The closing contention of that year old thread ...
The contest is NOT between the memory of Libby and the memory of reporters.
... asserts the same basic difference as today's arguments. One argument over framing the charges, and another over the question of materiality. On materiality, this days-old match with Feldman echos my year-old (never settled) argument with "the Real fifi."
We've had a rather complex dialog, and your "I find untenable that you take another position" is ambiguous. My positions, stated on this thread, amount to the following:
Even if the investigation is bogus, those who testify are (I think reasonably) expected to do so truthfully.
The legal principle being defended is "truthful testimony, regardless of the stupidity and/or motive of the investigator."
The indictment asks this. At the time in interest, was Libby "informed only as well as every other guy in the rumor mill," or was he "well aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA?"
... the indictment isn't a "leak" indictment.
There is no indictment, and never will be one that charges "outing" of Plame.
The official stance from President Bush, the DoJ and the prosecutor is that the case, the leak, is serious.
I give the case for conviction better than even odds -if- the case goes to trial. I don't see the charge being dropped, but a plea bargain is possible.
I think it was a bogus investigation.
And you find those positions to be untenable?
Simply and breifly--(a) To constitute perjury, the question wmust be material, deliberately false and before a competent tribunal. I have probelms with 2 out of 3 of these.
(b)To find obstruction, you must show that the defendant delibereatley impeded a material line of inquiry. On this I find the indictment lacking two out of two,
(c) If I am wrong, and the lines of inquiry are material and proper, I find it at least as likely that the reporters recollections are wrong as that Libby was deliberately lying and therefore I think the requisite standard--proof beyond a reasonable doubt cannot be established.
I assume then that you assert that Libby's statements are not material, and are not deliberately false.
Going for the "meaning of 'is'" defense? The indictment is clear on these points, and earlier posts discuss the political and personal motives for avoidance of being a known, legal leaker.
the Real fifi: -- (b)To find obstruction, you must show that the defendant deliberately impeded a material line of inquiry. On this I find the indictment lacking two out of two --
Not material, I assume on account of Plame not being covert. Good luck with that. Likewise good luck that Libby "accidentally" or "forgetfully" omitted noting his inquiry to the CIA. C'mon - if you know something FOR A FACT, do you forget that?
the Real fifi: -- (c) If I am wrong, and the lines of inquiry are material and proper, I find it at least as likely that the reporters recollections are wrong as that Libby was deliberately lying ... --
Demonstrating that you don't comprehend the point of my previous post. The contest is NOT between the memory of Libby and the memory of reporters.
One thing I take to the bank, regardless of the verdict, is that the "winning" side will express its victory in terms of the leak itself. If Libby is found guilty, the left will proclaim Plame was covert and there was a conspiracy. If Libby is found not guilty, the right will proclaim that the White House and OVP never told a reporter that "Wilson's wife works at the CIA and suggested sending Joe" was in fact true.
The point of seeing certain mischaracterization of the outcome is that the ultimate conclusion has power - enough power that it might cause a leaker to "shade his statements to investigators."
March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 March 2009 April 2009