DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Amianthus on January 23, 2007, 04:39:26 PM
-
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald described for jurors Tuesday a Bush administration effort to beat back early criticism of the Iraq war and accused former White House aide "Scooter" Libby of covering up his role in the probe of the leak of a CIA operative's identity.
I. Lewis Libby's attorney countered by painting a different White House plot, alleging that administration officials sought to blame Libby for the leak to protect Bush political adviser Karl Rove's own disclosures.
"They're trying to set me up. They want me to be the sacrificial lamb," attorney Theodore Wells said, recalling a conversation between Libby and his boss, Vice President Dick Cheney, as the leak investigation heated up in 2003. "I will not be sacrificed so Karl Rove can be protected."
As the trial opened with a preview of each side's position, it was clear that the jury will be tasked with sorting through conflicting statements in a high-profile case that has opened a very public window on the behind-the-scenes Washington practice of leaking sensitive information to the news media.
Full story (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/23/cialeaktrial.ap/index.html)
Article (http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/01/libby-white-house-wanted-to-sacrifice.html)
-
But, but, but! He didn't out anyone!!! Plame wasn't covert!@!! Remember what sirs said????
-
But, but, but! He didn't out anyone!!! Plame wasn't covert!@!! Remember what sirs said????
Article doesn't say she was covert.
-
But, but, but! He didn't out anyone!!! Plame wasn't covert!@!! Remember what sirs said????
Where in the article does it reference Plame as "covert" or even "undercover"? Do show us, please, as Fitzgerald seems to have missed that designation
-
It doesn't but your OpinionJournal article did.
Remember?
Here, I'll post the sentence again.
A CIA panel has told former officer Valerie Plame she can't write about her undercover work for the agency, a position that may threaten a lucrative book project with her publisher. . . .
-
It doesn't...
That's what I thought
-
A CIA panel has told former officer Valerie Plame she can't write about her undercover work for the agency, a position that may threaten a lucrative book project with her publisher. . . .
You act like this is some earthshattering pronouncement. The question isn't whether Plame was ever undercover or covert which i believe have two different meanings but whether her absence from the field for 5 years meant that she was no longer covered by the law in question0n.
-
It doesn't...
That's what I thought
You're still on the hook. It was NEVER my contention that Ami's article stated that Plame was covert. I never once stated that.
-
It was NEVER my contention that Ami's article stated that Plame was covert. I never once stated that.
Good, so then until Fitzgerald makes that an official position, I'm really not sure what all your squalking is about.
-
I was sqawking about how you contend that Plame was not covert but your precious OJ article clearly stated that she was.
-
I was sqawking about how you contend that Plame was not covert but your precious OJ article clearly stated that she was.
And just as clearly you're still not reading for comprehension, in how it was used in the article. Get back to me when Fitz has read it to clear up his apparent lack of investigative ability
-
Context, spin, strawmen, spin, bait and switch.
In the end, I'm still wanting to know why your OJ article says that the CIA said Plame couldn't write about her activities as an undercover agent and you still contend that she wasn't undecover.
I mean, we KNOW it's because, in your fragile mind, you can't be seen as believing that Plame was covert and therefore the Bush "administration" outted her but I just want you to admit it.
-
I mean, we KNOW it's because, in your fragile mind, you can't be seen as believing that Plame was covert and therefore the Bush "administration" outted her but I just want you to admit it.
Still having problems with timelines, i see.
-
yada....rant....blather
And in the end, I'm still waiting to see WHAT CRIME WAS SUPPOSEDLY COMMITTED, and WHEN IS FITZGERALD GONNA CLASSIFY PLAME AS COVERT IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY A CRIME?
-
Perjury IS a crime. Remember?
-
Perjury IS a crime. Remember?
Yea, and...............? When did this become an issue about perjury? I thought it was a witchh.....search for the truth, on who outed a covert CIA agent? You want to bask in the glory of someone giving inconsistent verbal testimomy & memory on notes he took way back when, you go girl.
-
yada....rant....blather
And in the end, I'm still waiting to see WHAT CRIME WAS SUPPOSEDLY COMMITTED, and WHEN IS FITZGERALD GONNA CLASSIFY PLAME AS COVERT IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY A CRIME?
Libby's trial for lying to investigators and perjury don't necessitate any other crime being committed. Even if no other crime was committed and in turns out that Plame was not covert or was covert but no crime was committed in telling reporters that she was, it doesn't negate Libby's possibly having lied and committed perjury.
-
Libby's trial for lying to investigators and perjury don't necessitate any other crime being committed. Even if no other crime was committed and in turns out that Plame was not covert or was covert but no crime was committed in telling reporters that she was, it doesn't negate Libby's possibly having lied and committed perjury.
Yet this entire ranting thread, and others of a similar title are all implying a much more covert crime & cover-up. At no time have I seen you or Lanya focusing purely on Libby, and Libby's supposed crime at all. Yea, he may have lied, which the trial will determine. That has zip to do with some nefarious Plame outing as Fitzgerald has completed that investigation (which apparently you folks keep ignoring), and has made it painfully clear that she was neither covert, nor is anyone charged for feloniously "outing her"