He was charged and, from what I read, it was basically proven that he did lie under oath...
last time I checked... that's against the law...
how did he "not" do this? I've heard many say "it was just a vendetta" and "he's not guilty"... yet no one explains it?
2007-06-05 14:07:23 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
libby didn't reveal the idea... but he lied about what he knew, when he knew it...
he told investigators that he didn't know... when they had evidence he did know...
it wasn't about who he told or when... only that he lied to investigators
2007-06-05 14:14:18 · update #1
same thing clinton did but no jail for that piece of crap
2007-06-05 14:10:49 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 6⤋
NO ONE was charged with leaking Valerie Plumes name. I won't get into if that would actually be a crime, because Libby was never accused of leaking it anyway. What Libby WAS convicted of was making statements to the Grand Jury that were inconsistent with statements others made to the Grand Jury. There are 2 ways that could happen that do not involve Libby lying. 1. The statements made by others were not correct. 2. Libby's memory was not correct. It is not a lie if you believe what you are saying. It is on the record that the prosecutor KNEW that Armitage had 'leaked' the name well before Libby was ever called to testify. The ONLY thing he was supposed to investigate was who 'leaked' the name. Once he knew that, he had no legitimate reason to question ANYONE. Libby could not have lied, even if he wanted to, had the investigation ended when Armitage was found to be the 'leaker'.
2007-06-05 14:31:07 · answer #2 · answered by STEVEN F 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The reason why some say he didn't break the law is because this is one of those laws that means Opinion is how to get convicted.
Kind of like hate crimes. You have to be convicted of how your actions show how your state of mind is.
He changed his story. The argument that he was attacked due to a "vendetta" does carry weight since it was an opinion that his forget-fullness was actually him being dishonest.
The guy was barraged and hammered until he was fumbling through an event in which he was supposed to remember every detail exactly after telling the story multiple times.
The point is, in reality, he either lied or he really forgot. Since his testimony had no change on what they were really after, and since it was not important about how he remembered the issue, it sure does seem silly he got busted for lying.
And there was definitely selective prosecution going on. Libby should have been in the middle of line of people who actually did commit the real crime of leaking information to the press.
In my opinion, without a political agenda, he would never have been convicted.
He's no angel---but who is?
2007-06-05 14:27:07 · answer #3 · answered by Mark M 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
President Bush didnt harm any regulation, he definitely has the means wherein he achieved, by no longer permitting Libby to spend any time in reformatory. That replaced into the sole element President Bush did, he did say that Mr Libby replaced into nevertheless to blame to pay $250k, spend 2 years on probation and nevertheless have the legal conviction on his record. Even thouhg Libby aint spending every time in reformatory, he's definitely going to be out of a job era by this on account that his legal degree is approximately to get yanked as properly....
2016-12-12 12:39:25 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Those same people all love to point out that Clinton lied under oath and should have been kicked out of office for it. But Libby lying under oath isn't a problem for it.
Is that a flip or a flop?
2007-06-05 14:12:28 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
You won't geta straight answer.
Sure Clinton lied. But about a personal matter that had zero impact on the national security apparatus.
That's why we have judges. To discern if the lying is about hanky-panky, or something more serious to national security like what Libby did.
2007-06-05 19:16:42 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sure, I can explain it. What it is is that some people say that Libby didn't break the law. It's as simple as that - not that I agree with them, you understand.
Kind of a silly question, no?
2007-06-06 14:50:20 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Clinton lied under oath. Nixon Lied, etc etc etc.
but unfortunately, when it comes to politics its more about mud slinging than following the law.
and personally i don't care about Libby.
2007-06-05 14:10:54 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
It is a crime to reveal the name of an operative while they are in the field. She was not in the field. That is the law they were speaking of. Either way, it was a vendetta, his sentence was far too harsh compared to others that have committed perjury. (Clinton, for 1)
2007-06-05 14:12:46 · answer #9 · answered by justin b 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
no one can say that. he was charged with overwhelming evidence and testimony that he lied under oath and to the FBI and the CIA and obstructed justice to a federal investigation. convicted of all of this without a doubt.
2007-06-05 14:12:17 · answer #10 · answered by Diggy 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
He didn't; Armitage did. And your very own liberal newspaper, the Washington Post even says it. That link may explain it. I mean, I know you wouldn't believe something from Fox, but you might actually believe this.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/
2007-06-05 14:12:34 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋