Woodward On Plame-Libby Could Get Off

[Cabernet]

Timing is everything, go back and read.

I find it interesting that rather than explain to me why you believe timing is everything, you would just repost the website. Why not synthesize the facts for me that support your assertion?

 

[Cabernet]

It's all about sex, right? Not an impeachable offense. Obstruction and perjury are just shuck and jive. (Actually not my thinking, as a quick search would show, but surely yours.)

Huh? What are you talking about?

 

[Annie]

I find it interesting that rather than explain to me why you believe timing is everything, you would just repost the website. Why not synthesize the facts for me that support your assertion?

Let's see, you are not worth that kind of effort. A couple anti-Bush posts are not what I'd call compelling.

Now if you were open minded, you'd have checked about a bit. But you didn't so :finger:

 

[Cabernet]

Let's see, you are not worth that kind of effort. A couple anti-Bush posts are not what I'd call compelling.

Now if you were open minded, you'd have checked about a bit. But you didn't so :finger:

You're a moderator and you would give me the finger when I have less than 10 posts? Let's talk about who is not open minded. How sad.

I have read the indictment by the way multiple times. I stand by my interpretation. I am wondering whether you can't explain your position, hence the insult and the finger.

 

[Annie]

You're a moderator and you would give me the finger? How sad.

I have read the indictment by the way multiple times. I stand by my interpretation. I am wondering whether you can't explain your position, hence the insult and the finger.

Again, you are welcome to look around. I think I'll let that stand on its own. Perhaps you will show yourself worthy of the kind of time you are asking, but I seriously doubt it at this time.

Anyways, welcome. You will find that unlike DU, we do not ban alternative viewpoints. On the other hand, I for one am not going on the merry-go-round with you right now. You will find there is a substantial number of liberal posters, many of whom I do both with.

 

[Mr. P]

I think the liberals on this board ought to check DU out before they go on their tirades about how unreasonable, intolerant, and closed minded we are here.. :rotflmao:

I agree, but let us remember there IS a difference between a liberal and a WACKO...*I think*...

 

[Cabernet]

I just pulled up the transcript from Fitzgerald's press conference. This is what he said about Libby being the first one to leak Plame's name to a reporter:

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.

Therefore, he was not saying that Libby was the first official to have talked about Plame--he was saying that Libby was the first known official to have leaked her name, which is an accurate statement.

Regardless, based upon my reading of the indictment, the new facts presented by Woodward will not change the charges against Libby.

 

[Bonnie]

Libby has not been indicted based upon a violation of the statute. He was indicted for obstruction of justice and perjury. There was nothing in the indictment that stated Libby was being indicted for leaking Plame's name. The statements made in that document that address the leaking of the name is just factual background.

Remember, when Fitzgerald was announcing the indictment, he said that he could not make a determination as to whether or not the statute was violated because Libby had thrown sand in his eyes.

Yes I understand all that, and Ill ask again, if there was no crime to begin with, then how can you lie about it??? So there is no crime but there was somehow a crime committed in finding out there was no crime?????

 

[Gunny]

I am fairly confident that Libby will get off. I know based solely on the informative ive seen in the media he has a pretty strong argument. Although I think this trial might be alittle longer then Delay's which will probably be dimissed rather quickly.

The problem is, Libby getting off is immaterial. Six months from now the lefty regurgitation cycle will make the same accusation as if it wasn't investigated for three years and put before a Grand Jury.

 

[Annie]

The problem is, Libby getting off is immaterial. Six months from now the lefty regurgitation cycle will make the same accusation as if it wasn't investigated for three years and put before a Grand Jury.

No shit!

 

[Avatar4321]

LOL Why would you all think that Libby will get off? Fitzgerald did not base the indictment on Libby being the first one to tell a reporter about Plame. It was based upon Libby lying and obstructing justice.

Simply the fact that is a severe lack of evidence that libby lied about anything. Do you understand there are certain elements the prosecutor has to prove dont you? I dont think they can.

That and there is absolutely no motive. Why on earth would you lie about something that isnt a crime?

 

[Avatar4321]

I just pulled up the transcript from Fitzgerald's press conference. This is what he said about Libby being the first one to leak Plame's name to a reporter:

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.

Therefore, he was not saying that Libby was the first official to have talked about Plame--he was saying that Libby was the first known official to have leaked her name, which is an accurate statement.

Regardless, based upon my reading of the indictment, the new facts presented by Woodward will not change the charges against Libby.

Which of course begs the question: How can you leak something that is common knowledge?

 

[Mr. P]

During the press conference, Fitzgerald was asked if he knew whether Libby revealed Plame's covert status knowingly; he responded:

"Let me say two things. Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward. I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003. And all I'll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent. We have not charged that. And so I'm not making that assertion."

I don't see a crime here..But I do see politics..Huh, imagine.

As some of the DU folks say, "wikipedia" is your friend. Well, beats the hell outta MSM anyway. HAHAHAHAHAHA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame

 

[Bonnie]

Simply the fact that is a severe lack of evidence that libby lied about anything. Do you understand there are certain elements the prosecutor has to prove dont you? I dont think they can.

That and there is absolutely no motive. Why on earth would you lie about something that isnt a crime?

Thank you!!

 

[Cabernet]

Yes I understand all that, and Ill ask again, if there was no crime to begin with, then how can you lie about it??? So there is no crime but there was somehow a crime committed in finding out there was no crime?????

I do not believe that you have an understanding of what it means to perjure yourself or obstruct justice. What you lie about does not have to be a crime. Bill Clinton having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky was not a crime, but he lied about having sexual relations with her under oath. Thus, he perjured himself.

Say you robbed a bank and that I stated under oath that you were at my house that day and could not have robbed the bank (which was untrue), that would be was a lie. You being at my house is not a crime, right? But I lied under oath and said you were at my house when that was not true. Therefore, I perjure myself.

When people perjure themselves, it is usually indicative that they have something to hide. Regardless, assuming this goes to trial, the jury will decide whether Libby perjured himself or had a faulty memory. That's the jury's duty.

 

[Cabernet]

Simply the fact that is a severe lack of evidence that libby lied about anything. Do you understand there are certain elements the prosecutor has to prove dont you? I dont think they can.

Whether the prosecutor can prove his case is a matter of opinion. That is for the jury to decide.

Fitzgerald is a methodical attorney. People who know him of both political parties have said that he would not unnecessarily indict someone.

That and there is absolutely no motive. Why on earth would you lie about something that isnt a crime?

See my post above. What you lie about does not have to be a crime. Bill Clinton having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky was not a crime. But he lied about it under oath. It's the UNDER OATH that is a problem. You swear that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God. When you knowingly fail to do that, you have perjured yourself.

 

[Cabernet]

Which of course begs the question: How can you leak something that is common knowledge?

Libby leaking evidence that is supposedly common knowledge is not the issue here. Libby was not indicted for violating the statute of outing a CIA agent. He made statements under oath that have been perceived to be untrue.

I think those of you who are making these kind of statements do not understand what it means to obstruct justice and/or perjure yourself.

 

[Avatar4321]

See my post above. What you lie about does not have to be a crime. Bill Clinton having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky was not a crime. But he lied about it under oath. It's the UNDER OATH that is a problem. You swear that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God. When you knowingly fail to do that, you have perjured yourself.

Actually, Clinton lied and obstructed justice to throw off an investigation that he had routine of sexually harassing his female employees. The investigation was a result of a civil suit against him for sexual harassment by ms Jones. While the investigation wasnt for a criminal matter it has the same effect.

The investigation in this matter served no purpose. All you would need to do is look at the statute and look at how many years Valery Plame was in the states to know she didn't qualify as a covert agent under the elements of the law. Fitzgeralds investigation should have been concluded within a week of its initiating when it was obvious that no one could have violated the law.

But he continued to investigate. But rather than talk to actual witnesses such as the plames themselves or many of the reports who have admitted they knew Valery was working for the CIA, he brings in administration officials?

And still they cant seem to provide any evidence as to why Libby would have lied. I am sorry but this whole investigation seems rather partisan. Atleast when investigating Clinton there was some sort of reason. You know sexual harassment.

 

[Cabernet]

The investigation in this matter served no purpose. All you would need to do is look at the statute and look at how many years Valery Plame was in the states to know she didn't qualify as a covert agent under the elements of the law. Fitzgeralds investigation should have been concluded within a week of its initiating when it was obvious that no one could have violated the law.

But he continued to investigate. But rather than talk to actual witnesses such as the plames themselves or many of the reports who have admitted they knew Valery was working for the CIA, he brings in administration officials?

And still they cant seem to provide any evidence as to why Libby would have lied. I am sorry but this whole investigation seems rather partisan. Atleast when investigating Clinton there was some sort of reason. You know sexual harassment.

I would leave the investigation up to the legal experts. The case could have possibly been completed a long time ago, but when people perjure themselves and obstruct justice, then the investigation continues.

The issue revolved around whether people in the White House had intentionally leaked Plame's name. Why wouldn't he talk to administration officials?

And they don't have to provide any evidence as to why Libby would have lied--just that he made contradictory statements.

 

[Avatar4321]

Libby leaking evidence that is supposedly common knowledge is not the issue here. Libby was not indicted for violating the statute of outing a CIA agent. He made statements under oath that have been perceived to be untrue.

I think those of you who are making these kind of statements do not understand what it means to obstruct justice and/or perjure yourself.

I think you need to bulk up on some reading comprehension. Did I say that Libby was indicted for leaking? I am talking about what the point of the entire investigation was to begin with. There was no crime. It was obvious by reading the law and looking at Plames recent career work and travel log that there was no crime. All of this could have been determined within several hours of its initiation.

If you don't see something fishy there than you seriously have to be living in a fantasy world.