8
   

Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

 
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Feb, 2007 01:42 pm
Quote:
... There is an even more fundamental defense, one that may emerge in final argument at the end of the trial. Perjurious testimony must be material to the subject matter of a grand jury's investigation.

If the entire Fitzgerald investigation was off track, if Libby's revelation of Plame's employment status, and therefore the source of his knowledge about that status, was simply not criminal under any U.S. statute, then Fitzgerald's perjury charge against Libby must also fall. The false statements Libby allegedly made would be entirely immaterial to any possible violation of the laws referred to the grand jury for investigation.
...

At the very least, it is not unreasonable to expect something along that line is going to be part of the defense focus.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Feb, 2007 01:42 pm
Quote:

All that aside, it seems to me that there being no underlying crime at issue,


There is an underlying crime at issue - the outing of a CIA agent whose identity was confidential.

Quote:
no leak


There was a leak. You are arguing that the basic facts of this case didn't happen, and that's ridiculous.

Quote:
no coverup


You have no evidence that this is true, and there exists significant evidence that there was a coverup.

Quote:
the prosecution has little of substance from which to proceed. The defense's presentation should be fascinating. Its possible Fitzgerald indeed will wind up in the same set of footnotes as Nifong.


As much as Wells made the prosecution witnesses look bad during cross, you can be assured that Fitzgerald will do just the same.

Have you actually followed any of the trial, Timber? Or is this all just coming straight from your partisan tailpipe?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Feb, 2007 01:46 pm
parados, Good points made.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Feb, 2007 01:46 pm
Quote:

At the very least, it is not unreasonable to expect something along that line is going to be part of the defense focus.


Um, except that it won't be, unless the entire defensive strategy that Wells laid out in his opening statement has nothing at all to do with the actual defense he intends to give. That would be an interesting development.

What more, it doesn't even make sense unless you are starting from the assumption that Valerie Plame's identity wasn't a secret, and it is plainly obvious that it was. So questions about it in front of a GJ, how could they not be relevant to trying to coverup something which noone was sure was a crime or not?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Feb, 2007 01:51 pm
It also seems for those supporting the "leak" and charges against Libby that Fitzgerald doesn't know what he's doing.

That's jumping pretty high based on Fitzgerald's reputation for thoroughness. I put my money on Fitzgerald 24/7.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Feb, 2007 01:54 pm
Timber says, and this is important, that there was no underlying crime. However, there was one, which is leaking classified information.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Feb, 2007 01:54 pm
I've been following the news coming from the trial, Cyc - and trying to separate the spin - either way - from the news. Now, I'm no lawyer, nor do I play one on the internet, but it does seem to me partisans of the media sort - on BOTH sides - are looking mostly at the spin that favors their own impressions. Real news here is not real plentiful. As I said, the defense presentation should be fascinating.


We shall see, Cyc, we shall see.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Feb, 2007 01:55 pm
Quote:
February 02, 2007, 0:00 a.m.

A Farce and an Outrage
What crime committed?
By Mona Charen


As I was walking up the stair
I met a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today.
I wish, I wish he'd stay away.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Feb, 2007 01:56 pm
Advocate wrote:
Timber says, and this is important, that there was no underlying crime. However, there was one, which is leaking classified information.


Where then, pray tell, is the indictment for that crime?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Feb, 2007 02:07 pm
Advocate wrote:
Timber says, and this is important, that there was no underlying crime. However, there was one, which is leaking classified information.


That's not what I say; there has been no finding of underlying crime, nor is underlying crime the focus of Fitzgerald's prosecution, which goes to the very narrow point of what did Libby know when he testified to the authorities and to the Grand Jury. Plame, her status, the "revelation" of that status, and any "coverup" pertinent thereunto are, in Fitzgerald's own word, "immaterial" to the proceedings under way.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Feb, 2007 02:19 pm
timber, It's true, we still don't know how this will all end up, but I'm as sure if there was no case, Fitzgerald would have cut it off before it got to this point. I also believe, if there was no case, that would have been learned long ago.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Feb, 2007 02:37 pm
And if there was no case, Nifong wouldn't have pursued the LaCrosse players, and had there been a case, O.J. would be behind bars.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Feb, 2007 02:39 pm
whatever...
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Feb, 2007 02:59 pm
Quote:

Where then, pray tell, is the indictment for that crime?


Obstruction of Justice. The IIPA requires intent; Libby lied in order to hide the fact that he acted with intent and in collusion with others in the WH.

This isn't a complicated idea - stop playing dumb

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Feb, 2007 03:20 pm
timberlandko wrote:
Quote:
... There is an even more fundamental defense, one that may emerge in final argument at the end of the trial. Perjurious testimony must be material to the subject matter of a grand jury's investigation.

If the entire Fitzgerald investigation was off track, if Libby's revelation of Plame's employment status, and therefore the source of his knowledge about that status, was simply not criminal under any U.S. statute, then Fitzgerald's perjury charge against Libby must also fall. The false statements Libby allegedly made would be entirely immaterial to any possible violation of the laws referred to the grand jury for investigation.
...

At the very least, it is not unreasonable to expect something along that line is going to be part of the defense focus.


Umm.. the investigation was of the release of the name to reporters by people that had access to classified information.

How do you get that Libby lying about who he talked to and where he heard the information is NOT material? It is very material. It is the heart of the case. It is precisely what the gj was empaneled to find out.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Feb, 2007 03:24 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

Where then, pray tell, is the indictment for that crime?


Obstruction of Justice. The IIPA requires intent; Libby lied in order to hide the fact that he acted with intent and in collusion with others in the WH.


My question - which you have replied to -- was in response to Advocate stating: "Timber says, and this is important, that there was no underlying crime. However, there was one, which is leaking classified information."

He believes there is an underlying crime involving leaking classified information. It was to that point that I lodged my question, asking where the indictment was for that crime. My question had NOTHING whatsoever to do with Libby's obstruction of justice charge.

Quote:
This isn't a complicated idea - stop playing dumb

Cycloptichorn


Have you not noticed that when you say "stop playing dumb" to me, invariably it is you who appears to be the dumb one? One would think you'd learn from your experiences ....
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Feb, 2007 03:30 pm
Assume for a moment that a witness in a murder trial KNOWS that the supposed murder victim isn't dead and then lies on the stand that they saw the body dumped into the ocean. Would that witness be free from perjury since there was no underlying murder case?

I don't think so. Who here thinks it wouldn't be perjury? Timber?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Feb, 2007 03:31 pm
Hey Tico.

Quick change the subject. Laughing
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Feb, 2007 03:36 pm
I actually sorta like Scooter. I don't know him, of course, but I respond positively to him (hey, that's the sort of guy I'd probably get on with) whenever I see footage of him walking into and out of court houses. Plus, he's a skiier and we are all quality people. So I'd much rather it was his boss about to go to jail.

What is important about this case isn't whether or not Plame was covert or whether Scooter lied to a grand jury. What is important is that these people lied America into a war and then set about trying to smear Wilson because they feared (correctly) that their deceits were in danger of exposure and because their project to shift blame onto the intel community was becoming apparent.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Feb, 2007 04:38 pm
Be that as it may be or may not be, none of that is at issue in the case at hand, Bernie.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/21/2025 at 01:45:18