Why in the Scooter Libby case how do you get indicted for obstuction of justice when no law was actually broken in the initial complaint.
A good analogy here, It's like being indicted for muder, then the muder victim shows up alive and well, but you still get indicted because they believe you lied about your whereabouts, to me this a classic example of political percecution or am I missing the point.
2007-03-13 08:06:16 · 12 answers · asked by Granville G 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I'm not a Democrat, but I'll explain it to you.
Obstruction of justice is defined as impeding the process of determining whether a crime has been committed, and/or impeding the process of prosecuting a defendant.
So, by the definition of obstruction, it doesn't matter if no law was actually broken. By hindering the investigation, that meets the statutory standards and elements for the crime.
See 18 USC 1503. In relevant part: "Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force ... influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors [attempts] to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice ... shall be guilty" -- nothing in there requires an underlying crime to have been committed.
If you actually look at the law he was charged with breaking, you'll see that your murder analogy is completely flawed.
If you think those statutory standards should be changed, and that a person should not be punished until it has first been proven that some underlying crime was committed, that's fine. You're entitled to your opinion. But that's not how the law is currently defined.
2007-03-13 08:11:03 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 8⤊ 0⤋
Your answer is in the elements of the crime. If you look at the jury information for selection of a verdict, there are elements that the jury MUST find to render a verdict of 'guilty'.
So the short of it is, he was tried in the court of land and a jury of his peers found him guilty of lying to federal prosecutors and by doing so obstructing justice. Surely you are not going to tell me, that Libby didn't put up an adequate defense. Or that his defense team didn't understand the legal issues a the trial.
Short story: Investigators questioned Libby, he lied during the investigation thereby attempting to thwart justice, he was arrested, charged, entered a plea, tried, and convicted. Now awaits sentencing. Simple really, I fail to see where you claim there is no logic to the conviction.
As to if it was politically motivated, yes, i believe that Libby's actions were politically motivated, and his actions warranted criminal prosecution.
You know i find it absolutely amazing that some people will clamor that 'criminals' have to many rights and that they should be stripped of their rights. That is until they or a hero of theirs has run afoul of the law and are deep in the quagmire that they helped to create. Now they scream and holler for those civil rights that they wanted to strip from the criminal realizing to late that to strip them from the 'criminal' that you have to strip those precious rights from EVERYBODY including themselves. Now the want the help of the ACLU and those 'rabid Democrats'.
Oh by the way, i am a registered republican, i am not a NEOCON!! I firmly believe in the US Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.
2007-03-13 09:09:36 · answer #2 · answered by mhp_wizo_93_418 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Once again another republican that thinks the laws of america dont apply to them. I got a wake up call for you. The truth is the truth, and you can not use your deception forever.
You compare perjury to murder? Why dont you and your friends move to dubai with the rest of the no good for america devil worshippers. You always decieve people from the truth, no matter if it was proven in a court of law that you have committed a crime. Thansk once again for making our country a disgrace , and not even catch the most wanted terrorist in the world. Do you blame that on the liberals also... Go watch more fox news.
2007-03-13 09:05:26 · answer #3 · answered by PUBLIC CORRUPTION 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Easy.
Using your analogy; if you were indicted by a grand jury for a murder, and you deliberately lied to questions being asked of you, it's STILL lying to a grand jury---even IF the murder victim shows up alive and well.
Lying under oath to a grand jury is a crime.
Remember Clinton's impeachment? The activity that Clinton lied about was not illegal. But lying about it was.
The rabid Republicans certainly must remember that.
So yeah; I would say you are missing the point.
2007-03-13 08:14:01 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Yes, you have totally missed the point
If Scooter Libby wants to play Ollie North then he has to do the time
It's all about the lies Bush and Cheney told America regarding the Iraq war
2007-03-13 08:15:17 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, I'm not a rabid democrat, but I believe you answered your own question. Obstruction of Justice is a charge against anyone who is deemed uncooperative in an investigation, regardless of guilt in the crime thats being investigated. Its the same as being held in contempt of court. In the United States at least, it is a criminal charge to block, undermine, or otherwise hinder an investigation, either of yourself or someone else (with the exception of course your fifth ammendment rights not to self incriminate)
Classic example of this is in the Enron case when they started shredding documents... thats textbook obstruction of justice.
2007-03-13 08:18:05 · answer #6 · answered by Jeff S 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The details of the Scooter Libby case, to the extent I have seen, have been very similar to that of Bill Clinton's infamous imbroglio over Monica Lewinsky.
Given that Libby really didn't break any other laws, then I'd dare say both cases are just political revenge.
2007-03-13 08:12:01 · answer #7 · answered by BDOLE 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
And also, why is the crime of perjury and obstruction of justice now a crime? It wasn't when Bill Clinton was in office.
Yes, those were different cases. In Clinton's case, there was an underlying court case, but in Libby's, there wasn't.
Why the double standard?
2007-03-13 08:12:51 · answer #8 · answered by open4one 7 · 0⤊ 5⤋
its called being the fall guy. even the jury who tried the case asked why they werent trying the person who had actually committed a crime.
2007-03-13 08:13:58 · answer #9 · answered by bluestareyed 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes. You missed the it. Might not be over yet. Bush will not let him do time.
2007-03-13 08:12:40 · answer #10 · answered by wmf936 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋