8
   

Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

 
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2005 12:22 pm
Tina Brown on Fitzgerald

Always an interesting perspective.

Quote:
Republicans have been searching for a handle on Fitzgerald. They are trying, seemingly unconsciously, to offload onto him their own bad faith left over from the Clinton impeachment fiasco. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison's shameless display on Sunday's "Meet the Press" was the cake taker. Hutchison had the gall to blandly rabbit on about overzealous prosecutors and perjury just being an itsy-bitsy crime. The narrative of Clinton's impeachment is being replayed, only this time without such incidental grotesqueries as a thong-snapping intern and a prissball prosecutor leaking like a fire hose and the recourse to churchy lines like "sex isn't the issue, the issue is lying." It's one thing to say, "If he'll lie about sex, he'll lie about something important." But what if the thing being lied about is already important? For Democrats, the prospect of indictments coming down feels like poetic justice for five years of cynicism and sanctimony.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2005 01:08 pm
Good perspective there, ehBeth.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2005 01:22 pm
revel wrote:
Probably because he was too busy executing [CONVICTED RAPISTS & MURDERERS] during his six years as Gov. of Texas.


First of all, is that supposed to be a bad thing?

Secondly, maybe you can clear something up for me ... Did he pull the switch? Plunge the lethal injection into their bodies? Hell, did he have any role in trying or convicting any of those 152 murderers? Or did he just refuse to grant clemency? Instead of granting clemency to them -- in effect imposing his will over that of the people -- he allowed 152 decisions of the judges and juries of the State of Texas to remain intact.

Again, what is wrong with that?
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2005 02:01 pm
Not interested in Special Counsel Fitzgerald, Tico?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2005 02:10 pm
ehBeth wrote:
Not interested in Special Counsel Fitzgerald, Tico?


Not especially. Should I be?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2005 02:42 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
revel wrote:
Probably because he was too busy executing [CONVICTED RAPISTS & MURDERERS] during his six years as Gov. of Texas.


First of all, is that supposed to be a bad thing?

Secondly, maybe you can clear something up for me ... Did he pull the switch? Plunge the lethal injection into their bodies? Hell, did he have any role in trying or convicting any of those 152 murderers? Or did he just refuse to grant clemency? Instead of granting clemency to them -- in effect imposing his will over that of the people -- he allowed 152 decisions of the judges and juries of the State of Texas to remain intact.

Again, what is wrong with that?


I take it you didn't read the link?

There was one case described where Bush was guilty of not checking on Gonzales work.

Quote:
ALAN BERLOW: Well, I think the case of David Wayne Stoker might be one of the more interesting. As I describe it, I think it would be worth putting yourself in the position of a senator who has to pass on the confirmation of Gonzales, and ask yourself as a senator would you vote to execute David Wayne Stoker based on this information. Now, Gonzales wrote an 18-sentence summary of the case. Stoker was convicted, sentenced to die for murdering a convenience store clerk by the name of David Manrique in 1986 in a robbery that netted, I think, $86, or something along those lines. Gonzales's 18-sentence summary left out a huge amount of information. He doesn't mention that a federal appellate judge concluded that the state's star witness against Stoker was just as likely the murderer. He didn't note that a key state witness recanted his testimony following Stoker's conviction. That witness explained that he had been pressured by the prosecution to perjure himself. He also doesn't mention that the state's star witness received a financial reward for fingering Stoker and had felony drug and weapons charges dropped the day he testified against Stoker. In addition, Gonzales didn't mention that two police witnesses lied under oath at trial. The state's expert medical witness had pleaded guilty to seven felonies involving falsified evidence in capital murder trials, and the state's psychiatric witness, the notorious Dr. James Grigson, widely known as Dr. Death, had been expelled from the American Psychiatric Association for providing unethical testimony in murder cases prior to this clemency petition coming before Bush. So, Bush gets this clemency case on the eve of the execution of Stoker.


link again

Are you of the position that clemency should never be granted because it would be " imposing his will over that of the people?" (or her as the case may be)
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2005 03:21 pm
revel wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
revel wrote:
Probably because he was too busy executing [CONVICTED RAPISTS & MURDERERS] during his six years as Gov. of Texas.


First of all, is that supposed to be a bad thing?

Secondly, maybe you can clear something up for me ... Did he pull the switch? Plunge the lethal injection into their bodies? Hell, did he have any role in trying or convicting any of those 152 murderers? Or did he just refuse to grant clemency? Instead of granting clemency to them -- in effect imposing his will over that of the people -- he allowed 152 decisions of the judges and juries of the State of Texas to remain intact.

Again, what is wrong with that?


I take it you didn't read the link?

There was one case described where Bush was guilty of not checking on Gonzales work.

Quote:
ALAN BERLOW: Well, I think the case of David Wayne Stoker might be one of the more interesting. As I describe it, I think it would be worth putting yourself in the position of a senator who has to pass on the confirmation of Gonzales, and ask yourself as a senator would you vote to execute David Wayne Stoker based on this information. Now, Gonzales wrote an 18-sentence summary of the case. Stoker was convicted, sentenced to die for murdering a convenience store clerk by the name of David Manrique in 1986 in a robbery that netted, I think, $86, or something along those lines. Gonzales's 18-sentence summary left out a huge amount of information. He doesn't mention that a federal appellate judge concluded that the state's star witness against Stoker was just as likely the murderer. He didn't note that a key state witness recanted his testimony following Stoker's conviction. That witness explained that he had been pressured by the prosecution to perjure himself. He also doesn't mention that the state's star witness received a financial reward for fingering Stoker and had felony drug and weapons charges dropped the day he testified against Stoker. In addition, Gonzales didn't mention that two police witnesses lied under oath at trial. The state's expert medical witness had pleaded guilty to seven felonies involving falsified evidence in capital murder trials, and the state's psychiatric witness, the notorious Dr. James Grigson, widely known as Dr. Death, had been expelled from the American Psychiatric Association for providing unethical testimony in murder cases prior to this clemency petition coming before Bush. So, Bush gets this clemency case on the eve of the execution of Stoker.


link again

Are you of the position that clemency should never be granted because it would be " imposing his will over that of the people?" (or her as the case may be)


No, Tico is of the opinion that if Bush peed on his leg and told him it was raining, he would defend that weather report to the freakin bitter end.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2005 06:30 am
revel wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
revel wrote:
Probably because he was too busy executing [CONVICTED RAPISTS & MURDERERS] during his six years as Gov. of Texas.


First of all, is that supposed to be a bad thing?

Secondly, maybe you can clear something up for me ... Did he pull the switch? Plunge the lethal injection into their bodies? Hell, did he have any role in trying or convicting any of those 152 murderers? Or did he just refuse to grant clemency? Instead of granting clemency to them -- in effect imposing his will over that of the people -- he allowed 152 decisions of the judges and juries of the State of Texas to remain intact.

Again, what is wrong with that?


I take it you didn't read the link?


Of course I read the link, even though it was a democracynow.com hack job. I responded to what you wrote, not the content of your link. In fact, I was wondering if you had read the link. I'm actually still wondering that. One would have thought you would be focusing on Gonzales, since he was the focus of the linked article.


revel wrote:
Are you of the position that clemency should never be granted because it would be " imposing his will over that of the people?" (or her as the case may be)


No ... in a convicted murderer can show he/her was wrongfully convicted, or is otherwise deserving of a reprive, clemency may be appropriate. The point I'm making goes to your original point (which may be evolving as this thread progresses), which seemed to disparage Bush for having executed a lot of convicted murderers during his years as the Governor of Texas. You may have only been imprecise with your words -- since a Governor does not execute these killers -- but you certainly did not focus your remark upon your belief that Bush failed to "check Gonzales' work." I'm sure you anti-death penalty people are convinced that clemency should have been granted in every case, notwithstanding the jury verdict to the contrary.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2005 06:38 am
Tico, I agree with snood, you would defend bush to the bitter end about anything and leave the derailed discussion at that.

(Anyone)

I read today that Libby might be charged today but Rove will not be but be under further investigation.

Quote:
The White House, District Court officials and two potential targets of the CIA leak investigation were making preparations yesterday for the possible announcement of indictments by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald today, according to several sources familiar with the investigation.

Two sources said I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, was shopping for a white-collar criminal lawyer amid expectations of those close to the case that he might be indicted for providing false statements or other charges.

At the same time, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove began assembling a public relations team in the event that he is indicted. The New York Times reported last night that Rove would not be charged today but would remain under investigation.



source
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2005 06:43 am
So where does that put our bet, timber? If the above scenario plays out today?

Hello, everyone. *waves*
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2005 06:52 am
revel wrote:
Tico, I agree with snood, you would defend bush to the bitter end about anything and leave the derailed discussion at that.


And you are perhaps as qualified as snood to talk about what my opinions might be.
0 Replies
 
twinpeaksnikki2
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2005 07:39 am
Ticomaya wrote:
revel wrote:
Tico, I agree with snood, you would defend bush to the bitter end about anything and leave the derailed discussion at that.


And you are perhaps as qualified as snood to talk about what my opinions might be.


'maya, certainly any reader of this forum would be an expert as to what your opinions are. Your post makes no sense.
0 Replies
 
twinpeaksnikki2
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2005 07:43 am
Anne Coulter says the rumor that Libby is to be indicted and Rove remains a target and the investigastion continues would be the worst possible scenario.

Forged documents, withholding documents from Congress, lying to Congress, the outing of Plame is jsut the tip of the iceberg.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2005 07:49 am
PD!!! About time, you lazy dipshit.
0 Replies
 
twinpeaksnikki2
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2005 07:57 am
Ticomaya wrote:
It appears that only George Washington, John Adams, and Zach Taylor issued fewer pardons than Bush Sr. (With exceptions of William H. Harrison and James Garfield, who died days into their Presidencies.)

LINK


And the point is? HW pardoned Cap Weinberger.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2005 09:58 am
twin_peaks_nikki wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
It appears that only George Washington, John Adams, and Zach Taylor issued fewer pardons than Bush Sr. (With exceptions of William H. Harrison and James Garfield, who died days into their Presidencies.)

LINK


And the point is? HW pardoned Cap Weinberger.


The point, Chrissee, is that any claim that Bush Sr. generated a lot of pardons is spurious.

You wanna defend Clinton's pardons? How about the 140 he pardoned on his last day in office, including Marc Rich, Henry Cisneros, Roger Clinton, and Susan McDougal?
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2005 10:04 am
Ticomaya wrote:
ehBeth wrote:
Not interested in Special Counsel Fitzgerald, Tico?


Not especially. Should I be?


well, ya do keep popping into a thread with his name on it - suggests some kind of interest - even if the interest is diversion

I don't even need my glasses to spot that.

~~~~~~~~

Hey pdid! Is mrsDid in line for a new pair of shoes?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2005 10:26 am
meanwhile, back at the investigation:

"Cheney Aide Appears Likely to Be Indicted; Rove Under Scrutiny

By DAVID JOHNSTON
and RICHARD W. STEVENSON
Published: October 28, 2005
WASHINGTON, Oct. 27 - Lawyers in the C.I.A. leak case said Thursday that they expected I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, to be indicted on Friday, charged with making false statements to the grand jury.

Karl Rove, President Bush's senior adviser and deputy chief of staff, will not be charged on Friday, but will remain under investigation, people briefed officially about the case said. As a result, they said, the special counsel in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, was likely to extend the term of the federal grand jury beyond its scheduled expiration on Friday.

Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image

Doug Mills/The New York Times
I. Lewis Libby Jr., chief of staff to the vice president, riding to work this morning.


F.B.I. Is Still Seeking Source of Forged Uranium Reports (October 28, 2005)

Doug Mills/The New York Times
I. Lewis Libby Jr. Thursday.
As rumors coursed through the capital, Mr. Fitzgerald gave no public signal of how he intended to proceed, further intensifying the anxiety that has gripped the White House and left partisans on both sides of the political aisle holding their breath.

Mr. Fitzgerald's preparations for a Friday announcement were shrouded in secrecy, but advanced amid a flurry of behind-the-scenes discussions that left open the possibility of last-minute surprises. As the clock ticked down on the grand jury, people involved in the investigation did not rule out the disclosure of previously unknown aspects of the case.

White House officials said their presumption was that Mr. Libby would resign if indicted, and he and Mr. Rove took steps to expand their legal teams in preparation for a possible court battle.

Among the many unresolved mysteries is whether anyone in addition to Mr. Libby and Mr. Rove might be charged and in particular whether Mr. Fitzgerald would name the source who first provided the identity of a covert C.I.A. officer to Robert D. Novak, the syndicated columnist. Mr. Novak identified the officer in a column published July 14, 2003.

The investigation seemed to be taking an unexpectedly extended path after nearly two years in which Mr. Fitzgerald brought more than a dozen current and former administration officials before the grand jury and interviewed Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney to determine how the identity of the officer, Valerie Plame Wilson, became public.

Mr. Fitzgerald is expected to hold a news conference at the Justice Department in Washington on Friday. His spokesman, Randall Samborn, declined to comment.

Mr. Fitzgerald has examined whether the leak of Ms. Wilson's identity was part of an effort by the administration to respond to criticism of the White House by her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former diplomat. After traveling to Africa in 2002 on a C.I.A.-sponsored mission to look into claims that Iraq had sought to acquire material there for its nuclear weapons program, Mr. Wilson wrote in an Op-Ed article in The New York Times on July 6, 2003, that the White House had "twisted" the intelligence regarding the suspected transaction to justify the invasion of Iraq......"

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/28/politics/28leak.html?th&emc=th&oref=login


getting really interesting....
0 Replies
 
twinpeaksnikki2
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2005 10:29 am
Documents to be released any moment.

Sounds like Joe DiGenova is trying to blame the CIA, saying that the CIA should have never sent Wilson on the Niger mission and subsequently write the op-ed piece.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2005 11:03 am
Didn't catch it all but Libby was indicted on a few different counts including perjury.
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 0.12 seconds on 02/07/2025 at 01:50:02