# 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:** 17\ **Page:** 3
**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, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-times-only-libby-to-be-indicted/328265/41 "2005-10-29T03:43:30Z")
> [@danceswithcats](#): > > There’s lying, there’s unsworn falsification to authorities, and there’s perjury. Going back to my previous posit, it’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. It’s one thing to yawn at politicians lying to people. I don’t think we’re quite at the stage where perjury and obstruction of justice are ho-hum, though. 😉 ---
**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, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-times-only-libby-to-be-indicted/328265/42 "2005-10-29T04:05:46Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > It’s one thing to yawn at politicians lying to people. I don’t think we’re quite at the stage where perjury and obstruction of justice are ho-hum, though. 😉 Perhaps I hold to a simpler analysis. There’s the truth, and then there’s everything else. When folks do what their Mommas taught them, many of these ills will vanish. ---
**Author:** ![Bob\_Loblaw\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4af34b/32.png) [@Bob\_Loblaw\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bob_Loblaw_1)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-times-only-libby-to-be-indicted/328265/43 "2005-10-29T04:09:58Z")
Well, so far I’ve been impressed with the special prosecutor, but let’s not forget, Libby is entitled to a presumption of innocence. I really like the way that Fitzgerald showed up the press that claimed they knew he was going to hand down 22 indictments every day for the last two weeks. He seems like a responsible sort. ---
**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, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-times-only-libby-to-be-indicted/328265/44 "2005-10-29T04:30:42Z")
> [@Bob Loblaw](#): > > Well, so far I’ve been impressed with the special prosecutor, but let’s not forget, Libby is entitled to a presumption of innocence. > > I really like the way that Fitzgerald showed up the press that claimed they knew he was going to hand down 22 indictments every day for the last two weeks. He seems like a responsible sort. Agreed. Some of the folks in the press corps ought to be pimp-slapped. How many times did Fitzgerald say that he would only comment on Libby, yet they kept asking about others? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-times-only-libby-to-be-indicted/328265/45 "2005-10-29T05:07:20Z")
I’m pretty impressed by Fitzgerald too, so far. He comes across like an earnest, straight shooter. Watching the press conference this afternoon I was pretty much pesuaded that he didn’t have any guile, that the indictments he handed down were legit, and that he really doesn’t have the goods on Rove (at least not enough to get a conviction). I think he’s playing this thing as straight as an arrow. He’s indicting on what he can prove and no more. It also sounds like he’s got young Scooter dead to rights. It’s going to be difficult for the right to demonize this guy. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-times-only-libby-to-be-indicted/328265/46 "2005-10-29T05:14:42Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > It also sounds like he’s got young Scooter dead to rights. It’s going to be difficult for the right to demonize this guy. they don’t have tp demonize Fitzgerld, just demonize Scooter ( whiney voice on: "but we _trusted_ him ’ WVO ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-times-only-libby-to-be-indicted/328265/47 "2005-10-29T05:40:20Z")
> [@](#): > > **duffer** : Relevent? Note number 2 above. Testimony, by definition, is relevent. Are you talking about tesimony given in a case that you don’t agree should be prosecuted? Doesn’t matter. Perjury is a charge related to a case. It has nothing to do with the original charge. A lie is a lie. And if that lie is stated, under oath in a legal proceding, it’s perjury. No matter what the original crime is that led to the perjury. I’m not arguing with you about what a lie is or what testimony is. You and I disagree about what the legal definition of _perjury_ is. If I understand you correctly, you believe that it is any lie that is told under oath. What I am saying is that it has to be something that might affect the outcome of the case. If I lie under oath about how much I weigh and that information is not something that would actually affect the outcome of the trial, I have not committed perjury. I have lied and it was wrong to do that, but it’s not perjury. [Source](http://www.uslegalforms.com/lawdigest/legaldefinitions.php/perjury.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Slacker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6bbea6/32.png) [@Slacker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slacker)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-times-only-libby-to-be-indicted/328265/48 "2005-10-29T06:02:56Z")
> [@Stephe96](#): > > Sure. A two-year grand jury investigation turns up nothing but a lame ‘making a false statement’ charge but you somehow _know_ there was criminal activity going on. > > How soon before you guys start turning on Fitzgerald? Rove isn’t being ‘frog-marched’ out of the White House so Fitz must be a “partisan GOP operative,” right? Is it easier for you to make up things for our side to say? Can I try? **Stephe96** , what’s next? You’re going to tell me that the 2,000 Americans we’ve lost in Iraq don’t matter because they were probably bad people anyway? YOU SICK SON OF A BITCH!!! ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-times-only-libby-to-be-indicted/328265/49 "2005-10-29T06:09:07Z")
> [@wring](#): > > they don’t have tp demonize Fitzgerld, just demonize Scooter ( whiney voice on: "but we _trusted_ him ’ WVO Complying with the demands of morbid curiosity, I’m checking\* Hannity and His Bitch\*. Ms Matlin and he are definitely banging the “rogue prosecutor” drum. But loud! ---
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-times-only-libby-to-be-indicted/328265/50 "2005-10-29T16:46:11Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > If I lie under oath about how much I weigh and that information is not something that would actually affect the outcome of the trial, I have not committed perjury. I have lied and it was wrong to do that, but it’s not perjury. I’ll agree with that. But lying about your weight would only be perjury if it was relevant to your case. If it’s not relevant, I don’t see whay it would be brought up in the first place. Hell, if a guy wants to be a ral hard-ass about it, about 85% of the women driving in the US would be guilty. Next time you see an application for a license it states that by signing the form you attest to the accuracy of the info provided. How many put their real weight on the form? ---
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-times-only-libby-to-be-indicted/328265/51 "2005-10-29T16:48:36Z")
Shit, I forgot to mention to the knee-jerks that I’m not advocating locking up women that lie about their weight. ---
**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, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-times-only-libby-to-be-indicted/328265/52 "2005-10-29T17:13:52Z")
> [@Stephe96](#): > > I understand these are the liberal talking points in this case, but I just have to ask: if someone “outed” a CIA operative why didn’t Fitzgerald charge someone with that? Because the way that law is written, even if a person is guilty as hell, it’s almost impissible to prove it. And, these were not liberal talking points. Let’s call them FBI/CIA talking points since it was the FBI amd CIA that kicked the whole thing off by filing the complaint. ---
**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, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-times-only-libby-to-be-indicted/328265/53 "2005-10-29T18:58:08Z")
Libby was trying to duck being charged under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. One of the law’s stipulations was you had to get the agent’s identity from a classified source before revealing it, in order to violate the Act. According to Special Counsel Fitzgerald, he is not able (yet?) to charge an underlying crime solely because Libby has **obstructed justice with his lies**. > [@Fitzgerald](#): > > “…if national defense information – which is involved because her affiliation with the CIA, **whether or not she was covert** , was classified – if that was intentionally transmitted, that would violate the statute known as Section 793, which is the Espionage Act. > … If [the indictment’s allegations against Libby are] true, you cannot figure out the right judgment to make, whether or not you should charge someone with a serious national security crime or walk away from it or recommend any other course of action… > … **one of the harms in obstruction** is that you don’t have a clear view of what should be done.” ---
**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, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-times-only-libby-to-be-indicted/328265/54 "2005-10-29T21:13:42Z")
Maybe it went by too fast, but I thought CNN’s crawl screen said a few minutes ago that, according to a White House source, “Official A” is Karl Rove. Anybody? ---
**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, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-times-only-libby-to-be-indicted/328265/55 "2005-10-29T22:02:47Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Maybe it went by too fast, but I thought CNN’s crawl screen said a few minutes ago that, according to a White House source, “Official A” is Karl Rove. Anybody? Yes, “Official A” is Rove. However, while he is not yet off the hook, I imagine he will never be indicted or called to account. ---
**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, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-times-only-libby-to-be-indicted/328265/56 "2005-10-29T22:13:16Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Yes, “Official A” is Rove. However, while he is not yet off the hook, I imagine he will never be indicted or called to account. Yeah, the only way I see that happening is if Libby turns, and I don’t see that happening. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-times-only-libby-to-be-indicted/328265/57 "2005-10-29T22:19:58Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Yes, “Official A” is Rove. However, while he is not yet off the hook, I imagine he will never be indicted or called to account. I did predict that if indictments were made that it was going to be just for obstruction of justice or lying, my gut feeling is that you are correct that Rove will not be called to account. However, I do think the speculation that appeared in other sites is correct: the continuation of the investigation to what Rove did was due to delaying tactics by Rove and his lawyer, the 11th hour approach to the grand jury was IMO a delaying tactic that has worked so far, but I do think if suddenly the news pop up that indeed no indictment will appear against Rove (and I do think it is very bad news to him that his investigation has not ended yet), that one big fish was given to the prosecution by Rove in a deal. Time will tell if the fish was a red herring or a red state resident. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-times-only-libby-to-be-indicted/328265.md?page=2)