Bob Woodward: My CIA leak source not Libby

[Thump553]

I love the way the rightwingers are spinning this news, even referencing back to their time honored Clinton Was The Scum of The Earth (TM) catchphrase.

Fact is, it was never contended that Libby was the initial leak disclosure-quite the opposite. Libby was indicated for his perjury and obstruction in the investigation.

One of the most probable outcomes of all this is that it will turn out that Cheney was the initial leaker to Woodward, and all of Libby's lies (or spins, depending on your political bent) were the efforts of a loyal trooper striving to protect his boss. Time will tell, but I'm betting that the Woodward disclosure will ultimately result in being even worse news for the White House-that the No. 2 man was playing games with classified information purely for reasons of political revenge. So much for honor in this White House.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice

The hypocrasy of the left is astounding. Clinton commits perjury while obstructing justice (you know, just like Nixon although Nixon didn't commit perjury). For that the democrats praise him.

The new information indicates that Libby may not have even committed perjury but even if he did it may have been a mistake in his remembered timetable. One thing is for certain, this administration cooperated fully with the investigation unlike the Clintons you worship.

Two things to consider.

1. Since no charges have been made involving the supposed crime being investigated it would appear that no crime was committed. Since the fishing expedition took years during which no crime was investigated Libby should never have been placed under oath. Thus, no crime would ever have been comitted.

2. If Libby did commit perjury he should be punished. Yeah, I know, this is not very liberal like but that is because I'm a conservative and think that people who commit crimes should be punished. Liberals have proven time and time again that they only want to punish their "enemies."


(as for my last statement... remember the MMM spokeswoman who said no one should own a gun, even though she owned one. Then when she shot an honor student turning him into a paraplegic the liberals defended her and even paid for her defense. Of course she shot a minority so liberals had no problem with it and she did say no one should own a gun, thus, she is their friend.)

In response to your statements before your two points, I don't know of any Dems that have "praised" Clinton for obstruction and perjury. Actually, I remember that then (and still today), the majority of Dems condemn(ed) Clinton for doing just that. They (and I), however, do believe that he should not have been in the position to have to answer questions about that subject, but that is another story.

The new info doesn't absolve Libby of anything. By Woodward stating that someone told him earlier about Plame, by no means, is indicative of Libby not telling anyone and then lying about it to the grand jury. It just means that he probably wasn't the first to expose her. He still told reporters about her and then lied (allegedly) about doing so.

Now, onto your two points.

1. Here is a simple anology for you.....if you come across a dead body with one to the head and two to the chest, does that mean that a crime wasn't committed? No. It means that the investigators/prosecutors have, up to that point in time, been able to figure out WHO committed the crime. The crime was still committed however.

2. Good job on the belief of punishment. The "liberals are evil and masochistic" stuff.....that is a two way street. Amazingly, the Dems were able to do something that the Repubs couldn't. That is, while even while in the minority, they have been effective enough to get investigations underway. Not sure if that is really something that the Dems can take credit for or the Repubs have just f*cked up so badly that they, themselves have to investigate each other or completely loose all credibility with the public.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Thump553
I love the way the rightwingers are spinning this news, even referencing back to their time honored Clinton Was The Scum of The Earth (TM) catchphrase.

Fact is, it was never contended that Libby was the initial leak disclosure-quite the opposite. Libby was indicated for his perjury and obstruction in the investigation.

One of the most probable outcomes of all this is that it will turn out that Cheney was the initial leaker to Woodward, and all of Libby's lies (or spins, depending on your political bent) were the efforts of a loyal trooper striving to protect his boss. Time will tell, but I'm betting that the Woodward disclosure will ultimately result in being even worse news for the White House-that the No. 2 man was playing games with classified information purely for reasons of political revenge. So much for honor in this White House.

See my link above. Right now it looks like Cheney wasn't the leak to Woodward. It wasn't Libby either. Not saying it didn't come from the administration, but it doesn't look like it was either one of those guys. Rove? Maybe.

But like I said earlier, the whole thing might be academic at this point if Plame's status with the CIA wasn't Covert. The MSM keep using that word to describe her status but the one person who matters most (Fitz) won't. I think that is very telling.

 

[conehead433]

"But like I said earlier, the whole thing might be academic at this point if Plame's status with the CIA wasn't Covert. The MSM keep using that word to describe her status but the one person who matters most (Fitz) won't. I think that is very telling."

" The sources that supposedly leaked her name in the case, have security clearance, which means they have access to finding out whether or not Plame was actually covert before talking to reporters. Just 7 days before Novak's piece was published, a memo was passed around among administration officials with the information on Plame, clearly marked with an (S) next to the paragraph in which she was discussed, meaning the information contained in that paragraph was secret. Administration officials knew that her covert status was protected, and both Karl Rove and Scooter Libby, both targets in the probe, had full access to that memo. This is where judicial precedents come into play. Whether or not Rove and Libby "knew" she was covert is not an issue, they had access to the information, and according to USA v LADISH MALTING CO., a decided Supreme Court case, that's all that matters. What that case decided was that "having knowledge" means the person knew or "should have known." Under this legal precedent, both Rove and Libby clearly violated the law."

Text

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: conehead433
"But like I said earlier, the whole thing might be academic at this point if Plame's status with the CIA wasn't Covert. The MSM keep using that word to describe her status but the one person who matters most (Fitz) won't. I think that is very telling."

" The sources that supposedly leaked her name in the case, have security clearance, which means they have access to finding out whether or not Plame was actually covert before talking to reporters. Just 7 days before Novak's piece was published, a memo was passed around among administration officials with the information on Plame, clearly marked with an (S) next to the paragraph in which she was discussed, meaning the information contained in that paragraph was secret. Administration officials knew that her covert status was protected, and both Karl Rove and Scooter Libby, both targets in the probe, had full access to that memo. This is where judicial precedents come into play. Whether or not Rove and Libby "knew" she was covert is not an issue, they had access to the information, and according to USA v LADISH MALTING CO., a decided Supreme Court case, that's all that matters. What that case decided was that "having knowledge" means the person knew or "should have known." Under this legal precedent, both Rove and Libby clearly violated the law."

Text

And this gets back to my original question: If she was covert, why is Fitz dancing around the word? I understand there are rules about GJ secrecy but it doesn't seem to me that disclosing her actual status with the CIA (covert or other) would hinder the GJ's investigation as to who leaked Plame's name.

 

[dahunan]

Maybe he wanted to catch all the underlings lying before he filed the big charges?

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: dahunan
Maybe he wanted to catch all the underlings lying before he filed the big charges?

Maybe. And there is the other side to my question... Why would Libby, or anyone else in the admin, lie if they already knew her status wasn't Covert?

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: dahunan
Maybe he wanted to catch all the underlings lying before he filed the big charges?

Maybe. And there is the other side to my question... Why would Libby, or anyone else in the admin, lie if they already knew her status wasn't Covert?

I don't know.. but I truly believe they did lie - do you really think Fitz is just gonna waste time bringing some false charges? And.. do you think that Libby and Miller both just happened to forget and now deserve the slow memory defense?

 

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice

The hypocrasy of the left is astounding. Clinton commits perjury while obstructing justice (you know, just like Nixon although Nixon didn't commit perjury). For that the democrats praise him.

The new information indicates that Libby may not have even committed perjury but even if he did it may have been a mistake in his remembered timetable. One thing is for certain, this administration cooperated fully with the investigation unlike the Clintons you worship.

Two things to consider.

1. Since no charges have been made involving the supposed crime being investigated it would appear that no crime was committed. Since the fishing expedition took years during which no crime was investigated Libby should never have been placed under oath. Thus, no crime would ever have been comitted.

2. If Libby did commit perjury he should be punished. Yeah, I know, this is not very liberal like but that is because I'm a conservative and think that people who commit crimes should be punished. Liberals have proven time and time again that they only want to punish their "enemies."


(as for my last statement... remember the MMM spokeswoman who said no one should own a gun, even though she owned one. Then when she shot an honor student turning him into a paraplegic the liberals defended her and even paid for her defense. Of course she shot a minority so liberals had no problem with it and she did say no one should own a gun, thus, she is their friend.)

In response to your statements before your two points, I don't know of any Dems that have "praised" Clinton for obstruction and perjury. Actually, I remember that then (and still today), the majority of Dems condemn(ed) Clinton for doing just that. They (and I), however, do believe that he should not have been in the position to have to answer questions about that subject, but that is another story.

The new info doesn't absolve Libby of anything. By Woodward stating that someone told him earlier about Plame, by no means, is indicative of Libby not telling anyone and then lying about it to the grand jury. It just means that he probably wasn't the first to expose her. He still told reporters about her and then lied (allegedly) about doing so.

Now, onto your two points.

1. Here is a simple anology for you.....if you come across a dead body with one to the head and two to the chest, does that mean that a crime wasn't committed? No. It means that the investigators/prosecutors have, up to that point in time, been able to figure out WHO committed the crime. The crime was still committed however.

2. Good job on the belief of punishment. The "liberals are evil and masochistic" stuff.....that is a two way street. Amazingly, the Dems were able to do something that the Repubs couldn't. That is, while even while in the minority, they have been effective enough to get investigations underway. Not sure if that is really something that the Dems can take credit for or the Repubs have just f*cked up so badly that they, themselves have to investigate each other or completely loose all credibility with the public.

When he commits the same action that caused Nixon to resign and adds perjury to his many list of offenses, then the Democrats and liberals proclaim him to be the best President this country has ever hand and even calls for him to be reelected to a third term. That is praise.

As for the "defense" that "he should not have been in the position to have to answer questions about that subject" that was part of my hyprocisy statement. You noted, of course, that I stated that if Libby committed perjury he should be punished. It is the hypocrits that say I'm right but that Clinton should be excused. I'm not even talking about the actions of the two individuals. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy.

The new info doesn't absolve Libby of anything.

Point out where I even made a remote suggestion that it should? I do believe you are confusing me with the hypocrits. Stop that!

He still told reporters about her and then lied (allegedly) about doing so.

my understanding is that his "lie" was not about talking about her but when. Since the time table appears not to even be fully know the the persecutors it would be hard to tell if his statement was a lie or not.

1. Here is a simple anology for you.....if you come across a dead body with one to the head and two to the chest, does that mean that a crime wasn't committed? No. It means that the investigators/prosecutors have, up to that point in time, been able to figure out WHO committed the crime. The crime was still committed however.

I agree. Now, allow me to correct the analogy to fit the facts. if someone claims to have come across a dead body with one to the head and two to the chest, does that mean that a crime wasn't committed? No. It means that someone claims a crime was comitted.

If you recall, for a crime to have been comitted many very narrowly worded facts must be shown. For a Government official this includes that they intended harm to the individual. Given her position over the past many years no harm could have been done.

One of the facts for a crime was that she had to be involved in a covert action outside the country within the past 5 years. The prosecution has never even made this suggestion.

One of the facts was that the CIA has had to try and protect her identity. Since they inadvertently "outted" her before the disclosure to the media that procludes any crime.

Now, all this is based on comments made but has not been proven to be true or false. However, since the prosecution has never even suggested that she was covert in the past 5 years they must be trying to hide something. I don't know what but the most likely case is that they simply want to persecute certain individuals.

2.

huh?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
The hypocrasy of the left is astounding. Clinton commits perjury while obstructing justice (you know, just like Nixon although Nixon didn't commit perjury). For that the democrats praise him.

The hypocrisy of your post is astounding. Clinton commits perjury while obstructing justice. For that, he got impeached. FYI, the only reason Nixon didn't get impeached was that he resigned before it happened.

FYI, the only reason Nixon never "officially" committed perjury was because he refused to testify before Congress, and he was not charged with a criminal offense. He lied to Congress and withheld evidence in his written submissions to the committees investigating the Watergate breakin and the ensuing coverup. The only effect was to distinguish what he did from obsruction of justice.

The new information indicates that Libby may not have even committed perjury but even if he did it may have been a mistake in his remembered timetable.

Buahahaha!!! :laugh: If you're basing that on Libby?s attorney, Ted Wells' statement at his press conference, think again. Wells said:

First, the disclosure shows that Mr. Fitzgerald's statement at his press conference of Oct. 28, 2005, that Mr. Libby was the first government official to tell a reporter about Mr. Wilson's wife was totally inaccurate.

That's all BS spin. What Fitzgerald actually said was:

In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson.

That sentence has a vastly different meaning. The only lies are from Libby's lawyer and, of course, the ones Libby, himself, told to the FBI and under oath to the Grand Jury.

One thing is for certain, this administration cooperated fully with the investigation unlike the Clintons you worship.

Right! That's why Libby was indicted. That's why Scott McClellan first stated that he knew for certain that Libby and Rove were not involved in any way in outing Valerie Plame's identity. That's why Bushwhacko, himself, first said that anyone involved in disclosing her identity would be fired, and a year later, he backpedalled to say it would apply to "anyone found to have committed a crime."

Bush Raises Threshold for Firing Aides In Leak Probe

By Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, July 19, 2005; Page A01

President Bush said yesterday that he will fire anyone in the administration found to have committed a crime in the leaking of a CIA operative's name, creating a higher threshold than he did one year ago for holding aides accountable in the unmasking of Valerie Plame.

After originally saying anyone involved in leaking the name of the covert CIA operative would be fired, Bush told reporters: "If somebody committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

Two things to consider.

1. Since no charges have been made involving the supposed crime being investigated it would appear that no crime was committed. Since the fishing expedition took years during which no crime was investigated Libby should never have been placed under oath. Thus, no crime would ever have been comitted.

What have you been smoking? :roll: As I said, above, Fitzgerald specifically stated that Libby was indicted for obstruction of justice and perjury because his lies were obscured the specific facts that would support an indictment for the underlying charges related to outing Plame's identity, NOT that a crime related to outing her had not been committed.

2. If Libby did commit perjury he should be punished. Yeah, I know, this is not very liberal like but that is because I'm a conservative and think that people who commit crimes should be punished.

Congratulations. That is a conservative thing to say. Now, try applying that "conservative" logic to minor concepts like deceiving to Congress, the American public and the world about why Bush started a war based entirely on lies, costing thousands of American military lives, tens of thoutsands of other innocent lives, and trillions of dollars in debt that your great grandchildren will still be paying for as they approach retirement.

Liberals have proven time and time again that they only want to punish their "enemies."

Since you brought up Nixon, here's his "Enemies List".

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: conehead433
This is where judicial precedents come into play. Whether or not Rove and Libby "knew" she was covert is not an issue, they had access to the information, and according to USA v LADISH MALTING CO., a decided Supreme Court case, that's all that matters. What that case decided was that "having knowledge" means the person knew or "should have known." Under this legal precedent, both Rove and Libby clearly violated the law."

Text

But doesn't the law in question (outting an agent) require more than (1) having certain access to the knowledge and (2) disclosing it to unathorized persons.

Aren't there other requirements? Such as doing so with a certain intent?

IIRC, the law enacted as a result of Ames treasonous acts was rather specific and narrow.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: piasabird
How do you obsruct justice, when no crime was committed in the first place?

Who says no crime has been commited?

Hey, I'm still waiting on who says no crime has been commited.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Harvey

The new information indicates that Libby may not have even committed perjury but even if he did it may have been a mistake in his remembered timetable.

Buahahaha!!! :laugh: If you're basing that on Libby?s attorney, Ted Wells' statement at his press conference, think again. Wells said:

First, the disclosure shows that Mr. Fitzgerald's statement at his press conference of Oct. 28, 2005, that Mr. Libby was the first government official to tell a reporter about Mr. Wilson's wife was totally inaccurate.

That's all BS spin. What Fitzgerald actually said was:

In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson.

That sentence has a vastly different meaning. The only lies are from Libby's lawyer and, of course, the ones Libby, himself, told to the FBI and under oath to the Grand Jury.

Again, I cannot understand why you believe these are vastly different statements. One just left out the qualifier "known". Even so the basic meaning of the statement remains intact: that Libby was thought to be the first, or originator, of the Plame information. Hence, they are substantially similar, not vastly different.

I listened to Fitzgerald speak about the indictments, seemed to me he was emphasing that Libby tried to make it appear in his testimony that Libby was "just in the loop" and reporters already knew of Plame. Fitzgerald emphasized that he found this a lie (thus perjury and OoJ) because his investigation showed Libby in fact was the first official to inform a reporter. Thus Libby was not in the loop, but in fact the originator of the information.

Accordingly, (IIRC) Fitzgerald said he found that inaccuacies in the dates provided by Libby were an attempt to conceal the truth: that Libby was the first to speak of Plame.

I wish they would move on to a determination of whether there was a violation of law in the leak, even if they couldn't at this time identify who it was. They could at least confirm that Plame was a "covert" agent under the law

 

[conehead433]

"I wish they would move on to a determination of whether there was a violation of law in the leak, even if they couldn't at this time identify who it was. They could at least confirm that Plame was a "covert" agent under the law."

If the law hadn't been violated there would not have been an investigation. Identifying exactly the person or persons responsible and being able to prove it are different matters entirely.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: conehead433
"I wish they would move on to a determination of whether there was a violation of law in the leak, even if they couldn't at this time identify who it was. They could at least confirm that Plame was a "covert" agent under the law."

If the law hadn't been violated there would not have been an investigation. Identifying exactly the person or persons responsible and being able to prove it are different matters entirely.

Umm.. Wouldn't they have an investigation to determine (1) IF there was a violation, as well as (2) who did it?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Fern
Again, I cannot understand why you believe these are vastly different statements. One just left out the qualifier "known". Even so the basic meaning of the statement remains intact: that Libby was thought to be the first, or originator, of the Plame information. Hence, they are substantially similar, not vastly different.

If you can't understand the difference between the two sentences, check with your schoolboard about getting a refund for the time you invested in English classes. You failed.

 

[ExpertNovice]

Too tired reply fully at the moment. Will try to later.

Quotes were originally posted by: Harvey

FYI, the only reason Nixon never "officially" committed perjury was because he refused to testify before Congress, and he was not charged with a criminal offense. He lied to Congress and withheld evidence in his written submissions to the committees investigating the Watergate breakin and the ensuing coverup. The only effect was to distinguish what he did from obsruction of justice.

While you are probably right that Nixon might have committed perjury had he testified your statement that says "the only reason [he didn't]" presumes that he would have comitted purjury. However, Nixon showed more grace in his stepping down than Clinton did, given they were guilty of the same charges.

What does "officially" mean? Either perjury is committed or not. Or, does the liberal definition of a liberal mean that liberals can commit perjury and in doing so it is not "official" unless other liberals say it is. An example is that when Clinton committe perjury the liberals state that he didn't perjure himself he merely lied under oath. The doublespeak is amazing.

Buahahaha!!! :laugh: If you're basing that on Libby?s attorney, Ted Wells' statement at his press conference, think again.

No, my comment is not the simple regurgitation of what some media source tells me. My comment is based on the belief that people are innocent until proven guilty. Something liberals seem to have forgotten in their stampeded to destroy the U.S. Constitution.

Thus, until he is proven guilty my comment stands. He may have been mistaken about the time table. Since the dates of events are seemingly unknown to the prosecution I don't see how a single witness could possibly know every date of every event.

Right! That's why Libby was indicted. That's why Scott McClellan first stated that he knew for certain that Libby and Rove were not involved in any way in outing Valerie Plame's identity. That's why Bushwhacko, himself, first said that anyone involved in disclosing her identity would be fired, and a year later, he backpedalled to say it would apply to "anyone found to have committed a crime."

Compare Clinton vs Bush.

Unlike Clinton no one in the Bush administration cited executive privilege or attorney-client privilege.

No joint defense agreement was made as done by the Clintons and is usually formed by the defense during organized crime hearings.

The Clinton's had files delivered to them by the FBI which then disappeared for years at a time. (I assume they were altered otherwise why hide them. Just to stall?)

The Clinton's had their staff resist the investigation at every step. President Bush forced everyone, including staff members, to sign waivers drafted by Fitzgerald, which released reporters from any pledge of confidentiality regarding the investigation. Thus, every reporter could freely tell anyone what they had been told and when.

Then Fitzgerald told the reporters that they would HAVE to testify or face jail time since any confidentiality agreements had been terminated.

All documents requested were turned over. Unlike Clinton who never did fully comply.

All documents were turned over immediately, rather than waiting for years on some and never on others.

Yet, possibly a single staff member aide lied under oath (liberal term) or committed perjury (conservative term) and that makes President Bush corrupt. Ahh, the hypocrisy.

Obviously those that say that President Clinton was the best President ever are only looking at the Democrat presidents.

 

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
This is the part that fascinates me... The whole thing hinges on whether or not Valerie Plame was a "covert" agent or not. But that apparently hasn't been established by Fitz. In his press conference where he announced Libby's indictment he used the term "Classified" not "Covert" to describe Plame's status with the CIA.

Exactly. Honest prosecutors would never have taken the case to the grand jury without first deciding that point.

Basically Fitzgerald (can you imagine how much pressure was placed on him by the New Way government of the left?) said, we don't know if there was a crime and rather than find out if a crime was committed lets prosecute and ignore that pesky little fact.

In Salem they called it witch hunts. Drown the individual. If they die we will bury them in the Cemetary. If they live we will burn them at the stake. But, this is what both the Communist and Facist parties have always done. Does anyone expect them to change now?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: conehead433
"I wish they would move on to a determination of whether there was a violation of law in the leak, even if they couldn't at this time identify who it was. They could at least confirm that Plame was a "covert" agent under the law."

If the law hadn't been violated there would not have been an investigation. Identifying exactly the person or persons responsible and being able to prove it are different matters entirely.

If Fibby hadn't lied to the FBI, the prosecutor, and to the Grand Jury, we might have a better idea on what actually happened. As it is, Fibby is obstructing justice via his lies and, therefore, he is being charged with crimes.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
This is the part that fascinates me... The whole thing hinges on whether or not Valerie Plame was a "covert" agent or not. But that apparently hasn't been established by Fitz. In his press conference where he announced Libby's indictment he used the term "Classified" not "Covert" to describe Plame's status with the CIA.

Exactly. Honest prosecutors would never have taken the case to the grand jury without first deciding that point.

Basically Fitzgerald (can you imagine how much pressure was placed on him by the New Way government of the left?) said, we don't know if there was a crime and rather than find out if a crime was committed lets prosecute and ignore that pesky little fact.

Nice attempt at spink but that's a crock of sh8! :|

Fitzgerald was investigating the crime, and Libby lied to cover the information that would define that crime. Lying to the FBI is Obstruction of Justice. Lying under oath to the Grand jury is Purjury. Both are felonies, regardless of the facts in the underlying crime, which is still under investigation with a new Grand Jury.

In Salem they called it witch hunts. Drown the individual. If they die we will bury them in the Cemetary. If they live we will burn them at the stake. But, this is what both the Communist and Facist parties have always done. Does anyone expect them to change now?

You can keep trying to pass off that tired Bushwhacko spin, but your reality check bounced. :roll:

 

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
This is the part that fascinates me... The whole thing hinges on whether or not Valerie Plame was a "covert" agent or not. But that apparently hasn't been established by Fitz. In his press conference where he announced Libby's indictment he used the term "Classified" not "Covert" to describe Plame's status with the CIA.

Exactly. Honest prosecutors would never have taken the case to the grand jury without first deciding that point.

Basically Fitzgerald (can you imagine how much pressure was placed on him by the New Way government of the left?) said, we don't know if there was a crime and rather than find out if a crime was committed lets prosecute and ignore that pesky little fact.

Nice attempt at spink but that's a crock of sh8! :|

Fitzgerald was investigating the crime, and Libby lied to cover the information that would define that crime. Lying to the FBI is Obstruction of Justice. Lying under oath to the Grand jury is Purjury. Both are felonies, regardless of the facts in the underlying crime, which is still under investigation with a new Grand Jury.

In Salem they called it witch hunts. Drown the individual. If they die we will bury them in the Cemetary. If they live we will burn them at the stake. But, this is what both the Communist and Facist parties have always done. Does anyone expect them to change now?

You can keep trying to pass off that tired Bushwhacko spin, but your reality check bounced. :roll:

You are too far gone to waste time with, but others may be saved.

Had you bothered to read what I have written I have said (not like you hypocrits) that if Libby committed perjury, even if he should never have had to testify, he should be punished.

Completely opposite of the liberal attitude when ANY liberal commits a crime.


Edited to add.

However, you prove my point, yet again. For liberals, guilty until proven innocent is status quo.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Fern
Again, I cannot understand why you believe these are vastly different statements. One just left out the qualifier "known". Even so the basic meaning of the statement remains intact: that Libby was thought to be the first, or originator, of the Plame information. Hence, they are substantially similar, not vastly different.

If you can't understand the difference between the two sentences, check with your schoolboard about getting a refund for the time you invested in English classes. You failed.

Oh, I do understand the difference between the two sentances, and am inclined to think that the schoolboard would agree with me - namely, the difference does not rise to level you claim.

That was my second honest/sincere attempt in asking you to explain your position. I.e., you've reached a conclusion in that they are vastly different. Can you not articulate your reasoning in even a short/concise response?

Fern

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Fern
Oh, I do understand the difference between the two sentances, and am inclined to think that the schoolboard would agree with me - namely, the difference does not rise to level you claim.

That was my second honest/sincere attempt in asking you to explain your position. I.e., you've reached a conclusion in that they are vastly different. Can you not articulate your reasoning in even a short/concise response?

Fern

I will try... ONCE! To repeat, Fitzgerald said:

In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson.

That single word, known defines is statement as of the moment he spoke it. It does not preclude the possiblity that Libby or others in the administration disclosed Valerie Plame's identity to any reporter prior to the known disclosure to Judith Miller.

That completely negates the implication by Libby's attorney that Fitzgerald's statement was "inaccurate" or false in any way.

As posed by Libby's attorney, the statement was an absolute and subject to being proven false. As stated by Fitzgerald, it was conditional. Bob Woodward's latest revelations and the fact that Fitzgerald's investigation is still ongoing clearly make the case that Fitzgerald's statement was correct as stated, and Libby's attorney's < ahem > "omission" was a lame attempt at spin to discredit Fitzgerald's integrity.

It also does not change the fact that Libby committed other felonies when he lied to the FBI and to the Grand Jury.

I would consider that vastly different. :roll:

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: conehead433
"I wish they would move on to a determination of whether there was a violation of law in the leak, even if they couldn't at this time identify who it was. They could at least confirm that Plame was a "covert" agent under the law."

If the law hadn't been violated there would not have been an investigation. Identifying exactly the person or persons responsible and being able to prove it are different matters entirely.

If Fibby hadn't lied to the FBI, the prosecutor, and to the Grand Jury, we might have a better idea on what actually happened. As it is, Fibby is obstructing justice via his lies and, therefore, he is being charged with crimes.

This assertion that we/Fitzgerald cannot determine if there is a underlying crime has been made now several times. I don't think that rings true.

All the charges against Libby involved (only) his testimony regarding conversations with Tim Russert, Matt Cooper and Judith Miller. I didn't see anything else reading the indictment?

The indictment explains (1) what Libby testified to, and (2) what really happened.

Fitzgerald's remarks:

"Mr. Libby's story that he was at the tail end of a chain of phone calls, passing on from one reporter what he heard from another, was not true," Fitzgerald said.

"He was at the beginning of the chain of phone calls -- the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter -- and then he lied about it afterwards, under oath and repeatedly," he said.

So, given all the above on Libby's lies I don't understand how that has prevented Fitzgerald from determining (1) if Plame was a covert agent, or (2) if an underlying crime was committed in the first place.

Yes, Libby lied, however the real information is known (thats how they know its a lie ). So please explain how you feel this has prevented Fitzgerald from determining if a crime was committed in the first place?

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: conehead433

Originally posted by: Fern
"I wish they would move on to a determination of whether there was a violation of law in the leak, even if they couldn't at this time identify who it was. They could at least confirm that Plame was a "covert" agent under the law."

If the law hadn't been violated there would not have been an investigation. Identifying exactly the person or persons responsible and being able to prove it are different matters entirely.

No, goHERE and read the actual indictment. See page 8, paragraph 25. The DoJ authorized the FBI to investigate a possible unathorized leak....

There is no forgone conclusion of a violation upon the commencment of an investigation. It is a suspected violation, which the investigation must prove did in fact happen.

BTW: conehead 433 didn't use the quote feature properely. I have attempted to correct for that.

Fern