10/28/2005
Vice Presidential Adviser Scooter Libby indicted on perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements in CIA leak case. Karl Rove continues to be under investigation...
Posted 12:59 PM EST by Andy Towle in Current Affairs | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Gee, I guess major TexASS Kay Bailey Hutchinson seriously wet herself after spewing across the airwaves a couple of days ago that she hoped there would be no indictments about trivial things like perjury. Repugnuts—gotta love em.
Posted by: Leland | Oct 28, 2005 1:57:32 PM
I loved Kay's comments...it's fine to send Martha Stewart to jail for lying, but God forbid any Republican face the same wrath...now it's called the criminalization of politics...gotta love those Republicans!
I hope Libby is found guilty on all counts, and I pray that Rove is indicted before this is over. It sickens me to know that these bullies thought they could pull such a stunt and no one would notice.
Good riddance to all of them!
Posted by: Wayne | Oct 28, 2005 2:19:31 PM
This was the indictment the GOP was hoping for. Since the Democrats (myself included) down played the Clinton perjury, it will be harder for the Bush opponents to scream and yell about this one, though many will and quite loudly.
Do I think this is worse? Yes But, perjury is perjury and no one should get away with it. Clinton was impeached by the House what will happen to old Scooter?
Posted by: Donald | Oct 28, 2005 2:20:04 PM
Ditto and ditto. Good riddance to baaad rubbish. We can still cross our fingers that Rove and the big Dick will go too.
Posted by: Chris in SF | Oct 28, 2005 2:21:46 PM
Don't count on it going much higher. Remember too that an indictment IS NOT a conviction.
Clinton could have ended the whole matter by saying "yes I did it" or her as the case may be. I suspect a bold statement like that would have ended the whole affair. I would have applauded it, even though I did not care for his Presidency there is nothing that I love more than a skillful politicial plying his craft.
I also not the the indictment still does not answer the central question. Who outed Mrs. Wilson? It also done not say whether a not a crime was commited in that case. All it says is he is charged with makeing false statements to the investigators.
Posted by: James | Oct 28, 2005 2:52:22 PM
I don't want to get into the inevitable comparison of this perjury charge vs. Clinton's. They're not the same thing at all, IMO, but here's the more important point: The top count in this indictment is NOT the perjury or false statement charges, it's obstruction of justice -- i.e., Libby's false statements were made for the purpose of impeding a grand jury investigation. An investigation, might I point out, into the possible commission of an extremely serious crime (and one that apparently remains ongoing). That's serious stuff.
Posted by: Glenn | Oct 28, 2005 2:53:09 PM
And of course aides make these types of decisions and take these types of actions of their own free will. Just remember, it rolls uphill just as well as it does down.
Posted by: Arron | Oct 28, 2005 3:32:27 PM
It could go higher. Libby must be a reasonably smart man. Yet he sat before a grand jury and knowingly lied about conversations with Russert, Cooper and Miller. He had to assume the Fitzy would circle back to those reporter for their accounting of the conversations. Duh! So why would he lie? Were his other options that bad? Is he protecting his Dick? I just can't get beyond the notion that Libby knew -- as he was testifying -- that his lies would be exposed. I wonder if we'll ever truly get to the bottom of this.
Posted by: jon | Oct 28, 2005 4:15:17 PM
There are now 2000 American Troops dead, and over 30,000 Iraqi CIVILIANS! All a result of the lies these Whitehouse bastards told. Try Bush and Cheney right along with Saddam for Crimes Against Humanity.
Posted by: Jeff | Oct 28, 2005 4:45:42 PM
Topic: Is the worst Democrat still better than the best Republican? Discuss.
In the meantime, note the charges in the impeachment of Clinton were the very charges that Scoot' is indicted for. While Mr. Bill disappointed and angered me in many ways, e.g., his cowardly backdown re gays in the military; his unconscionable signing of DOMA, and his alleged urging of Kerry to endorse the anti gay marriage constitutional amendments in all the pending states, we must not forget that he wasn't just trying to save his ass, but obstructing INjustice—the exploitation of, and, in some cases, generation of, charges of sexual misconduct by the Right Wing. He may have ruined a nice blue dress, but he didn't endanger any CIA operatives, or do any of it to discredit opponents to his invasion of another country [2000 American lives and counting]. His perpetual hard on only threatened his marriage not the country. And, if evidence can be excluded because it "comes from the tree of poison fruit," why can't the actual charges themselves, as in, "it's none of your fucking business who he fucks or asks to"?As much as I despise the Bush Administration, its harpy insiders——Condosleazy Rice, Nancy Lite Laura, Madame Chiang Kai Cheney, and bull dagger Karen HUGE, aren't nearly as colorful or transparently evil as Linda Tripp and Lucianne Goldberg. On the other hand, Kenneth Starr and Karl Rove equally exude the sticky fingers/sticky balls aura of a Peeping Tom with a secret fetish for playing with himself while smelling women's panties.
Posted by: Leland | Oct 28, 2005 6:19:14 PM
Christ of the Andes! Back to being their whipping boys so soon? “War dead! Iraqi insurgents! Hurricanes! Supreme Court losers! State indictments! Federal indictments! Plummeting polls. We’re boiling in our own pudding! Quick: attack the fags again! Fly! Fly!”
Federal Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment Moves Forward
by Doreen Brandt 365Gay.com Washington Bureau
Posted: October 28, 2005 5:00 pm ET
(Washington) Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) announced Friday that the Senate Sub Committee on the Judiciary will meet on Nov. 2 to markup the so-called Marriage Protection Amendment.
Brownback, the sub committee chair, said he expects to hold a vote that day on the proposed amendment, which would ban same-sex marriage, and then send the measure on to the full committee.
Brownback said that he hoped the amendment would come to a vote in both the full Senate and House prior to the 2006 mid term elections.
"This has been and always will be about cynical politics," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese.
"Political games in Washington are common, but when the lives of millions of American families are at state, these hearings are an affront to American values."
The sub committee held hearings on the proposed amendment earlier this month in a new attempt to pass the measure.
Supporters of the amendment told senators during the hearing that judges are writing their own laws and only a constitutional amendment would "preserve the sanctity of marriage".
Among those speaking in opposition to the amendment was Christopher Harris, an assistant professor of Pediatrics at the Monroe Carell Jr. Children's Hospital at Vanderbilt University in Nashville.
Harris, who is a gay African-American, has a 3-year-old daughter and has been a pediatrician for almost 20 years.
Harris told Senators the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) found that there are no relevant studies of the effect of parental sexual orientation on children that show any measurable effect on the quality of parent-child relationships or the children's mental health and successful socialization.
Attempts by Republicans to pass the amendment that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman failed last year.
The measure was reintroduced in January. A House version was reintroduced in March.
"It's time for Congress to stop placating right-wing extremists and get back to helping all American families," said Solmonese in a statement on Friday.
"The American people want fairness and this amendment would not only ban marriage for same-sex couples, but it would also threaten basic protections like domestic partnerships and civil unions. While some try to cloud the issue, the amendment will not affect religious institutions' established right to decide their own rules on marriage."
Posted by: Leland | Oct 28, 2005 6:37:44 PM
i luv your blog and matching shoes !
Posted by: pheel | Oct 30, 2005 7:02:53 PM