Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

okie, Exactly what crime did Joseph Wilson commit?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

So cyclops, it sounds like Libby wanted to testify, but since the court will not allow information that is likely pertinent to the case, in my opinion and probably in Libby's and his attorney's opinion, he declines to testify, and I can't say as I blame him if the case is framed to begin with. And as mysteryman pointed out, Cheney is not on trial either. And Libby is not on trial for leaking Plame's name, he is instead on trial for a ridiculous procedural crime.
.

Why don't you must make up other stuff about this case too okie?

The court allowed items in on the stipulation that Libby would testify. Then the defense decided Libby wouldn't testify. The exact OPPOSITE of your claim okie. When the defense did its opening statement they said Libby would testify. They were allowed to make certain statements based on the fact that ONLY Libby could support those statements when he testified.

The defense objective is to throw as much confusing and irrelevent information as possible at the jury. Too bad the judge is on the side of justice I guess, okie. There is no reason for the judge to allow the defense to include things that have no bearing on the guilt or innocence of Libby. The judge's refusal to let the defense confuse the jury with irrelevent information has nothing to do with why Libby decided not to testify.

0 Replies

So the fact that Andrea Mitchell said in effect that Plame's identity was known by lots of people in the media is irrelevant according to the judge and the defense is not allowed to question her concerning this? Isn't that what this case is about, who knew what when? Restricting information that seems highly pertinent to the case does not make much sense in my opinion.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, Exactly what crime did Joseph Wilson commit?

Now you are asking the right questions, cicerone. What crime did Libby commit? If the outing was a crime, how come Richard Armitage walks scot free to this day, and no hint of any interest in him by Fitzgerald.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

So the fact that Andrea Mitchell said in effect that Plame's identity was known by lots of people in the media is irrelevant according to the judge and the defense is not allowed to question her concerning this?

Yes, that's right. There are actual rules to trials, yaknow

Quote:

Isn't that what this case is about, who knew what when?

No, this case is about Libby making false statements in front of the GJ about what he knew and when he knew it. His statements were crafted to support his lie that he 'learned' Plame's name from Russert, despite the fact he'd discussed it with several people including his boss (whom he actually learned it from, but claimed he forgot) in the weeks before he talked to Russert.

Quote:

Restricting information that seems highly pertinent to the case does not make much sense in my opinion.

Well, the fact that you haven't bothered to do even the most basic research into what has been going on in the trial - and the legal reasons why the judge wouldn't allow Mitchell to testify - renders your opinion to be of little worth, sorry to say.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cyclops, use your head. The fact that Andrea Mitchell said what she did just might indicate the very strong possibility that Russert did in fact know. But we wouldn't want to confuse the jury with facts, right? It might make the jury realize what a house of cards that Fitz's case really is.

0 Replies

Why is it pertinent to the case in your opinion okie?

Mitchell has retracted the statement. There is no supporting evidence to show that her original statement was true.

Whether it was true or not..
It shows nothing about what Libby said or didn't say to Russert or Cooper.
It shows nothing about Libby's state of mind.
It doesn't show that Libby was too busy with other things.
It doesn't impeach Russert or Cooper.

It has NO PROBATIVE value at all in the case.

This is a case about who told Libby what and when and what Libby told other people and he told the FBI and GJ. This is not a case about what other people not related to Libby told each other. That is not pertinent at all in the case.

0 Replies

C'mon, Parados, don't resort to using Logic!

What Okie means is that anything which doesn't go Libby's way is unfairly prejudicial on the part of our legal system.

Okie, I'm sure you believe that the fact that Judge Walton didn't allow Libby's lawyers to put three other witnesses on the stand is a heinous breach of justice as well; but you don't complain about them here, even though their testimony is probably more relevant to the case, because you haven't mined your outrage from some right-wing site on this subject yet. Pardon us if we aren't exactly moved by your hand-wringing over how unfair this whole matter is.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Cyclops, use your head. The fact that Andrea Mitchell said what she did just might indicate the very strong possibility that Russert did in fact know. But we wouldn't want to confuse the jury with facts, right? It might make the jury realize what a house of cards that Fitz's case really is.

Facts? what facts?

You are demanding that the jury hear unsubstantiated rumors as if they were "facts".

What a bunch of BS okie. For f*** sake. Stop acting so stupid.

0 Replies

Pardon pending.

0 Replies

okie wrote: And the man that started the political game walks scot free, Mr. Joseph Wilson himself.

cicerone imposter wrote:
okie, Exactly what crime did Joseph Wilson commit?

okie wrote:
Now you are asking the right questions, cicerone. What crime did Libby commit? If the outing was a crime, how come Richard Armitage walks scot free to this day, and no hint of any interest in him by Fitzgerald.

It's up to Fitzgerald to determine what laws were broken by Libby. As for Armitage, as you've stated, Fitztgerald hasn't shown any interest in him. Too bad for you, heh! Maybe, you should complain to Bush.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Why is it pertinent to the case in your opinion okie?

Mitchell has retracted the statement. There is no supporting evidence to show that her original statement was true.

Whether it was true or not..
It shows nothing about what Libby said or didn't say to Russert or Cooper.
It shows nothing about Libby's state of mind.
It doesn't show that Libby was too busy with other things.
It doesn't impeach Russert or Cooper.

It has NO PROBATIVE value at all in the case.

This is a case about who told Libby what and when and what Libby told other people and he told the FBI and GJ. This is not a case about what other people not related to Libby told each other. That is not pertinent at all in the case.

If person A says person B knew something, person B says he did not, and person C said many of her colleagues knew it and person B was a colleague of C, then later retracted it. Person A is on trial and crucial to the trial is whether person B did know it or not. You have the word of person A against that of person B, and you tell me that the statements of person C is not pertinent to the trial according to the judge and the statements of person C are not allowed to be considered by the jury. Incredible. Yep, Parados, you've either lost your marbles or you are a lawyer, one of the two.

How come when Libby has a problem with this confused mess of remembering phone conversations 3 years ago, why can't he simply retract his statements? Any statement he has made that Fitz is accusing him of perjury, all he has to do is simply retract his statement and Fitz has no case anymore.

0 Replies

Quote:

If person A says person B knew something, person B says he did not, and person C said many of her colleagues knew it and person B was a colleague of C, then later retracted it. Person A is on trial and crucial to the trial is whether person B did know it or not. You have the word of person A against that of person B, and you tell me that the statements of person C is not pertinent to the trial according to the judge and the statements of person C are not allowed to be considered by the jury. Incredible. Yep, Parados, you've either lost your marbles or you are a lawyer, one of the two.

Except Person A isn't on trial for person B knowing something. Person A is on trial for lying to the FBI and a GJ about when he first learned this thing. Persons x, y, and z have all testified that person A did know this thing before he ever talked to person B. What person C may or may not have known about what person B knew before he talked to person A is irrelevent. It doesn't affect what persons x, y, and z told person A.

I haven't lost my marbles. You don't seem to have any to begin with. You didn't address any of my points. You just went off on your merry confused way demanding we consider things that are red herrings.

0 Replies

Quote:

How come when Libby has a problem with this confused mess of remembering phone conversations 3 years ago, why can't he simply retract his statements? Any statement he has made that Fitz is accusing him of perjury, all he has to do is simply retract his statement and Fitz has no case anymore.

Except it isn't a few phone conversations. It was meetings, emails, notes etc. What Fitz is trying to prove is that Libby knowingly lied to the FBI and the GJ. The jury has to decide if a "reasonable" person would remember something they were dealing with every day for weeks.

I liked the jury question of one witness about Libby who was testifying how terrible Libby's memory was. If his memory is so bad why was he in the position he was in? It is difficult to believe that someone in that position would "forget" something he spent a good part of his day dealing with. I might have bought the forgetfullness except for the lies about learning it later from other sources that deny ever telling him. That to me shows a willingness to hide it. Your argument lacks credibility okie in that it would require that EVERYONE but Libby is lying. Yet with all those people lying, Libby isn't willing to get on the stand and tell the truth. Yeah, right.

Throw some more red herrings out, why don't you. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Except Person A isn't on trial for person B knowing something.

If person B knew something, convicting person A would be pretty silly. It is pertinent for the jury to know this information for them to make a sensible decision. The judge is unfairly framing person A by not allowing all the information to be considered. In my opinion.

We are talking about "reasonable doubt," and they are trying to restrict information that favors the defense and injects much reasonable doubt. I believe reasonable doubt is everywhere in this case and should be available to the jury because it is pertinent to justice here. The whole case is built on a procedural crime stemming from nothing more than politics.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Quote:
How come when Libby has a problem with this confused mess of remembering phone conversations 3 years ago, why can't he simply retract his statements? Any statement he has made that Fitz is accusing him of perjury, all he has to do is simply retract his statement and Fitz has no case anymore.

Except it isn't a few phone conversations. It was meetings, emails, notes etc. What Fitz is trying to prove is that Libby knowingly lied to the FBI and the GJ. The jury has to decide if a "reasonable" person would remember something they were dealing with every day for weeks.

I liked the jury question of one witness about Libby who was testifying how terrible Libby's memory was. If his memory is so bad why was he in the position he was in? It is difficult to believe that someone in that position would "forget" something he spent a good part of his day dealing with. I might have bought the forgetfullness except for the lies about learning it later from other sources that deny ever telling him. That to me shows a willingness to hide it. Your argument lacks credibility okie in that it would require that EVERYONE but Libby is lying. Yet with all those people lying, Libby isn't willing to get on the stand and tell the truth. Yeah, right.

Throw some more red herrings out, why don't you.

Who did you talk to and what did you say in exact words 3 years ago from today, Parados?

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

blatham wrote:
A tad cowardly, these Scooter and Cheney fellas are proving to be. You'd think that had their actions and motivations (and previous statements about them) been marked by honesty and integrity that taking the stand would surely reveal their red, white and blue halos to good and helpful effect with this jury. You'd think.

I guess that Scooter and Cheney will not be poster boys for the Republican Party "American Values" campaign.

Indeed, the opposite is likely to be true, wande. See okie's set of notions. Because these people are considered, axiomatically, as the 'good guys', any and all evidence to the contrary must be false and any and all investigations into their activities must be at the behest of people with evil motives. There is no evidence which might arise in this trial and there is no finding other than 'innocent' which can be valid to okie (and others who see the world that way).

Such charges, investigations and guilty findings actually strengthen okie's notions that these people (cheney, bush, libby et al) and okie himself are being systematically set upon by evil-doers and their unsuspecting accomplices.

No other 'reality' seems even possible.

When Fitzgerald was appointed to this case, he was pretty much a blank slate to the right (and most everyone else too). His appointment in this case was made by a Republican (acting AG Corney) and his previous appointment as Attorney for Norther Illinois had been made by a Repubican as well. The history of the cases he brought and worked on (mafia, terrorism, corruption) demonstrated no ideological or partisan bent, rather tenacity and straight-arrowness.

Yet, at that time, myself and many others predicted that the single factor which would determine rightwing media's opinion of Fitzgerald would be whether or not it looked like he might find against the heroic administration.

0 Replies

As the Zionists would say of those that criticize Israel, Fitzpatrick is a antiRepublican and self-hater. Only the right wingnuts are saints and honest.

0 Replies

Quote:

If person B knew something, convicting person A would be pretty silly.

That makes no sense okie. You are arguing that if person B jaywalked then we can't convict person A of bank robbery. Person A is not charged with KNOWING what person B knew. They are charged with LYING about hearing it from person B. No one has testified that person B knew anything. No one has specifically said that person B knew this thing.

You argument is that if SOMEONE said "a bunch of people knew something" then it is evidence that it is fact.

1. Mitchell won't testify that Russert knew anything. The court KNOWS this. Libby's lawyers know that too.
2. Mitchell didn't tell Russert.
3. Mitchell didn't hear anyone else tell Russert
4. Mitchell never heard Russert tell anyone this.
5. Mitchell has NEVER said that Russert knew anything. It is speculation that her ambiguous statement that she retracted includes Russert.

If we follow that standard okie than can everyone that said "the Bush administration was out to get Wilson" testify? As the court said, the government and the defendent are entitled to a fair trial. If one side gets to do it, then doesn't the other side?

How about we put Bush on trial for the invasion of Iraq and let all 30 million people that have ever said "Bush knew there weren't WMD in Iraq" testify? Would that be OK with you?

I am sorry okie. The only politics I am seeing are yours. You have no standard of fair play. You demand that people be allowed to argue non facts as facts in a trial when you think the person is innocent. I can only conclude you are trying to undermine American jurisprudence.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Who did you talk to and what did you say in exact words 3 years ago from today, Parados?

I am asked all the time about projects I worked on 3 years, 5 years, 7 years ago. If I spent 2 weeks on the project I remember it. A quick look at my files will refresh my memory on a lot of details. If I don't remember a specific detail, I say, "I don't remember."

The difference between forgetting details and what Libby did is....

Libby stated he KNEW that Russert told him. If Libby's memory is so bad how could he suddenly remember without question that Russert told him? It isn't the lack of memory that is Libby's problem. It is the claim of what he does remember that is going to hang him.

0 Replies

Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know