8
   

Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 07:57 pm
Byron York and I have been emailing back-and-forth about this very point (and I must say that he is a gentleman even in his error:)

Quote:

"I'm not going to tell the jury the information was classified," Fitzgerald answered. "I will tell the jury that there was an investigation into whether the law was violated."

And what law might that be? Sure enough, it's the one barring disclosure of a covert agent's identity.


This is not neccessarily true. There are several different laws which could be violated.

Okie,

Quote:

Yes, it was used to combat, retaliate if you wish to use the term, but to combat mis-information put out by Wilson


It doesn't matter if the information is mis- or not (though it in fact was not). It is still wrong to out someone's wife as retaliation for them disagreeing with you.

Quote:
and they doubted her covert status


This is immaterial, even if it is true. In fact, there is little doubt that Cheney and Libby knew she worked for CPD and knew that her identity was confidential even if it didn't rise to the level of 'covert' under the IIPA, which still makes it a crime to talk about publicly.

Quote:
and they also figured the reporters already had the info, which many did.


As far as I can tell through research, this is false. Which reporter already had the info? Where did they get it? Why were they looking into it??

I hope you aren't going to respond with a point about Novak, as his stories (which have changed 4 times now) don't hold much water.

Quote:
I happen to think Wilson lied about many things and was involved in a vendetta for not only himself, but the CIA.


That's a nice opinion that you have. Now, if you had a single fact to back this conspiracy theory up, I would invite you to present it so we could discuss it.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 11:26 pm
blatham wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
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


This is almost too funny.

You have denigrated salon.com in the past as not being reputable.
Now,you are using it as a source.


I must disagree. Blatham is devoted to salon.com, and I can't imagine he has ever denigrated it. (He would also never admit it's leftist leanings.)

You must be thinking of another source.


Good god. I do hope your mother doesn't still tie your shoe laces.

Salon.com clearly forwards a left viewpoint.


How refreshing that you've finally come around to admitting what I've been pointing out to you all along.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Feb, 2007 05:17 am
Quote:
Why was it that everyone was so agitated in late 2003?


Defenders of the White House ought to be asking themselves what it was that Cheney, Bush et al were upset about? An OpEd piece? It wasn't that the piece contained mis-information, it didn't, they knew that.
So they had to make it seem as if the information it did contain was unimportant.

There is nothing so damaging in Washington as to seen as unimportant.

Joe(I am not important, truth is)Nation
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Feb, 2007 08:14 am
okie wrote:
Yes, it was used to combat, retaliate if you wish to use the term, but to combat mis-information put out by Wilson, and they doubted her covert status, and they also figured the reporters already had the info, which many did. I happen to think Wilson lied about many things and was involved in a vendetta for not only himself, but the CIA.


If in fact Wilson's article was mis-information, then they should have just challenged his article's facts rather than trying to smear him by using his wife. But they couldn't because it was basically a true article.

What I Didn't Find in Africa
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Feb, 2007 09:30 am
We can assign a lot more credibility to Salon than to Mona Charen. She reliably embraces every far-right position.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Feb, 2007 10:15 am
GJ testimony played during Libby's trial today:

Quote:
It's 10:06.

F: (gives Libby the Wilson op-ed) What was your reaction? Were you angry?

L: I was confident that the facts were clear, that this was wrong.

F: Were you upset?

L: (long pause) I guess I was upset. I didn't like the article.

F: And did you discuss it with the VP?

L: (pause) Yes.

F: Are you uncertain?

L: I'm just trying to remember when. I didn't see him on Sunday.

F: Tell me about that conversation.

L: I don't remember it in detail. It was the same claims we had seen before.

F: Leaving aside if charges were true or false, is it fair to say this was most serious attack on administration credibility?

L: (doesn't want to concede this, but finally does)

F: Was this discussed on a daily basis in WH over the next week?

L: Yes.

F: Multiple times each day?

L: Yes.

F: What was Cheney's opinion.

L: He wanted to get all the facts out (this is an excerpt we've all read about before, I'm going to skim the main points)

(discussion of Cheney clipping out Wilson op-ed and keeping it on his desk)

(confirmation that copy of op-ed has Cheney's handwriting & underlining - "I have no choice but to conclude Iraqi intelligence was twisted")

(walks Libby through Cheney's notes about "did wife send him on

F: Do you recall discussing those issues with VP?

L: He was interested in how this person came to be selected for this mission. At some point after he learned that his wife worked

F: Cheney had told you this in June.

L: Yes.

F: So when you say "after we learnedÂ…" didn't you already know?

L: By this week I no longer remembered that. (mentions Russert conversation on July 10)


Libby is shot. He admits during his GJ testimony that Cheney told him back in June that Plame worked for CPD; his only defense is that he forgot crucial details about something which was discussed on a daily basis, multiple times a day, for a week in the WH amongst top staff. He forgets every time it came up before July 10th (Russert's conversation with Libby), which was at least three times.

It is difficult for me to see how you could be intimately involved, personally involved, with a case such as this, discuss it at length for a week, discuss it several times over the next two weeks with other people, and then claim you had forgotten the important fact by the third week. It isn't credible in the slightest.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Feb, 2007 02:42 pm
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Feb, 2007 04:38 pm
Russert contradicts Libby's testimony

Quote:
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Feb, 2007 06:14 pm
It's like trying to pull a molar, but it looks like the "roots" is beginning to show a bit. Russert, in effect, pooped Libby's testimony. A liar has a hard time in a court of law to win.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Feb, 2007 10:42 pm
It remains to be seen whose molar might be pulled. How do you account for Russert changing his story?

"Russert originally told the FBI that he couldn't rule out discussing Wilson with Libby but had no recollection of it, according to an FBI report Wells read in court. Russert said Wednesday he did not believe he said that."

So how does his memory improve and get better with time concerning something he wasn't sure of? Maybe when he realizes what he wants to remember about what he said?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Feb, 2007 11:15 pm
How about Libby changing his?

January 25, 2007
Traditional Plame Open Thread
Away we go.

NOTE - Neil Lewis of the Times is still misreporting the gist of Libby's testimony [but he is getting closer. Yesterday and today-

Mr. Libby has sworn that he did not discuss Ms. Wilson's identity with reporters in the spring and summer of 2003. But two reporters, Judith Miller, formerly of The New York Times, and Matthew Cooper, formerly of Time Magazine, have testified that Mr. Libby explicitly told them about Ms. Wilson.

Nonsense - Libby testified that he heard about Plame from Cheney, forgot, then learned it 'as if for the first time' from Tim Russert, after which he discussed it with Miller and Cooper. Here is Neil Lewis asymptotically closing in on the truth-
Mr. Libby is facing five felony counts that he lied when he told a grand jury and F.B.I. agents that he learned of Ms. Wilson's identity from reporters.

Better.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Feb, 2007 11:52 pm
The defense tried to impeach Russert's creidibilty and all they did (according to the way the jurors reacted) is continue to destroy their ownj credibilty as well as their client.

Sticka fork in him, he's done
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Feb, 2007 08:01 pm
Roxxxanne wrote:
The defense tried to impeach Russert's creidibilty and all they did (according to the way the jurors reacted) is continue to destroy their ownj credibilty as well as their client.

Sticka fork in him, he's done


I didn't know Russert had any credibility, Roxxxanne. Wasn't he the go-to wackjob that the WH could count on to get out any ole message they needed?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Feb, 2007 08:23 pm
Here is but one stunning example, Roxxxanne. Watch the video, see the stunned look on the face of the questioner, in this case it's not Russert. But are these blatant lies challenged, NFW!

Quote:
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Feb, 2007 07:02 pm
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Feb, 2007 07:14 pm
I see Cheney losing hs cool during his appearance on the stand. He's going to look like a blubbering fool, because he's a hothead and explosive.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Feb, 2007 07:36 pm
Are you sure he can be compelled to testify?
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Feb, 2007 07:38 pm
Cheney must know he has the right to remain silent and anything he says can be used against him.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Feb, 2007 07:41 pm
If the defense decides to subpeona him, one would think Cheney would comply. It does raise a constitutional question if he says he won't in spite of the subpeona. I am not sure the courts can compel him. I doubt they could if he was the President.

Could the defense claim his refusal to testify hurts their case and demand a mistrial? Interesting thought. Politically it would put the administration in a difficult spot with the press and the people. Not that they care about either, but the Congress does.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Feb, 2007 07:46 pm
parados, You give congress too much credit. They're about as inert as a box of baby powder.
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 0.11 seconds on 07/22/2025 at 08:59:39