parados wrote: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.
3 years ago today I had a conversation with my mother, my ex-girlfriend, and my roomate - all about the same topic, one which was important to me. I remember it well as it was the day after valentine's day, which wasn't a good one for me.
You're really reaching, Okie. Just admit that your position is colored by the assumption that Libby must be innocent, and quit with all the pretension about how the judge rigged the trial.
Cycloptichorn
But then of course it wasn't 3 years.
The time period of talking to reporters was June, July 2003. Libby testified to the GJ in March of 2004.
parados wrote:
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.
How do you know all of this, Parados, Are you Andrea Mitchell in disguise?
She said in answer to a question:
"Do we have any idea how widely known it was in Washington that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?"
"It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger"
You are saying she lied, Parados. Well, I don't think she did, because she had no reason to lie when she made this statement. She did have a reason to lie later to protect others and perhaps herself. I think she was absolutely right in her statement about Plame being widely known, and furthermore her statement makes perfect sense and is consistent with what we suspect and know, and that is one of the reasons Fitz has no case for the original suspected crime he was given to investigate. Also, Russert was Mitchell's colleague and he was following the Niger story, so obviously her statement would very likely cover Mr. Tim Russert. This is obviously very pertinent to the defense. And furthermore, it pokes holes in Fitzgerald's original claim in his press conference in 2005 that Plame's identity was not widely known.
You are TOO funny okie..
I know this because of the court filings and discussions about whether Mitchell would testify or not.
Lets see. . Lets for a moment assume her statement was accurate.
How do you know that Russert covers the intelligence community? (He doesn't.)
How do you know Russert was "actively trying to track down" who went to Niger?
No, okie. You are just making crap up. There is no evidence to support your accusation. On examination of your accusation it completely falls apart. Mitchell makes NO comment that can be construed to possibly mean the Russert would have known. You can whine and moan all you want about how others don't know something. You know less than all of us.
"Do we have any idea how widely known it was in Washington that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?"
"It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger"
Read it, Parados, as many times as you need to - to comprehend it.
Repeating it doesn't change it okie.
It only shows you can't answer any of my statements about it.
Show me where in US jurisprudence hearsay is valid evidence.
Show me where in that statement it says anything about what Russert knew or didn't know.
At least Libby's lawyers recognize it when the court says it and have sense enough to not continue.
Cycloptichorn wrote:parados wrote: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.
3 years ago today I had a conversation with my mother, my ex-girlfriend, and my roomate - all about the same topic, one which was important to me. I remember it well as it was the day after valentine's day, which wasn't a good one for me.
You're really reaching, Okie. Just admit that your position is colored by the assumption that Libby must be innocent, and quit with all the pretension about how the judge rigged the trial.
Cycloptichorn
Cyclo,
I know you dont like Libby,but you forget one thing.
He MUST be presumed innocent until proven guilty,and even you must admit that he has not,as of yet,been PROVEN guilty.
So,assuming he must be innocent is the right and legal thing to do.
"Presumed innocent" is not the same thing as "must be innocent."
Even you have to understand that one. Right MM?
I'm sure Libby feels great comfort from people like mm, but the truth of the matter is it's much more than simply "innocent until proven guilty."
From the Huffington blog site:
Libby is charged with two counts of perjury, two counts of making false statements, and one count of obstruction of justice. Obstruction of justice carries a ten-year maximum penalty, while the perjury and false statement charges each carry a five-year max.
That means if Libby is convicted on all charges and given the maximum sentence, he would be facing 30 years in prison.
Somewhat shockingly, the Washington Post published an absurd opinion piece by the rightwing legal darling Victoria Toensing, which argues that Plame was not a covert agent and that the real criminals are Fitzgerald and Wilson. Here is a good rebuttal piece.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/021807.html
parados wrote:"Presumed innocent" is not the same thing as "must be innocent."
Even you have to understand that one. Right MM?
I know he is PRESUMED innocent,but some of the more left leaning people on here,people like Cyclo,apparently are not willing to give im that presumption of innocence.
They have already convicted him,in their minds,and are already planning his execution.
Advocate, if Toensing is not correct, then where are the charges for "outing a covert agent?" After all, we know who did, right? Preposterous case. I agree with Toensing.
Okie, frankly I don't understand why charges are not being brought against, at the least, Armitage and Rove. As you know, Rove barely got off the hook. But, you must know that thousands of cases daily are nolle prosequi for undisclosed reasons.
I wouldn't be bothered should all those involved in the outing of Plame were shot for treason. They may have caused irreparable damage to our country.
Has it occurred to you that maybe Fitz does not have a case, never had a case, and he knows it? What little I know about Fitz is that everybody says he is very detailed and very committed. He is thorough, blah, blah, blah, and he is persistent. Well, my theory is he realized he probably would lose the case if he brought charges for outing, and early on, it was Armitage, and he didn't want Armitage, so in his persistence, he decided he should get somebody for something, otherwise he would be viewed as a failure, and oh no, he couldn't have that blot on his reputation. Unfortunately, I believe he has misjudged this whole case. He should have written it off at the beginning if the original charges held no water. The case was a failure, not him. But he is one of those guys that just could not let go of his chance for fame, on a case that was a dog from the beginning. His own self image has hindered his ability to judge the case for what it is, a dog.
So now, his ridiculous case could put a decent man in jail for 30 years over nothing more than politics, not a crime. A very sad case indeed.
Charges have not been brought for one simple, over-arching, inescapable reason: no underlying crime for which anyone might be charged has been found to exist.
Even supposing the DC jury votes conviction on any or all of Fitzgerald's charges against Libby (think OJ and the LA jury), immediate appeal to higher court would be a given, and there is pretty broad consensus among legal scholars that arguably reversible error abounds throughout the current proceedings. It ain't over 'til its over, and in this opera, the fat lady ain't even left the dressing room yet.
Fitzmas, if its coming at all, is a ways off still, and should it ever come, those who've been anticipating it so eagerly are very most likely to be more than just a little disappointed.
Okie, Timber, is it at all possible that your views are unduly influenced by the party of the alleged miscreants? It certainly seems that way to me. I am reminded of Watergate when virtually every conservative virtually screamed that the prosecution of Nixon was based on only Dem vindictiveness. This was in the face of a mountain of evidence that he committed very serious crimes and misdemeanors.
You know full well that the administration outed a covert CIA agent, destroying her effectiveness in monitoring nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, and wiping out her cover company, which cost the taxpayers millions.
Advocate, I remember Watergate pretty well. I was not a Nixon fan before he was elected, but unfortunately the party has a habit of running candidates that have sort of paid their dues to the party through the years, and Nixon happened to be the man next in line. I do not defend Nixon for bugging the Democratic campaign offices, but to put this into perspective, the FBI did the same thing by gathering information on political enemies at the request of LBJ, JFK, and FDR. I believe such activities had been going on for a long time, and Nixon was unfairly singled out. Sort of like everybody is driving 90 mph on a 65 mph speed limit, but the cops waited for one particular guy they did not like, to stop and ticket. That is how I view the press. They know all kinds of things to investigate, but the anti-war generation had a hatred for Nixon and what his politics was, and so they played that card to the hilt. Many other cards that are far more powerful, they could not care less.
So my view is that Nixon was a typical politician, not great, but certainly not the worst guy he was made out to be by the politics and by the Watergate mess. I firmly believe Bill Clinton was far more criminal, and far more abusive to the office, but instead the press chose to defend him, and still does. I have no problem with throwing people out of office that are corrupt, but we need to apply the same standard to both sides of the aisle, and I don't see anything close to that.
And advocate, you can repeat the same untruth, but it has never been demonstrated that Plame was covert. I doubt it has cost us millions. That is nothing more than spin. Besides, there is evidence she was outed years before this even happened, which has been pointed out to you numerous times on this thread.
Advocate wrote:Okie, frankly I don't understand why charges are not being brought against, at the least, Armitage and Rove. As you know, Rove barely got off the hook. But, you must know that thousands of cases daily are nolle prosequi for undisclosed reasons.
I wouldn't be bothered should all those involved in the outing of Plame were shot for treason. They may have caused irreparable damage to our country.
The left sure likes to throw the word "treason" around,but I doubt if any of you on the left have any idea what it means.
Treason has a VERY SPECIFIC definition,with very specific punishments AND specific ways to prove it.
For the education of advocate and others on the left,here is what the Constitution says (btw,treason is the ONLY crime defined in the Constitution)
From article 3,section 3 of the US Constitution...
Quote:Section 3 - Treason
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
That is from here...
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A3Sec3
Now,since nothing in this case even comes close to the definition in the Constitution,and since there is no way to get a conviction for treason in this case,the use of the word treason by the left is nothing more then an attempt to sensationalize the case and play on peoples ignorance of what treason actually is.
So,lets stop making an accusation about a crime that was NOT committed,and try and stick to the facts of the case.
Okie, Watergate was so much more than just another bugging case. For instance, he bribed the burglars to stay silent, committed tax evasion, conspired (and attempted) to burn the Brookings Institute, persecuted people on his enemies list, used a bagman to get contributions/bribes in return for government contracts, etc. There was a lot more than this. To say that Clinton was worse is laughable.
Of course Plame was covert. No one outside the CIA was aware of her real job with the CIA. Moreover, outing her probably led to the deaths of Iranians who had associated with her or her cover company.
Advocate, I find it interesting that the right doesn't care about the consequences of outing Plame; especially those covert agents in foreign countries that worked with her. It doesn't matter about the "number of years" if those covert agents are still alive. I just wonder if they're still alive after Plame's outing?
