U.S. v. Libby

**Boon Mee** · 14-02-2007, 08:43 PM

Remember - y'all heard it first here - the Libby case is going the same way as the Duke so-called rape incident...

And further evidence that the proecuters case is mai me rang!

**Boon Mee** · 15-02-2007, 04:20 PM

Contradictions Come to Define Libby Trial

Former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer testified that he told John Dickerson (then with TIME magazine) about Valerie Plame. Dickerson denies this.

Fleischer also testified that he told NBC’s David Gregory about Valerie Plame. NBC Washington bureau chief Tim Russert later denied that Gregory ever received the leak.

Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus testified that Fleischer told him about Valerie Plame. Fleischer denies this.

Bob Woodward testified that he had discussions with Pincus about Valerie Plame. Pincus denies this.

Russert first told the FBI that he couldn’t rule out the possibility that he discussed Valerie Plame with Scooter Libby. He later testified that he could.

NBC’s Andrea Mitchell has yet to testify, but she first said publicly that everyone knew about Valerie Plame prior to Robert Novak’s column. She now denies that she herself knew (and successfully resisted a subpoena).
...
On Tuesday, Jill Abramson, now The New York Times' managing editor, was called first by the defense [...]

Abramson was asked about former Times' reporter Judith Miller's testimony (she had claimed this for a long time) that she had asked Abramson in 2003, when the latter was Washington bureau chief, if she could write a story related to WMD and her recent talks with Libby.

Abramson, as she has done in the past, denied it.

Why is Libby the only one on trial for perjury?

Why isn't Plame&Plame on trial?

**raycarey** · 15-02-2007, 05:34 PM

^
another blog.

hey boner.....why do you think libby didn't testify in his own perjury trial? one would think that he would seize the opportunity to explain the inconsistencies in his grand jury testimony. but i guess not.

**Boon Mee** · 15-02-2007, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by raycarey

^
another blog.

hey boner.....why do you think libby didn't testify?

National Review is a highly respected publication as is the NYT (in some circles)...
No need for Libby to testify as the prosecution had such a weak case, it was a non-starter...

**raycarey** · 15-02-2007, 05:43 PM

you linked to page entitled 'media blog'.

let's be clear....are you claiming libby didn't testify because fitzgerald had a wekak case?

**Boon Mee** · 15-02-2007, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by raycarey

you linked to page entitled 'media blog'.

let's be clear....are you claiming libby didn't testify because fitzgerald had a wekak case?

Nope...he just diden't have to so why put himself through needless pain?

**raycarey** · 15-02-2007, 07:21 PM

at the start of the trial, libby's lawyer claimed he was being scapegoated by the whitehouse in an attempt to protect karl rove.

what happened to that theory? and why didn't they call even one witness to address it?

**Boon Mee** · 18-02-2007, 02:32 AM

What the CIA Leak Case is All About

Here's a good look at "The Thing That Cannot Be Spoken at the Libby Trial . Because if it were, the whole thing would collapse.

**raycarey** · 18-02-2007, 09:40 AM

The writer is White House correspondent for National Review.

^ taken from boner's link. check out the national review for the latest in neo-con news.

anyway, valerie wilson's status was classifed. there is no ambiguity on this point.

the white house (including libby) blabbed to the press about her position....and when interviewed by the FBI, libby lied about blabbing to the press. there is no ambiguity here either, and that is why libby is charged with perjury.

**barbaro** · 20-02-2007, 10:57 PM

The jurors begin deliberating on Wednesday, February 21st.

eidenberg told jurors that, for Libby's story to be believed he had to forget nine conversations about Plame and invent two others."That's not a matter of misremembering or forgetting," Zeidenberg said. "It's lying."

Entire: Final arguments begin in Libby trial - Politics - MSNBC.com

--
Bets anyone? Conviction? Acquittal?

**raycarey** · 20-02-2007, 10:59 PM

Originally Posted by Milkman

Bets anyone? Conviction? Acquittal?

hung jury....and libby will skate.

**raycarey** · 20-02-2007, 11:44 PM

just came across this...

Mr. Libby testified to the grand jury that an angry Mr. Cheney had by then already directed him to approach a reporter he regarded as suitable, Judith Miller of The New York Times, to make his case. Mr. Libby was under instruction to describe the vice president’s ignorance of Mr. Wilson’s mission and to discuss parts of the National Intelligence Estimate from October 2002 as well as another intelligence document showing the C.I.A. continued promoting the theory about Iraq’s efforts to acquire uranium months after Mr. Wilson’s trip.

The release of the intelligence estimate was a sensitive issue. Others in the administration had considered doing so that spring when Mr. Wilson’s claim first surfaced, but faced resistance from the C.I.A. One investigator questioned in the trial testified that Mr. Libby’s notes indicated that George J. Tenet, then director of central intelligence, was personally opposed to doing so.

Mr. Libby said he found a way around that resistance by getting backdoor approval from the president. In a hush-hush meeting described in testimony, Mr. Libby asked the vice president’s chief counsel, David S. Addington, whether the president could declassify intelligence personally, effectively without C.I.A. knowledge or approval.

Mr. Addington testified that as he explained to Mr. Libby that indeed the president could do so, Mr. Libby shushed him. “He extended his hands out and pushed down a little like that, that would indicate, ‘Hold your voice down,’ ” Mr. Addington said at the trial. Mr. Libby testified that Mr. Cheney then went to Mr. Bush and got a presidential declassification.
White House officials have said Mr. Bush did not know how Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby intended to use the intelligence.

Cathie Martin, Mr. Cheney’s former communications director, recalled her discomfort at seeing Mr. Libby reading from the estimate later in the day while he called back reporters covering the story, at Mr. Cheney’s direction, among them Andrea Mitchell of NBC News.

Other senior officials were perplexed when they apparently saw some of Mr. Libby’s handiwork from those phone calls in action. After Ms. Mitchell reported that night on NBC News that “The White House blamed an October C.I.A. report for ignoring Wilson’s information,” the president’s deputy national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, indicated that he had got an earful from Mr. Tenet, according to Ms. Martin’s testimony.

Ms. Martin testified that at a senior staff meeting the following morning Mr. Hadley strongly hinted he thought she was responsible and told her the finger-pointing had been a disservice to the president. According to Ms. Martin’s testimony, Mr. Libby let her take the blame and “looked down” as Mr. Hadley shared his chagrin. Mr. Cheney, she said, later told her not to worry about it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/20/wa...l?pagewanted=2

**Boon Mee** · 21-02-2007, 12:17 AM

Libby'll still walk...

**raycarey** · 05-03-2007, 06:31 PM

the jury sent this question to the judge last week, and he is expected to address it today.....

"We would like clarification of the term 'reasonable doubt,'" the note said. "Specifically, is it necessary for the government to present evidence that it is not humanly possible for someone not to recall an event in order to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?"

In his instructions to the Libby jury before sending them off to deliberate, Walton said, "A reasonable doubt, as the name implies, is a doubt based on reason." He also said that "if after careful, honest and impartial consideration of all the evidence, you cannot say that you are firmly convinced of the defendant's guilt, then you have a reasonable doubt."
Walton also noted, however, that "the government is not required to prove guilt beyond all doubt or to a mathematical certainty or to a scientific certainty."

Judge to address Libby jury questions - Politics - MSNBC.com

looks like he'll skate.

**Boon Mee** · 05-03-2007, 09:32 PM

Originally Posted by raycarey

looks like he'll skate.

That's what I told you months ago...

**barbaro** · 06-03-2007, 11:58 PM

ANY MINUTE NOW....

WASHINGTON - Jurors reached a verdict Tuesday in the trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a former White House aide accused of lying and obstructing an investigation into the leak of a CIA operative's identity.

Link: Jurors reach verdict in CIA leak case - Yahoo! News

**man with no head** · 07-03-2007, 12:06 AM

Guilty.

May Cheney and Bush be the next to fall.

**barbaro** · 07-03-2007, 12:10 AM

^ Yup.

News just in:

Guilty on 4 or 5 charges.

Link: Jury convicts Libby on four charges - Politics - MSNBC.com

**stroller** · 07-03-2007, 12:26 AM

Well, well - don't expect any retraction from those who've been trying to water this affair down for 12 pages...

**barbaro** · 07-03-2007, 12:36 AM

Anyway it will be difficult to prove Libby willfully committed perjury. (which is what Fitzgerald has to to for a conviction.) The case is very weak.

Carl Rove is laughing his ass off how badly the dems fell for this turkey.

A fellow poster: Post # 76

A different fellow poster: # 95

That pffft you hear is the sound of air going out of the Scooter Libby trial...

From a newsource:

Libby's defense team said he learned about Plame from Cheney, forgot about it, then learned it again a month later from NBC newsman Tim Russert. Anything he told reporters about Plame, Libby said, was just chatter and rumors, not official government information

Link: Libby guilty on 4 of 5 charges in CIA leak case: Nation & World: The Seattle Times

**Boon Mee** · 07-03-2007, 04:48 AM

Originally Posted by surasak

Guilty.

May Cheney and Bush be the next to fall.

Never happen...

Libbly's geting another trial so don't pop the champagne yet, fellas!

**Boon Mee** · 07-03-2007, 04:52 AM

JUST A REMINDER THAT THE LIBBY CONVICTION DOESN'T VINDICATE JOE WILSON:

"Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.

The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address."

Just a reminder.

**raycarey** · 07-03-2007, 09:05 AM

libby obstructed justice, lied to the grand jury, and lied to the FBI. these are crimes. just a reminder.

of course libby will appeal the decision so that cheney will have an excuse for not answering questions about his involvement in this entire disgraceful affair.

this was a good day for america....after seemingly countless bad ones.

**raycarey** · 07-03-2007, 09:11 AM

btw, yesterday 9 US soldiers and over 100 iraqis died in his war.

**Butterfly** · 07-03-2007, 09:18 AM

bringing back honor and decency in the White House

remembered that one ?

Thread: U.S. v. Libby

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions