Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

snood, IF things were as you pose, then there would be substance to the allegations. However, to this point, nothing - apart from Bushophobic ranting - indicates things were as you pose.

Just hypothesizing here ... playing a little "what if", more or less, as The Plame Game plays out. Bear with me here as I lay out a conspiracy theory.

timberlandko wrote:

snood, IF things were as you pose, then there would be substance to the allegations. However, to this point, nothing - apart from Bushophobic ranting - indicates things were as you pose.

You're trying awfully hard to squirm out from discussing Snood's hypothetical and yet you have the gall to direct us to more tall tales from Timber.

[url=http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=390452#390452]A long time ago[/url], timber wrote:

Just hypothesizing here ... playing a little "what if", more or less, as The Plame Game plays out. Bear with me here as I lay out a conspiracy theory.

... Admittedly ... that's far-fetched ... I don't really figure this was all set up by Tenet. Still, I expect this will be of far less service to The Democrats than they would wish ...

If Libby is convicted does it prove that Libby talked to reporters about Plame?

... If no, then tell us how he can be convicted of lying about something he never did.

JTT wrote:

timberlandko wrote:

snood, IF things were as you pose, then there would be substance to the allegations. However, to this point, nothing - apart from Bushophobic ranting - indicates things were as you pose.

You're trying awfully hard to squirm out from discussing Snood's hypothetical and yet you have the gall to direct us to more tall tales from Timber.

[url=http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=390452#390452]A long time ago[/url], timber wrote:

Just hypothesizing here ... playing a little "what if", more or less, as The Plame Game plays out. Bear with me here as I lay out a conspiracy theory.

You're engaging in a bit of dishonesty, there, JTT - you left out the part where

[url=http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=390452#390452]timber[/url] wrote:

... Admittedly ... that's far-fetched ... I don't really figure this was all set up by Tenet. Still, I expect this will be of far less service to The Democrats than they would wish ...

Is this what you're trying to pass off as some degree of evenhandedness, Timber? Puuleeeze. You're a Republican homie if there ever was one. I didn't hide your link. I put it right there for all to see.

You've likely read my reply to Lash and if you haven't you've certainly passed yourself off as someone who has kept up on this.

Tenet strove to keep these bald-faced liars in check as did numerous other people, including Joe Wilson. They would have none of it. Tell me that that isn't blind stupidity. And it has gone on far too long with the connivance of folks like you.

parados wrote:

If Libby is convicted does it prove that Libby talked to reporters about Plame?

No. If a conviction under the indictment as filed were to be obtained it would pertain only to knowingly and willfully providing false testimony, irrespective of the matter at testimony.

What Libby has been charged with was a direct result of what Fitzgerald described as a deliberate attempt to throw sand in the umpire's eyes. That doesn't speak well of a president who swore up and down, numerous times, that he wanted to get to the bottom of this SERIOUS issue.

parados wrote:

If Libby is convicted does it prove that Libby talked to reporters about Plame?

No. If a conviction under the indictment as filed were to be obtained it would pertain only to knowingly and willfully providing false testimony, irrespective of the matter at testimony.

Quote:

... If no, then tell us how he can be convicted of lying about something he never did.

The charges Libby faces have nothing to do with who did what to whom for whichever motive whenever, they pertain strictly to the allegation Libby knowingly and willfully provided false testimony, irrespective of the matter at testimony.

In order for the testimony to be false then Libby had to lie about what he did. If Libby didn't talk to reporters about Plame then there is no lie there. By the very nature of what he was charged with he had to talk to reporters about Plame in order for there to be any lie.

There are 2 parts to proving that Libby lied. 1.What Libby said didn't occur had to occur. 2. Libby had to lie about it occurring. If either of the 2 parts can't be proven in a court of law then Libby can't be convicted. this is simple logic Timber. Even you can't be so blinded as to argue that 1 doesn't have to exist for a conviction.

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.

LIBBY did not advise Matthew Cooper, on or about July 12, 2003, that
LIBBY had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did
LIBBY advise him that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true; rather, LIBBY
confirmed to Cooper, without qualification, that LIBBY had heard that Wilson's wife worked at the
CIA;