Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

parados wrote:

Hey Tico.

Quick change the subject.

Surely you don't mean the tangent man, Parados. Ya gotta mean somebody else.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Be that as it may be or may not be, none of that is at issue in the case at hand, Bernie.

You mean, "Be that as it is", Timber. It could well become central, not necessarily to the potential misfortunes that may await ole Scooter but to the bigger, really stinky fish.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

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.

So, take out your anger on somebody, and poor Scooter happens to be the guy that could be accused of something, is that it, blatham?

Anyway, its been fun to read the last few pages of lawyerly debate. I have no idea what the jury will decide. I do not have alot of confidence in juries these days. I know what I've decided. I am going to go back and start calling Patrick Fitzgerald, Mr. Fitzfong.

And if Scooter gets sent to jail for covering up a crime that was never a crime, I hope Bush pardons him soon. With one stroke of a pen, Bush can wipe out 3 years of wasted time of this total nonsensical fiasco. At least that would be a far better pardon than Clinton pardoning FALN terrorists to help his wife win in New York. If called on the carpet for it, Bush could simply point that out, and certainly everyone should agree.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09272006/postopinion/opedcolumnists/bill_pardoned_terror_opedcolumnists_joseph_f__conner.htm

0 Replies

"okie" wrote:
And if Scooter gets sent to jail for covering up a crime that was never a crime, I hope Bush pardons him soon.

Why lie and put yourself in the position of obstructing justice to cover up something that was never a crime?

We know these guys are stupid but are they really that major league stupid?

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

timberlandko wrote:
Be that as it may be or may not be, none of that is at issue in the case at hand, Bernie.

You mean, "Be that as it is", Timber. It could well become central, not necessarily to the potential misfortunes that may await ole Scooter but to the bigger, really stinky fish.

I fully expect, JTT, "The Opposition" will find itself both sorely disappointed and shrilly outraged by what will come of Fitzgerald's Follies.

0 Replies

The Libby trial is a primer for what the arguments will be in the Plame/Wilson vs Cheney et al lawsuit. Fitzgerald has made it pretty obvious that the office of the VP was attempting to get Wilson. That suit has plenty of basis to move forward into discovery based on what we have seen so far.

Will Cheney ask the Supreme Court to rule he is protected from lawsuits as a sitting VP? That would be an interesting question for the conservative court.

0 Replies

Quote:

And if Scooter gets sent to jail for covering up a crime that was never a crime, I hope Bush pardons him soon. With one stroke of a pen, Bush can wipe out 3 years of wasted time of this total nonsensical fiasco. At least that would be a far better pardon than Clinton pardoning FALN terrorists to help his wife win in New York. If called on the carpet for it, Bush could simply point that out, and certainly everyone should agree.

The pardon would remove any impediment for Libby in testifying to Congress. Bush won't be pardoning Libby anytime soon. His last day in office would be my guess and then hope that Congress just forgets about the issue because he is no longer President. The last thing Bush wants is a congressional investigation of this on top of everything else.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

The Libby trial is a primer for what the arguments will be in the Plame/Wilson vs Cheney et al lawsuit. Fitzgerald has made it pretty obvious that the office of the VP was attempting to get Wilson. That suit has plenty of basis to move forward into discovery based on what we have seen so far.

Will Cheney ask the Supreme Court to rule he is protected from lawsuits as a sitting VP? That would be an interesting question for the conservative court.

Cheney doesnt have to ask.
The courts have already ruled that govt officials cannot be sued for actions taken while they were in office.

Criminal charges can be filed against a sitting govt official,but they cant be sued.

From this site...
http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_a5.html#Q81

We get this...

Quote:

Q89. "If a President has civil litigation brought against him during his term in office must this be handled while he is in office? Or, can it be deferred until his term expires?"

A. A civil case can be deferred, and before 1997, most people would likely have guessed that any civil case filed against the President would be deferred. However, a Supreme Court ruling against President Clinton in 1997 allowed a civil case against him to proceed. The reasoning was that since the case against him concerned acts committed prior to his taking office, that the Presidency did not lend him a shield against such litigation. The decision would seem to leave in place the notion that a President cannot be sued for actions taken as President, protecting Presidents from frivolous lawsuits designed to tie up an administration's conduct of national business.

This also applies to the VP.
So,Cheney cannot be sued in civil court.

0 Replies

Judge orders Libby's 'secret grand jury testimony' tapes released to public

David Edwards
Published: Monday February 5, 2007

MSNBC reports that "a major ruling" took place at the trial of ex-White House aide I. Lewis Libby for obstruction of justice and lying to the government regarding the "outing" of former CIA operative Valerie Plam Wilson.

"Recordings of Scooter Libby's secret grand jury testimony will be released publicly after they are presented in a courtroom today," MSNBC reports. "The defense was trying to fight this one; concern about Scooter Libby's ability to get a fair trial if these tapes were leaked into the press or public, so to speak."

"In fact, the judge in this case said he had reservations there could be media mischief, as he called it," the MSNBC report continued. "Legally, he felt like he had to release them once they had been presented in the courtroom."

MSNBC notes that "these are the grand jury recordings where prosecutors claim Lewis Scooter Libby lied."

"We will have access to those tapes," MSNBC reports, which are said to "run seven hours long."

Liveblogging the trial at firedoglake, Swopa provides a rought transcript of today's events.

Judge Walton said, "The first matter is press access to the grand jury tapes it would appear to me that this circuit has given a level of importance to the public's right of access to exhibits. Considering the importance that our circuit has given to this right."

But Libby's lawyer, William Jeffress "objects, saying that the precedents don't really justify this step, and that the jury will find it impossible to avoid the publicity resulting from the release of tapes."

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Be that as it may be or may not be, none of that is at issue in the case at hand, Bernie.

T

Betcha he's found guilty. Betcha he is then pardoned. $50 on either or both.

I trust the court to do its stumbling best. I definitely do not trust the opinions of folks here to arrive at what is either legal or just. I'm about as qualified to make legal judgements on this case as okie is to repair a jet engine.

And, as I don't listen to much rightwing radio and so still hold that America ought to have an actual judiciary branch, I'll let the procedings run their course and accept their findings while pointing at what I think is a far greater danger than an inappropriate verdict in a single court case.

0 Replies

At this point I don't think it matters but to a small majority in this country if anyone is found guilty. And I think most people are glad there was an investigation regardless if anyone is found guilty. The administration is thought to be guilty of outing plame and then lying about it regardless if any of them are ever found to be legally guilty. Just like everybody knew clinton lied (in the commonly thought way a lie is thought of as a lie) but the lie was of such a trivial matter that most people forgave him for it and was glad when he was not kicked out of office. The difference in the two events by the administrations is one was malicious in nature and the other was not.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

timberlandko wrote:
Be that as it may be or may not be, none of that is at issue in the case at hand, Bernie.

T

Betcha he's found guilty. Betcha he is then pardoned. $50 on either or both.

I trust the court to do its stumbling best. I definitely do not trust the opinions of folks here to arrive at what is either legal or just. I'm about as qualified to make legal judgements on this case as okie is to repair a jet engine.

And, as I don't listen to much rightwing radio and so still hold that America ought to have an actual judiciary branch, I'll let the procedings run their course and accept their findings while pointing at what I think is a far greater danger than an inappropriate verdict in a single court case.

So we may conclude from your statement that if he is found not guilty that you will accept the courts decision and drop your claims that he is guilty?
Or will you then say that the court was wrong?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

I'm about as qualified to make legal judgements on this case as okie is to repair a jet engine.

What if I told you I worked for a government contractor at an AFB in the jet engine maintainence area? Laughing

No, I confess, I didn't, blatham, although my brother-in-law did.

So you admitted before all the world that you know absolutely nothing about legal judgements on this case. Good, don't bother us anymore with your useless opinions here anymore! Laughing

But you might have been well qualified for the jury and you don't even know it. Don't undersell your abilities here, blatham.

And mysteryman, I think revel as much as admitted the whole thing amounted to nothing, but the Democrats accomplished their purpose by implanting into the minds of the public that Bush and company were rotten and tried to destroy the very honorable Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame (of Vanity Fair fame), and now they are more than happy to let this case fade into the sunset so that people won't hear or ever know what truly happened.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

blatham wrote:
timberlandko wrote:
Be that as it may be or may not be, none of that is at issue in the case at hand, Bernie.

T

Betcha he's found guilty. Betcha he is then pardoned. $50 on either or both.

I trust the court to do its stumbling best. I definitely do not trust the opinions of folks here to arrive at what is either legal or just. I'm about as qualified to make legal judgements on this case as okie is to repair a jet engine.

And, as I don't listen to much rightwing radio and so still hold that America ought to have an actual judiciary branch, I'll let the procedings run their course and accept their findings while pointing at what I think is a far greater danger than an inappropriate verdict in a single court case.

So we may conclude from your statement that if he is found not guilty that you will accept the courts decision and drop your claims that he is guilty?
Or will you then say that the court was wrong?

We know courts can come to wrong decisions (eg., after 18 years in jail for rape, exoneration through DNA evidence). Perfection isn't something we can ask of the system but without it, we'd be in serious trouble.

The breakdown of opinion here on his guilt (in the matter before the GJ) falls typically along partisan lines. That's pretty pathetic but in keeping with what you fools are doing to yourselves these days. I've been following the case pretty closely because it provides an exceptional window into how this WH operates, Cheney's office particularly. One can never be sure of things but the preponderance of the evidence presented so far certainly suggests to me that Libby lied in the course of his interviews - the countering evidence coming from WH employees. So at this point, if I were on the jury, I'd vote for guilt (given that the legal issues as explained by the judge don't add some other factor). In the end, I might well consider that the judgement of guilt or innocence is "wrong" but tough cookies for me.

What pisses me off about some of you nignogs is how willing you are to dis-assemble your constitutional framework because the courts often bring down findings which stand as impediment to your ideologies. Many of you do not deserve your country. You just got lucky regarding where you were born.

0 Replies

This is altogether good news...if transparency is valued.

Quote:

Audio recordings of former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's secret grand jury testimony will be released publicly after they are presented at his trial, the judge at Libby's trial ruled Monday.

In a victory for the news media, U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton said he has concerns about releasing the recordings while the case is under way, but that he has little choice under the law as applied in the federal court system in Washington, D.C.

http://www.salon.com/wire/ap/archive.html?wire=D8N3L3VO3.html

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

This is altogether good news...if transparency is valued.

Quote:
Audio recordings of former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's secret grand jury testimony will be released publicly after they are presented at his trial, the judge at Libby's trial ruled Monday.

In a victory for the news media, U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton said he has concerns about releasing the recordings while the case is under way, but that he has little choice under the law as applied in the federal court system in Washington, D.C.
http://www.salon.com/wire/ap/archive.html?wire=D8N3L3VO3.html

What more, the whole 'there is no underlying crime' angle is, to put it simply, ridiculous.

Repeat after me, Righties: It has not been established that there was no underlying crime!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Whoops, responded to the wrong post. Point stands tho.

Blatham, where are you getting your trial coverage?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Fitz has the prosecutorial discretion to not prosecute the underlying crimes. This does not provide an out for Libby.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

parados wrote:
The Libby trial is a primer for what the arguments will be in the Plame/Wilson vs Cheney et al lawsuit. Fitzgerald has made it pretty obvious that the office of the VP was attempting to get Wilson. That suit has plenty of basis to move forward into discovery based on what we have seen so far.

Will Cheney ask the Supreme Court to rule he is protected from lawsuits as a sitting VP? That would be an interesting question for the conservative court.

Cheney doesnt have to ask.
The courts have already ruled that govt officials cannot be sued for actions taken while they were in office.

Criminal charges can be filed against a sitting govt official,but they cant be sued.

From this site...
http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_a5.html#Q81

We get this...

Quote:
Q89. "If a President has civil litigation brought against him during his term in office must this be handled while he is in office? Or, can it be deferred until his term expires?"

A. A civil case can be deferred, and before 1997, most people would likely have guessed that any civil case filed against the President would be deferred. However, a Supreme Court ruling against President Clinton in 1997 allowed a civil case against him to proceed. The reasoning was that since the case against him concerned acts committed prior to his taking office, that the Presidency did not lend him a shield against such litigation. The decision would seem to leave in place the notion that a President cannot be sued for actions taken as President, protecting Presidents from frivolous lawsuits designed to tie up an administration's conduct of national business.

This also applies to the VP.
So,Cheney cannot be sued in civil court.

Cheney can be sued. Clinton was sued. Cheney can't be sued for official acts. He can be sued for acts that are not official. Unless of course you are arguing that it was an official act to reveal Plame was a CIA agent but that would change a lot of things in this case.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Betcha he's found guilty. Betcha he is then pardoned. $50 on either or both.

Done. Both. Payable to the A2K general operating fund, via the Donation Page, if that's agreeable to you.

0 Replies

Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know