Bob Woodward: My CIA leak source not Libby

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Harvey
I will try... ONCE!

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

Thank you

[jk]But what should the lawyer have said? "Given the grammatical nuance in Mr Fitzgerald assertion that Libby was the first official..., we must agree it is irrefutable. However..... [/jk]

Fern

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Fern
[jk]But what should the lawyer have said? "Given the grammatical nuance in Mr Fitzgerald assertion that Libby was the first official..., we must agree it is irrefutable. However..... [/jk]

Fern

If he believed in truth in advertising, maybe he could be more accurate and say something like:

I'm a lying scumbag representing a lying scumbag. Today, I'm misquoting Mr. Fitzgerald by omitting a single word from his statement, thus changing the entire meaning of his words.

I know that doing so makes me as much a liar as my client, but I respectfully submit that those grasping at any scrap of an excuse to believe my lies, as well as those told by my client and the rest of the administration, will be pleased that I have given them a lame piece of fluff they can post on Internet forums, toss out at cocktail parties and bulk mail to newspaper editorial pages in a lame attempt to distract those too functionally illiterate to comprehend the English language from understanding the magnitude of the crimes committed by my client and his associates.

Thank you. No, I will not be taking questions because I have no rational answers.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: 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

The way Fibby has lied involves his testimony re: timings of conversations with reporters. Fibby has contradicted the reporters and the reporters' word is being taken over Fibby's (as it should be as Fibby is covering for his master, Dark Lord DICK.)

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: conjur
The way Fibby has lied involves his testimony re: timings of conversations with reporters. Fibby has contradicted the reporters and the reporters' word is being taken over Fibby's (as it should be as Fibby is covering for his master, Dark Lord DICK.)

Yes, I understand that, its the same thing I was saying above.

What I wanted to know was, how do you feel this has prevented Fitzgerald from making a determination that (1) Plame was "covert" and (2) there was a prosocutable (sp?) leaker.

You see, several peeps have raised the question of why Fitzgerald has not indicted or spoke to the above (underlying crimes). And some have responded (including you) that they felt Fitz coundn't because of Libby's lying.

Just wanted your take on it, as I can't see it myself?

Thanks,

Fern

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: conjur
The way Fibby has lied involves his testimony re: timings of conversations with reporters. Fibby has contradicted the reporters and the reporters' word is being taken over Fibby's (as it should be as Fibby is covering for his master, Dark Lord DICK.)

Yes, I understand that, its the same thing I was saying above.

What I wanted to know was, how do you feel this has prevented Fitzgerald from making a determination that (1) Plame was "covert" and (2) there was a prosocutable (sp?) leaker.

You see, several peeps have raised the question of why Fitzgerald has not indicted or spoke to the above (underlying crimes). And some have responded (including you) that they felt Fitz coundn't because of Libby's lying.

Just wanted your take on it, as I can't see it myself?

Thanks,

Fern

To indict on the underlying crime (knowingly leaking a covert operative's name) requires the truth be told by those involved. Lying to cover up intent prevents the prosecution of other crimes.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: conjur
The way Fibby has lied involves his testimony re: timings of conversations with reporters. Fibby has contradicted the reporters and the reporters' word is being taken over Fibby's (as it should be as Fibby is covering for his master, Dark Lord DICK.)

Yes, I understand that, its the same thing I was saying above.

What I wanted to know was, how do you feel this has prevented Fitzgerald from making a determination that (1) Plame was "covert" and (2) there was a prosocutable (sp?) leaker.

You see, several peeps have raised the question of why Fitzgerald has not indicted or spoke to the above (underlying crimes). And some have responded (including you) that they felt Fitz coundn't because of Libby's lying.

Just wanted your take on it, as I can't see it myself?

Thanks,

Fern

To indict on the underlying crime (knowingly leaking a covert operative's name) requires the truth be told by those involved. Lying to cover up intent prevents the prosecution of other crimes.

Which is why it is called obstruction of justice and is a CRIME itself.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: conjur
To indict on the underlying crime (knowingly leaking a covert operative's name) requires the truth be told by those involved. Lying to cover up intent prevents the prosecution of other crimes.

I don't think it neccessarily requires that the truth be told IF the prosecutor can determine the truth/facts in other ways. Which he has apparently done.

Were the truth to be obscured (i.e., the lie not caught, or if caught the facts still unkown) I can see how that could hamper the prosecutor.

Moreover, I don't see how any of Libby's actions relate to the determination of whether Plame qualifies as "covert"?

Another question. In your opinion (if you have one) is Fitz "done" with Libby? Or do you anticipate more charges against him?

Thanks,

Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

There are a few facts that those on the right, and Woodward, seem to want to obfuscate.

1. Nicholas Kristof published an op-ed piece in the NYT May 6, 2003, well before the Pincus piece of June 12, 2003.

Quoting Kristof-

"I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged."

Baradei had proven the forgery in March.

To Washington insiders, that person and that source was clearly Wilson- His trip to Niger was never a secret, at all, even though press coverage at the time was sparse. It was Kristof's article, not Pincus', that prompted the hounds be loosed on Wilson. Woodward's revelations fall right into the timeline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_scandal_timeline#March_2003

2. Woodward does not claim that Plame was not discussed in his phone conversation with Libby. Quite to the contrary, he uses the Ronald Reagan defense-

"I also testified that I had a conversation with a third person on June 23, 2003. The person was I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and we talked on the phone. I told him I was sending to him an 18-page list of questions I wanted to ask Vice President Cheney. On page 5 of that list there was a question about "yellowcake" and the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq's weapons programs. I testified that I believed I had both the 18-page question list and the question list from the June 20 interview with the phrase "Joe Wilson's wife" on my desk during this discussion. I testified that I have no recollection that Wilson or his wife was discussed, and I have no notes of the conversation."

No Recollection is not a statement of fact or any kind of actual denial, as any legal scholar would testify.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/16/woodward.statement.ap/index.html

And, of course, we get the rather tired "maybe it wasn't a crime" routine, and all the obfuscating around that bit of fluffery.

Clearly, Fitzgerald believes that a crime was committed, otherwise his investigation would have ended almost 2 years ago- he wouldn't have found it necessary to call any witnesses before the grand jury, at all. As to who actually committed the alleged crime, Fitzgerald apparently has insufficient evidence to file charges at this time.

He does, however, believe that he has sufficient evidence to indict Libby for trying to cover that person or persons' tracks by lying to the grand jury.

Lying to a federal grand jury, or to the FBI, is, by definition, a felony, regardless of the subject matter or whether or not any charge is ever filed wrt the original cause of the inquiry...