Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

Advocate, insofar as pertains to the Libby trial, as a matter of law and as a matter of jury instruction, that discussion is irrelevant in the face of this discussion:

Quote:

... (Presiding Judge) Walton told the jurors: "What Mrs. Wilson's status was at the CIA, whether it was covert or not covert, is not something that you're going to hear any evidence presented to you on in this trial.

"Whether she was, or whether she was not, covert is not relevant to the issues you have to decide in this case," he said ...

... "You must not consider these matters in your deliberations or speculate or guess about them," he told jurors in his opening instructions ...

Source

0 Replies

timber

I'm still up for the proposed wager:

there will be a guilty finding... $50
there will be a pardon........... $50

?

0 Replies

Timber, I didn't realize that we limited matters covered in A2K to things that are admissible in court. But really, I fully realize that the issue of covertness is immaterial to the question of whether Libby lied and obstructed. As you know, this has not kept Okie and the other conservatives from bringing up covertness at every bend in the road. But thanks for giving us the judge's instruction on this.

What is sickening to me is that, after this four-year old investigation, at great taxpayer expense, Bush would merely pardon everyone in sight should Libby be found guilty.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Advocate, insofar as pertains to the Libby trial, as a matter of law and as a matter of jury instruction, that discussion is irrelevant in the face of this discussion:

Quote:
... (Presiding Judge) Walton told the jurors: "What Mrs. Wilson's status was at the CIA, whether it was covert or not covert, is not something that you're going to hear any evidence presented to you on in this trial.

"Whether she was, or whether she was not, covert is not relevant to the issues you have to decide in this case," he said ...

... "You must not consider these matters in your deliberations or speculate or guess about them," he told jurors in his opening instructions ...

Source

We realize that Timber, but for some reason conservatives keep bringing it up as proof that Libby shouldn't have been prosecuted. As you point out again, her status has no bearing on Libby's guilt or innocence.

I for one think that a good prosecutor would have asked that question of the CIA before he ever questioned WH officials, don't you?

0 Replies

As I said,I havent been following the case very closely,I have more important things to do.

I am just wondering how those on here that already seem to be willing to execute Libby will react IF he is aquitted.

Will they accept the verdict,or will they immediately cry that there was a "conspiracy" to aquit him.

0 Replies

mm, should Libby be acquitted, I would favor the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the jury. I, and at least a couple of my friends, would refuse to accept the decision. BTW, what is more important than this case, other than determining the father of Anna Nicole's baby.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

timber

I'm still up for the proposed wager:

there will be a guilty finding... $50
there will be a pardon........... $50

?

You did not offer me the bet, but if you had, no deal. Not these days, with juries as goofy as they can be, and this is in DC on top of that, a Democrat stronghold.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

mm, should Libby be acquitted, I would favor the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the jury. I, and at least a couple of my friends, would refuse to accept the decision. BTW, what is more important than this case, other than determining the father of Anna Nicole's baby.

My job,my family,my friends,my commitment to the fire dept,my golf game,sleep,etc.

As far as I am concerned,the only thing less important then this trial is Anna Nicole Smith and those legal battles.

0 Replies

Libby trial....
9 people say one thing.
1 person says another. That one person never states under oath he "forgot" anything. There is evidence this person's boss told him to investigate what his lawyer is now claiming he "forgot"

Who do you believe? The 9 people or the 1?
It is looking damn near impossible for the jury to aquit on all counts.

What reasonable person can accept the story of 1 person over the other 9?

By the way okie.. You haven't told us if you think Ashcroft was politically motivated in his investigation or his appointment of Fitzgerald. Or do you just think Ashcroft and all those career prosecutors and FBI agents are incompetent?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

timber

I'm still up for the proposed wager:

there will be a guilty finding... $50
there will be a pardon........... $50

?

Do try to keep up, bernie :wink: Laughing

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Libby trial....
9 people say one thing.
1 person says another. That one person never states under oath he "forgot" anything. There is evidence this person's boss told him to investigate what his lawyer is now claiming he "forgot"

Who do you believe? The 9 people or the 1?
It is looking damn near impossible for the jury to aquit on all counts.

What reasonable person can accept the story of 1 person over the other 9?

By the way okie.. You haven't told us if you think Ashcroft was politically motivated in his investigation or his appointment of Fitzgerald. Or do you just think Ashcroft and all those career prosecutors and FBI agents are incompetent?

If you were one of the potential jurors, you would have been kicked off pronto, Parados. How do you know that without being there?

As far as Ashcroft, what does it matter? He recused himself from this. You act as if Ashcroft was the only guy working on this and it was his call, when in reality teams of people in the Justice Department was on this. I have always thought this was a political move between the CIA and the administration. In other words, its political, Parados. The ultimate proof that this is political will be the ultimate result of this whole mess, whether Fitzgerald will actually ever charge anyone with the crime he was charged to investigate. How many years has this case been going, and so far, not a hint of anything like that, so I have no clue how many more years Fitzgerald intends to carry this on.

John Ashcroft was a good Attorney General, far better than the previous administration, no contest.

0 Replies

Okie! Stop dodging the damn point!

You've alleged that Fitzgerald trumped this whole thing up and knew from the beginning that she wasn't covert. But the fact is that the investigation was put in motion by Ashcroft, who would never have done so if she wasn't covert. Please acknowledge that this is a false attack on Fitzgerald's integrity.

During the course of the trial there has been mention of 'ongoing investigation' and Fitz's closing left little doubt that Cheney has been his target all along. Fitz hasn't charged anyone under the IIPA in large part because of the Intent clause; that's what he means when he says 'there is a cloud over the VP.'

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

You would give probably anything to get Darth Vader, Dick Cheney, and so you hope Fitzgerald ultimately charges him with outing a covert agent. Good luck. He hasn't gotten very far if that is his ultimate goal at the end of how many years?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

You would give probably anything to get Darth Vader, Dick Cheney, and so you hope Fitzgerald ultimately charges him with outing a covert agent. Good luck. He hasn't gotten very far if that is his ultimate goal at the end of how many years?

Still won't admit that it wasn't Fitzgerald who started it, will you?

RICO trials - and don't kid yourself, that's exactly what we're talking about here - often take years to complete and in large part rely upon trials involving subordinates before they get to the guys at the top. That's what Fitz cut his teeth on - organized crime. You'll understand if I continue to have confidence in his abilities to prosecute such cases.

Don't think this is a RICO trial? The lawyers hired by Bush and Cheney after this event came to light; guess what they specialize in? Hmm? That's right, RICO trial defense.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Libby trial....
9 people say one thing.
1 person says another.

Recap: An undersecretary of state, two CIA officials, two top Cheney aides, two reporters and former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said they discussed Plame with Libby before Libby talked to Russert.

0 Replies

okie, What we wish and what will actually happen is beyond our control. We perceive issues based on our own perception of right and wrong - ususally based on our political leanings concerning "this" issue.

We will all have to wait and see what, if anything, happens concerning the outing of Plame.

It's up to Patrick Fitzgerald if he pursues the VP or not.

0 Replies

wandel, That's a very good recap that I'm sure the grand jury will take into consideration.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, What we wish and what will actually happen is beyond our control. We perceive issues based on our own perception of right and wrong - ususally based on our political leanings concerning "this" issue.

We will all have to wait and see what, if anything, happens concerning the outing of Plame.

It's up to Patrick Fitzgerald if he pursues the VP or not.

Not really.
According to the law,the President and the VP cannot be charged criminally for actions they take while performing their duties.
They have to be removed from office first.

So,Fitz cant do anything to Cheney,even if he wants to,till AFTER Jan 09.

0 Replies

"...they must be removed from office first..."

BINGO!

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
okie, What we wish and what will actually happen is beyond our control. We perceive issues based on our own perception of right and wrong - ususally based on our political leanings concerning "this" issue.

We will all have to wait and see what, if anything, happens concerning the outing of Plame.

It's up to Patrick Fitzgerald if he pursues the VP or not.

Not really.
According to the law,the President and the VP cannot be charged criminally for actions they take while performing their duties.
They have to be removed from office first.

So,Fitz cant do anything to Cheney,even if he wants to,till AFTER Jan 09.

We're willing to wait.

And don't forget about the upcoming Civil trial. Cheney has no special immunity for that.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know