# NY Times: Only Libby to be indicted. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 28, 2005, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-times-only-libby-to-be-indicted/328265 "2005-10-28T03:56:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Stephe96](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Stephe96](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stephe96)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-times-only-libby-to-be-indicted/328265/21 "2005-10-28T12:31:14Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I KNOW there was criminal (or at least highly unethical) conduct. > > . šŸ˜› Sure. A two-year grand jury investigation turns up nothing but a lame ā€˜making a false statementā€™ charge but you somehow _know_ there was criminal activity going on. How soon before you guys start turning on Fitzgerald? Rove isnā€™t being ā€˜frog-marchedā€™ out of the White House so Fitz must be a ā€œpartisan GOP operative,ā€ right? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-times-only-libby-to-be-indicted/328265/22 "2005-10-28T14:11:20Z")
> [@Atticus Finch](#): > > If itā€™s a regular grand jury. If, on the other hand, itā€™s a special grand jury, apparently they get a few shots at being reconvened. Iā€™ve seen talk itā€™s the special type, but I wouldnā€™t hang my hat on it. I keep hearing conflicting comments about that on the news. Some outlets report that it can be extended, others that it canā€™t. BTW, I believe it has already been extended at least once. ---
**Author:** ![5que](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/5/3bc359/32.png) [@5que](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/5que)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-times-only-libby-to-be-indicted/328265/23 "2005-10-28T14:36:36Z")
Keith Olbermann pointed out that even if there is just one indictment, that still means a trial, with witnesses (Rove, etc.) so the fun may continue. It ainā€™t over with just the initial indictment(s). Oh, and guys, who is leading the NFC North right now? Hint: not Detroit, not Green Bay, not Minnesota. Need another hint? Think _World Series Winners_. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-times-only-libby-to-be-indicted/328265/24 "2005-10-28T14:53:50Z")
> [@5que](#): > > Need another hint? Think _World Series Winners_. Wow. The White Sox won the World Series while also playing a football schedule? I am impressed. ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-times-only-libby-to-be-indicted/328265/25 "2005-10-28T14:59:02Z")
> [@Stephe96](#): > > Rove isnā€™t being ā€˜frog-marchedā€™ out of the White House so Fitz must be a ā€œpartisan GOP operative,ā€ right? I highly doubt anyone in the reality based community (the left) will accuse Fitz of that. Not that they wonā€™t be dissapointed if nothing comes out of it, but a lot of ink has been used touting his bona fides. ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-times-only-libby-to-be-indicted/328265/26 "2005-10-28T15:19:21Z")
And I donā€™t think there will be any charges or indictments, and if there are, only Libby will get nicked. I never trust a news conference scheduled for a Friday afternoon. ---
**Author:** ![THespos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8c91f0/32.png) [@THespos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/THespos)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-times-only-libby-to-be-indicted/328265/27 "2005-10-28T15:45:11Z")
> [@Stephe96](#): > > Sure. A two-year grand jury investigation turns up nothing but a lame ā€˜making a false statementā€™ charge but you somehow _know_ there was criminal activity going on. Ummm, letā€™s not jump the gun, **Stephe96**. You havenā€™t the faintest idea what the investigation turned up. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-times-only-libby-to-be-indicted/328265/28 "2005-10-28T22:12:50Z")
> [@duffer](#): > > I tried that perjury angle argument about He Who Must Not Be Mentioned[sup]TM[/sup] in another thread **Martin**. It devolves into an argument of the crime that led to perjury. Sorry, alleged crime that led to it. There are many here that canā€™t seperate the fact that perjury isnā€™t the same as the crime alleged. A person can be innocent of murder, but if any of his or her testimony is a lie it becomes a seperate crime of perjury. 2 crimes in the same situation. Perjury is always a crime commited when commited in a legal process. Regardless of the crime brought before the court. Regardless of the outcome of that case. The perjury is a whole different case. > > Perjury is a felony. It doesnā€™t matter what brought about the testimony. Once perjury is commited, it becomes a crime in and of itself. It becomes a different issue. Sadly, around here, it gets lumped together. Anyone want to mention why a former President lost his law license? After all he was innocent of the charges. Iā€™m not really entirely sure what the point of this post is. Here is my take on the issue: -Fitzegerald was investigating the revealation of Plameā€™s covert status. Now, we have some vague ideas that Scooter Libby and Karl Rove were involved in this. However, we do not know if they actually revealed the information in a criminal manner. -The reason this could potentially be a nuclear bomb of embarassment for the administration is it looks REALLY bad when someone in Roveā€™s position reveals, illegally, a CIA operativeā€™s status. Thatā€™s why this is news, there is the possibility that a high government official betrayed the covert status of a CIA operative to try and ā€œpolitically punishā€ her husband. From the direction this story is going now I think this is our current situation: -Fitzgerald is not going to be able to prove that Rove or Libby actually criminally revealed Plameā€™s identity. So the crux of this whole news frenzy is basically gone now. Weā€™ll never be able to say for sure that, ā€œKarl Rove illegally revealed Plameā€™s CIA status for political reasons.ā€ -Scooter Libby and possibly Karl Rove, in the course of giving testimony idiotically committed the crime of purjury (and for the record I never claimed purjury wasnā€™t a crime.) Basically Fitzgerald has Libby on a technicality (and letā€™s remember Libby hasnā€™t been convicted yet) because Fitzgerald doesnā€™t have the evidence to support any other sort of indictment. If Fitzgerald doesnā€™t really break this whole thing open then basically weā€™re going to come away with one government official giving muddled testimony that may or may not have been perjury. Thatā€™s a _victory_ for the administration when you compare it to the possibility that Rove could have been arrested for the vastly more serious crime of revealing a CIA operativeā€™s status. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-times-only-libby-to-be-indicted/328265/29 "2005-10-28T22:16:06Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > My own guess is that there will be some indictments and Fitzgerald will ask for a new grand jury to investigate the deliberate and deceitful lies that led the nation into this foolish war. Iā€™m not sure that would be under the purview of Mr. Fitzgeraldā€™s authority as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Illinois and his position as special counsel on this Plame affair. Plus, itā€™s not a crime for the President to lie or deceive the public. In fact I would say very often in the career of a President itā€™s a responsibility. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-times-only-libby-to-be-indicted/328265/30 "2005-10-28T22:17:33Z")
I should clarify I was referring to the part about the ā€œdeliberate and deceitful liesā€ that lead to the war in Iraq. Not the calling of a new grand jury which would obviously be something that would be under Fitzgeraldā€™s authority to do. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-times-only-libby-to-be-indicted/328265/31 "2005-10-29T01:25:18Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > Basically Fitzgerald has Libby on a technicality (and letā€™s remember Libby hasnā€™t been convicted yet) because Fitzgerald doesnā€™t have the evidence to support any other sort of indictment. Perjury is not a technicality. It is lying under oath. It is a felony. How many ā€œtechnicality peopleā€ wanted Clintonā€™s balls on a spike for this ā€œtechnicalityā€? In this case, it is a whole lot more serious than a blowjob. It revolves around the outing of a CIA operative and probably trashing whatever companies and other people were involved in whatever she was doing in other countries. It was kicked off because of the lies used in starting the war to begin with and an attempt to punish her husband. > [@Martin Hyde](#): > > Thatā€™s a _victory_ for the administration when you compare it to the possibility that Rove could have been arrested for the vastly more serious crime of revealing a CIA operativeā€™s status. It is a victory only in that the administration for the most part, got away with it yet again. But youā€™re right, the revelation was far more serious, although damn near impossible to prove in court. > [@Martin Hyde](#): > > Plus, itā€™s not a crime for the President to lie or deceive the public. In fact I would say very often in the career of a President itā€™s a responsibility. ā€¦ I should clarify I was referring to the part about the ā€œdeliberate and deceitful liesā€ that lead to the war in Iraq. That is a whole other can of worms. This was not a case of lying to minimize damage, as when the allies during the early part of WW2 told us we were not getting our asses kicked. The present state is a set of lies to start an unjustified war, using trumped up false claims (WMD, yellowcake, Iraq/Osama link, etc), against someone who while a monster, was no threat to us. I would suggest that instead of lying to bolster our confidence in the face of a powerful and aggressive enemy, our current president lies as a matter of habit, even when it is not necessary. Keep in mind too, this president campaigned (among other things) as the ā€œhonest and ethical guyā€, as opposed to those lying cheating Democrat bastids. The quote marks are my sign of sarcasm. I doubt Bush would know the truth ig it jumped up and bit him on the ass. ---
**Author:** ![Atticus\_Finch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ec9cab/32.png) [@Atticus\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atticus_Finch)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-times-only-libby-to-be-indicted/328265/32 "2005-10-29T02:09:19Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I keep hearing conflicting comments about that on the news. Some outlets report that it can be extended, others that it canā€™t. BTW, I believe it has already been extended at least once. IIRC, if it were a special grand jury, apparently it could have been extended multiple times, a normal grand jury only once. The issueā€™s moot now, though. Reading [this Washington Post article](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102800153.html), it appears that it was a normal one, and has now expired, but Fitzgerald plans to empanel another one for further investigations, presumably of Rove. > [@](#): > > But the special counsel in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, said the investigation is ā€œnot overā€ and that another grand jury would be kept open in case prosecutors decide to press other charges. ---
**Author:** ![Stephe96](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Stephe96](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stephe96)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-times-only-libby-to-be-indicted/328265/33 "2005-10-29T02:43:07Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > It revolves around the outing of a CIA operative and probably trashing whatever companies and other people were involved in whatever she was doing in other countries. It was kicked off because of the lies used in starting the war to begin with and an attempt to punish her husband. > > . I understand these are the liberal talking points in this case, but I just have to ask: if someone ā€œoutedā€ a CIA operative why didnā€™t Fitzgerald charge someone with that? ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-times-only-libby-to-be-indicted/328265/34 "2005-10-29T02:44:11Z")
> [@Atticus Finch](#): > > The issueā€™s moot now, though. Reading [this Washington Post article](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102800153.html), it appears that it was a normal one, and has now expired, but Fitzgerald plans to empanel another one for further investigations, presumably of Rove. What Fitzgerald said was that _itā€™s normal to keep open the Grand Jury option_. It means nothing. Itā€™s a normal thing in a case like this. He repeated it more than once in his press conference. He stressed that it signifies nothing. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-times-only-libby-to-be-indicted/328265/35 "2005-10-29T02:45:34Z")
> [@Stephe96](#): > > I understand these are the liberal talking points in this case, but I just have to ask: if someone ā€œoutedā€ a CIA operative why didnā€™t Fitzgerald charge someone with that? Well, it could be that he needed _proof_ to proceed. He didnā€™t have that. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-times-only-libby-to-be-indicted/328265/36 "2005-10-29T02:46:56Z")
> [@Stephe96](#): > > I understand these are the liberal talking points in this case, but I just have to ask: if someone ā€œoutedā€ a CIA operative why didnā€™t Fitzgerald charge someone with that? That is not relevant to the charges. I donā€™t know why Fitzgerald hasnā€™t charged anyone with that and neither do you. Libby is charged with completely separate crimes; crimes which took place in the course of the investigation. Do you believe that committing perjury is ā€œlameā€? ---
**Author:** ![danceswithcats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9e8a1a/32.png) [@danceswithcats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/danceswithcats)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-times-only-libby-to-be-indicted/328265/37 "2005-10-29T02:50:14Z")
Before the press conference, the local NPR station people made an interesting comment-if a ham sandwich is indicted, the Democrats will sieze that and carry on about accountability and so onā€¦ Another observation was that if everyone is going 20 MPH above the limit, who is really speeding? Sorry, but Iā€™m having a hard time getting worked up over this. Every administration as far back as I can recall has lied to me. If all liars are jailed for perjury, on one hand that would be a good thing, as elected and appointed offices might be occupied by honest people for a change. On the other hand, Iā€™ve got to pay for these SOBs while theyā€™re in the can. The investigation has had two frigginā€™ years. If this is the best they can come up with, then so be it, but to continue further is a waste of time and effort, IMO, just as Ken Starr wasted time and effort trying to hang Bill for illicit slap and tickle when the important charges couldnā€™t be brought. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-times-only-libby-to-be-indicted/328265/38 "2005-10-29T02:59:26Z")
> [@danceswithcats](#): > > Sorry, but Iā€™m having a hard time getting worked up over this. Every administration as far back as I can recall has lied to me. If all liars are jailed for perjury, on one hand that would be a good thing Uhā€¦ this makes it sound like you donā€™t know the difference between lying and perjury. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-times-only-libby-to-be-indicted/328265/39 "2005-10-29T03:35:25Z")
I think a key issue here is the relative seriousness of perjury in a civil case versus perjury in a criminal case. Whatā€™s the difference? ---
**Author:** ![danceswithcats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9e8a1a/32.png) [@danceswithcats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/danceswithcats)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-times-only-libby-to-be-indicted/328265/40 "2005-10-29T03:38:34Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Uhā€¦ this makes it sound like you donā€™t know the difference between lying and perjury. Thereā€™s lying, thereā€™s unsworn falsification to authorities, and thereā€™s perjury. Going back to my previous posit, itā€™s been going on for decades on both sides of the aisle, so I lack the emotional fuel to get my panties in a wad over it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-times-only-libby-to-be-indicted/328265.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-times-only-libby-to-be-indicted/328265.md?page=3)