Author Topic: "Truth Matters"  (Read 16532 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Truth Matters"
« Reply #75 on: June 12, 2007, 01:14:51 PM »
<<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.

Lanya

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3300
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Truth Matters"
« Reply #76 on: June 12, 2007, 01:19:20 PM »
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
Planned Parenthood is America’s most trusted provider of reproductive health care.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Truth Matters"
« Reply #77 on: June 12, 2007, 01:21:22 PM »
Well, that's 1 opinion
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Truth Matters"
« Reply #78 on: June 12, 2007, 01:37:18 PM »
<<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. 

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Truth Matters"
« Reply #79 on: June 12, 2007, 01:42:21 PM »
<<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
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Truth Matters"
« Reply #80 on: June 12, 2007, 01:48:28 PM »
<<Well, that'd be another opinion>>

Yes, it would be.   An opinion validated by your total inability to respond to the argument.  As predicted.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Truth Matters"
« Reply #81 on: June 12, 2007, 02:04:13 PM »
<<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?


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.
 

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Truth Matters"
« Reply #82 on: June 12, 2007, 02:27:12 PM »
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.
 
« Last Edit: June 12, 2007, 02:31:19 PM by Michael Tee »

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Truth Matters"
« Reply #83 on: June 12, 2007, 02:38:13 PM »
<<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.
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Truth Matters"
« Reply #84 on: June 12, 2007, 02:45:31 PM »
<<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.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Truth Matters"
« Reply #85 on: June 12, 2007, 07:25:56 PM »
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"
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Truth Matters"
« Reply #86 on: June 12, 2007, 08:11:40 PM »
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.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Truth Matters"
« Reply #87 on: June 13, 2007, 01:25:49 PM »
<<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?

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Truth Matters"
« Reply #88 on: June 13, 2007, 01:34:16 PM »
<<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.