• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Libby trial winds down - you're on the jury. Vote

Guilty or Not Guilty


  • Total voters
    16
  • Poll closed .

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,423
Reaction score
619
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Vice President Dick Cheney will not testify in the perjury trial of his former aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Libby's lawyer said on Tuesday."

Nor will Libby take the stand. That's a sign they are confident of an acquittal.

My bet from the lack of evidence is that his lawyers are correct. What do you think?

If you think he is guilty what was the evidence that convinced you he willfully and knowing lied for the purpose of obstructing justice. And be specific.

Aps in particular. Guilty or not guilty and why.
 
Was Clinton guilty of perjury for the purpose of obstruction of justice?
 
Stinger said:
My bet from the lack of evidence is that his lawyers are correct. What do you think?

Unless you're sitting in the courtroom, you don't know what evidence was presented to the jury. So how can you possibly claim to have an informed opinion about this case?


Stinger said:
Nor will Libby take the stand. That's a sign they are confident of an acquittal.

Where in the world did you pull this bizarre interpretation of the facts from? Usually when a defendant doesn't take the stand, it's because he would be perjuring himself if he did. But jurors aren't supposed to read anything into this decision, and rightly so.
 
while he may have misled people in the investigation
there was no underlying crime
this was nothing more than payback for Clintons impeachment
next up at bat could be Bush if some on the left have their way
 
while he may have misled people in the investigation
there was no underlying crime
this was nothing more than payback for Clintons impeachment
next up at bat could be Bush if some on the left have their way

I agree entirely. Clinton's impeachment was stupid, and this trial is even more stupid than Clinton's.

Prosecutor: Did you fart at 10 AM This Morning?
You: No! (you really did)
Prosecutor: I have evidence that you did, Your lying! Perjury!!!!! Throw this man in jail!!!!!
 
I agree entirely. Clinton's impeachment was stupid, and this trial is even more stupid than Clinton's.

Prosecutor: Did you fart at 10 AM This Morning?
You: No! (you really did)
Prosecutor: I have evidence that you did, Your lying! Perjury!!!!! Throw this man in jail!!!!!
Indeed this trial is stupid. However it's not more so than the clinton blowjob case. Why? Because this trial did not start with "did you have an affair with this woman" exhibit A blue dress with stain.
This trial started with the leak of an undercover CIA agent.
One being a family domestic issue, the other related to national security - not quite the same.
 
Was Clinton guilty of perjury for the purpose of obstruction of justice?

According to Judge Wright he was guilty of willfully lying for the purpose of obstruction of justice, which is criminal perjury. He knowingly and willfully entered into court a false affidavit and lied when he said he never had sexual relations with Lewinsky.

So why do you ask? This has all been explained to you in detail before. Are you trying to shift the subject?
 
Unless you're sitting in the courtroom, you don't know what evidence was presented to the jury.

Really? There was secret evidence that the reporters in the courtroom didn't hear?

So how can you possibly claim to have an informed opinion about this case?
I read the paper everyday where they give the highlights and listen to the reporters who were there discuss in great detail the days testimony.

So you think there is some diffinitive piece of testimony that was given that slam dunks his guilt or innocence and not one of the many reporters hanging on to every word didn't report it?

Originally Posted by Stinger
Nor will Libby take the stand. That's a sign they are confident of an acquittal.


Where in the world did you pull this bizarre interpretation of the facts from? Usually when a defendant doesn't take the stand,
it's because he would be perjuring himself if he did.

Libby and Cheney Won’t Testify, Lawyers Say

By NEIL A. LEWIS and SCOTT SHANE
WASHINGTON, Feb. 13 — Lawyers defending I. Lewis Libby Jr. against perjury charges surprised the courtroom today by saying that they would rest their case this week and do so without putting on the stand either Mr. Libby or Vice President Dick Cheney.
Mr. Libby was Mr. Cheney’s chief of staff.
The decision means that Mr. Libby’s defense, which will formally end on Wednesday, will have spanned barely three days. Mr. Libby’s chief defense lawyer, Theodore V. Wells Jr., told Judge Reggie B. Walton that Mr. Libby had accepted the defense team’s recommendation to end their presentation swiftly and send the case to the jury by next week.
The decision could be viewed as a sign that Mr. Libby’s lawyers are confident the prosecution has failed to make its case.


And you aren't charged with perjury for your testimony on the stand in your own defense. Doesn't happen. If I say I didn't kill someone and I'm found guilty, I don't get charged with perjury.


But jurors aren't supposed to read anything into this decision, and rightly so.
The "they" I was talking about is the defense team. They are confident they will when and did not have to call Cheney nor put Libby on the stand to defend himself.
 
Last edited:
Indeed this trial is stupid. However it's not more so than the clinton blowjob case. Why? Because this trial did not start with "did you have an affair with this woman" exhibit A blue dress with stain.
This trial started with the leak of an undercover CIA agent.
One being a family domestic issue, the other related to national security - not quite the same.

Clinton's started with his sexual assault of a subordinate employee. Taking bosses to court for that is "stupid"?

And the Plame case had nothing to do with national security, why do you make that claim? Well I take that back it did have something to do with national security. Joe Wilson lied to the public about his trip to Niger and what he discovered in an attempt to undermine our national security. The White House properly debunked his claims.
 
Really? There was secret evidence that the reporters in the courtroom didn't hear?

I read the paper everyday where they give the highlights and listen to the reporters who were there discuss in great detail the days testimony.

So you think there is some diffinitive piece of testimony that was given that slam dunks his guilt or innocence and not one of the many reporters hanging on to every word didn't report it?

It's my understanding that reporters don't have total access to everything happening in the courtroom. Am I wrong?

Stinger said:
The decision could be viewed as a sign that Mr. Libby’s lawyers are confident the prosecution has failed to make its case.

It could be. It could also be viewed as a sign that they are confident of a presidential pardon, or it could be viewed as a sign that Cheney made some kind of deal with Libby so that Cheney wouldn't have to testify, or it could be viewed as a sign that the defense thought that Libby/Cheney's testimony would HURT Libby's case.

Stinger said:
And you aren't charged with perjury for your testimony on the stand in your own defense. Doesn't happen. If I say I didn't kill someone and I'm found guilty, I don't get charged with perjury.

You CAN be charged with perjury, and you're walking on a legal minefield...especially if you're found not guilty of the original crime. That's why guilty defendants usually DON'T take the stand, and it's why we have a Fifth Amendment.

Stinger said:
The "they" I was talking about is the defense team. They are confident they will when and did not have to call Cheney nor put Libby on the stand to defend himself.

I don't presume to judge the man's guilt or innocence, but the online markets like InTrade.com are offering 2-1 odds that he WILL be found guilty of at least one of the charges against him.
 
According to Judge Wright he was guilty of willfully lying for the purpose of obstruction of justice, which is criminal perjury. He knowingly and willfully entered into court a false affidavit and lied when he said he never had sexual relations with Lewinsky.

So why do you ask? This has all been explained to you in detail before. Are you trying to shift the subject?
SO how is that any different from Scooter's trial then? Same thing "knowingly willfully entering into court a lie". The funny thing is how you make this seem like nothing serious, where as making Clinton's blowjob trial into serious business.
 
Clinton's started with his sexual assault of a subordinate employee. Taking bosses to court for that is "stupid"?
There you go again, spinning. What assault? Clinton assaulted Lewinsky? Oh yes, because it takes so much to force someone to take your dick into their mouth willingly. Please, get over it.

And the Plame case had nothing to do with national security, why do you make that claim? Well I take that back it did have something to do with national security. Joe Wilson lied to the public about his trip to Niger and what he discovered in an attempt to undermine our national security. The White House properly debunked his claims.
Of course not, leaking the identity of an undercover agent is not against the law by any means.:roll: Good job with derailing your own thread.
 
It's my understanding that reporters don't have total access to everything happening in the courtroom. Am I wrong?

As far as presentation of the evidence and what the jury hears................yes.


It could be. It could also be viewed as a sign that they are confident of a presidential pardon,

I think that if his lawyers told him that is what they were banking on he would fire them.

or it could be viewed as a sign that Cheney made some kind of deal with Libby so that Cheney wouldn't have to testify,

What does Cheney have to hide?

or it could be viewed as a sign that the defense thought that Libby/Cheney's testimony would HURT Libby's case.

How? They did nothing wrong.

Originally Posted by Stinger
And you aren't charged with perjury for your testimony on the stand in your own defense. Doesn't happen. If I say I didn't kill someone and I'm found guilty, I don't get charged with perjury.


You CAN be charged with perjury, and you're walking on a legal minefield...especially if you're found not guilty of the original crime. That's why guilty defendants usually DON'T take the stand, and it's why we have a Fifth Amendment.

You are on such a stretch here, no people who say they are not guilty, go to trial and are then found guilty are NOT charged with perjury.

I don't presume to judge the man's guilt or innocence,

Then why are you here?

but the online markets like InTrade.com are offering 2-1 odds that he WILL be found guilty of at least one of the charges against him.

OH that's convincing. About like when David Schuster said that Rove would be indicted because he was Mr. A in Fitzgerald's indictment of Libby. What is the evidence they say supports a guilty vedict, what was the lie the Libby willfully and knowingly told to obstruct justice.
 
SO how is that any different from Scooter's trial then? Same thing "knowingly willfully entering into court a lie".

It's not. THAT is what the defense has to prove. That he, like Clinton, willfully and knowingly lied for the purpose of obstructing justice. The evidence against Clinton was beyond dispute, he was held in contempt of court for it.

So what is the evidence Libby willfully and knowingly lied for the purpose of obstructing justice?

The funny thing is how you make this seem like nothing serious, where as making Clinton's blowjob trial into serious business

Do you believe sexual assualt and sexual harassment of subordinate employees is "serious business"? And what is the seriousness of this you keep harping on where was there an obstruction of justice and what was they underlying crime?
 
There you go again, spinning. What assault? Clinton assaulted Lewinsky? Oh yes, because it takes so much to force someone to take your dick into their mouth willingly. Please, get over it.

You are obviously too ignorant of the matter to have a conversation about it.

Of course not, leaking the identity of an undercover agent is not against the law by any means.:roll: Good job with derailing your own thread.

She wasn't under cover and no one was charged with the crime so why do you bring it up. And YOU brought up Clinton in order to try and derail the thread, of course that is blowing up in your face now since it offers nothing to rebut the Libby issue.

So what is the evidence Libby committed perjury?
 
I think that if his lawyers told him that is what they were banking on he would fire them.

Not if he thinks he'll be pardoned too.

Stinger said:
What does Cheney have to hide?

I have no idea. I'm saying that it's another plausible reason he wouldn't testify.

Stinger said:
How? They did nothing wrong.

You don't know that, and that's a circular argument if I've ever heard one.

Stinger said:
You are on such a stretch here, no people who say they are not guilty, go to trial and are then found guilty are NOT charged with perjury.

But if you're found NOT guilty, and the prosecutor knows you're guilty and doesn't want to let you off scot-free, he may charge you with perjury.

The Fifth Amendment includes the right not to testify against yourself. It doesn't give you the right to testify and lie to save your hide.

Stinger said:
Then why are you here?

Because I feel like it; deal with it. Only a fool would presume to know his guilt or innocence. Unless you've been in the courtroom every day or you've followed every single word of this trial, your opinion is entirely baseless. Even getting the Reader's Digest version of the trial from reporters every day is no substitute for being in the courtroom and actually seeing the evidence.

Stinger said:
OH that's convincing. About like when David Schuster said that Rove would be indicted because he was Mr. A in Fitzgerald's indictment of Libby. What is the evidence they say supports a guilty vedict, what was the lie the Libby willfully and knowingly told to obstruct justice.

I'm just saying that as far as the LIKELIHOOD of him being convicted, it's about 2-1 in favor. The news futures markets are a fairly accurate predictor of future news events. 66% certainty isn't 100% certainty though, so it could go either way.
 
Clinton's started with his sexual assault of a subordinate employee. Taking bosses to court for that is "stupid"?
When it was originally consentual.... Yes, I would say that it is extremely stupid..... :roll:

And the Plame case had nothing to do with national security
Agreed. Whoopidee Doo. she worked for the CIA. I have a relative who works for the CIA... If I reveal thier name will I be tried for "outing an undercover agent" even though they don't do any undercover agent covert special black ops hooah hooah ranger ranger work?
 
Being a lawyer and spending everyday in a court room....it is very interesting to read the take and misinformation that gets put out here.

You can read NOTHING into the fact of whether a person testifies or not. In fact, almost all the time, the person charged does not testify. Does the fact that the person doesn't testify imply that they are super confident in acquittal? No. Does the fact that a person doesn't testify imply they are guilty? No. (Even though I have had many jurors tell me that they assumed the person WAS guilty because they didn't take the stand). The bottom line is that people charged with crimes don't testify because they generally will not make a great witness. Imagine if you were charged with a crime...you would be nervous to take the stand. Nervousness can be misinterpreted with guilt. Further, a skilled prosecutor can twist your words and make it sound like you say things that you don't. So that is the Main reason why defendants don't testify.

Additionally - there is a procedure for the defense to motion the judge to dismiss a case before it goes to the jury if there is not even enough evidence to allow the jury to determine the issue. In other words, if the case is so weak that no reasonable jury could find the person guilty, the judge on the motion of the defense attorney can dismiss. I have not followed closely enough to know that that motion was made or not made in this case. I am certain that it was because it is a standard motion run by all defense lawyers in every case. If the motion is denied...it doesn't mean that the case is super strong, it just means that it is not weak enough to flat out dismiss. At this point, I would venture to guess that the Judge found sufficient evidence to allow the case to go to a jury. Whether the evidence is sufficient for a conviction remains to be seen...and that will be decided by the jury.
 
Not if he thinks he'll be pardoned too.

You're putting the cart way before the horse, and doesn't appear he needs a pardon. I'll go with the NYT on this, he didn't need to testify to rebut anything.

Originally Posted by Stinger
What does Cheney have to hide?

I have no idea.

IOW you know of nothing he has to hide, there has been no evidence presented of anything he has to hide. There was no crime.

Your Quote: or it could be viewed as a sign that the defense thought that Libby/Cheney's testimony would HURT Libby's case.

Originally Posted by Stinger
How? They did nothing wrong.



You don't know that, and that's a circular argument if I've ever heard one.

Then you have never heard one, that is not a circular argument by any stretch. I know there has been no evidence present they did anything wrong, are yo willing to put people in jail based on your suppositions? Tell me what they did wrong, the burden is on you and Fitzgerald to state exactly what they did wrong and what evidence supports it. Let's hear it, I've been asking for months.

But if you're found NOT guilty, and the prosecutor knows you're guilty and doesn't want to let you off scot-free, he may charge you with perjury.

That's absurd. It doesn't happen.

Because I feel like it; deal with it. Only a fool would presume to know his guilt or innocence.

So the jury is full of fools? The evidence and testimony is not secret, only a fool would think it is. If you haven't bother to follow the trial and the testimony then cease trying to tell other people what they should think about it, your ignorance of the issue precludes you such pleasure.

Unless you've been in the courtroom every day or you've followed every single word of this trial, your opinion is entirely baseless.

Your assertion is baseless and a desperate attempt to silence any discussion, you must be afraid he will walk.


I'm just saying that as far as the LIKELIHOOD of him being convicted, it's about 2-1 in favor.

According to some gabling cite, you take that over the evidence? According to you NO ONE can POSSIBLE know, but we are suppose to take this gambling cite as authoritative. Your desperation is getting to your logic. I'll take my own knowledge of the testimony.

The news futures markets are a fairly accurate predictor of future news events. 66% certainty isn't 100% certainty though, so it could go either way.

Why? Why evidence points to Libby willfully and knowingly lie for the purpose of obstruction of justice and be specific.
 
When it was originally consentual.... Yes, I would say that it is extremely stupid..... :roll:

It wasn't, it was a sexual assault of a subordinate employee while she was at work. Is holding a boss accountable for sexually assualting subordinates and using his power as the superior to threaten the subordinate he she tells anyone stupid?

Agreed. Whoopidee Doo. she worked for the CIA.

Ahh if case you didn't know it's a BIG difference, and she wasn't protected under the covert agent statute. NO ONE was charged with a crime with respect to utter the name Plame, it's a moot point.

I have a relative who works for the CIA...

I could care less, no crime was charged, it is a moot point.
 
You're putting the cart way before the horse, and doesn't appear he needs a pardon. I'll go with the NYT on this, he didn't need to testify to rebut anything.

It's simply one of many reasons he might choose not to testify or call Cheney to testify.

Stinger said:
IOW you know of nothing he has to hide, there has been no evidence presented of anything he has to hide. There was no crime.

The case didn't find its way into the courtroom for no reason at all. I do not know whether he's guilty or not, but I do know that unless you have been following the case for hours upon hours every single day as the jury has, your opinion is uninformed. Personally I avoid news coverage of courtroom dramas like the plague, but that's just me.

Stinger said:
Then you have never heard one, that is not a circular argument by any stretch. I know there has been no evidence present they did anything wrong, are yo willing to put people in jail based on your suppositions? Tell me what they did wrong, the burden is on you and Fitzgerald to state exactly what they did wrong and what evidence supports it. Let's hear it, I've been asking for months.

I didn't say he was guilty.

Stinger said:
That's absurd. It doesn't happen.

How do you think Libby got himself into trouble in the first place? He made some statements under oath, they couldn't find any/enough evidence that he had committed the crime they were investigating, but they still prosecuted him for perjury.

Stinger said:
So the jury is full of fools? The evidence and testimony is not secret, only a fool would think it is. If you haven't bother to follow the trial and the testimony then cease trying to tell other people what they should think about it, your ignorance of the issue precludes you such pleasure.

How many hours a day does the jury spend hearing about this case? How many hours a day do YOU spend researching it? If the elapsed time isn't comparable, shut up with your uninformed opinion. If the elapsed time is comparable, get a life. Courtroom dramas are just one step above coverage of Anna Nicole Smith.

Stinger said:
Your assertion is baseless and a desperate attempt to silence any discussion, you must be afraid he will walk.

There's nothing to discuss. I see no point in uninformed people getting into a ******* contest saying "He did it" and "Nuh-uh." You haven't the faintest idea whether he did it.

Stinger said:
According to some gabling cite, you take that over the evidence?

News futures markets are accurate predictors because markets are efficient. It's trading at 66% which means it's more likely than not he'll be convicted.

Stinger said:
According to you NO ONE can POSSIBLE know, but we are suppose to take this gambling cite as authoritative.

It's authoritative on predicting the likelihood that he'll be convicted: about 2-1 in favor. It says nothing about what evidence was presented or whether he actually committed a crime or anything else.

Stinger said:
Your desperation is getting to your logic. I'll take my own knowledge of the testimony.

Desperation? I don't have any emotional attachment to this case either way; I'd never heard of the guy prior to this scandal, and I'll forget about him in a couple years. You, on the other hand, seem to have quite an emotional stake in the outcome of this trial for some reason. What are you saying about your political beliefs if you need a "not guilty" verdict to validate them?

Stinger said:
Why? Why evidence points to Libby willfully and knowingly lie for the purpose of obstruction of justice and be specific.

I didn't say he was guilty. Learn to read.
 
It wasn't, it was a sexual assault of a subordinate employee while she was at work. Is holding a boss accountable for sexually assualting subordinates and using his power as the superior to threaten the subordinate he she tells anyone stupid?
So... you were there in the White House when President Clinton demanded that she get on her knees? Tell me Mr. Fly on The Wall.... did he FORCE her? I mean, you were obviously there watching the whole thing, and you are certain that it wasn't a consensual sexual relationship......

Just to be clear, you are telling me that she did NOT want to have sex with the President and made certain he knew this...




Ahh if case you didn't know it's a BIG difference, and she wasn't protected under the covert agent statute. NO ONE was charged with a crime with respect to utter the name Plame, it's a moot point.



I could care less, no crime was charged, it is a moot point.

OMG! Can you read? I was agreeing that the Plame thing is stupid...... but somehow you find meaning in my words that suggests otherwise, somehow you have taken from my words that I seem to think it was a crime to mention her, or that I seem to think that she was a "covert" agent.

Why must you paint me with a broad brush just because we tend to disagree on most topics???????

Classic partisan bullshit.
 
So... you were there in the White House when President Clinton demanded that she get on her knees? Tell me Mr. Fly on The Wall.... did he FORCE her?

Jones. You need to educate yourself on the matter. Clinton was not in a federal court because of Lewinsky when he willfully and knowingly lied for the purpose of obstructing justice. He was in court because of Jones.


Just to be clear, you are telling me that she did NOT want to have sex with the President and made certain he knew this...

Jones? No.

Sorry I took your reponse about Plame to mean you supported the trial of Libby, I was incorrect.
 
It's simply one of many reasons he might choose not to testify or call Cheney to testify.

Why? But according to the paper of record that the left loves so much it is because his attorney's are confident of aquital and with the case that Fitzgerald present I can see why.


The case didn't find its way into the courtroom for no reason at all.
Pretty much it appease to be the caes and not one person since he was indicted has been able to state clearly what the obstruction of justice was and what they were trying to cover up.

I do not know whether he's guilty or not,
You know what the evidence is, I have no doubt that if it was clear he knowingly and willfully lied to obstruct justice you would have no problem stating so. Remember the evidence was be beyond a doubt. What is it.

but I do know that unless you have been following the case for hours upon hours every single day as the jury has, your opinion is uninformed.
No it isn't, the reporting and analysis has been quite intensive.

Personally I avoid news coverage of courtroom dramas like the plague, but that's just me.
Then you shouldn't be here trying to discuss or voting in the poll. Lot's of the rest of us do.


I didn't say he was guilty.

How do you think Libby got himself into trouble in the first place?
For lying before a federal grand jury and investigators NOT in the criminal trial. It doesn't happen.


How many hours a day does the jury spend hearing about this case?
Not all of them. Have you ever sat on a jury. A lot of the time is spent in the back room while attorney's argue points, But ALL the testimony upon which they will base their decision is PUBLIC. It is heard IN THE COURTROOM. And there are plenty of news reports on the key points being made.


There's nothing to discuss. I see no point in uninformed people getting into a ******* contest saying "He did it" and "Nuh-uh." You haven't the faintest idea whether he did it.
We know what the evidence, or rather lack of it is.

News futures markets are accurate predictors because markets are efficient. It's trading at 66% which means it's more likely than not he'll be convicted.
Well what are they basing that on? You claim on the one hand it is impossible to do so unless you sat on the jury, specious but that is your claim, then you turn around and cite some obscure website as being an accurate source. Which is it?

It's authoritative on predicting the likelihood that he'll be convicted:
Based on what?
It says nothing about what evidence was presented or whether he actually committed a crime or anything else.
Well heck what do we need trials for then? What do we need evidence for then? Why this is a solid as David Schuster's claim that he had convincing evidence Rove was going to be indicted and would be sitting in jail.

Desperation? I don't have any emotional attachment to this case either way;
Quoting gambling sites as authoritative.................................

I'd never heard of the guy prior to this scandal, and I'll forget about him in a couple years.
Most of us hadn't and most of us will.

You, on the other hand, seem to have quite an emotional stake in the outcome of this trial for some reason.
Using the courts to put your political opponents in jail and out of the way doesn't reek of good governance, does it. But then I have based my opinion on the facts and evidence present rather than desperate measures such as the MSM claiming that since Rove was Mr. "A" he was guilty and some obscure gambling site.

What are you saying about your political beliefs if you need a "not guilty" verdict to validate them?
Hmmmm maybe I believe that the courts are not for removing political opponents. But let's be clear, you are free to go back to the previous threads concerning this issue. I have been perfectly clear, that if any evidence was presented that Libby willfully and knowingly lied for the purpose of obstructing justice, too bad for him he would have consequences to face. The evidence is now in, there was no underlying crime, there is no evidence he committed perjury. If there is then state specifically what it was. I could care less about Libby, I do care when such sham trials are engaged in for political retribution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
Why? Why evidence points to Libby willfully and knowingly lie for the purpose of obstruction of justice and be specific.

I didn't say he was guilty. Learn to read.
I didn't say you did, you said a gambling site did and I asked again for the umpteenth time, what is the evidence he lied for the purpose of obstructing justice.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom