U.S. v. Libby

**Butterfly** · 08-02-2007, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by raycarey

btw, why haven't earl or attaboy addressed the fact that libby admits to telling at least 3 reporters about plame?

Because they can't face their truth and they know it. Let them keep dreaming about the innocence of the Bush administration, it doesn't really matter

**raycarey** · 08-02-2007, 05:48 PM

NBC newsman Tim Russert testified Wednesday he never discussed a CIA operative with vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, contradicting Libby's version to a grand jury in the CIA leak investigation.

Russert, the host of "Meet the Press," testified about a July 2003 phone call in which Libby complained about a colleague's coverage. Libby has said that, at the end of the call, Russert brought up war critic Joseph Wilson and mentioned that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

"That would be impossible," Russert testified Wednesday. "I didn't know who that person was until several days later."

That discrepancy is at the heart of Libby's perjury and obstruction trial. He is accused of lying to investigators about his conversations with reporters regarding Wilson's wife, CIA operative Valerie Plame.

Tim Russert Contradicts Libby's Testimony, "Meet The Press" Anchor Tells Courtroom He Never Discussed CIA Operative With Former Cheney Aide - CBS News

he's cooked.

**raycarey** · 08-02-2007, 06:07 PM

A CIA panel has told former officer Valerie Plame she can't write about her undercover work for the agency

Writer's Block: Valerie Plame vs. CIA - Newsweek Periscope - MSNBC.com

clear enough?

**stroller** · 08-02-2007, 09:28 PM

Originally Posted by attaboy

Now in the link provoded by Mr Earl we see that the prosecutor is withholding evidence which could clear the argument up. And he has not charged anyone with leaking. This leads to believe she was not a "secret agent".

No, the withholding of evidence indicates that the nature of her assignments is considered unsuitable to be revealed and made public, if it would prove she wasn't an agent, there would be no reason to withhold the facts.

You're owned, plain and simple - happens to all of us from time to time.

**barbaro** · 09-02-2007, 12:27 AM

Russert, the host of "Meet the Press," testified about a July 2003 phone call in which Libby complained about a colleague's coverage. Libby has said that, at the end of the call, Russert brought up war critic Joseph Wilson and mentioned that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

"That would be impossible," Russert testified Wednesday. "I didn't know who that person was until several days later."

That discrepancy is at the heart of Libby's perjury and obstruction trial. He is accused of lying to investigators about his conversations with reporters regarding Wilson's wife, CIA operative Valerie Plame.

Good or bad, I don't know.

This also shows how inside journalists and reporters are inside--the-beltway.

One in the same?

**attaboy** · 09-02-2007, 05:13 AM

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by attaboy

Now in the link provoded by Mr Earl we see that the prosecutor is withholding evidence which could clear the argument up. And he has not charged anyone with leaking. This leads to believe she was not a "secret agent".

No, the withholding of evidence indicates that the nature of her assignments is considered unsuitable to be revealed and made public, if it would prove she wasn't an agent, there would be no reason to withhold the facts.

You're owned, plain and simple - happens to all of us from time to time.

No. Fitzgerald is playing games. He won't turn over the documents because he is charging Libby with perjury and obstruction. Her status is not pertinent to those charges according to him.

Okay, is this topic being moved to the SubPar forum or what?

**raycarey** · 09-02-2007, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by Milkman

Good or bad, I don't know. This also shows how inside journalists and reporters are inside--the-beltway. One in the same?

no doubt.

the entire libby / judith miller saga is revealing....

libby fed NY times reporter judith miller false info about WMD and saddam---
the NYT put these 'scoops' on the front page of the paper--
when faced with reporters questions, cheney would respond, 'according to the NY times,......'

yeah, attaboy was 'owned' on the thread, but the american people got owned by the vice president's office in its run up to the war.

**Mr Earl** · 09-02-2007, 08:13 PM

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by attaboy

Now in the link provoded by Mr Earl we see that the prosecutor is withholding evidence which could clear the argument up. And he has not charged anyone with leaking. This leads to believe she was not a "secret agent".

No, the withholding of evidence indicates that the nature of her assignments is considered unsuitable to be revealed and made public, if it would prove she wasn't an agent, there would be no reason to withhold the facts.

You're owned, plain and simple - happens to all of us from time to time.

If Fitzgerald had the evidence the indictement would be for something with more teeth than perjury.
To make the perjury case stick he will have to show motive which will be difficult.

**barbaro** · 09-02-2007, 08:17 PM

Originally Posted by raycarey

Originally Posted by Milkman

Good or bad, I don't know. This also shows how inside journalists and reporters are inside--the-beltway. One in the same?

no doubt.

the entire libby / judith miller saga is revealing....

libby fed NY times reporter judith miller false info about WMD and saddam---
the NYT put these 'scoops' on the front page of the paper--
when faced with reporters questions, cheney would respond, 'according to the NY times,......'

yeah, attaboy was 'owned' on the thread, but the american people got owned by the vice president's office in its run up to the war.

Thanks for the info., on the Judith Miller story, Ray.

I didn't know Libby was involved.

I'd like to read more on this. I'll look for it.

**raycarey** · 10-02-2007, 11:12 AM

MM, i'll try to find one of the letters that libby wrote to miller while she was in jail. there is some speculation that they may have even been romantically involved. is specifically remember him commenting something about the changing colors of the leaves during autumn.

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

To make the perjury case stick he will have to show motive which will be difficult.

nonsense. all he has to do is prove that libby deliberatly misled the special prosecutor's office....by the way, the jury pool is washington DC which is approx. 90% dem.

btw earl, you seem to have missed my earlier question..... putting aside whether or not libby heard it from cheney or russert, and whether she was or wasn't 'undercover'--how do you feel about the chief of staff for the vice president of the US admitting to calling 3 reporters about a CIA officer?

**raycarey** · 10-02-2007, 11:27 AM

here's the pdf of libby's letter to miller while she was in jail for nearly 3 months.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...LER_051001.pdf

btw, when miller was let go from the times, the editor sent an email to all employees (because her actions so discredited the times) that mentioned he was unaware of miller's 'entanglements' with libby.

**Boon Mee** · 10-02-2007, 01:14 PM

Yawn.....
This so-called 'case' against Libby will soon go the way of the Duke 'rape' scandal. If anyone should be outraged at these politicos, save some for Nancy (Airplane) Pelosi who want her own Air Force Two with all the trimmings...

**raycarey** · 10-02-2007, 02:23 PM

ok boonie....

why is this a 'so called' case? john ashcroft's justice department appointed fitzgerald to invesitgate, and fitzgerald thinks that libby lied to him. do you think that people should be allowed to lie to special prosecutors?

please provide informatin on how this perjury and obstruction of justice trial is anything like the duke lacrosse case?

and what does this have to do with nancy pelosi?

but i suppose we should be happy that you didn't bring jane fonda and jimmy carter into this thread....yet.

**raycarey** · 10-02-2007, 04:11 PM

similar to planting stories with miller at the times, they also created their own intelligence in their 'office of special plans'. no shit. that's the name of the intelligence office cheney and rumsfeld set up at the pentagon.

according to the inspector general of the pentagon, here's what happened...

"Intelligence provided by former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith to buttress the White House case for invading Iraq included 'reporting of dubious quality or reliability' that supported the political views of senior administration officials rather than the conclusions of the intelligence community, according to a report by the Pentagon's inspector general. . . ."Feith, who was defense policy chief before leaving the government in 2005, was one of the key contributors to the administration's rationale for war. His intelligence activities, authorized by then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul D. Wolfowitz, and coordinated with Vice President Cheney's office, stemmed from an administration belief that the CIA was underplaying evidence of then-Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's ties with al-Qaeda. . . .

"'The bottom line is that intelligence relating to the Iraq-al-Qaeda relationship was manipulated by high-ranking officials in the Department of Defense to support the administration's decision to invade Iraq,' [Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.)] said yesterday. 'The inspector general's report is a devastating condemnation of inappropriate activities in the DOD policy office that helped take this nation to war.'"
For instance, the summary document "cited the defense policy office's preparation of slides describing as a 'known contact' an alleged 2001 meeting in Prague between Mohamed Atta, the leader of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, and an Iraqi intelligence officer.
"That claim figured heavily in statements by Cheney and other senior administration officials alleging a link between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi regime, but it has since been discredited."

washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

**Boon Mee** · 10-02-2007, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by raycarey

and what does this have to do with nancy pelosi?

Both issues are equally trivial...
Fitzgerald has a weak case and he knows it.

**barbaro** · 10-02-2007, 05:11 PM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Yawn.....
This so-called 'case' against Libby will soon go the way of the Duke 'rape' scandal. If anyone should be outraged at these politicos, save some for Nancy (Airplane) Pelosi who want her own Air Force Two with all the trimmings...

You're free to give your opinion Boon Me, but it seems you constantly make short statements offer incorrect generalizations about....just about everything.

There is no comparison of the Duke rape trial and the Libby case, and what does Nancy Pelosi have to do with the Libby trial.

Futhermore, what does her request for non-stop flight from DC to CA have to do with it?

**Boon Mee** · 10-02-2007, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by Milkman

There is no comparison of the Duke rape trial and the Libby case, and what does Nancy Pelosi have to do with the Libby trial.
Futhermore, what does her request for non-stop flight from DC to CA have to do with it?

See post #65 above...

**barbaro** · 10-02-2007, 05:25 PM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by Milkman

There is no comparison of the Duke rape trial and the Libby case, and what does Nancy Pelosi have to do with the Libby trial.
Futhermore, what does her request for non-stop flight from DC to CA have to do with it?

See post #65 above...

I've already read it atleast two times.

**Boon Mee** · 10-02-2007, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by Milkman

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by Milkman

There is no comparison of the Duke rape trial and the Libby case, and what does Nancy Pelosi have to do with the Libby trial.
Futhermore, what does her request for non-stop flight from DC to CA have to do with it?

See post #65 above...

I've already read it atleast two times.

And both issues are...what's that word that begins with 't' and ends with an 'L'?

**raycarey** · 10-02-2007, 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Both issues are equally trivial...

you continue to dodge the question...how is the chief of staff for the vice president of the US being charged with lying to the special prosecutor 'trivial'?

putting aside the indictments and whether or not she was 'undercover', why don't you care that the chief of staff for the vice president has admitted to telling 3 reporters that wilson's wife worked at the CIA--'during a time of war'?

it's posts like these that are going to have people questioning if you really support the troops.

**man with no head** · 10-02-2007, 06:33 PM

I bet Booner was all over it like flies on stink when ol' St. Bubba was being prosecuted for the same crime as Libby.

**Boon Mee** · 10-02-2007, 11:08 PM

Originally Posted by surasak

I bet Booner was all over it like flies on stink when ol' St. Bubba was being prosecuted for the same crime as Libby.

You bet I was.

Too bad fox News wasn't the quality news organization it is today or I would have watched it vs. the commie news network (CNN) for their very biased reporting.

**Boon Mee** · 10-02-2007, 11:13 PM

Originally Posted by raycarey

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Both issues are equally trivial...

you continue to dodge the question...how is the chief of staff for the vice president of the US being charged with lying to the special prosecutor 'trivial'?

putting aside the indictments and whether or not she was 'undercover', why don't you care that the chief of staff for the vice president has admitted to telling 3 reporters that wilson's wife worked at the CIA--'during a time of war'?

it's posts like these that are going to have people questioning if you really support the troops.

Libby was not the first one to reveal Plame worked for the CIA - Jesus Jumpin' Chocolate Christ. Tim Russert, the reporter spilled the beans way before Libby came into the picture. The question you have to answer is how Novak received the news?

**Mr Earl** · 11-02-2007, 06:20 AM

Originally Posted by raycarey

btw earl, you seem to have missed my earlier question..... putting aside whether or not libby heard it from cheney or russert, and whether she was or wasn't 'undercover'--how do you feel about the chief of staff for the vice president of the US admitting to calling 3 reporters about a CIA officer?

So you want me to put aside the facts and tell how I "feel"?
Is how I "feel" pertinent to the "facts"?

Is this how you formulate your astute opinions?
Do you put aside the facts and then see how you "feel" about it?

All I know is that without an underlying crime the perjury charges against Libby are moot.

**man with no head** · 11-02-2007, 06:52 AM

A conviction of perjury doesn't require that a crime be committed...only that one lied while under oath.

Thread: U.S. v. Libby

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions