![]() |
![]() |
#81 (permalink) | ||||||||||
Banned
|
stevo, that factcheck.org piece is more than 2 years old....much more has
been reported, since......and before, that strengthens the argument that Joe Wilson was a victim of the white house, "payback". Please read my post so that we can have a discussion on the same page. All of what is posted here is supported by news reporting included in this post, and by included citations of conclusions in the Senate Select Intelligence report, about Joe Wilson's "finidings". <b>I share how I come to believe what I post, and consider what I receive as "feedback" (or blowback ?) from my effort....</b> It is also irrelevant because the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Phase I report, (we're still waiting for the 26 month delayed Phase II...) said: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
This is the background.....this is what happened: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
#82 (permalink) | |
Rail Baron
Location: Tallyfla
|
Quote:
I read what you posted and it only supports the notion that bush had bad intel (not good intel) when he made that statement. Not that he lied.
__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#83 (permalink) | |||
Banned
|
stevo, considering this:
Quote:
Quote:
The record shows that the POTUS has no credibility and never takes responsibility. When the record is deliberately muddied, as Patrick Fitzgerald said, "the umpire cannot see the play". These leaders have lost all credibility, stevo, so....why do you persist in defending them? ....if the "press" was "'liberal", and they actually did their job of acting as the "fourth estate", and questioned and spoke truth to "power", they might ask Mr. Bush this, and what do you think that he would answer? Quote:
|
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#84 (permalink) | |
Rail Baron
Location: Tallyfla
|
Host, I still see nothing in these articles showing how the president LIED. What I see is george tenet saying
Quote:
__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#85 (permalink) | |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
Quote:
I think they can go with 'The President was misled and people bled' but thats a lot harder to fit on a bumper sticker.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#86 (permalink) | |||||||||||
Banned
|
Quote:
To this day, we cannot know all of the facts surrounding this criminal deception and illegal policy of war of aggression, because the President, and Senate Intel Committee chairman, Pat Roberts, have delayed disclosure of how the Bush administration analyzed pre-invasion intelligence and whether they improperly pressured intelligence analysts to skew the data to justify the urgency and the necessity for invading Iraq. The last quote boxes that I include in this post make it quite clear that the Robb Silberman WMD report did not examine or reach conclusions about the intelligence handling questions, and it persuades that Pat Roberts tried to bury the determination, and has finally been pressured by his own republican colleagues in the senate to provide a report to the American people, but only after yet another election has taken place. The reason that Bush and Roberts have been able to get away with obstructing an open investigation, and why the 9/11 Commission and the Robb Silberman WMD investigation <i>"were not authorized to investigate how policymakers used the intelligence assessments they received from the Intelligence Community"</i>, is because the pre-invasion deception, playing on the emotions triggered by the experience of the 9/11 attacks, delayed the inevitable outrage that is pnly coming to fore now.....<b>but is still blunted from the full bloom of the outrage that will ulimately occur against Bush.....by the folks who will never allow themselves to even suspect that Bush blatantly lied to them</b> in order to justify an illegal war and the tragic and costly aftermath that the Iraqis and the US are still mired in, because of the Bush adminstration's Pre-emption. stevo, if the news about what these scumbags actually knew.....pre-invasion, about the degree of WMD threat that Iraq posed, vs. what they terrorized us with, instead, was supportive to their reputations or in anyway vindicated them, can you post here that they would attempt to keep that knowledge from us....for this fucking long? I don't expect to persuade you or Ustwo of anything, stevo. It's laid out here for all to see.....pulled up right alongside the opinions that the two of you post. <b>Consider that Tenet's July 11, 2003 admission and Hadley's July 22, 2003 "briefing", came as a direct response to Joe Wilson's July 6, 2003 "What I didn't see in Niger", op-ed piece in the NY Times. The Bush admin. public reaction, speaks volumes in support of Patrick Fitzgerald's contention that the executive branch launched an assault on Joe Wilson, as payback, that included the outing of his wife's classified status as a CIA employee. It's a small thing.....compared to launching an illegal war of aggression, after a terror propaganda campaign against the Amercian people, but....IMO...it's still treason....authorized at the highest levels of the Bush administration....and no counter spin offensive broadcast this month from the right, makes the facts that Irwin Libby lied to FBI investigators and to a grand jury, during multiple appearances.....giving false and misleading testimony to attempt to cover up the official Wilson "payback Op", in response to Wilson legitimately questioning a small segment of an entire propaganda campaign of lies that is the record of the official justification for invadin Iraq!</b> Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by host; 09-23-2006 at 02:01 PM.. |
|||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
#87 (permalink) | ||
Banned
|
Scooter Libby's trial is finally scheduled to begin....... this coming monday.
Remember the argument that "everyone knew Valerie Plame worked for the CIA, so no crime was committed by officials who leaked that information to reporters"? If this is true, the CIA still objects, 3-1/2 years later, to the release of information to the public, concerning any details of Plame's employment at the CIA: Quote:
<h3>The following is a separate post, on Jan. 13, 2007. The "system" joined it to my previous post.</h3> I'm going to let you draw your own conclusions....you will....anyway: Quote:
Last edited by host; 01-13-2007 at 01:10 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#88 (permalink) | ||
Banned
|
The video report from MSNbc, linked here, if the allegations reported can be proven by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, certainly explain why Libby's trial had to be pushed out past the Nov., 2006 mid-term election. Libby is accused of destroying evidence that implicates Cheney in obstruction of the Plame leak investigation, and Fitzgerald told the jury that he can prove that Cheney was the first person to inform Libby that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/23/cheney-libby-trial/ In his opening statement, Libby's lawyer tells the jury that the white house: Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by host; 01-23-2007 at 11:32 AM.. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#89 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: NYC
|
Host, it's been established to a fare-thee-well that it was Armitage who leaked to Novak. Whether that gets Libby off the hook I don't know. It'll come out in the trial. I don't know Ted Wells personally -- I know him only by his reputation, which is excellent, and I know a couple of his law partners -- but I would not be surprised if his story simply is that there wasn't anything to cover up, so there was no reason to lie.
My own view is that this episode demonstrates once again that Special Prosecutors are dangerous. Ken Starr was dangerous, so was Lawrence Walsh and so is Patrick Fitzgerald. It's inherent in the nature of the beast. I can dig out the stories in which it was shown that Fitzgerald knew who the leaker was the day he was appointed - so what, then, was he investigating? Pretty much was Starr was: he was appointed to find wrongdoing, so dadgummit he's going to find wrongdoing. The rest of this stuff is smoke and mirrors. |
![]() |
![]() |
#90 (permalink) |
Location: Washington DC
|
In his opening statement, Fitzgerald said today that Cheney "was deeply involved in the CIA link" against Valerie Plame and that Libby destroyed a note from Cheney about their conversations and about how he (Cheney) wanted the Wilson matter handled.
This alleged abuse of classified information for political purposes, and Libby's subsequent lying about it, if proven beyond a reasonable doubt, is serious shit...not smoke and mirrors.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire |
![]() |
![]() |
#91 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: NYC
|
Well, he wasn't indicted for leaking classified info. He was indicted for misleading investigators about whether he discussed Plame with reporters. That's only "serious shit" if what he misled the investigators about was material to a crime. And there was no underlying crime - as you know, Libby is the only one who was indicted for <i>anything</i> in this whole sorry affair. And it's not for lack of Fitzpatrick trying, either - he had Rove testify something like five times.
This doesn't mean it's not a crime to mislead investigators, but what's at stake in this trial is much, much less than you're saying. Since you apparently heard the openings - what did Wells say? What's his story? |
![]() |
![]() |
#92 (permalink) |
Location: Washington DC
|
I know full well that Libby wasnt indicted for leaking classfied information AND that he was indicted for more the "misleading investigators".
There are five counts in the indictment - one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury and two counts of making false statements. The indictment also includes the following language: In connection with his role as a senior government official with responsibilities for national security matters, LIBBY held security clearances entitling him to access to classified information. As a person with such clearances, LIBBY was obligated by applicable laws and regulations, including Title 18, United States Code, Section 793, and Executive Order 12958 (as modified by Executive Order 13292), not to disclose classified information to persons not authorized to receive such information, and otherwise to exercise proper care to safeguard classified information against unauthorized disclosure. On or about January 23, 2001, LIBBY executed a written "Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement," stating in part that "I understand and accept that by being granted access to classified information, special confidence and trust shall be placed in me by the United States Government," and that "I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation."What is at stake is more than misleading investigators. The crime is perjury and obstruction of justice. While not directly indictable, the motive and rationale for those illegal actions exposes how the White House abused national security information for political purposes This trial will bring to light some of the ugly underbelly of this Adminstration and the actions it will take against those who threathen their policy objectives by exposing their lies. I stil think that is "serious shit." I have only seen one quote from Wells opening statement: Attorneys for former White House aide ``Scooter'' Libby said Tuesday that Bush administration officials tried to blame him for the leak of a CIA operative's name to cover up for Bush political adviser Karl Rove's own disclosures.Without seeing the full opening defense, that is an interesting angle, dont you think? More: Michael Isokoff in Newsweek describes Wells opening defense remarks as a “scorched earth” strategy pointing accusatory fingers at White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove as well as other top current and former Bush aides".
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 01-23-2007 at 08:41 PM.. |
![]() |
![]() |
#93 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: NYC
|
The indictment says that he agreed not to disclose classified info.
Does it say that he did that? I doubt it. If it did, there'd be a count for it in there. There isn't. Read the counts of the indictment for perjury and OoJ. IIRC, the perjury was his grand jury testimony, well after the fact. The OoJ was related to that too. It wasn't a charge of leaking classified info. As I said, he may well have been guilty of misstating his timeline, whether under oath or otherwise, but there wasn't any furshlugginer crime of leaking classified information here. As for the "sacrificial lamb" stuff - the guy is being tried in DC. DC is a <i><b>very</i></b> Democratic town. That's who the jury pool is, Democratic Bush-haters. If you're Ted Wells and you have a jury like that, and you want your man to be acquitted, don't you try to paint the current administration as bad guys who were setting Libby up? I might be wrong here, because Wells told the jurors he'd be calling Cheney as a witness - but we'll have to see how that turns out. For me this is spectator sport. I'm a lawyer, so I enjoy trying to figure out the strategy. And Wells apparently put on quite a show. Read <A HREF="http://www.slate.com/id/2158157/">this account in <i>Slate</i></A>, you'll enjoy it. Last edited by loquitur; 01-23-2007 at 09:00 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
![]() |
![]() |
#94 (permalink) |
Location: Washington DC
|
I think if you read what I said, I agree that there was no charge of leaking classified information.
I was getting at motive. I do believe that the alleged perjury and obstruction were motivated by an attempt to cover-up how this admistration abuses classfied information for political purposes. I am a policy wonk, not a lawyer,but I think the "he said/he said" defense is a risky strategy, particularly if your "he" is a White House senior aide and you are facing a jury not predisposed to be simpathetic to him or his boss.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 01-23-2007 at 09:10 PM.. |
![]() |
![]() |
#95 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: NYC
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#96 (permalink) | |
Lennonite Priest
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
|
Quote:
I think Bush went in believing there were WMDs because People high up told him there were and they lied to him. Blair, I think was totally blinded and agreeable and didn't truly check any facts out, he believed W. and W.'s people. Thus both can be truthful in denying that they knew Saddam didn't have WMDs. I think the problem now lies in W's knowing but being so committed that he doesn't care what the reasoning or truth is anymore. As for the Plame business, Libby is a fallguy, but he won't get much of a punishment, he'll get paid secretly well, and he'll write a book that he'll get a few Mill for. Right now, Libby and his lawyer are putting on the show that was expected but in the end, watch Libby confess. Hell, his lawyer will probably write a bokk for a few Mill also. (God, I'm jaded.)
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 01-24-2007 at 09:18 AM.. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#97 (permalink) | ||||
Wehret Den Anfängen!
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Rove knew about Wilson's wife through official channels, and he did confirm it. Quote:
__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest. |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
#98 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: NYC
|
Hey Yakk, when were you appointed prosecutor? Fitzgerald - who <i><b>is</i></b> the prosecutor - has ascertained that, even though any prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, Rove wouldn't be indicted. In fact, no one was indicted for "outing" Valerie Plame (if there even was anything to be outed), whether Rove or otherwise.
Convince yourself of what you want, but the fact remains that Fitzgerald was given a mission: track down any crimes committed in connection with this Plame business and go after the perps. And he came up with a big fat zero. Libby's crime that he was indicted for was created by the investigation itself, not by anything that motivated the appointment of a prosecutor to begin with. |
![]() |
![]() |
#99 (permalink) | ||||||||||||
Banned
|
This is excerpts from a "live blog"...the author is James Joyner. I chose his eyewitness account of the first 2 days of the "Scooter" Libby criminal trial, because of his conservative bias, not in spite of it. I've omitted most of his posts from this sequence of his trial filings that contained his opinion, and not his account of the trial proceedings. I've compared his account to another by a blogger with an obvious liberal bias. My intent is to draw the interest of folks who think that no crime was committed, and I don't know of a better way to do it. We can't discuss this unless we are on "the same page", and that has yet to come close to happening.....
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
#100 (permalink) |
Wehret Den Anfängen!
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
Host, please post at least a fraction as much analysis of each large block-quote as the block quote has length.
6 lines of analysis of 100s of lines of block quotes isn't a contribution to a discussion -- it is a reading assignment. I have no interest in reading and replying to mass copied and pasted quotes when the person who posted them isn't even willing to spend the time including decent comments on them. Thank you.
__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest. |
![]() |
![]() |
#101 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: NYC
|
Host, I know you're doing a lot of work here, and many of us (me included) appreciate the effort you put into your posts, but Yakk sort of has a point: I think you'd be more persuasive if you put up a series of excerpts with links, instead of long blockquotes. Many of them aren't self-explanatory in gross, whereas if you picked out the most cogent portions, with a link so that people could read the whole thing if they want, it would be much easier to follow your reasoning. I don't mean to make more work for you, please don't think that's not what I'm advocating.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#102 (permalink) |
Location: Washington DC
|
The government "exhibits" are posted each day:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/ Interesting, but not very helpful without following one the blogs tracking the testimony. Wake me when Cheney testifies!
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire |
![]() |
![]() |
#103 (permalink) | ||||
Banned
|
Quote:
Throughout this thread, and (in others before it....), for two years, I have posted a mix of material that I thought was relevant to my own opinions of what this "Plame leak" investigation is about, and where it is going. I view you as a reasonable person, politically, more so after reading your posted opinion of Hillary Clinton; finding that you have a much more positive and well explained opinion of her than I do. I've stressed in a number of posts, this analogy of what Patrick Fitzgerald says that the Libby indictment and trial is about: Quote:
Quote:
IMO, the white house (including the OVP in that "wh" term) brought the appointment of the special counsel by #2 at the DOJ, Mr. Comey, upon itself. If you recall, general Ashcroft recused himself, because he was so close to the folks potentially to be investigated by his dept., and designated Comey to be in charge.....for the purpose of the Plame leak investigation, Comey became the US AJ..... As the Comey supervised leak investigation progressed....into the fall of 2003, Quote:
Since this was an investigation about whether officials in the white house admin. leaked classified info about the identity of a CIA 'operative" as Novak first described her, during a time of "war", the negative press accounts pressured Ashcroft to go even further to convince that he and his department had no conflict. He authorized Comey to pass on all of the authority of the US AJ, in the matter of the leak investigation and any resulting prosecutions, to an impartial outsider, Fitzgerald. Comey made it clear that Fitzgerald, unlike Ken Starr previously, did not need to receive any approvals from the DOJ during the course of his investigation. He was vested with all of the authority that Ashcroft or Gonzales has, but just for the matter of the leak investigation. This step was taken only because of press reporting that gave the impression that Ashcroft was not fully recused, as he had claimed. By receiving briefings, there was an appearance of conflict of interests, since he reported to, and interacted with potential suspects in the Bush administration. loquitur, my point is that your "big fat zero" comment, influences me to believe that you do not accept (or maybe understand ?) that this trial is where the investigation ended up, because Libby blocked the investigation's progress, and then delayed the trial at least 6 months past where it would have been routinely scheduled....to get it past the mid term election of 2 months ago, and to further bolster his "it's been a long time, and I'm very busy, so I don't remember, and neither can these prosecution witnesses", <b>defense.</b> Once Libby testified before the grand jury, the second time, and Fitzgerald attempted to compare his testimony with that of reporters who he talked to, Fitzgerald ran into the response of the lawyers at the news outlets that the reporters worked for. If Libby had testified in a way that co-operated with the investigation, or if he had taken a plea deal like Ari Fleischer did after he invoked his 5th amendment rights before the grand jury, the investigation could have moved to a conclusion, of to another stumbling block like the one Libby created. How is the investigation being halted by what Fitzgerald says was Libby's refusal to testify truthfully, supported by Russert, then Cooper, and finally, when she was released from jail, by Judith Miller, and then by Libby's maneuvering to delay his trial, any indication of "a big fat zero"? What we know we have here is the POTUS himself saying that anyone found to be not telling the truth to investigators will not continue to serve in his administration, changed to anyone convicted of a crime will not be allowed to serve. Then the white house press secretary told the press that he had spoken to both Rove and Libby, received assurances that neither of them had leaked Plame's identity to any member of the press, and that the press secretary believed the denials of these two fine men. Now we have sworn testimony from a number of news reporters that Libby and Rove discussed Plame's CIA job and her identity with multiple members of the press. The CIA requested this investigation of a leak of classified material during war time. I see no indication that the white house, and especially the OVP, want to find out who leaked, ASAP, in the interests of national security. I see the trial as the renewal of the investigation, after Libby effectively halted it's progress. Would you have had Fitzgerald declare that he would continue his investigation after he nailed Libby? He has been tight lipped during all of this. The Libby trial will determine what happens next in the investigation. On the surface, there has been a lot of effort to get it to end here. That seems to say to me that people in the administration had something to hide, and they have not impressed me that they want to find the leaker. They seem comfortable that there is no unknown threat to national security. People at the CIA seem to believe that national security was compromised. In order to discuss this with me....at the risk of how this may read....you have to be "up to speed" about the details of the trial. I don't think a "play by play" from me is the way other people should follow the trial. I anticipated that that would be a further "turn off" to folks who seem to me to be interested, but harboring misconceptions about what this is about, because of the influences of the "spin" they have focussed on, instead of the actual dispatches....like the ones in this post. Yakk.....I appreciate your frustration. You're in Canada....I give you credit for following this "mess" at all. I'd be glad to share my opinion, and what influences it.....if you have specific questions.... |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
#104 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: NYC
|
Actually, you're engaging in several layers of speculation, Host. Let's start with something we can agree on: Libby's crime that he was indicted for was created by the investigation - it didn't exist independent of the investigation, can we agree on that?
The question then becomes, what did he block, if block is what he did? Well, I'm sure stuff will come out in the trial, but you might want to have a look at the Senate Intelligence Committee report on this stuff to see what was cooking with former Amb. Wilson, what he reported, how he ended up getting to Niger, etc etc etc. You also may want to read the text of the Intelligence Identities and Protection Act of 1982 and the rules relating to agents, specifically that (if I recall correctly) it's a crime to blow an agent's cover IF the agent was undercover overseas in the previous five years. Ms Plame wasn't. So in terms of the underlying crimes - what technically can be charged as a crime under the applicable statutes - it's not clear there is something there or ever really was. I might be missing something here, and I'm sure Fitzgerald has plenty more we haven't seen yet, but so far that's what I see. What may have happened here - what appears to me to make sense as a scenario - is that when Wilson surfaced, there was a mad scramble in the administration to find out who the hell is this guy, who sent him to Africa, what his instructions were, what he reported, etc etc etc. And it turned up after a few questions got asked that his wife worked at the CIA. The rules governing what can and can't be discussed, when it can be discussed and with whom and on what terms are not very simple. I once had a case under the Ethics in Government Act (different statute than the one at issue here, but also with contact restrictions and time periods) and it was a bloody mess to analyze. The classification and intelligence secrecy rules can't be any easier than that. Add to that the fluid situation here where the facts weren't all that clear either. Mix into it the press clamoring around for stories, interviews, facts, exclusives. And what this criminal trial is about, I think, is whether <i>Libby believed</i> the info about Plame was classified or not, and if he thought it was, whether he deliberately lied about his conversations. That's two levels of fact that have to be established in this case. It still doesn't get you to an underlying crime. You really do need to read the actual statutory language and establish that Valerie Plame's status was covered in order to get a crime here. Citing newspaper articles doesn't cut it. And look, I understand you <i>want</i> the scenario you pieced together to be true, but right now it's very far from established. It's a theory. Maybe it works, maybe not. Fitzgerald had a very good reputation, so I tend to take his analyses seriously. On the other hand, strange things seem to happen to perfectly reputable people when they become special prosecutors. Bear in mind, Rove went back there something like five times to testify. So far we don't know what Fitzgerald thinks was blocked from doing, which avenues he thought he'd get to pursue if only he had more time. He sure seems to have been thorough, doesn't he? Last edited by loquitur; 01-25-2007 at 08:20 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
![]() |
![]() |
#105 (permalink) | |
Location: Washington DC
|
Quote:
1f....At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson's affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community.Full text of the indictment. The charge that Libby allegedly committed perjury in his grand jury testimony and providing false information in the FBI investigation would seem to me to potentiallly impede the focus of the investigation (as identified in clauses 27, 28 listed above, making clause 29 material as noted) and not as you stated, "exist independent of the investigation." But as you said, "The rules governing what can and can't be discussed, when it can be discussed and with whom and on what terms are not very simple." It seems to be that a participant in those discussion who would allegedly commit perjury and make false statements during the investigation would make it even more difficult to determine if laws regarding disclosure of classified information were broken. Just my lay interpretation.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 01-25-2007 at 09:22 PM.. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#107 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: NYC
|
Rekna, that's true of part but not all as to Clinton. Clinton's problems came initially from his deception in his deposition in the Paula Jones civil case. The rest of the stuff mushroomed out of that. OoJ, of course, sort of requires that there be an investigation, so yes, that piece of it and part of the lying charges came out of the investigation rather than out of independently existing conduct. It's kinda interesting: my law partner opined back then that Clinton should have just defaulted in the Jones case and then had a trial about damages (on the theory that there weren't any). That way he would not have had to testify and all this stuff would never have come up.
dc_dux, those sections of the indictment don't say she was undercover overseas during that time, only that her "employement status" was classified. Do you know what that means? I don't. I doubt it means that the fact she worked at the CIA was secret, because she drove her car openly to and from Langley every day. I suspect it means that <i>what her specific duties were at the CIA</i> were classified. Classification rules are a bit different from "blowing cover", and - as you know - they are routinely disregarded by pretty much everyone: we wouldn't have much news reporting otherwise. But even taking the classification rules at face value, bear in mind that her status was disclosed by Armitage initially. This does get hard to keep track of after a while. So far, what I see is that there is massive "he said-she said" going on here. I think I mentioned I'm a lawyer, so I find "he said-she said" stuff to be fairly unpersuasive, though if that is all we have to go on in a particular case, we have to make the best of it. Most cases involving organizations aren't like that because people write stuff down. Contemporaneous documents are the most persuasive evidence we have. Last edited by loquitur; 01-26-2007 at 05:44 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
![]() |
![]() |
#108 (permalink) | |||
Banned
|
IMO, if the observer from slate.com , who's description closely matches what the blogger, "emptywheel" observed in the third quote box, is correct, and you add the citations in my two preivous posts, linked here:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...rs#post2117020 the preceding link contains: Quote:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...rs#post2116486 ...it is now my contention that this is over. Libby and his lawyers should be working to obtain a plea deal for him, BEFORE Ari Fleischer testifies. I predict that won't happen and Libby will be convicted of perjury, based largely on Fleischer's testimony: Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by host; 01-27-2007 at 01:23 PM.. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#110 (permalink) | |||
Banned
|
Quote:
Here's a link to Judge Walton's 38 page order, in response to Libby's defense team's "graymail" demands: http://justoneminute.typepad.com/mai...inion_CIPA.pdf Here is a much better explanation of the defense team's strategy and demands on the government and on the judge: Quote:
He later testified before the Plame leak investigation, that he learned it. "as if for the first time", from Tim Russert. Russert gave a sworn statement saying that he never discussed Wilson's wife with Libby. This week, Libby's attorney tried to work the CIPA material into his opening, and he told the jury that Ari Fleischer would be giving "bargained testimony" against Libby, because he had made an immunity agreement with prosecutor Fitzgerald. If you are genuinely interested in understanding my point, please go back and read the last quote box in my last post, and then persuade me that Libby is an innocent defendent represented by a zealous defense team that is acting ethically and is trying to avoid pissing off Judge Walton and the prosecution. Quote:
Last edited by host; 01-27-2007 at 09:55 PM.. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#111 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: NYC
|
You know what, Host? Ted Wells is a lot smarter than you or me or just about any of the reporters (as to the latter that's not really saying much). Judge Walton is a big boy, he's been around the block, and he knows which requests are real and which are tactical. He's not likely to get pissed off; most of the federal judges I know view this stuff as being all in a day's work. A lot of this stuff, including from the prosecution, is an elaborate kabuki dance, with the jury as the intended audience.
As you know, I'm an attorney, which is why I don't convince myself of stuff early in a case I'm not involved with. I know better. (For instance, it took a good few weeks for me to be convinced OJ really was guilty. After that, though, I was pretty hard to dissuade, and to this day I think that jury in his criminal case didn't decide the case on the facts.) |
![]() |
![]() |
#112 (permalink) | ||
Banned
|
loquitur,
Joe diGenova & Vic(ky) Toensing were bth smart enough to pass the bar and become federal prosecutors....but they both have less credibility than a broken clock.... Clarice masqerades as an attorney and as a "thinker"...... Quote:
Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
#113 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: NYC
|
au contraire, Host, I think you're persuading yourself of stuff that people who know the process and have gone through it know better than to take at face value. IIRC, DiGenova was himself a special prosecutor at one time. I understand you want Libby to hang, but you're jumping to conclusions now based on less than full information. Stupid pills? I don't think so. There's a reason judges instruct juries not to make up their minds until all the evidence is in.
What I can tell you is that, when I worked in the courthouse for a federal judge 21 years ago, one thing I learned fairly quickly is that reporters (even legal reporters, who are supposed to know the process) simply do not and probably cannot get it right. If they get 80-85% they're ahead of the game. It's not malicious; it's a combination of time pressure, lack of immersion, issues of perspective and idiosyncracy. And that's why it's important to get your news from different sources so that you can filter your inputs. I have no idea what the evidence will show down the road - and neither do you. What I do know is that I have a life and I'm not going to spend it reading trial transcripts in a case I'm not involved in. The other thing is this: have you decided that Cathie Martin and Ari Fleischer are reliable witnesses? Would your opinion have been different a year ago, before you knew they were going to testify for the prosecution in the Libby trial? Mull over that question and be honest with yourself, then consider the implications of your answer. I should add something else, and this is politically incorrect. In most criminal trials the defendant is guilty. There are a few reasons for that. (1) Prosecutors have limited resources and don't want to squander them on cases where there is substantial doubt about whether they can get a conviction. (2) The criminal process is set up so that there are levels of proof at succeeding stages of the case. As you go through the process, the chance that the person identified isn't guilty of something gets smaller and smaller. There are countervailing propositions, though: (1) if a defendant knows he is likely to be convicted he usually can improve his outcome by cutting a deal to avoid trial and give the prosecutors something. (2) Related to this, the more chance a defendant sees of possibly being acquitted due to failure of proof or otherwise (and remember, a prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a high standard), the more likely he'll go to trial. So if the defendant goes to trial and didn't cop a plea, his/her attorney has made a judgment that there is a reasonable chance of punching through the government's proof. That's the reasoning in a normal case. When there is a special prosecutor the calculation is totally different because the special prosecutor by definition has no other cases competing for his attention, and the target of the inquiry is likely to be high enough in the hierarchy that the chances of a plea go down because there is no one to be offered up in a plea deal. That drives more of the cases to trial, and also means that the evidence is likely to be somewhat thinner. Bear in mind, though, that Fitzgerald declined to indict a lot of others, which means he made a judgment he couldn't get convictions as to them but could get a conviction as to Libby. I'm pointing all this out because the dynamic of how these things work tends to get lost here. I said up above that I am generally suspicious of special prosecutors because they get married to their missions. That doesn't mean they're always wrong, but you can't make the inferential leap from the existence of evidence for an indictment to sufficiency of evidence for a conviction, especially in a case like this one. Otherwise you have to accept Ken Starr's work, too. Last edited by loquitur; 01-29-2007 at 11:38 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
![]() |
![]() |
#114 (permalink) | ||||||
Banned
|
Quote:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...8&postcount=36 http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...5&postcount=35 Quote:
Before you read Ari Fleischer's testimony about Libby and Dan Bartlett, consider that the State Dept. INR : http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the...l_evidence.pdf that Bartlett was reading on Air Force One on July 7, 2003, described Wilson's wife as a CIA employee, and the word "secret" is handwritten near the top of the document, and that it has "provisionally de-classified, (so that it could be used as evidence in Libby's trial...) later stamped on it, too. See for yourself, at the preceding link.....it seems safe to assume that Libby and Bartlett had to know that this information was classified when they both told Fleischer, without telling him that it was classified info. Quote:
http://www.mlive.com/printer/printer...920.xml&coll=2 Blogger to provide Libby trial play-by-play Local consultant expert on the scandal Monday, January 22, 2007....... Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
David Addington's testimony fixed the date (...about Fri., 7/11/03..) that Libby asked him if the president could declassify, classified infromation, and if there were paper records at CIA on employees there who worked "on the Operations or Analytical side"..... Addington's testimony also included his recollection that, after Libby asked his questions of the then OVP chief Counsel, Libby joined Cheney and now NSC advisor, Stephen Hadley, in a closed door meeting in Cheney's office..... <b>loquitur, if you've gotten this far, would you agree that the corporate press outlets are doing a shitty job of covering this trial, considering the testimony to date, and the fact that Karl Rove still enjoys a high level security clearance that provides access to classified material, is curious....especially during wartime....since he's already an established leaker of Plame's name and CIA employment, to reporters?</b> Last edited by host; 01-29-2007 at 11:54 PM.. |
||||||
![]() |
![]() |
#115 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: NYC
|
Host, couple of observations. First, something isn't true or false based on who says it. Second, waiting until a lot more of the evidence is in before arriving at conclusions is usually a good idea in a trial - and that would be true no matter who said it. For instance, you don't know what the defense's case looks like, do you? I sure don't. There was something about Cheney testifying but I don't know who else might - and I don't think anyone else does, either (except Ted Wells and his people).
Beyond that, though, there was more to my post above, most of which had to do with some trial dynamics that you're just ignoring: Quote:
Last edited by loquitur; 01-30-2007 at 01:04 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#116 (permalink) |
Banned
|
Post in progress.... (not finished yet !)
Seymour Hersh started asking questions much sooner than Joe Wilson's July 6 2003 op-ed piece: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten...030331fa_fact1 http://wotisitgood4.blogspot.com/200....html#comments On March 23, 2003, it looks like Bush gave Cheney unprecedented authorization to de-classify secret info about Wilson's trip to Niger: http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0414nj3.htm ....this coincides with Hersh's work on his article, published in New Yorker issue dated March 31, 2003...... |
![]() |
![]() |
#118 (permalink) |
Junkie
|
don't forget the pardon option either.
I wonder how fair a trial that is this political can be. We have all seen people who support a certain party over another regardless of how wrong something they did is. What are the chances of someone like that ending up in the jury pool and the jury coming back hung. |
![]() |
![]() |
#119 (permalink) |
Location: Washington DC
|
Guilty- one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury and one count of making false statements
Not Guilty - one count of making false statements Just the latest example in Washington that the cover up (in this case lying to protect Cheney) may often get you in more trouble than the crime.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 03-06-2007 at 09:33 AM.. |
![]() |
![]() |
#120 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
Tags |
affair, plame |
|
|