federal investigator unless the lie can be shown to be "consequential?" A sort of blanket amnesty to "inconsequential" liars?
<<the judge expressed a rediculous standard of innocence>>
Oh? What standard was that? Didn't Libby's lawyers object to the standard set by the judge? Did the judge not agree that her standards were ridiculous, seeing as how that was so obvious even to you?
<< and ther Jury presumed him guilty . . . >>
And you know this because they convicted him before all the evidence was in? Or because they confided their presumptions to you, one and all? (Keeping in mind that if even ONE of them had not presumed him guilty, he'd be walking free right now.) How do you know they presumed him guilty? By the colour of their skin? Is that not a tad racist?
<< the Scotsbourough boys were not railroaded so badly.>>
Really? Do you know much about the Scottsboro Boys? Do you know that their convictions were maintained in re-trials after one of the two complainants retracted her evidence and admitted to consensual sex with them in the boxcar? Did you know they went on trial for their lives within one week of being arrested?
-
<<Can you repeat what this lie was?
Without recourse to Google?>>
Well without recourse to Google, I'd guess that the lie was either what he told a reporter or who told him what he'd told a reporter. How would my personal ability to recall the minute details of this criminal's felonious misdeeds possibly affect his guilt or innocence?
Because it is the quality of his memory that is the diffrence between a plausable mistake and a lie, you cannot recall what the lie is even in the middst of celebrateing it and on the same day that we have been reviewing it. Why is a guy of his age having remembered nine conversations out of order and diffrently from someone who took notes , construed as a lie? What would be his motive for lieing? It seems to be presumed that he was covering up somthing but this turns out to be nothing. It is no wonder that the special prosicutor is seen skulking from the shame faced.
<<The idea that this was a "consequential " lie is rediculous . . . >>
Any lie told to an investigator is of course potentially "consequential," as the investigator has to piece together a thousand facts to make up a case, and the importance of each of the thousand pieces in the overall case may not be immediately apparent. It's probably for this reason that the law created the offence of telling lies ( and not "consequential lies") to federal investigators. Otherwise every investigation could be stymied at will by lying, the defence to which would be that the lie was not "consequential" or did not appear so to the liar at the time.
Do you believe that the law should be amended so that no one is guilty of an offence in lying to a federal investigator unless the lie can be shown to be "consequential?" A sort of blanket amnesty to "inconsequential" liars?
No , we should all be in prison , unless we have never lied at all
<<the judge expressed a rediculous standard of innocence>>
Oh? What standard was that? Didn't Libby's lawyers object to the standard set by the judge? Did the judge not agree that her standards were ridiculous, seeing as how that was so obvious even to you?
The jdge stated in his opinion that the defendant discussed someone without finding out whether that person was a overt CIA agent . Except for Maxwell Smart Seret agents are not supposed to be famous how exactly is one supposed to never discuss anyone who may be a covert agent?
Try calling the CIA and askig for a list of covert agents in your neighborhod .
This judge is rediculously ignorant .
<< and ther Jury presumed him guilty . . . >>
And you know this because they convicted him before all the evidence was in? Or because they confided their presumptions to you, one and all? (Keeping in mind that if even ONE of them had not presumed him guilty, he'd be walking free right now.) How do you know they presumed him guilty? By the colour of their skin? Is that not a tad racist?
I know by the statements that the jurors have made to the press ,they are saying that they considered this guy a fall guy anbd they really wanted to try the administration people that they would have recognised.
<< the Scotsbourough boys were not railroaded so badly.>>
Really? Do you know much about the Scottsboro Boys? Do you know that their convictions were maintained in re-trials after one of the two complainants retracted her evidence and admitted to consensual sex with them in the boxcar? Did you know they went on trial for their lives within one week of being arrested?
All right, I was exaggerateing, lock me up for thirty months .
Although the Scotsbourough boys and the OJ Simson case were more serious in the consequences involved there is a sameness in the nature of the problem. The jurors hd too much to cosider how their verdict would play with their neighbors and too ittle t consider the real evidence or lack thereof.
-
An inconsequential lie: "I couldn't have been privy to that conversation in person because I was in Omaha at the time" (when he actually was in Des Moines. Assume he lied because his mistress lives in Des Moines, and his wife is beginning to piece things together). This type of lie, having no bearing on the rightful conduct of the investigation, is often "inconsequential" because not punished seriously or not prosecuted at all, which are matter usually residing in a prosecutor's discretion.
-
Plane, here are some articles to bring you up to speed on the news.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/02/08/BL2007020801013_pf.html
and this one:
Russert testifies in Libby perjury trial
Packed court hears NBC newsman deny identifying CIA operative
NBC News and news services
Updated: 12:54 p.m. ET Feb 12, 2007
WASHINGTON - NBC newsman Tim Russert, who drew the biggest audience of Washington's hottest new courtroom reality drama when he took the stand on Wednesday, testified against former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby on a key part of his defense.
The host of "Meet the Press" was to be the final government witness in a trial that for three weeks has provided a rare glimpse into the Bush administration and occasionally offered entertainment and gossip for news and political junkies.
Speaking before a packed courtroom, Russert said he never discussed a CIA operative during a July 2003 phone conversation with Libby. Libby has testified that, at the end of the call, Russert brought up war critic Joseph Wilson and mentioned that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.
"That would be impossible," Russert testified Wednesday about such an exchange. "I didn't know who that person was until several days later."
(MSNBC.com is a joint venture between Microsoft and NBC Universal.)
Unlike previous witnesses who discussed the tense atmosphere inside the West Wing and revealed some of the administration's press strategies, Russert offered little in the way of fireworks. But the discrepancy between his account and Libby's is at the heart of the perjury and obstruction trial.
Libby is accused of lying to investigators about his conversations with reporters regarding Wilson's wife, CIA operative Valerie Plame.
During Libby's 2004 grand jury testimony, he said Russert told him "all the reporters know" that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. Libby now acknowledges he had learned about Plame a month earlier from his boss, Vice President Dick Cheney, but says he had forgotten about it and learned it again from Russert as if new.
Libby subsequently repeated the information about Plame to other journalists, always with the caveat that he had heard it from reporters, he has said. Prosecutors say Libby concocted the Russert conversation to shield him from prosecution for revealing information from government sources.
Defense questions Russert’s claim
Plame's identity was leaked shortly after her husband began accusing the Bush administration of doctoring prewar intelligence on Iraq. The controversy over the faulty intelligence was a major story in mid-2003.
Given that news climate, defense attorney Theodore Wells was skeptical about Russert's account.
"You have the chief of staff of the vice president of the United States on the telephone and you don't ask him one question about it?" Wells asked. He followed up moments later with, "As a newsperson who's known for being aggressive and going after the facts, you wouldn't have asked him about the biggest stories in the world that week?"
"What happened is exactly what I told you," Russert replied.
Russert originally told the FBI that he couldn't rule out discussing Wilson with Libby but had no recollection of it, according to an FBI report Wells read in court. Russert said Wednesday he did not believe he said that.
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has spent weeks making the case that Libby was preoccupied with discrediting Wilson. Several former White House, CIA and State Department officials testified that Libby discussed Plame with them — all before the Russert conversation.
Fitzgerald has said Russert would be his final witness. Prosecutors spent the past few days playing audiotapes of Libby's grand jury testimony in court. In the final hours of those tapes Wednesday, Libby described a tense mood in the White House as the leak investigation began.
Though President Bush was publicly stating that nobody in the White House was involved in the leak, Libby knew that he himself had spoken to several reporters about Plame. He said he did not bring that up with Bush and was uncertain whether he discussed it with Cheney.
Libby remembered one conversation with Cheney, however, in which the vice president seemed surprised when told by his aide where Libby had learned Plame's identity.
"From me?" Cheney asked, tilting his head, Libby recalled.
Libby says notes triggered memory
Libby said he had forgotten that Cheney was his original source until finding his own handwritten notes on the conversation. The notes predated the Russert phone call by a month.
Libby said on Wednesday that he had asked Cheney twice if he wanted to hear details about Plame and Wilson that he Libby had heard in conversations with reporters.
"I would have been happy to unburden myself of it," he said in court. "He didn't want to hear it."
"We shouldn't talk about the details of this case," Cheney said, according to Libby.
Libby also said on Wednesday that Bush told the White House cabinet room on October 7, 2003, "I've constantly expressed my displeasure with leaks." He said he was aware the president had asked officials to come forward.
Russert's grand jury testimony questioned
Fitzgerald, in a court filing early Wednesday, wrote of the Libby-Russert phone conversation, "Mr. Russert will testify that, during this conversation, neither he nor the defendant made any mention of Valerie Plame Wilson or her employment at the CIA."
In the audiotapes played Tuesday during the trial, Libby told the grand jury in March 2004, "It seemed to me as if I was learning it for the first time" when, according to his account, Russert told him about Plame on July 10 or 11, 2003. Only later, when looking at his calendar and notes, Libby said, did he remember that he actually learned the information from Cheney in a telephone conversation on June 12, 2003.
Fitzgerald also addressed an issue that Libby's defense attorneys brought up in court, asking prosecutors to disclose any accommodations that were offered to Russert in obtaining his testimony in the course of the grand jury investigation.
The special counsel wrote that the government requested that Russert voluntarily cooperate by testifying before the grand jury. Russert, through counsel, "sought to avoid providing testimony," Fitzgerald wrote. Russert's attorneys first attempted to convince Fitzgerald that he had nothing relevant to say because he had not been the recipient of any leak regarding Plame's employment. Russert then filed a motion, under seal, to quash the grand jury subpoena issued for his testimony.
After Russert's motion was denied on July 21, 2004, the special counsel and Russert's attorneys agreed on a procedure in which he would forgo an appeal and provide testimony.
The questioning of Russert, according to prosecutors, "… was limited to telephone conversation(s) between Mr. Libby and Mr. Russert on or about July 10, 2003," and any follow-up conversations which involved Libby complaining to Russert about the on-the-air comments of MSNBC's Chris Matthews. Fitzgerald said Russert was also asked "… whether during that conversation Mr. Russert imparted information concerning the employment of Ambassador Wilson's wife to Mr. Libby, or whether the employment of Mr. Wilson's wife was otherwise discussed in the conversation."
Fitzgerald also stated that "nothing in the government's possession" reflects the existence of "any tacit agreements, incentives or benefits beyond those provided as part of government counsel's efforts to 'accommodate the interests of both the grand jury and the media' as required by the DOJ Guidelines."
© 2007 MSNBC InteractiveThe Associated Press and NBC’s Joel Seidman contributed to this story.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17020411/
-
Blah, blah, blah, blah. From your news article: "Washington's hottest new courtroom reality drama .... "
-
<<Because it is the quality of his memory that is the diffrence between a plausable mistake and a lie, you cannot recall what the lie is even in the middst of celebrateing it and on the same day that we have been reviewing it. Why is a guy of his age having remembered nine conversations out of order and diffrently from someone who took notes , construed as a lie?>>
So I guess, Libby of course NOT having lied to Federal investigators, then either his lawyers were too incompetent to have raised your points with the jury, or alternatively, the jury were just so fucking STUPID that not even one out of all twelve of them was able to follow the argument. Which explanation do you prefer?
<<This was a DC jury , they re very likely complicit in this . . . >>
Oh yes, of course, I forgot momentarily that a DC jury was incapable of giving an honest verdict. Tell me, do you think that's the result of the colour of their skin, the minuscule size of their brain-pans or is it just due to something in the District's air and water?
<<did you note this statement? Quote:
"One of the Bush officials responsible for a war that many Americans believe was sold with lies will be imprisoned for lying. Still, Libby's conviction and sentencing will have little impact on popular opinion, for most of the public has already reached a verdict on Bush, Cheney and their administration. The Libby case is merely an affirmation of the (widely-held) view that the Bush crowd is not an honest one.">>
Ah, now I understand. The quote makes all the difference. Basically, the jury could not have come to an honest and impartial verdict on the facts presented to them, as in fact they were all sworn to do, because the unknown person quoted has gone on record as saying that the case merely affirms widely held public views on the Bush administration. And that settles it. Waste of time and money really to go through the jury trial then, wasn't it? Makes ya wonder why the old Scootster didn't just plead hisself guilty nad throw hisself on the mercy of the court.
<< Q: Do you believe that the law should be amended so that no one is guilty of an offence in lying to a federal investigator unless the lie can be shown to be "consequential?" A sort of blanket amnesty to "inconsequential" liars?
<< A: No , we should all be in prison , unless we have never lied at all>>
The question, I think, involved lying to a federal investigator, presumably in the course of an investigation. Wanna try again?
<<The jdge stated in his opinion that the defendant discussed someone without finding out whether that person was a overt CIA agent . >>
Well, in that case not to worry. If in fact that was the substance of what the judge told the jury, I'm sure it will be corrected on appeal and the Scootster will walk out a free liar, er, I mean a free man.
<<I know by the statements that the jurors have made to the press ,they are saying that they considered this guy a fall guy anbd they really wanted to try the administration people that they would have recognised.>>
Well I'm sure that's very understandable and commendable. Bush and Cheney SHOULD be on trial for lying, war crimes, torture and a good many other things as well. Although I don't see - - and apparently neither did the jury - - how this in any way exonerates the "fall guy" if he himself was basically committing the same crimes as his bosses, but just on a smaller scale. Did the jurors' statements include the admission that they nailed the guy anyway despite the fact that he was innocent?
<<The jurors hd too much to cosider how their verdict would play with their neighbors and too ittle t consider the real evidence or lack thereof. >>
Oh, I see. The jurors' neighbours were actually parading in the street with torches and signs saying "Kill the Jew from New York" (referring to the Scottsboro defence lawyer Samuel Leibowitz) or some similar reference to Libby's lawyers? They were threatening to lynch Libby? I didn't realize the jurors' neighbours were so het up over this. Or was this maybe another one of your exaggerations, worth another 30 months?
-
Plane,
Are you aware of the Libby jury's racial makeup without resorting to Google?
-
Plane,
Are you aware of the Libby jury's racial makeup without resorting to Google?
Nope , I do not know the racial makeup of the Jury at this point.
I know that one of them is white because he is the one who I have been quoting and his picture was on one of the sites.
-
Ten are white, two are black.
-
<<Ten are white, two are black. >>
Leaving plane the task of explaining how a jury, even a "DC jury" with TEN WHITES is incapable of delivering an honest verdict based on the evidence. (Translation, an acquittal of Libby despite the evidence)This is a tougher problem than originally contemplated . . . . hmm,
. . . the Judge!! of course, the Judge!! She didn't happen, by any chance, to, er, be of the Negro Persuasion, did she? This whole fiasco, the unanimous verdict including TEN WHITE VOTES, it can all be blamed on the judge. Oh happy day. I knew the man was innocent. I read all the letters.
-
. . . the Judge!! of course, the Judge!! She didn't happen, by any chance, to, er, be of the Negro Persuasion, did she? This whole fiasco, the unanimous verdict including TEN WHITE VOTES, it can all be blamed on the judge. Oh happy day. I knew the man was innocent. I read all the letters.
Yes, he is black; hence my "Uncle Tom" quote from yesterday.
Because he is obviously in the pay of the Republicans - he was appointed by Bush, and gave Libby 1/10 of the jail time he could have...
-
The jury did properly what juries do: reach a defensible verdict on a reasonable-doubt standard, as instructed. The flaw in the proceedings came with a perhaps errant nonuse of prosecutorial discretion, or the imposition of a sentence that seems not to match Libby's responsibility for damage caused in the overall "caper" and, more pertinently, to the investigation.
-
Ten are white, two are black.
This is pertanant for some reason?
-
<<This is pertanant for some reason?>>
Yeah, the reason being your crack about a "DC jury." Most people would understand that to be a coded attack on black jurors.
-
<<This is pertanant for some reason?>>
Yeah, the reason being your crack about a "DC jury." Most people would understand that to be a coded attack on black jurors.
I don't know this code.
Where did you learn it?
DC is as I have stated an industry town , famous as a liberal town and heavyly Democratic.
Now that you have brought it up I do suppose that race might have made a diffrence if the circumstances allowed me to assume racism on the part of the jury .
I was not doing that , you are reading your own thoughts between the lines.
-
Yeah, the reason being your crack about a "DC jury." Most people would understand that to be a coded attack on black jurors.
Must be a different code book than the one I use.
DC is filled with liberals. Black ones, white ones, yellow ones, red ones, etc.
Even the self-described conservatives in DC lean pretty far left...
-
Yeah, the reason being your crack about a "DC jury." Most people would understand that to be a coded attack on black jurors.
Must be a different code book than the one I use. DC is filled with liberals. Black ones, white ones, yellow ones, red ones, etc. Even the self-described conservatives in DC lean pretty far left...
But Tee just knows it was about Race, because....................Tee just knows these things. Kinda like how he knows the killing of an AlQeada leader is bogus. He just knows. Tee-leaf stuff again
-
But Tee just knows it was about Race, because....................Tee just knows these things. Kinda like how he knows the killing of an AlQeada leader is bogus. He just knows. Tee-leaf stuff again
Well, I'm guessing that he inferred it was about race because DC is a southern city. And we know that all people who live in the southern US are racists.
-
But Tee just knows it was about Race, because....................Tee just knows these things. Kinda like how he knows the killing of an AlQeada leader is bogus. He just knows. Tee-leaf stuff again
Well, I'm guessing that he inferred it was about race because DC is a southern city. And we know that all people who live in the southern US are racists.
Oh, absolutely. And don't forget, All republicans want women to die of cancer. Boy, I can't imagine what it must be like to be a Southern Republican, from like....South Carolina
-
But Tee just knows it was about Race, because....................Tee just knows these things. Kinda like how he knows the killing of an AlQeada leader is bogus. He just knows. Tee-leaf stuff again
Well, I'm guessing that he inferred it was about race because DC is a southern city. And we know that all people who live in the southern US are racists.
Oh, absolutely. And don't forget, All republicans want women to die of cancer. Boy, I can't imagine what it must be like to be a Southern Republican, from like....South Carolina
I don't know but....<<This is pertanant for some reason?>>
Yeah, the reason being your crack about a "DC jury." Most people would understand that to be a coded attack on black jurors.
... MT seems to think that most people know this code. I have never heard anyone speak of a code at all unless thay were speaking of someone elese.
-
<<... MT seems to think that most people know this code. >>
Yeah, well that's a little more realistic than pretending not to know what I'm talking about.
<<I have never heard anyone speak of a code at all unless thay were speaking of someone elese.>>
Maybe that's because everyone you talk to uses the same code. To them, it's not a code any more, it's a language.
I find it interesting to see the level of denial that most Americans seem to practice with regard to their own country: there is no class system in America, there is no racism in America, there is no one-party state in America. A "DC jury" means a jury drawn from a "company town" even though most of the jury pool wouldn't work for the company anyway and despite the fact that the black urban underclass of the District is like the black urban underclass of any other large U.S. city.
-
<<... MT seems to think that most people know this code. >>
Yeah, well that's a little more realistic than pretending not to know what I'm talking about.
<<I have never heard anyone speak of a code at all unless thay were speaking of someone elese.>>
Maybe that's because everyone you talk to uses the same code. To them, it's not a code any more, it's a language.
I find it interesting to see the level of denial that most Americans seem to practice with regard to their own country: there is no class system in America, there is no racism in America, there is no one-party state in America. A "DC jury" means a jury drawn from a "company town" even though most of the jury pool wouldn't work for the company anyway and despite the fact that the black urban underclass of the District is like the black urban underclass of any other large U.S. city.
Why would I learn code? The only thing that the supposed existance of this code produces is the reversal of what I am trying to express.
What would the use of such a code accomplish?
I understand that such tricks might be usefull to a repressed social group, but why would anyone need such a thing without the repression?
-
A "DC jury" means a jury drawn from a "company town" even though most of the jury pool wouldn't work for the company anyway and despite the fact that the black urban underclass of the District is like the black urban underclass of any other large U.S. city.
Except, of course, the jury was mostly white.
In addition, most of the DC population work for the Federal government, directly or indirectly.
-
<<Except, of course, the jury was mostly white.>>
A fact not known to plane when he blithely explained away Libby's conviction - - and the fact that not a single one of twelve jurors after hearing all of the evidence and argument had even one reasonable doubt in the matter - - by attributing it all to "a DC jury."
-
<<Why would I learn code? >>
How can you help learning code? It's in common use. Others use it, you hear it. Unless you're a total fucking moron, you understand what they're talking about. Maybe not the first time. Maybe it sails right over your head the first time. Then you hear it again. A third time. Somewhere along the road, you figure out that "a DC jury" means pretty much the same as "a Brooklyn jury" or "a Bronx jury" and not the same as a "blue-ribbon jury" or an "Orange County jury."
<<The only thing that the supposed existance of this code produces is the reversal of what I am trying to express.
What would the use of such a code accomplish?>>
Lets racists express racist thoughts hopefully without catching any flak for it.
<<I understand that such tricks might be usefull to a repressed social group, but why would anyone need such a thing without the repression?>>
Well, today, thanks to the liberals and the "politically correct" crowd, racists ARE a repressed social group. Now they have to call themselves "conservatives" and they can't even (excuse the racist pun) call a spade a spade. They're being forced further and further back into the closet, which is a good thing. Some prime examples are Sen. Macacawitz' forced reliance on arcane foreign slang where once the good ole American N-word would have done the trick, and Trent Lott getting hauled over the coals "merely" for expressing regret over Strom Thurmond's failure to win the Presidency.
-
A fact not known to plane when he blithely explained away Libby's conviction - - and the fact that not a single one of twelve jurors after hearing all of the evidence and argument had even one reasonable doubt in the matter - - by attributing it all to "a DC jury."
Yes, they were so convinced, they had no problem coming to a verdict.
They just liked spending time in the jury room, so they waited 9 days to vote, and spent that time asking all kinds of questions of the judge about what "reasonable doubt" means, just for kicks.
Oh yeah, and all those quotes from jury members later about how they felt he was only the "fall guy"? Again, only for shits and grins.
-
Lets racists express racist thoughts hopefully without catching any flak for it.
That's ok, we all know that racists like to point out the "hidden racism" in others... We'll just ignore it in you.
-
<<They just liked spending time in the jury room, so they waited 9 days to vote, and spent that time asking all kinds of questions of the judge about what "reasonable doubt" means, just for kicks...
Proving that they all gave this a hell of a lot more thought than plane wants to credit them with, explored the charges with extreme thoroughness and at the end of it all were left with not a single reasonable doubt among any of the twelve as to his guilt.
<<Oh yeah, and all those quotes from jury members later about how they felt he was only the "fall guy"? Again, only for shits and grins.>>
ALL those quotes? How many jurors even gave a quote like that? TWO? And fall guys are left holding the bag while bigger fish get away, but that doesn't add up to innocence - - either in my books or the jury's.
-
What struck me about the statement of the Juror was that they were disapointed that the big fish did not testify .
Or get charged with anything.
I perceive a presmption of guilt.
-
What struck me about the statement of the Juror was that they were disapointed that the big fish did not testify .
Or get charged with anything.
I perceive a presmption of guilt.
A percption of guilt might be more aprpo
-
What struck me about the statement of the Juror was that they were disapointed that the big fish did not testify .
Or get charged with anything.
I perceive a presmption of guilt.
A percption of guilt might be more aprpo
To perceive guilt on the basis of the gossip learned before the trial process seems to be contrary to the reason to have a trial.
-
<<What struck me about the statement of the Juror was that they were disapointed that the big fish did not testify .
<<Or get charged with anything.
<<I perceive a presmption of guilt.>>
Since he made that statement AFTER they had heard all the evidence, deliberated thoroughly and then delivered their unanimous verdict, I would say what you perceived was in fact a thorough conviction of Libby's guilt and some very well-founded suspicions that bigger Republicans of greater guilt got away with even bigger crimes.
-
While all the time recognizing the racial and ethnic diversity of any given venue's jury pool, but most importantly fully appreciating the individual character of each particular juror, it is nonetheless appropriate at times to assume a general, defining characteristic or set of characteristics, often ethnically- or racially-based, for any given panel when the trial themes and dynamics play upon them and bring them not only to prominence but to balance-tipping significance. Such was the case with the OJ jury, as it was with the Simi Valley trial of the police assaulters of Rodney King. Construing it otherwise is simply a "head in the sand" strategy designed to sanitize rather than illuminate.
-
I think the mistake our "conservative" friends made in this particular case was assuming (wrongfully as it turned out) that a DC jury would be an inner-city black jury, which probably would have been a credible explanation for a conviction if Libby had in fact been manifestly innocent but nevertheless equally manifestly an incarnation of The Man. They then had to scatter in confusion when the actual racial make-up of the jury was revealed, inventing on the fly new meanings for "DC jury." It was pretty funny, actually.
-
What struck me about the statement of the Juror was that they were disapointed that the big fish did not testify .
Or get charged with anything.
I perceive a presmption of guilt.
A percption of guilt might be more aprpo
To perceive guilt on the basis of the gossip learned before the trial process seems to be contrary to the reason to have a trial.
I am sure the juror was not talking about Libby's guilt (voir dire should have eliminated that possibility anyway and Libby had the best attorneys in DC) but the quilt of the White House which was entered into the trial by Libby's attorneys when they called Libby a scape goat. That guilt will come out in time if only in history.
Libby was evil, but not the most evil in this traitorous scheme.
-
I think the mistake our "conservative" friends made in this particular case was assuming (wrongfully as it turned out) that a DC jury would be an inner-city black jury, which probably would have been a credible explanation for a conviction if Libby had in fact been manifestly innocent but nevertheless equally manifestly an incarnation of The Man. They then had to scatter in confusion when the actual racial make-up of the jury was revealed, inventing on the fly new meanings for "DC jury." It was pretty funny, actually.
Funny that the only people who made the assumption that "DC jury" meant "all black jury" was liberals. Having lived in the DC area, I knew just what he meant.
-
<<Funny that the only people who made the assumption that "DC jury" meant "all black jury" was liberals.>>
Yeah, that's funny. Of course it makes a LOT more sense for "DC jury" to mean a jury of colour-blind Federal civil servants. THAT sure would explain their turning on Libby. How better to curry favour with a Republican administration than by convicting one of its golden boys and Cheney's right-hand man at that, especially when he's so obviously innocent. Good career move.
<<Having lived in the DC area, I knew just what he meant.>>
THAT'S for sure. I live 500 miles away and even I know just what he meant.
-
THAT'S for sure. I live 500 miles away and even I know just what he meant.
You knew that he meant a "company town" jury, where nearly everyone on the jury derived money from the federal government, and leaned almost totally left?
Then why did you pretend it a was a "code word"?
-
<<You knew that he meant a "company town" jury, where nearly everyone on the jury derived money from the federal government, and leaned almost totally left?>>
No, I knew that he meant a black jury of resentful welfare recipients and victims of police brutality and governmental neglect. Who knew who Libby was and everything he stood for.
-
No, I knew that he meant a black jury of resentful welfare recipients and victims of police brutality and governmental neglect. Who knew who Libby was and everything he stood for.
Funny, he said that wasn't what he meant. It's also not what I thought he meant.
Only one who sees racism here is you. Guess it's one of those things where racists see racism everywhere, huh?
-
I think the mistake our "conservative" friends made in this particular case was assuming (wrongfully as it turned out) that a DC jury would be an inner-city black jury, which probably would have been a credible explanation for a conviction if Libby had in fact been manifestly innocent but nevertheless equally manifestly an incarnation of The Man. They then had to scatter in confusion when the actual racial make-up of the jury was revealed, inventing on the fly new meanings for "DC jury." It was pretty funny, actually.
When did I assume that the race of the jury would matter?
When one of us has to google in order to find out what the accusation really is , this reveils that the actual charge was not so important to to that person as the finding of guilt .
When one of us cares so little about the racial makeup of the Jury that we do not even think to find it out ,this is not evdence of racism.
-
This minor point -- damn, a tangential parenthetical in a footnote -- has been beaten into Hollandaise sauce.
-
This minor point -- damn, a tangential parenthetical in a footnote -- has been beaten into Hollandaise sauce.
That is so.
What is your take on the judge blasting Libby for discussing Valerie Wilson with reporters without considering that she might have been an undercover officer?
-
He is well-oriented as to time, place, person and situation.
-
He is well-oriented as to time, place, person and situation.
How does this matter?
If I were to discuss the Gipper with someone , how would I know that I was not discussing a covert agent of the CIA , FBI , DEA or BATF ?
-
This minor point -- damn, a tangential parenthetical in a footnote -- has been beaten into Hollandaise sauce.
That is so.
What is your take on the judge blasting Libby for discussing Valerie Wilson with reporters without considering that she might have been an undercover officer?
Give it up, Plane . Even your fascist fellows like RR know you are relying on blind faith and misconstruction over reality on this bit of unimportant trivia.
-
This minor point -- damn, a tangential parenthetical in a footnote -- has been beaten into Hollandaise sauce.
That is so.
What is your take on the judge blasting Libby for discussing Valerie Wilson with reporters without considering that she might have been an undercover officer?
Give it up, Plane . Even your fascist fellows like RR know you are relying on blind faith and misconstruction over reality on this bit of unimportant trivia.
In fact , if the victim of this process , Scooter Libbey, had not known that he was discussing a covert agent , as apparently he didn't ,then he is innocent , entirely.
It is not a minor detail that the judge seems to have known that there was no intent to expose a covert agent.
-
<<In fact , if the victim of this process , Scooter Libbey, had not known that he was discussing a covert agent , as apparently he didn't ,then he is innocent , entirely.
<<It is not a minor detail that the judge seems to have known that there was no intent to expose a covert agent.>>
Well the minor detail that you seem to have overlooked was that Libby wasn't charged with exposing a covert agent. So your whole point is irrelevant.
-
<<In fact , if the victim of this process , Scooter Libbey, had not known that he was discussing a covert agent , as apparently he didn't ,then he is innocent , entirely.
<<It is not a minor detail that the judge seems to have known that there was no intent to expose a covert agent.>>
Well the minor detail that you seem to have overlooked was that Libby wasn't charged with exposing a covert agent. So your whole point is irrelevant.
He is charged with a coverup of nothing , his motive was to hide a void.
What was he supposed to have been lieing about?
If it was " irrelevant " why is the judge bringing it up?
-
<<In fact , if the victim of this process , Scooter Libbey, had not known that he was discussing a covert agent , as apparently he didn't ,then he is innocent , entirely.
<<It is not a minor detail that the judge seems to have known that there was no intent to expose a covert agent.>>
Well the minor detail that you seem to have overlooked was that Libby wasn't charged with exposing a covert agent. So your whole point is irrelevant.
He is charged with a coverup of nothing , his motive was to hide a void.
What was he supposed to have been lieing about?
If it was " irrelevant " why is the judge bringing it up?
Your pathetic spinning for a convicted felon is about as admirable as the OJ jury . Dont let fact get in the way of your manipulated emotions now.
-
<<In fact , if the victim of this process , Scooter Libbey, had not known that he was discussing a covert agent , as apparently he didn't ,then he is innocent , entirely.
<<It is not a minor detail that the judge seems to have known that there was no intent to expose a covert agent.>>
Well the minor detail that you seem to have overlooked was that Libby wasn't charged with exposing a covert agent. So your whole point is irrelevant.
He is charged with a coverup of nothing , his motive was to hide a void.
What was he supposed to have been lieing about?
If it was " irrelevant " why is the judge bringing it up?
Your pathetic spinning for a convicted felon is about as admirable as the OJ jury . Dont let fact get in the way of your manipulated emotions now.
I see you don't see any motive for him to lie either.
-
<<He is charged with a coverup of nothing >>
Nope. Not charged with covering up "nothing." Not charged with covering up something. Not charged with covering up anybody or anything. He was not charged with covering up. He was charged with LYING. To a Federal investigator. LYING. THAT'S what he was charged with.
<<his motive was to hide a void.>>
IRRELEVANT.
<<What was he supposed to have been lieing about?>>
What he heard. Where he heard it. Who he heard it from. Who he told it to. When he told it. Just plain simple factual stuff. Stuff that, when the prosecutor finished presenting the case, when his very able legal team finished defending it with every fact and argument at their disposal, when the jury heard all the evidence and argument, NOT ONE SINGLE ONE OF THEM was left with one single reasonable doubt as to his guilt.
And all the spin in the world won't change those facts, plane.
<<If it was " irrelevant " why is the judge bringing it up?>>
Context, plane, just pure and simple context. A man can't just be charged with lying. The trial needs to show what he lied about. Did he lie about changing his socks? Did he lie about how many times he showered before coming to court? Did he lie about his age? Obviously the jury can't decide if he lied or not if nobody tells them what the lie was. And the judge has to sum up the case for and against. So he's gotta mention some of the alleged facts.
-
Monday June 11, 2007 07:28 EST
Joe Klein's stirring defense of Lewis Libby
It is difficult to recall a single episode which has been more revealing of our political culture than the collective Beltway horror over the plight of the poor, maltreated and persecuted (and convicted felon) Lewis Libby. It is hardly surprising that the right-wing movement of which he is a part operates from the premise that their comrades ought to be exempt from criminal prosecution even when they commit felonies. That "principle" is a central and defining one for that movement, applied religiously to the Leader and everyone on down the right-wing food chain.
But what the Libby case demonstrates is that so many establishment journalists believe this just as religiously. To our media stars, "Beltway crime" is an oxymoron, at least when it is committed by a high-level political official. In exactly the way they treated all prior acts of lawbreaking by Bush officials as innocuous political controversies, the Beltway press speaks of Lewis Libby's felonies as being something other than a "real crime," all so plainly based on the premise that Libby -- as a dignified member in good standing of the elevated and all-important Beltway court -- ought to be exempt from the type of punishment doled out to "real criminals" who commit "real crimes."
Time's Joe Klein yesterday became but the latest in a long series of Beltway pundits expressing righteous anger over the grave injustice of One of Them being sent to something as low and common as a prison. In a post entitled "Thoughts on Sentencing," Klein actually argues -- seriously -- that it is imperative for the public interest that Paris Hilton receive jail time because "it is exemplary: It sends the message . . .that even rich twits can't avoid the law," but:
I have a different feeling about Libby. His "perjury"--not telling the truth about which reporters he talked to--would never be considered significant enough to reach trial, much less sentencing, much less time in stir if he weren't Dick Cheney's hatchet man. . . .
But jail time? Do we really want to spend our tax dollars keeping Scooter Libby behind bars? I don't think so. This "perjury" case only exists because of his celebrity--just as the ridiculous "perjury" case against Bill Clinton, which ballooned into the fantastically stupid and destructive impeachment proceedings.
There are so many fallacious and misleading assertions packed within just these few sentences that it is difficult to know where to begin.
Note, for instance, the snide use of quotation marks for "perjury" -- as though Libby's conviction constitutes that crime only in theory, in the most technical and meaningless sense (if at all). And then there is Klein's transparent attempt to minimize Libby's crimes by characterizing it as a mere matter of inaccurately recounting "which reporters [Libby] talked to" -- the standard "faulty-memory" excuse of Libby apologists which most of them (but not Klein) felt compelled to abandon once a jury unanimously found that Libby deliberately lied to the FBI and a Grand Jury on material matters.
And Klein deliberately makes no mention of the several felony counts of "obstruction of justice" and "false statements" for which Libby was convicted -- it's just "perjury." More dishonest still is Klein's underhanded attempt to insinuate that the conviction and sentencing are politically motivated (none of this would have happened "if he weren't Dick Cheney's hatchet man"), while Klein inexcusably conceals from his readers the fact that the prosecutor who prosecuted Libby and the judge who sentenced him are both Republicans and appointees of George W. Bush's administration.
But the most glaring falsehood in Klein's Libby defense is also the most easily disproven: namely, Klein's claim that "perjury" is something for which people are not convicted and imprisoned unless they are "celebrities" or "Dick Cheney's hatchet man." A very quick and basic Google search (which so many Beltway pundits like Klein, and his boss Rick Stengel, have repeatedly proven themselves too slothful to perform), or even a casual perusal of Klein's own comment section, quickly turns up the following, demonstrating just how false is Klein's assertion that Libby is the unfair victim of "celebrity" prosecution:
St. Louis Dispatch, March 21, 2006:
Still insisting that he never took a payoff or tried to hide evidence, former East St. Louis Police Chief Ronald Matthews began serving 33 months in prison Monday after a judge sentenced him for obstruction of justice and perjury.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Hal Goldsmith argued for a tougher sentence for Matthews.
White-collar criminal defense law firm Blank Rome, Press release, October 6, 2004:
A recent federal court decision reflects a disturbing trend in white collar criminal prosecutions: the tendency of judges to punish defendants who insist on proceeding to trial rather than pleading guilty, particularly those who exercise the right to testify in their own defense and are thereafter convicted. . . .
In September 2004, United States District Judge Richard Owen granted the government's motion for an upward departure and sentenced former Silicon Valley investment banker Frank Quattrone to 18 months in prison. The sentencing followed Quattrone's conviction in May 2004 for obstructing grand jury and SEC investigations into how his bank allocated shares of IPO stocks.
New York Times, September 11, 1987 (h/t Attaturk):
The United States Attorney in Manhattan, Rudolph W. Giuliani, declared yesterday that the one-year prison sentence that a Queens judge received for perjury was "somewhat shocking."
"A sentence of one year seemed to me to be very lenient," Mr. Giuliani said, when asked to comment on the sentence imposed Wednesday on Justice Francis X. Smith, the former Queens administrative judge. . . .
Justice Smith was convicted of committing perjury before a grand jury investigating corruption in the city, Mr. Giuliani said later, adding that "he could have helped root out corruption" by cooperating with the grand jury.
U.S. Department of Justice Press Release, November 2006 (.pdf):
Prison sentence for perjury in a bankruptcy case
A federal judge today sentenced Douglas W. Cox, 44, to ten months in prison. In April, Cox admitted that, during a bankruptcy deposition, he testified falsely about the ownership of five vending machines. . . .
At a plea hearing in April, Assistant U.S. Attorney James H. Leavey said that the government could prove that, during a deposition taken in March 2004, Cox falsely stated that he did not own the vending machines at issue. Cox, who had a business in East Providence and filed for bankruptcy in 2003, had actually purchased the machines in January 2003 and still owned them at the time the deposition was taken.
Business Wire, September 30, 1998:
A Boston police officer was sentenced late yesterday to 2 years and 10 months in prison after being convicted in federal court for perjury and obstruction of justice during a grand jury investigation of the unlawful beating of a fellow plain clothes police officer. . . .
After a six-day jury trial in June, CONLEY was convicted of one count of perjury before a federal grand jury and one count of obstruction of justice. The jury acquitted CONLEY on one count of perjury.
Harvard Law School On-line Library:
In 1948, Whittaker Chambers appeared before the House Un-American Activities Committee and alleged that both he and [Alger] Hiss had been members of the Communist party during the 1930s and that they had both served as spies for the Soviet Union. Though Hiss denied the charges, he became a part of a complicated series of legal battles and was eventually convicted on two counts of perjury. Hiss served a sentence of 44 months, from March 1951 to November 1954, in Lewisburg Federal Penitentiary in Pennsylvania.
Blender.com, June 6, 2005:
Rapper Lil' Kim was sentenced today to a year in prison for perjury. The Grammy-winning artist was convicted in March for repeatedly lying to a federal grand jury in an attempt to protect members of her entourage involved in a shooting outside New York radio station Hot 97 in 2001. Lil' Kim (real name: Kimberly Jones) claimed she didn't see two friends at the scene of the shooting, but security footage and witness accounts repudiated her claim.
Before sentencing, the 29-year-old hip-hop diva addressed the judge, saying that "at the time I thought it was the right thing to do but I now know it was wrong." She was also fined $50,000.
And this Time Magazine article from January 13, 1975, details that the majority of Watergate criminals served jail time for perjury and obstruction of justice. When prosecutors conclude that someone is deliberately attempting to conceal the truth in an investigation of public importance, it is common -- and has been for quite some time -- for them to pursue perjury and obstruction of justice charges for reasons that are self-evident. But Klein here is interested only in defending Lewis Libby and the license of Beltway power, and is willing to make any assertions, no matter how fact-free, in service of that ignoble mission.
The reason Bush officials have believed they can simply break the law with complete impunity is because the Beltway culture in which they operate believes that. Most importantly, our media stars absolutely believe that, that lawbreaking by the most powerful political officials who rule their world is not real lawbreaking, even when they are convicted in a court of law -- after ample due process and with the best legal defense team which Marty Peretz and Fred Thompson could help pay for -- of committing multiple felonies.
There are many reasons why the political press fails to investigate and uncover real wrongdoing on the part of the government, but a leading reason is that they do not see lawbreaking as genuinely wrong or the lawbreakers as corrupt. These are their friends and colleagues -- their socioeconomic peers and, with increasing and disturbing frequency, their spouses and family memebers -- and while Important Bush Officials might be "guilty" of engaging in harmless and perfectly accepted political "hardball," they are never genuinely bad people engaged in genuinely bad acts. And they certainly do not belong in criminal courtrooms or prison.
It is so painfully revealing, though equally unsurprising, to read one of our most prestigious pundits, the Leading Liberal in Time Magazine, argue that Paris Hilton should be imprisoned as an example of the stern rule of law that prevails in our country but convicted felon Lewis Libby -- who deliberately lied under oath to the Grand Jury and as part of an FBI investigation -- should be set free. Or that George Bush's spying on Americans in violation of the criminal law is a matter of mere political controversy which Democrats ought steadfastly to avoid. There is no class of people more defensive of the prerogatives of political power than our "journalist" class, even though, in a healthy and functioning democracy, the exact opposite would be true.
-- Glenn Greenwald
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/index.html
-
Well, that's 1 opinion
-
<<Well, that's 1 opinion>>
Yes, it is. And compared with Joe Klein's opinion, which preceded it, it was one immeasurably superior opinion. Superior in every way, in fact as well as logic. In fact, it so thoroughly demolished the idiotic Joe Klein opinion, that nobody here, yourself included, can provide any rational response to it at all.
-
<<Well, that's 1 opinion>>
Yes, it is. And compared with Joe Klein's opinion, which preceded it, it was one immeasurably superior opinion. Superior in every way, in fact as well as logic. In fact, it so thoroughly demolished the idiotic Joe Klein opinion, that nobody here, yourself included, can provide any rational response to it at all.
Well, that'd be another opinion
-
<<Well, that'd be another opinion>>
Yes, it would be. An opinion validated by your total inability to respond to the argument. As predicted.
-
<<He is charged with a coverup of nothing >>
Nope. Not charged with covering up "nothing." Not charged with covering up something. Not charged with covering up anybody or anything. He was not charged with covering up. He was charged with LYING. To a Federal investigator. LYING. THAT'S what he was charged with.
<<his motive was to hide a void.>>
IRRELEVANT.
<<What was he supposed to have been lieing about?>>
What he heard. Where he heard it. Who he heard it from. Who he told it to. When he told it. Just plain simple factual stuff. Stuff that, when the prosecutor finished presenting the case, when his very able legal team finished defending it with every fact and argument at their disposal, when the jury heard all the evidence and argument, NOT ONE SINGLE ONE OF THEM was left with one single reasonable doubt as to his guilt.
And all the spin in the world won't change those facts, plane.
<<If it was " irrelevant " why is the judge bringing it up?>>
Context, plane, just pure and simple context. A man can't just be charged with lying. The trial needs to show what he lied about. Did he lie about changing his socks? Did he lie about how many times he showered before coming to court? Did he lie about his age? Obviously the jury can't decide if he lied or not if nobody tells them what the lie was. And the judge has to sum up the case for and against. So he's gotta mention some of the alleged facts.
Did you note that you contradict yourself in this?
A man can't just be charged with lying.
Nope. Not charged with covering up "nothing." Not charged with covering up something. Not charged with covering up anybody or anything. He was not charged with covering up. He was charged with LYING. To a Federal investigator. LYING. THAT'S what he was charged with.
-
Did you note that you contradict yourself in this?
Quote
A man can't just be charged with lying.
Quote
Nope. Not charged with covering up "nothing." Not charged with covering up something. Not charged with covering up anybody or anything. He was not charged with covering up. He was charged with LYING. To a Federal investigator. LYING. THAT'S what he was charged with.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SORRY, plane, I short-handed to your apparent disadvantage. Let me re-do the bottom quote. "He was charged with lying to a Federal investigator by saying on [date] to [name] who was then a Federal investigator that [lie] which was knowingly false." THAT'S what he was charged with. A specific lie to a specific Federal investigator at a specific time.
My point was that there is no such criminal offence as "covering up" but there is a criminal offence of perjury. And that the offence is committed when the lie is told. Doesn't matter what the lie was about. Doesn't matter whether a cover-up was intended or not. Doesn't matter what the intention was. THOU SHALT NOT LIE TO A FEDERAL INVESTIGATOR. Libby lied. To a Federal investigator. That's a crime. Get it?
If you were to look up the offence in the statute books, you would find a bare definition of the offence. Something like, "It's an offence to lie to an investigator." The statute would not attempt to enumerate all the offences which a person could commit under that heading. It would not, for example, say: "It is an offence to lie to an investigator about changing your socks. It is an offence to lie to an investigator about how many times you have showered. It is an offence to lie to an investigator about what you had for breakfast." It just defines the offence in general terms.
However, when the perp is charged, he doesn't have to answer to a charge that "You lied to a Federal investigator." The poor bugger could just stand there, jack-hammered. I did? To what investigator? When? What'd I say? How the hell could he possibly prepare a defence to a charge so vague? So what he's charged with has to (1) be an offence as defined in the statute but also (2) provide enough particulars so as to give him a reasonable idea of what he's actually alleged to have done, so he can prepare his defence. THAT'S what I meant when I said the guy isn't just charged with lying. Although the statutory definition of the offence is very bare-bones and basic, the actual charge against each individual perp has to be fleshed out with a bit more detail. But the point I was trying to make is that the charge was LYING to a Federal investigator and not "covering up," an offence which does not exist.
-
<<Well, that'd be another opinion>>
Yes, it would be. An opinion validated by your total inability to respond to the argument. As predicted.
And we thank you again for yet another wrong headed opinion. As ususal, no predictions necessary.
-
<<And we thank you again for yet another wrong headed opinion. As ususal, no predictions necessary.>>
Oh, not at all, my dear sir. And I in turn thank you once again for validating my "wrong-headed opinion" by your total inability to challenge in any meaningful way that brilliant attack posted by Lanya on Joe Klein's muddled and ill-informed garbage.
-
When you can actually provide some meaningful postings, I might actually take the time, like I do with Js & domer, vs dealing with the current garbage you appear to refer to as some "brilliant attack"
-
Did you note that you contradict yourself in this?
Quote
A man can't just be charged with lying.
Quote
Nope. Not charged with covering up "nothing." Not charged with covering up something. Not charged with covering up anybody or anything. He was not charged with covering up. He was charged with LYING. To a Federal investigator. LYING. THAT'S what he was charged with.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SORRY, plane, I short-handed to your apparent disadvantage. Let me re-do the bottom quote. "He was charged with lying to a Federal investigator by saying on [date] to [name] who was then a Federal investigator that [lie] which was knowingly false." THAT'S what he was charged with. A specific lie to a specific Federal investigator at a specific time.
...
Ok but there still appears to be no particular lie , no motive to lie , and nothing to be lie about , unless one buys the theroy that there was a coverup.
This would be a cover up of a thing that actually didn't happen?
I didn't like this when it happened to Martha Stewart , but at least I could understand the root of the problem was an actuall case of insider tradeing.
In this case the jurrors who have made statements seem to presume the guilt of people who were not on trial and accepted Scooter Libbey as a substitute.
-
<<Ok but there still appears to be no particular lie >>
Of course there was, or he couldn't have been convicted of the offence. He's charged with one or more particular offences: "On [date] you lied to [agent name] a Federal agent by saying that [lie, lie, lie] knowing same to be untrue." To each such charge, he pleads not guilty. Trial commences, evidence goes in, arguments are made, jury listens then deliberates. They come to a decision. They're called back into the courtroom Judge asks 'em, "Hey, whaddaya say about the first count?" "Guilty your Honour." I mean, plane, each count of the indictment lays out a specific offence, a specific lie. THAT'S what the guy is convicted of.
<<, no motive to lie >>
It isn't necessary to find motive, it's only necessary to prove he lied. Since the act is illegal, a presumed motive of evil intent will be supplied. In any case, there WAS a motive to lie - - an investigation was proceeding which potentially could implicate him and/or others in illegal actions, and he wanted to fuck up that investigation by not telling what he knew. So he lied.
You're forgetting something else. Very important. HE WAS NOT ONLY CONVICTED OF PERJURY, BUT OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AS WELL. Obstruction of justice means he was trying to mislead an official investigation. Trying to fuck up the investigators. Somebody blew Plame's cover. WHO blew Plame's cover? The prime suspects were members of the Bush administration. By amazing coincidence, so was Libby. A LOYAL member of the Bush administration. Are you saying that he had no motive to derail an investigation that could at that time potentially send Bush administration guys to the slammer? THAT wouldn't have been very loyal of the old Scootmeister, would it? Not to give a shit whether or not Bush, Cheney, Condi & Co. all wound up in jail or not? I think he DID give a shit. And it's very plausible that he did. So THERE is your motive, Mr. plane, to protect his fellow members of the Bush administration from a criminal prosecution.
<<and nothing to be lie about >>
Oh, LOTS to lie about, my friend. Who knew where that investigation was going to lead, what would turn up under those rocks? NOBODY likes Federal investigations, the closer they get to the target, the more you can smell the fear. The last thing in the world that Libby wanted to do was to say anything to the investigators that would lead them to the idea that Cheney or Bush had leaked. Or anyone else he cared about. Whether he KNEW they leaked, whether he thought they MIGHT have leaked, whether he thought the investigators could falsely come to believe they leaked - - he had lots and lots and lots of stuff to lie about. He knew which conclusions he DIDN'T want the investigators to develop.
<<, unless one buys the theroy that there was a coverup.>>
You really mean, unless one buys the theory that there was a leak. Because if there was a leak, there was a coverup. And the whole investigation was predicated on the theory that there was a leak. Since there was a leak and no one acknowledged being the leaker, I would say that the prevailing theory at the time was: leak AND coverup.
<<This would be a cover up of a thing that actually didn't happen? >>
Wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference. If I believe that one of my friends committed a crime I can try to cover for him. It's a coverup whether he committed the crime or not. More importantly it would be a LIE TO A FEDERAL INVESTIGATOR whether or not what's being investigated actually happened or not. The state has an interest in seeing that its investigators are not lied to. Under any circumstances. Last thing in the world it wants to create is the idea that it's OK to lie to a Federal investigator so long as he's investigating a crime that never happened. It's almost like shooting at a cop and missing - - are you going to argue that no harm was done to anybody so it was OK to shoot at the cop? Get it through your head, plane: IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO LIE TO A FEDERAL INVESTIGATOR. IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. DON'T LIE TO THEM. Scooter lied to them. It was illegal. He was convicted. Get it?
-
<<When you can actually provide some meaningful postings, I might actually take the time, like I do with Js & domer, vs dealing with the current garbage you appear to refer to as some "brilliant attack" >>
Just so you know, sirs: your pathetic little cop-out fools nobody. That piece was way too much for you to attempt, it answered every one of Klein's points and with facts that directly contradicted him multiple times. You just don't have the knowledge or the facts at your disposal to refute it. You're actually better off NOT answering it because you'll just embarrass yourself. But please do try.