Why did Libby lie?

[goodhue]

That is the question that we must repeat ad infinitum to everyone, everywhere--like a drum beat. Why did Libby lie? Why did Libby lie?

[blm]

1. Because Cheney didn't want him to tell the truth.

If Cheney had WANTED Libby to tell the truth, he would have.

[goodhue]

3. Certainly, if Cheney had told him to tell the truth he would have.

But was Cheney's direction or lack thereof the motivation for his lie?

[sallyseven]

2. Because the arrogant

sob thought he wouldn't get caught. Figured Fitz was a country bumpkin. The white house staff think they are above the law.

[goodhue]

4. Certainly he thought he would not get caught.

But was that the motivation for his lie?

[calimary]

20. I think that's exactly it. He probably just assumed he'd get away with

it - this pipsqueak from Chicago wasn't gonna be able to lay a finger on him. He'd shat bigger ones than Fitzgerald. He was one bad-ass hotshot White House insider who held all the cards and was utterly invulnerable.

Well, pride goeth before a fall. And the bigger they are...

:D

[peterh]

5. To protect himself….

Would a conviction outing a CIA agent be more serious than the current 5 counts? Is treason more serious than perjury? Need I progress further….

[goodhue]

7. Indeed, to protect himself (and others I would add)

But protection from what? for what?

[readmylips]

6. Libby 4th person down the line of power....fall guy..

Libby is a lawyer. He knew what he was doing and he is protecting the three people above him; bush, cheney, rove.

Bottome line is; bush will pardon libby and fuck national security.

[ginnyinWI]

8. protecting Cheney, and himself, most probably. n/t

[walldude]

9. Actually, I know the answer to this...

When Libby first testified about this they all thought Ashcroft was going to prosecute this case. So why not lie, they knew Ashcroft would cover for them. Then Ash was forced to recuse himself and they were fucked.. :woohoo:

[goodhue]

11. Certainly, he thought he could get away with it.

But that is not usually motive for a crime in and of itself.
There is more to it. Put another way, why did he not want to tell the truth? Certainly we all know the answer, but the public writ large needs to be led to the motive like a horse to water.

[yellowcanine]

10. Because he thought that disclosing Plame's name might be a crime.

Lying in a criminal investigation is a crime whether or not enough evidence is ever gathered to charge someone with a crime. And that is as it should be. How can prosecutors investigate potential crimes if people lie to them?

[Fluffdaddy]

12. I agree. If he just owned up he would not be in this mess. Dumb

[goodhue]

13. Yes! Because he was covering up possible crime he committed.

And let's not forget it. No incidental crime either, but rather part of a coordinated smear campaign to discredit and quiet a truth teller.

[goodhue]

14. Kick not for the answer, but to repeat the question.

Sean Hannity is apparently struggling with it, for one.

[goodhue]

15. On talk radio I heard: either he was stupid or scared.

[goodhue]

16. or did he really know exactly what he was doing all along?

[bluedawg12]

17. Hiding something bigger than Perjury and obstruction?

Here's hoping for a nice long trial. That should get the factsd out in the open.

[goodhue]

19. A trial on Court TV would be most excellent.

I have a hard time imagining BFEE will let it go that far, but who knows.

[the_spectator]

18. To "kick sand in the umpire's eyes" - to obstruct justice -

take a look at Fitzgerald's answer to the 1st question he took after his statement today. Look at the baseball analogy Fitz made: we know WH people told reports that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. That's the pitcher hitting the batter on the head. Which could be an accident, slipped out of his hands (Told about Plame by accident SIMPLY by the intent to say "we didn't send Joe to Niger.") It could have been trying to hit the guy on the back, or maybe just brush him back off the plate -- a plot and a plan to get at Joe Wilson, something like that. Something middling. Did they know she was a covert operative? AND, the WORST case - trying to hit the head - would be doing it to get at Joe BY revealing his wife's covert status, destroying any covert career she has, and even, yes, SCARING Wilson because maybe his wife will be at ACTUAL PHYSICAL RISK because of the revelation.

Then Fitz starts talking about "what was going on in the dugout" to try to say, THE MAIN INVESTIGATION for underlying crimes has to look at things like people's history with each other, what people were saying, etc. etc. -- WAS this guy likely going for the head or not? And Scooter Fibby SUCCEEDED during the investigation to be kicking sand in the umpire's eyes so he can't see things, gain evidence in the course of a time-line of an ongoing Grand Jury investigation.

Fibby lied to kick sand. And he SUCCEEDED, Fitz seems to say, by delaying or wild-goose-chasing at the crucial moment. And THAT'S why Fitz DID charge Fibby with all these things. What's the "underlying crime" in a way? It's that BECAUSE of Fibby's perjury and obstruction and false statements, the REAL "underlying crime" couldn't be properly charged on anyone!

[goodhue]

21. I think you are right on the money

But what precisely is it that Libby did not want the umpire to see? The concerted and orchestrated white house effort to, as you say, "get at Joe BY revealing his wife's covert status, destroying any covert career she has, and even, yes, SCARING Wilson because maybe his wife will be at ACTUAL PHYSICAL RISK because of the revelation." This is the story that must be repeated over and over.

[the_spectator]

22. Yes, he was hiding a concerted plan to "go for the head" -

But don't forget Fitz is saying in his press conference that Scooter successfully obstructed justice. The umpire couldn't see at the crucial tme. Because Fibby said "reporters told me" we end up with Fitz chasing after Matt Cooper, Judy in Jail drama, etc. The man behind the plan WAS probably Cheney, but Fibby's wild-goose chases gave Cheney time to cover up for himself, destroy all notes, emails, references to Wilson, etc. etc.

And Fitz ALSO seems to say in today's statement that holding open the possibility of getting a new grand jury is STANDARD PRACTICE when you charge someone and something's heading to trial- maybe mostly just to keep extra pressure in place upon the person actually charged as he goes through the trial process. Plus, he reminds us that even though he acknowleges that we the pubilc want to jump through the TV and have him TELL US WHAT HE'S LEARNED, HE CAN'T TELL US - he can't issue a Report like Starr because of the lapse of the Special Prosecutor law.

Fitz might be being an uncorruptable, non-political lawman as we all thought him to be, but turns out, as that kind of man, Fitz ends up throwing the book at someone who committed crimes with real harm caused (Fibby's successful obstruction), AND if that means Cheney, Rove, et al are off the hook because of Fibby's actions, well, that's the way the ball bounces! NOW I'm going to go off the edge a bit, but in a way, might this be another "Bush won" event?

[emulatorloo]

23. A post that might interest you

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5211855#5211983

[kitty1]

26. Libby is going to sing pretty loud when his trial comes...

I agree that Fitz is setting up Libby by perhaps offering him no jail time in exchange for some serious evidence against cheney/Rumsfeld and gang. Documented evidence. By splitting the WH in two, Cheney vs Bush office, we will see some cut throat tactics soon, which is what clever Fitz is hoping to do. Fitzgerald may be receiving some interesting manilla envelopes in his mail soon with no return address on them.

[emulatorloo]

24. and a DU'er found this "What';s Next" article by a formal prosecutor -

Really worth the read if you have the time

ON EDIT LINK: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5211138

<snip>

Smoking Guns and Red Herrings

What Should We Expect Now that Fitzgerald Has Announced the Indictment of Lewis "Scooter" Libby? By Elizabeth de la Vega

<snip>

<snip>
We should not expect a final resolution any time soon --. Complex cases usually take years to proceed through the courts. In addition, the indictment released today describes a chronology of close to two years and a complicated set of facts. Obviously, Fitzgerald is taking a "big picture" approach to this case. This mirrors his approach to previous cases. In December 2003, for example, Fitzgerald announced the indictment of former Illinois Governor George Ryan on corruption charges in Operation Safe Road, which began in 1998. In that year, the investigation of a fatal accident revealed that truckers were purchasing commercial licenses from state officials. Indictments were announced in stages, culminating in the indictment of Ryan, who was the 66th defendant in the case. In the Libby case, the allegations suggest he was merely one of many officials -- including an unnamed Under Secretary of State and "Official A," a Senior White House Official -- who were involved in revealing classified information about Joseph Wilson's wife Valerie Plame. No other individuals are named as defendants, and they should not be considered so at this point, but the complexity of the indictment suggests that the investigation may follow a pattern similar to that used by Fitzgerald in the Illinois corruption case.

We should not expect to hear much more from Fitzgerald -- The Special Counsel has been widely admired, and sometimes criticized, for his "tight-lipped" approach and "leak-free" grand jury investigation. But that, folks, is how it's supposed to be. Federal prosecutors are required to maintain grand jury secrecy. If they don't do that, they not only jeopardize their investigations, they could lose their jobs and/or be charged with a crime. The public has come to expect leaks from grand jury investigations because Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, who was not a federal prosecutor, ignored secrecy rules during the investigation of President Clinton (and got away with it). Even after indictment, Department of Justice (DOJ) press guidelines permit release of only limited facts about the defendant, the charges against him, and court documents or testimony that may become public during the prosecution. Don't hold your breath waiting for Fitzgerald to explain evidence not alleged in the indictment; nor will he appear on talk shows to debate defense representatives.

<snip>

[the_spectator]

25. Great info and ideas in this post and your post above, thanks.

It certainly puts a MUCH happier light on the state of affairs right now than my immediate reaction. I'll have to look into the long process that ended up bagging Governor Ryan, I really didn't know anything about it except that Fitz got him! Thanks.

[goodhue]

27. regarding going off the edge a bit

I wonder whether Libby lied knowing he would get caught and take fall.

[the_spectator]

28. It is certainly plausible at least -

Or at least that he was PREPARED to get caught, as long as he bought crucial time for Cheney (or whoever else) is the center of this.

[goodhue]

29. kick for Libby's motive

[goodhue]

30. Why did Libby lie?