8
   

Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

 
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Nov, 2005 12:28 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Secondly, what? Isn't the very definition of Obstruction of Justice the allegation that lies/deceptions are getting in the way of investigation?


You're making a circular argument, Cyclops. My specific question is HOW has the alleged obstruction PREVENTED Fitzgerald from prosecuting anyone for a crime stemming from the disclosure of Plame's identity. Fitzgerald claims in his indictment to know the truth, notwithstanding Libby's alleged lies, so the alleged obstruction is not presently an obstruction.

Quote:
Are you claiming that Fitz is full of it on the Obstruction charge? Because I doubt he would make such a mistake....


I make no claim that Fitzgerald is "full of it," but I do know we shall hear the Libby's side come trial, not just Fitzgerald's presentation of the evidence.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Nov, 2005 12:29 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
First of all, if you don't stop the personal remarks, I'm going to report you. I don't give a damn what your problem with him/her is, but it's childish and stupid.


That's hilarious coming from you, Cyclops. How many times, do you reckon, you've called people names for not agreeing with you? Or don't you consider name-calling to be "personal remarks"?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Nov, 2005 12:32 pm
I really don't care what you think about anything, JW.

Quote:
You're making a circular argument, Cyclops. My specific question is HOW has the alleged obstruction PREVENTED Fitzgerald from prosecuting anyone for a crime stemming from the disclosure of Plame's identity. Fitzgerald claims in his indictment to know the truth, notwithstanding Libby's alleged lies, so the alleged obstruction is not presently an obstruction.


Ah, now I see what you are saying. I guess it is difficult to say. In order for there to be an obstruction, there must be something in Libby's testimony that shows Fitz that he, Libby, is not telling the truth in order to not only protect himself, but to protect others; and that this information is key to making a strong case against others.

If this information does not concern Libby directly, then he would be unable to take the fifth; it would only be reporting on what other people said. Perhaps.

This is all pissing in the wind, we will find out much much more in the coming weeks; and I personally can't wait! Politics is fun these days (unless you are Republican, I guess)

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Nov, 2005 12:36 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I really don't care what you think about anything, JW.


You've cared enough in the past to indulge in name-calling if you didn't agree with me (and others), though, so please refrain from the self-righteous indignation and tattle-tale threats. It's laughable.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Nov, 2005 04:45 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Secondly, what? Isn't the very definition of Obstruction of Justice the allegation that lies/deceptions are getting in the way of investigation?


You're making a circular argument, Cyclops. My specific question is HOW has the alleged obstruction PREVENTED Fitzgerald from prosecuting anyone for a crime stemming from the disclosure of Plame's identity. Fitzgerald claims in his indictment to know the truth, notwithstanding Libby's alleged lies, so the alleged obstruction is not presently an obstruction.

actually, fitzgerald has mentioned that because Irving Libby's sworn statments conflict with at least 6 other individuals who have sworn under oath to tell the truth, he has been unable to ascertain Irving Libby's state of mind in this affair, so for both the IIPC and 1917 law on espionage, the person under investigation has to know the crime was a crime. Since Fitzgerald can not discren Libby's state of mind in this affair, allegedly because he is not telling the truth, no indictment on the aforementioned laws were rendered. however, since Irving Libby's testimony conflicts with so many others in many different ways, Fitzgerald is willing to charge Irving Libby with obstruction precisely because the alleged lies prevent fitzgerald from ascertain Irving Libby's state of mind

Quote:
Are you claiming that Fitz is full of it on the Obstruction charge? Because I doubt he would make such a mistake....


I make no claim that Fitzgerald is "full of it," but I do know we shall hear the Libby's side come trial, not just Fitzgerald's presentation of the evidence.


actually, fitzgerald did release Irving Libby's side of the story in the indictment by relating his statements in relief to those whose testimony conflicted with his. the narrative fitzgerald laid out, based upon the testimony of several people, emails, faxes, and internal government documents was shown to be in conflict with the testimony of Irving Libby
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Nov, 2005 05:36 pm
kuvasz wrote:
actually, fitzgerald has mentioned that because Irving Libby's sworn statments conflict with at least 6 other individuals who have sworn under oath to tell the truth, he has been unable to ascertain Irving Libby's state of mind in this affair, so for both the IIPC and 1917 law on espionage, the person under investigation has to know the crime was a crime. Since Fitzgerald can not discren Libby's state of mind in this affair, allegedly because he is not telling the truth, no indictment on the aforementioned laws were rendered. however, since Irving Libby's testimony conflicts with so many others in many different ways, Fitzgerald is willing to charge Irving Libby with obstruction precisely because the alleged lies prevent fitzgerald from ascertain Irving Libby's state of mind


Okay ... Fitzgerald can't discern Libby's intent following Libby's testimony, which he couldn't do if Libby plead the Fifth. So how did Libby's alleged lies further impede Fitzgerald's prosecution of any crimes involving the disclosure of Plame's identity?

kuvasz wrote:
actually, fitzgerald did release Irving Libby's side of the story in the indictment by relating his statements in relief to those whose testimony conflicted with his. the narrative fitzgerald laid out, based upon the testimony of several people, emails, faxes, and internal government documents was shown to be in conflict with the testimony of Irving Libby


At his trial, Libby will be able to cross examine the witnesses against him, and will be able to present any other evidence which might tend to exonerate him, a luxury he was not afforded before the grand jury.
0 Replies
 
twinpeaksnikki2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Nov, 2005 07:28 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
The first part refers to your continued derision of Chrisee or whatever he/she is calling him/herself. It's childish.

Secondly, what? Isn't the very definition of Obstruction of Justice the allegation that lies/deceptions are getting in the way of investigation?

Are you claiming that Fitz is full of it on the Obstruction charge? Because I doubt he would make such a mistake....

Cycloptichorn



Please stop the him/her references. It is she or her or Nikki. As far as the idiotic references to other names, let them have their fun. But please do not refer to my gender incorrectly.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2005 08:06 am
Ticomaya wrote:
kuvasz wrote:
actually, fitzgerald has mentioned that because Irving Libby's sworn statments conflict with at least 6 other individuals who have sworn under oath to tell the truth, he has been unable to ascertain Irving Libby's state of mind in this affair, so for both the IIPC and 1917 law on espionage, the person under investigation has to know the crime was a crime. Since Fitzgerald can not discren Libby's state of mind in this affair, allegedly because he is not telling the truth, no indictment on the aforementioned laws were rendered. however, since Irving Libby's testimony conflicts with so many others in many different ways, Fitzgerald is willing to charge Irving Libby with obstruction precisely because the alleged lies prevent fitzgerald from ascertain Irving Libby's state of mind


Okay ... Fitzgerald can't discern Libby's intent following Libby's testimony, which he couldn't do if Libby plead the Fifth. So how did Libby's alleged lies further impede Fitzgerald's prosecution of any crimes involving the disclosure of Plame's identity?

The "how?" is cited by Fitzgerald in the indictment.
[quote]"In or about March 2004, in the District of Columbia,
I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY,"defendant herein, did knowingly and corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice, namely proceedings before Grand Jury 03-3, by misleading and deceiving the grand jury as to when, and the manner and means by which, LIBBY acquired and subsequently disclosed to the media information concerning the employment of Valerie Wilson by the CIA.

32. It was part of the corrupt endeavor that during his grand jury testimony, defendant LIBBY made the following materially false and intentionally misleading statements and representations, in substance, under oath:

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1503.
[/color]


kuvasz wrote:
actually, fitzgerald did release Irving Libby's side of the story in the indictment by relating his statements in relief to those whose testimony conflicted with his. the narrative fitzgerald laid out, based upon the testimony of several people, emails, faxes, and internal government documents was shown to be in conflict with the testimony of Irving Libby


At his trial, Libby will be able to cross examine the witnesses against him, and will be able to present any other evidence which might tend to exonerate him, a luxury he was not afforded before the grand jury.[/quote]
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2005 09:56 am
kuvasz wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Okay ... Fitzgerald can't discern Libby's intent following Libby's testimony, which he couldn't do if Libby plead the Fifth. So how did Libby's alleged lies further impede Fitzgerald's prosecution of any crimes involving the disclosure of Plame's identity?


The "how?" is cited by Fitzgerald in the indictment.
[quote]"In or about March 2004, in the District of Columbia,
I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY,"defendant herein, did knowingly and corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice, namely proceedings before Grand Jury 03-3, by misleading and deceiving the grand jury as to when, and the manner and means by which, LIBBY acquired and subsequently disclosed to the media information concerning the employment of Valerie Wilson by the CIA.

32. It was part of the corrupt endeavor that during his grand jury testimony, defendant LIBBY made the following materially false and intentionally misleading statements and representations, in substance, under oath:

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1503.
[/color][/quote]

No, that is not the "how."

I really don't want to discuss this issue with you, kuvasz, since I've already discussed it with KW, who now understands, and just now with Cyclops, who also understands my point. Just refer back to my various responses to them if you are going to make the same arguments they did.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2005 10:45 am
Quote:
Please stop the him/her references. It is she or her or Nikki. As far as the idiotic references to other names, let them have their fun. But please do not refer to my gender incorrectly.


Sorry; didn't know/want to assume.

Didn't care, really

Cheers

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2005 11:01 am
Ticomaya wrote:
kuvasz wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Okay ... Fitzgerald can't discern Libby's intent following Libby's testimony, which he couldn't do if Libby plead the Fifth. So how did Libby's alleged lies further impede Fitzgerald's prosecution of any crimes involving the disclosure of Plame's identity?


The "how?" is cited by Fitzgerald in the indictment.
[quote]"In or about March 2004, in the District of Columbia,
I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY,"defendant herein, did knowingly and corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice, namely proceedings before Grand Jury 03-3, by misleading and deceiving the grand jury as to when, and the manner and means by which, LIBBY acquired and subsequently disclosed to the media information concerning the employment of Valerie Wilson by the CIA.

32. It was part of the corrupt endeavor that during his grand jury testimony, defendant LIBBY made the following materially false and intentionally misleading statements and representations, in substance, under oath:

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1503.
[/color]


No, that is not the "how."

I really don't want to discuss this issue with you, kuvasz, since I've already discussed it with KW, who now understands, and just now with Cyclops, who also understands my point. Just refer back to my various responses to them if you are going to make the same arguments they did.[/quote]

Still playing the obtuse angle again I see.

The "how?" is that if Irving Libby states that he did not know of Wilson's "classified" status then anyone else whom he told can not be held to knowingly revealed classified secrets when they mentioned them to those without the necessary governmental clearance. there is documented evidence that other white house personnel told reporters of wilson's employment with CIA and that passing on that information occurred after Libby meeting with them or contacting them about Wilson; that Rove told Cooper of Wilson's employment with CIA, that Rove confirmed to Novak of Wilson's employment at CIA.

this comes in two parts: did Irving Libby knowingly pass on to others classified data, and did Libby tell other parties that this information was itself classified.

for the first part, there is documented evidence that Libby knew that Wilson's identity was classified, but it is still questionable whether he told others it was. the latter unanswerd question is one reason that Rove has not yet been indicted for passing classified information on to reporters.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2005 11:09 am
I want to be clear that while I understand Tico's point, I don't agree with it; I think it is quite clear the Libby's lies can be obstructing charges and further investigation, word games having to do with the fifth amendment don't mean anything to me.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
twinpeaksnikki2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2005 11:18 am
If Libby had merely plead the Fifth, it would have made Fitzgerald's investigation a lot easier and his efforts would have taken another direction instead of spending several months chasing down what was a convincing story until being proven false. And yes, there are enough facts known to say that Libby's story is false.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2005 11:36 am
Oh please....enough of this rightwing talking point idiocy of "brave and forthright Scooter didn't take the 5th, therefore he's brave and forthright and a grand citizen and surely...surely innocent of these malicious or over-zealous charges!"

It was politically IMPOSSIBLE for anyone that high in the White House to take the 5th. A lot of people have been bloody slow at figuring out these guys, but that would have sped up the process in a big fat hurry... "I refuse to answer on the grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me." I mean, for god's sakes.
0 Replies
 
twinpeaksnikki2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2005 12:44 pm
It might also have insured the election of John Kerry.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2005 02:30 pm
kuvasz wrote:
Still playing the obtuse angle again I see.


No, but it appears you are. Since Libby could not be forced to testify and incriminate himself, you can't point to Libby's allegedly false testimony and say, "Well, if he'd told the truth, Fitzgerald could prove intent," because had Libby not testified -- which he would have been within his rights to do -- Fitgerald STILL couldn't have proven intent. So, the only way you can honestly assert that Libby's alleged obstruction prevented the prosecution of crimes involving the disclosure of Plame's identity is to show why the alleged lies themselves prevented the prosecution -- or as Chrissee now asserts, only delayed said prosecution.

If you are still having difficulty following what I'm saying, maybe Cyclops can explain to your satisfaction.

Or, maybe you can read my response to Chrissee below, since it appears she is coming around (knowingly or unknowingly) to try and answer the question I posed of her earlier.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2005 02:37 pm
Chrissee wrote:
If Libby had merely plead the Fifth, it would have made Fitzgerald's investigation a lot easier and his efforts would have taken another direction instead of spending several months chasing down what was a convincing story until being proven false.


Now you're trying to answer the question I posed of you a while back. But, let's examine what you said before ... you said the alleged obstruction "prevented" the prosecution of crimes involving the disclosure of Plame's identity. What it appears you meant to say is the alleged obstruction "delayed" the prosecution of crimes involving the disclosure of Plame's identity.

Whether that's true or not, we'll have to wait and see. Cyclops and I have a bet going on that, I believe.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2005 02:38 pm
blatham wrote:
Oh please....enough of this rightwing talking point idiocy of "brave and forthright Scooter didn't take the 5th, therefore he's brave and forthright and a grand citizen and surely...surely innocent of these malicious or over-zealous charges!"


Who -- besides you -- is saying that?
0 Replies
 
twinpeaksnikki2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2005 06:51 pm
If anyone wants to pose a question or have a conversation, he or she should address me properly.

As of this moment, Libby's continued obstruction has prevented Fitz from properly investigating this case. It may be that Libby will be successful in taking the fall. Of course, we still know know very little about this case. There is more that we don't know than there is of what we don't know. This has been a very successful cover-up.

BTW Joe Scarborough referred to Plame as covert on Bill Maher. He says the outing of her and those who defend it are acting unconscionably.
0 Replies
 
twinpeaksnikki2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2005 06:55 pm
Reid says Cheney is the bagman.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/archive/ap/reid-cheney.jpg
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 0.05 seconds on 02/07/2025 at 10:28:00