DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Lanya on May 30, 2007, 02:09:48 AM
-
Fitzgerald Again Points to Cheney
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Tuesday, May 29, 2007; 1:22 PM
Special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald has made it clearer than ever that he was hot on the trail of a coordinated campaign to out CIA agent Valerie Plame until that line of investigation was cut off by the repeated lies from Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
Libby was convicted in February of perjury and obstruction of justice. Fitzgerald filed a memo on Friday asking U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton, who will sentence Libby next week, to put him in prison for at least two and a half years.
Despite all the public interest in the case, Fitzgerald has repeatedly asserted that grand-jury secrecy rules prohibit him from being more forthcoming about either the course of his investigation or any findings beyond those he disclosed to make the case against Libby. But when his motives have been attacked during court proceedings, Fitzgerald has occasionally shown flashes of anger -- and has hinted that he and his investigative team suspected more malfeasance at higher levels of government than they were able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
In Friday's eminently readable court filing, Fitzgerald quotes the Libby defense calling his prosecution "unwarranted, unjust, and motivated by politics." In responding to that charge, the special counsel evidently felt obliged to put Libby's crime in context. And that context is Dick Cheney.
Libby's lies, Fitzgerald wrote, "made impossible an accurate evaluation of the role that Mr. Libby and those with whom he worked played in the disclosure of information regarding Ms. Wilson's CIA employment and about the motivations for their actions."
It was established at trial that it was Cheney himself who first told Libby about Plame's identity as a CIA agent, in the course of complaining about criticisms of the administration's run-up to war leveled by her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson. And, as Fitzgerald notes: "The evidence at trial further established that when the investigation began, Mr. Libby kept the Vice President apprised of his shifting accounts of how he claimed to have learned about Ms. Wilson's CIA employment."
The investigation, Fitzgerald writes, "was necessary to determine whether there was concerted action by any combination of the officials known to have disclosed the information about Ms. Plame to the media as anonymous sources, and also whether any of those who were involved acted at the direction of others. This was particularly important in light of Mr. Libby's statement to the FBI that he may have discussed Ms. Wilson's employment with reporters at the specific direction of the Vice President." (My italics.)
Not clear on the concept yet? Fitzgerald adds: "To accept the argument that Mr. Libby's prosecution is the inappropriate product of an investigation that should have been closed at an early stage, one must accept the proposition that the investigation should have been closed after at least three high-ranking government officials were identified as having disclosed to reporters classified information about covert agent Valerie Wilson, where the account of one of them was directly contradicted by other witnesses, where there was reason to believe that some of the relevant activity may have been coordinated, and where there was an indication from Mr. Libby himself that his disclosures to the press may have been personally sanctioned by the Vice President." (My italics.)
Up until now, Fitzgerald's most singeing attack on Cheney came during closing arguments at the Libby trial in February. Libby's lawyers had complained that Fitzgerald was trying to put a "cloud" over Cheney without evidence to back it up -- and that set Fitzgerald off. As I wrote in my Feb. 21 column, the special counsel responded with fire: "There is a cloud over what the Vice President did that week. . . . He had those meetings. He sent Libby off to [meet then-New York Times reporter] Judith Miller at the St. Regis Hotel. At that meeting, the two-hour meeting, the defendant talked about the wife. We didn't put that cloud there. That cloud remains because the defendant has obstructed justice and lied about what happened. . . .
"That's not something that we put there. That cloud is something that we just can't pretend isn't there."
To those of us watching the investigation and trial unfold, Cheney's presence behind the scenes has emerged in glimpses and hints. (The defense's decision not to call Cheney to the stand remains a massive bummer.) But I suspect that people looking back on this story will see it with greater clarity: As a blatant -- and thus far successful -- cover-up for the vice president.
The Coverage
What little traditional media coverage there was of Fitzgerald's filing focused on sentencing issues.
Michael A. Fletcher writes in The Washington Post: "Former top Bush administration aide I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby should spend 30 to 37 months in prison for obstructing the CIA leak investigation, Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald contended in court documents filed yesterday.
"Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Cheney, has shown no remorse for lying to investigators and 'about virtually everything that mattered' in the probe of who disclosed the identity of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame to the media in 2003, Fitzgerald wrote."
Matt Apuzzo writes for the Associated Press: "In court documents, Fitzgerald rejected criticism from Libby's supporters who said the leak investigation had spun out of control. Fitzgerald denied the prosecution was politically motivated and said Libby brought his fate upon himself."
"'The judicial system has not corruptly mistreated Mr. Libby,' Fitzgerald wrote. 'Mr. Libby has been found by a jury of his peers to have corrupted the judicial system.'"
Apuzzo does, however, note a key issue at next week's hearing: "Walton, who has a reputation for handing down tough sentences, . . . faces two important questions: whether to send Libby to prison and, if so, whether to delay the sentence until his appeals have run out."
As Josh Gerstein wrote in the New York Sun on Friday: "[T]he real cliffhanger at the sentencing hearing, set for June 5, is not what punishment Judge Reggie Walton imposes, but whether he allows Libby to remain free while pursuing his appeal. . . .
"Bail for Libby would amount to a reprieve for President Bush, who would then have until next year to make the politically sensitive decision about a pardon for the former chief of staff to Vice President Cheney. However, if the judge orders Libby jailed forthwith, Mr. Bush will face intense and immediate pressure from many of his supporters to commute the sentence or grant a pardon."
Gerstein also provides some important background: "Federal law dictates that bail pending appeal be denied unless the appeal raises 'a substantial question of law or fact' that could reverse the conviction or have a significant affect on Libby's sentence. . . .
"During the trial, Judge Walton expressed little concern that the appeals court would disagree with his rulings. 'If I get reversed on that one, maybe I need to hang up my spurs,' he said after deciding a dispute stemming from Libby's decision not to testify in his own defense."
The Mockery of Bloggers
Nexthurrah blogger Marcy Wheeler blogs at the Guardian about how Libby's "defense team solicited his friends and associates to write letters to the judge arguing that Libby deserves a reduced sentence. Last Friday, Libby's lawyer Bill Jeffress submitted a filing opposing the release of those letters to the public. In it, he writes: 'Given the extraordinary media scrutiny here, if any case presents the possibility that these letters, once released, would be published on the internet and their authors discussed, even mocked, by bloggers, it is this case.' "
Concludes Wheeler: "Jeffress' invocation of bloggers is a cheap attempt to dismiss precisely what bloggers bring: an appropriate scrutiny of the motivations and actions of those who lied us into war and outed Valerie Plame."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/05/29/BL2007052901024.html?hpid=topnews
-
If you can't get them in a grand jury, get them in the press.
-
The press is vital to a well-informed populace, which is important for democracy to flourish.
-
So is due process.
-
The press is vital to a well-informed populace, which is important for democracy to flourish.
MoveOn translation; since we couldn't achieve a perp walk for Cheney or Rove judicially, we gut them thru the Press, for our Liberal Base to flourish :-\
-
I guess treason and betrayal of CIA operatives are OK as long as its done by a Repub.
-
After a thorough investigation and presentment to a grand jury, one would expect charges of treason and betrayal to have been included in the charges. They weren't. So where is the due process in that?
-
After a thorough investigation and presentment to a grand jury, one would expect charges of treason and betrayal to have been included in the charges. They weren't. So where is the due process in that?
The whole point of the article is that Libby's lying & obstruction made that impossible. That is why HE gets the book thrown at him. You can bet that Cheney wont sve him. The Bushidiot might with a pardon but then he IS the idiot.
-
The whole point of the article is that Libby's lying & obstruction made that impossible.
There is more than one route to evidence. Apparently Fitzgerald was unable to find it. And the presumption of innocence says he must. Or does that only apply to democrats?
-
The whole point of the article is that Libby's lying & obstruction made that impossible.
There is more than one route to evidence. Apparently Fitzgerald was unable to find it. And the presumption of innocence says he must. Or does that only apply to democrats?
Dont be so obvious a hypocrit. You loons presumed Bill to be guilty from the gitgo and he only got a blowjob and didnt commit treason and probable exposure & thus murder of CIA coverts as happened with Libby/Cheney.
-
Why is you guys always bring up Clinton when attacking Bush?
Clinton's troubles were not about sex, they were about perjury.
-
Why is you guys always bring up Clinton when attacking Bush?
Clinton's troubles were not about sex, they were about perjury.
If your so fucking anti-perjury , why arent you just as anxious to hang Libby. I always bring up Bill because that was the height of your hypocracy & idiocy. It showed what evil moronic sissies you really are.
-
Why is you guys always bring up Clinton when attacking Bush?
Clinton's troubles were not about sex, they were about perjury.
If your so fucking anti-perjury , why aren't you just as anxious to hang Libby. I always bring up Bill because that was the height of your hypocrisy & idiocy. It showed what evil moronic sissies you really are.
You are right Libbey ought to be punished just as severely as Clinton was.
Oh wait , was he really as bad?
How are we sure that he was lieing at all? I don't call getting events out of order in memory much of a lie.
Quote from: BT on Today at 11:23:37 AM
After a thorough investigation and presentment to a grand jury, one would expect charges of treason and betrayal to have been included in the charges. They weren't. So where is the due process in that?
The whole point of the article is that Libby's lying & obstruction made that impossible. That is why HE gets the book thrown at him. You can bet that Cheney wont save him. The Bushidiot might with a pardon but then he IS the idiot.
How would the unco-operation of a single witness destroy an investigation? The premise is ridiculous.
-
If your so fucking anti-perjury convioction , why arent you just as anxious to hang Libby
Who says i am anti-perjury? Best i can tell that would be you guys with your patented everybody does it defense.
Libby was convicted by a jury of his peers. I am quite happy to let the sentencing phase run its course.
-
If your so fucking anti-perjury convioction , why arent you just as anxious to hang Libby
Who says i am anti-perjury? Best i can tell that would be you guys with your patented everybody does it defense.
Libby was convicted by a jury of his peers. I am quite happy to let the sentencing phase run its course.
I am not happy with it .
If a person can be jailed for not remembering the date on which he was told something who is safe from prosicution?
I want this thing exained in the Press and very very thouroughly!
I want the nation to learn how easily a man can be rail roaded ,
for nothing.
-
If your so fucking anti-perjury convioction , why arent you just as anxious to hang Libby
Who says i am anti-perjury? Best i can tell that would be you guys with your patented everybody does it defense.
Libby was convicted by a jury of his peers. I am quite happy to let the sentencing phase run its course.
Many men lie about getting a blowjob. Those gentlemen that did say they didnt and Repubs who never get sex without paying for it say they did when they didnt. Not too many folks lie about outing a CIA agent and live to tell about it I betcha.
-
If your so fucking anti-perjury convioction , why arent you just as anxious to hang Libby
Who says i am anti-perjury? Best i can tell that would be you guys with your patented everybody does it defense.
Libby was convicted by a jury of his peers. I am quite happy to let the sentencing phase run its course.
I am not happy with it .
If a person can be jailed for not remembering the date on which he was told something who is safe from prosicution?
I want this thing exained in the Press and very very thouroughly!
I want the nation to learn how easily a man can be rail roaded ,
for nothing.
You sure do go a long way to excuse an obvious traitor and murderer by proxy. I am with you in hoping this drags on in the press for a looooong time. At least through the 2008 elections. I know you wont like the results.
-
Everyone has heard Cheney lie and mislead. It's pretty much all he has done for the past seven years.
Everyone has seen what an arrogant creepoid he is.
If he gets lambasted by the press, it's fine by me. If he doesn't like it, let him resign.
-
If your so fucking anti-perjury convioction , why arent you just as anxious to hang Libby
Who says i am anti-perjury? Best i can tell that would be you guys with your patented everybody does it defense.
Libby was convicted by a jury of his peers. I am quite happy to let the sentencing phase run its course.
I am not happy with it .
If a person can be jailed for not remembering the date on which he was told something who is safe from prosicution?
I want this thing exained in the Press and very very thouroughly!
I want the nation to learn how easily a man can be rail roaded ,
for nothing.
You sure do go a long way to excuse an obvious traitor and murderer by proxy. I am with you in hoping this drags on in the press for a looooong time. At least through the 2008 elections. I know you wont like the results.
Who were you talking to this date a year ago , if you cannot answer ,you are guiolty of the same thing that Mr. Libbey is going to be sentanced for.
It is a shamefull thing and all of his accusers who cannot recall every word they have ever said should be sent to jail on the same railroad.
No, he is not accused or convicted of blowing the cover of any CIA agents .
-
I repeat :
>>You sure do go a long way to excuse an obvious traitor and murderer by proxy.<<
Maybe Bill didnt remember who he got a blowjob from on that date either, HuMMM? Forgetting a blowjob is much worse than forgetting treason treason to you? Treason should be more memorable .
-
It is a shamefull thing and all of his accusers who cannot recall every word they have ever said should be sent to jail on the same railroad. No, he is not accused or convicted of blowing the cover of any CIA agents .
No one has been. In fact, no one has legally proclaimed Plame covert, at that time of this supposed "outing". In particular by the fella legally assigned to determine such. Yet the rant raves on. Well, ends (bashing and accusing Bush/Cheney/Rove & co of any and all illegal & unethical conduct possible), justify the means (baldface accusations minus any facts/evidence what-so-ever to support such)
-
I repeat :
>>You sure do go a long way to excuse an obvious traitor and murderer by proxy.<<
Maybe Bill didnt remember who he got a blowjob from on that date either, HuMMM? Forgetting a blowjob is much worse than forgetting treason treason to you? Treason should be more memorable .
You have none of the facts straight , not a single one.
Who is on trial for a Bill Job and who is on trial for treason?
No one.
-
Maybe Bill didnt remember who he got a blowjob from on that date either, HuMMM?
Clinton wasn't asked about blowjobs, nor was he asked about specific dates of blowjobs. He was asked about sexual relationships with an employee during questioning about a sexual harrassment case. And he lied under oath.
-
Maybe Bill didnt remember who he got a blowjob from on that date either, HuMMM?
Clinton wasn't asked about blowjobs, nor was he asked about specific dates of blowjobs. He was asked about sexual relationships with an employee during questioning about a sexual harrassment case. And he lied under oath.
And Libby was asked who outed a CIA agent and when and he obviously lied. He was convicted. Bill wasnt. The consequences of Libby's lies were far worse.
-
The consequences of Libby's lies were far worse.
How so?
Valerie had to wear sunglasses and a scarf in her photo op with Vanity Fair?
-
The consequences of Libby's lies were far worse.
How so?
Valerie had to wear sunglasses and a scarf in her photo op with Vanity Fair?
You really are shallow & duped:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/13/04720/9340
-
The consequences of Libby's lies were far worse.
How so?
Valerie had to wear sunglasses and a scarf in her photo op with Vanity Fair?
You really are shallow & duped:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/13/04720/9340
All right I read it , now for you .
For all of your posturing and indignation
I would bet a doughnut that you do not really know what the "lie" was that Libbey is supposed to have told.
-
All right I read it , now for you . For all of your posturing and indignation
I would bet a doughnut that you do not really know what the "lie" was that Libbey is supposed to have told.
Ooooo, this should be interesting
-
All right I read it , now for you . For all of your posturing and indignation
I would bet a doughnut that you do not really know what the "lie" was that Libbey is supposed to have told.
Ooooo, this should be interesting
I bet another doughnut that it is not interesting.
-
All right I read it , now for you . For all of your posturing and indignation
I would bet a doughnut that you do not really know what the "lie" was that Libbey is supposed to have told.
Ooooo, this should be interesting
I bet another doughnut that it is not interesting.
I bet you'd lose a doughnut, then ;)
-
The consequences of Libby's lies were far worse.
How so?
Valerie had to wear sunglasses and a scarf in her photo op with Vanity Fair?
You really are shallow & duped:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/13/04720/9340
All right I read it , now for you .
For all of your posturing and indignation
I would bet a doughnut that you do not really know what the "lie" was that Libbey is supposed to have told.
You really do make things too easy Plane:
NEWS | OPINIONS | SPORTS | ARTS & LIVING | Discussions | Photos & Video | City Guide | CLASSIFIEDS | JOBS | CARS | REAL ESTATE
Libby 'Told a Dumb Lie,' Prosecutor Says in Closing Argument
By Carol D. Leonnig and Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, February 21, 2007; A04
Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff lied to investigators about his role in leaking a CIA officer's identity in order to keep his job and protect the White House from political embarrassment, prosecutors told jurors yesterday in the closing arguments of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's perjury trial.
Pointing to a courtroom screen showing eight witnesses who contradicted Libby, Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald said it was no coincidence that Bush administration colleagues and reporters recalled Libby as intensely focused on undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame early in the summer of 2003, as her husband was publicly challenging the White House's rationale for going to war in Iraq.
"This is something important, something he was focused on, something he was angry about," Fitzgerald said. "He had a motive to lie, and . . . he stole the truth from the justice system."
Libby "told a dumb lie and got caught" when leak investigators refused to go away, Fitzgerald said. He added that Libby's lies had "left a cloud over the vice president" because Cheney's role in the leak remained unclear.
But two defense attorneys argued that Libby was a harried and hardworking public servant who was guilty only of forgetfulness about a relatively insignificant matter given his pressure-cooker job.
In impassioned, and at times disjointed arguments, the defense lawyers drew attention to numerous witnesses who had faulty or questionable memories and conflicting recollections. They said it was unfair to assume that the witnesses had made honest mistakes but that Libby's untruths were deliberate.
"If you're not sure, that's not guilty," said attorney Theodore Wells Jr. "It's impossible to say with any degree of certainty that Mr. Libby is engaged in intentional lying."
Libby is charged with five felonies: two counts of lying to FBI agents, two counts of perjuring himself in grand jury testimony and one count of obstructing the federal probe into whether Bush administration officials illegally leaked classified information by disclosing Plame's identity to reporters.
They say Libby lied when he told investigators he learned about Plame from NBC's Tim Russert and passed it along as unconfirmed gossip.
Libby has pleaded not guilty, contending he inaccurately remembered conversations that he recounted to FBI agents and a grand jury. No one is charged with the leak itself.
The 12-member jury will receive instructions from presiding U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton early today about how to weigh the high-profile case against Libby. Jurors are expected to begin deliberations before noon.
Plame is married to former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, whose accusations in 2003 that the Bush administration twisted intelligence to justify the war with Iraq set in motion events leading to the leak of his wife's name in a syndicated column by Robert Novak. Wilson's claims infuriated Cheney and others in the White House, and Cheney deputized Libby to contact reporters and rebut Wilson's claims.
Wilson turned out to be a potent critic. He had been sent to Niger by the CIA a year earlier to check on reports that Iraq had tried to obtain material for nuclear weapons there, and concluded that the reports were false. Within days of Wilson going public about his findings in July 2003 , the White House acknowledged that President Bush's State of the Union address should not have included the assertion that Iraq was trying to purchase uranium.
Fitzgerald told the jury yesterday that Libby was engaged in a campaign to make reporters skeptical of Wilson. His wife's post at the CIA and her role in suggesting him for the mission became a useful tool to insinuate that he wasn't qualified for the mission to Niger. The prosecutor disputed the defense's argument that Libby did not remember Plame because she was so trivial to him.
"To [Libby] she wasn't Valerie Wilson, she's wasn't a person," the prosecutor said, sipping from a plastic cup of water as he walked back and forth in front of the jury box. "She was an argument, a fact to use against Joe Wilson."
Prosecutor Peter Zeidenberg, summing up the government's evidence, said Libby "absolutely fabricates two conversations that never happened" -- with Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper and NBC's Russert. He said Libby's claim that he didn't remember the conversations was "just not credible" because Cheney considered the matter very important and it commanded much of Libby's time.
Zeidenberg also said Libby had several motives to lie. The president had said he would fire whoever had disclosed Plame's identity, a criminal investigation had begun, and, at Libby's urging, Cheney had personally vouched for Libby, getting the White House to say publicly that Libby was not the leaker.
In the defense's closing argument, Wells countered that the case was simply "he said, she said." He contended that it was "madness" to try to convict Libby of a crime based on his foggy memory about fragments of conversations that were the subject of FBI questions three and four months after they took place.
"It's a case about different recollections between Mr. Libby and some reporters," Wells said. "This is an important trial, and I represent an innocent man."
Wells said that Libby honestly believed he learned about Plame for the first time from Russert in a July 10, 2003, conversation -- a month after he was actually told about her by the vice president, Libby later acknowledged. Wells emphasized to the jury that Russert first told the FBI that he couldn't completely rule out discussing the subject with Libby because he talks to so many people.
"That's reasonable doubt right there," Wells said of an FBI agent's notes. "If you say, 'I believe Mr. Russert beyond a reasonable doubt,' my client's life would be destroyed. His reputation would be destroyed."
Defense attorney William Jeffress Jr. reminded the jury of the pointed questioning that Libby endured when Fitzgerald asked Libby several different ways about nearly every conversation he had in a two-month period in 2003.
"It's not easy being in a grand jury. And Mr. Libby was there for eight hours," Jeffress said. "If he got something wrong in eight hours of questioning, that wasn't an intentional lie. Which witness came in here that didn't get something wrong?"
Jeffress highlighted the conflict between testimony of former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, who said he had not told Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus about Plame, and Pincus's account, in which Fleischer was his source for that information. Jeffress said there were a lot of possible explanations, including that Fleischer lied.
"Of course, possibilities don't cut it in a criminal case," Jeffress said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/20/AR2007022000122_pf.html
I bet if OJ had been in the Bush Admenstruation, you would think him innocent as well. You would be on firmer ground too because OJ was acquited by a jury of his peers. Your loathesome hero Libby was convicted.
BTW - I dont eat fattening doughnuts anymore than I swallow shit from the Bush Admenstruation.
-
.....They say Libby lied when he told investigators he learned about Plame from NBC's Tim Russert and passed it along as unconfirmed gossip.
[/b]Libby has pleaded not guilty, contending he inaccurately remembered conversations that he recounted to FBI agents and a grand jury. No one is charged with the leak itself.....
-
.....They say Libby lied when he told investigators he learned about Plame from NBC's Tim Russert and passed it along as unconfirmed gossip.
[/b]Libby has pleaded not guilty, contending he inaccurately remembered conversations that he recounted to FBI agents and a grand jury. No one is charged with the leak itself.....
So fucken what?Bill wasnt charged with perjury either and you fruitcakes keep harping on that. What Libby did was keep them from finding the real leaker . If they let Libby go maybe he will look for him on all the world's golf courses like OJ is Nicole & Rons real killers, ya think?
BTW-I actually do do not think this is over. When Libby heads to the slammer, he may take more with him.
-
[/b]Libby has pleaded not guilty, contending he inaccurately remembered conversations that he recounted to FBI agents and a grand jury. No one is charged with the leak itself.....
So fucken what?Bill wasnt charged with perjury either and you fruitcakes keep harping on that.
Oooo, truth hurts, doesn't it. And Billy boy was disbarred because of........what again??
-
[/b]Libby has pleaded not guilty, contending he inaccurately remembered conversations that he recounted to FBI agents and a grand jury. No one is charged with the leak itself..... [/i]
So fucken what?Bill wasnt charged with perjury either and you fruitcakes keep harping on that.
Oooo, truth hurts, doesn't it. And Billy boy was disbarred because of........what again??
[/quote]
How many times do I haveta tellya blind bozos? Contempt of court, loser.
http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=2845.msg25128#msg25128
-
How many times do I haveta tellya blind bozos? Contempt of court, loser.
Based on........Bad manners? Wore the wrong tie to the office?
-
How many times do I haveta tellya blind bozos? Contempt of court, loser.
Based on........Bad manners? Wore the wrong tie to the office?
You are truly every bit as stupid as i always thought. Contempt of court is not perjury which is a crime.Bill was not even charged with perjury buy the House Mismanagers because even those stup[id shits knew it was a bogus charge. He was not charged with any crime. The perjury is a figment of your demented minds. You keep repeating the perjury lie like you kept repeating the WMDs & ties to Al;Quaeda in Iraq. Nearly everyone now knows you were lying on all those bizarre fantasies.
You say something wrong once and it is a mistake. You continually repeat it when it is disproved is a lie of the worst sort.
-
How many times do I haveta tellya blind bozos? Contempt of court, loser.
Based on........Bad manners? Wore the wrong tie to the office?
You are truly every bit as stupid as i always thought. Contempt of court is not perjury which is a crime.
Ok, let's try 1 more time, with an even simpler question, that even knute should be able to comprehend. Billy boy was found in contempt of court for __________ <fill in the blank>
-
How many times do I haveta tellya blind bozos? Contempt of court, loser.
Based on........Bad manners? Wore the wrong tie to the office?
You are truly every bit as stupid as i always thought. Contempt of court is not perjury which is a crime.
Ok, let's try 1 more time, with an even simpler question, that even knute should be able to comprehend. Billy boy was found in contempt of court for <fill in the blank>
Since you are so fucken stupid that you not only cant think, but obviously not able to read what is laid out before you or recognize any truth UI will fill in your stupid blank , repeat the source and direct you to look at the bootm of page 1 for details
<fill in the blank>contempt of court for his willful violation of discovery orders. Note that Judge Wright NEVER (emphasis mine mentioned the word perjury in her opinion.
http://www.rbs0.com/Clinton.pdf
Anything else blind nutcase?
-
Bill was not even charged with perjury buy the House Mismanagers because even those stup[id shits knew it was a bogus charge.
Pointing out your lies is like shooting fish in a barrel. One of the impeachment charges was perjury:
On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before a Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following: (1) the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee; (2) prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a Federal civil rights action brought against him; (3) prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action; and (4) his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action.
H.RES.611.ENR (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/t2GPO/http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=105_cong_bills&docid=f:hr611enr.txt.pdf)
-
Ok, let's try 1 more time, with an even simpler question, that even knute should be able to comprehend. Billy boy was found in contempt of court for <fill in the blank>
Since you are so fucken stupid that you not only cant think, but obviously not able to read what is laid out before you or recognize any truth UI will fill in your stupid blank , repeat the source and direct you to look at the bootm of page 1 for details
<fill in the blank> contempt of court for his willful violation of discovery orders. Note that Judge Wright NEVER (emphasis mine mentioned the word perjury in her opinion.
Even a fill in the blank is too difficult for our resident clown to deal with. No biggie, he helped make my point. I best not remind knute that Fitzgerald NEVER mentioned that Plame was covert in his investigation conclusion, either.
-
Ok, let's try 1 more time, with an even simpler question, that even knute should be able to comprehend. Billy boy was found in contempt of court for <fill in the blank>
Since you are so fucken stupid that you not only cant think, but obviously not able to read what is laid out before you or recognize any truth UI will fill in your stupid blank , repeat the source and direct you to look at the bootm of page 1 for details
<fill in the blank> contempt of court for his willful violation of discovery orders. Note that Judge Wright NEVER (emphasis mine mentioned the word perjury in her opinion.
Even a fill in the blank is too difficult for our resident clown to deal with. No biggie, he helped make my point. I best not remind knute that Fitzgerald NEVER mentioned that Plame was covert in his investigation conclusion, either.
[/quote]
That has nothing to do with the the topic on which I have just beaten your stupid ass to a pulp, but now changing the topic completely is proof that you know you have had it. I do want to thank you for giving me the total joy of pummeling you on something on which you are so blatantly wrong. Plame's covertness has nothing to do with Libby's genuine perjury. Outing her was still worse than getting a blowjob and probly is treason. I believe Cheney is quilty of that and Libby's lies only delayed Cheney being exposed.
-
:D
And now From Knute's OWN "Lookie" posting: (Because he lied when testifying about the Monica Lewinsky affair, Mr. Clinton’s Arkansas law license was suspended for five years from the time he stepped down as President.)
Gotta love it
-
I was not betting a doughnut that you couldn't go to Google and find out what the accusation was , I was betting that you did not know at that point.
But since you have gone to the trouble of actually finding out what it is that you are angry about, retroactively ,can you tell me why this charge has any importance at all , or how it amounts to a total blockage of an investigation?
"They say Libby lied when he told investigators he learned about Plame from NBC's Tim Russert and passed it along as unconfirmed gossip."
That a single instance of attribution turned out to be wrong is not proof that anyone lied and provides a very poor excuse for Fitzgerald to claim tht he was stimied in investigtion of an underlying crime.
It is hard to understand how this "lie" would halt an investigation , especially considering the resources expended , it is as if Captain Ahab went to sea in a fleet of modern whalers and searching the seas for Moby Dick returned with a small mackerel that he should have thrown back.
The consequences of Libby's lies were far worse.
How so?
Valerie had to wear sunglasses and a scarf in her photo op with Vanity Fair?
You really are shallow & duped:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/13/04720/9340
All right I read it , now for you .
For all of your posturing and indignation
I would bet a doughnut that you do not really know what the "lie" was that Libbey is supposed to have told.
You really do make things too easy Plane:
NEWS | OPINIONS | SPORTS | ARTS & LIVING | Discussions | Photos & Video | City Guide | CLASSIFIEDS | JOBS | CARS | REAL ESTATE
Libby 'Told a Dumb Lie,' Prosecutor Says in Closing Argument
By Carol D. Leonnig and Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, February 21, 2007; A04
Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff lied to investigators about his role in leaking a CIA officer's identity in order to keep his job and protect the White House from political embarrassment, prosecutors told jurors yesterday in the closing arguments of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's perjury trial.
Pointing to a courtroom screen showing eight witnesses who contradicted Libby, Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald said it was no coincidence that Bush administration colleagues and reporters recalled Libby as intensely focused on undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame early in the summer of 2003, as her husband was publicly challenging the White House's rationale for going to war in Iraq.
"This is something important, something he was focused on, something he was angry about," Fitzgerald said. "He had a motive to lie, and . . . he stole the truth from the justice system."
Libby "told a dumb lie and got caught" when leak investigators refused to go away, Fitzgerald said. He added that Libby's lies had "left a cloud over the vice president" because Cheney's role in the leak remained unclear.
But two defense attorneys argued that Libby was a harried and hardworking public servant who was guilty only of forgetfulness about a relatively insignificant matter given his pressure-cooker job.
In impassioned, and at times disjointed arguments, the defense lawyers drew attention to numerous witnesses who had faulty or questionable memories and conflicting recollections. They said it was unfair to assume that the witnesses had made honest mistakes but that Libby's untruths were deliberate.
"If you're not sure, that's not guilty," said attorney Theodore Wells Jr. "It's impossible to say with any degree of certainty that Mr. Libby is engaged in intentional lying."
Libby is charged with five felonies: two counts of lying to FBI agents, two counts of perjuring himself in grand jury testimony and one count of obstructing the federal probe into whether Bush administration officials illegally leaked classified information by disclosing Plame's identity to reporters.
They say Libby lied when he told investigators he learned about Plame from NBC's Tim Russert and passed it along as unconfirmed gossip.
Libby has pleaded not guilty, contending he inaccurately remembered conversations that he recounted to FBI agents and a grand jury. No one is charged with the leak itself.
The 12-member jury will receive instructions from presiding U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton early today about how to weigh the high-profile case against Libby. Jurors are expected to begin deliberations before noon.
Plame is married to former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, whose accusations in 2003 that the Bush administration twisted intelligence to justify the war with Iraq set in motion events leading to the leak of his wife's name in a syndicated column by Robert Novak. Wilson's claims infuriated Cheney and others in the White House, and Cheney deputized Libby to contact reporters and rebut Wilson's claims.
Wilson turned out to be a potent critic. He had been sent to Niger by the CIA a year earlier to check on reports that Iraq had tried to obtain material for nuclear weapons there, and concluded that the reports were false. Within days of Wilson going public about his findings in July 2003 , the White House acknowledged that President Bush's State of the Union address should not have included the assertion that Iraq was trying to purchase uranium.
Fitzgerald told the jury yesterday that Libby was engaged in a campaign to make reporters skeptical of Wilson. His wife's post at the CIA and her role in suggesting him for the mission became a useful tool to insinuate that he wasn't qualified for the mission to Niger. The prosecutor disputed the defense's argument that Libby did not remember Plame because she was so trivial to him.
"To [Libby] she wasn't Valerie Wilson, she's wasn't a person," the prosecutor said, sipping from a plastic cup of water as he walked back and forth in front of the jury box. "She was an argument, a fact to use against Joe Wilson."
Prosecutor Peter Zeidenberg, summing up the government's evidence, said Libby "absolutely fabricates two conversations that never happened" -- with Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper and NBC's Russert. He said Libby's claim that he didn't remember the conversations was "just not credible" because Cheney considered the matter very important and it commanded much of Libby's time.
Zeidenberg also said Libby had several motives to lie. The president had said he would fire whoever had disclosed Plame's identity, a criminal investigation had begun, and, at Libby's urging, Cheney had personally vouched for Libby, getting the White House to say publicly that Libby was not the leaker.
In the defense's closing argument, Wells countered that the case was simply "he said, she said." He contended that it was "madness" to try to convict Libby of a crime based on his foggy memory about fragments of conversations that were the subject of FBI questions three and four months after they took place.
"It's a case about different recollections between Mr. Libby and some reporters," Wells said. "This is an important trial, and I represent an innocent man."
Wells said that Libby honestly believed he learned about Plame for the first time from Russert in a July 10, 2003, conversation -- a month after he was actually told about her by the vice president, Libby later acknowledged. Wells emphasized to the jury that Russert first told the FBI that he couldn't completely rule out discussing the subject with Libby because he talks to so many people.
"That's reasonable doubt right there," Wells said of an FBI agent's notes. "If you say, 'I believe Mr. Russert beyond a reasonable doubt,' my client's life would be destroyed. His reputation would be destroyed."
Defense attorney William Jeffress Jr. reminded the jury of the pointed questioning that Libby endured when Fitzgerald asked Libby several different ways about nearly every conversation he had in a two-month period in 2003.
"It's not easy being in a grand jury. And Mr. Libby was there for eight hours," Jeffress said. "If he got something wrong in eight hours of questioning, that wasn't an intentional lie. Which witness came in here that didn't get something wrong?"
Jeffress highlighted the conflict between testimony of former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, who said he had not told Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus about Plame, and Pincus's account, in which Fleischer was his source for that information. Jeffress said there were a lot of possible explanations, including that Fleischer lied.
"Of course, possibilities don't cut it in a criminal case," Jeffress said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/20/AR2007022000122_pf.html
I bet if OJ had been in the Bush Administration, you would think him innocent as well. You would be on firmer ground too because OJ was acquitted by a jury of his peers. Your loathesome hero Libby was convicted.
BTW - I don't eat fattening doughnuts anymore than I swallow shit from the Bush Administration.
-
>>But since you have gone to the trouble of actually finding out what it is that you are angry about, retroactively ,can you tell me why this charge has any importance at all , or how it amounts to a total blockage of an investigation?
Quote
"They say Libby lied when he told investigators he learned about Plame from NBC's Tim Russert and passed it along as unconfirmed gossip."
That a single instance of attribution turned out to be wrong is not proof that anyone lied and provides a very poor excuse for Fitzgerald to claim tht he was stimied in investigtion of an underlying crime.
It is hard to understand how this "lie" would halt an investigation , especially considering the resources expended , it is as if Captain Ahab went to sea in a fleet of modern whalers and searching the seas for Moby Dick returned with a small mackerel that he should have thrown back.<<
WHAT is this perverse joy you seem to get from defending loathesome liars that betray their country? Libby lied to Fitzgerald on many occasions. The Russert thing was just the most stupid lie he told.
A small mackeral might lead to the killer fish that eats them.They call that chumming dontcha know. http://newenglandsharks.com/chumming.htm
(BTW- I do know that a whale is not a fish. I say that so Sirs wont have to wear out his fingers on trivia as he always does.)
-
How many times do I haveta tellya blind bozos? Contempt of court, loser.
Based on........Bad manners? Wore the wrong tie to the office?
You are truly every bit as stupid as i always thought. Contempt of court is not perjury which is a crime.
Ok, let's try 1 more time, with an even simpler question, that even knute should be able to comprehend. Billy boy was found in contempt of court for __________ <fill in the blank>
Everybody has the right to choose font size and color, but these pink lines, besides being awfully gay, are very hard to read.
Course, you work awfully hard to vex, so perhaps it is intentional.
-
or, being the depressed psycho case transexual he is, he/she/it is below IGNORAMUS on the IQ scale.
;D
-
>>But since you have gone to the trouble of actually finding out what it is that you are angry about, retroactively ,can you tell me why this charge has any importance at all , or how it amounts to a total blockage of an investigation?
Quote
"They say Libby lied when he told investigators he learned about Plame from NBC's Tim Russert and passed it along as unconfirmed gossip."
That a single instance of attribution turned out to be wrong is not proof that anyone lied and provides a very poor excuse for Fitzgerald to claim tht he was stimied in investigtion of an underlying crime.
It is hard to understand how this "lie" would halt an investigation , especially considering the resources expended , it is as if Captain Ahab went to sea in a fleet of modern whalers and searching the seas for Moby Dick returned with a small mackerel that he should have thrown back.<<
WHAT is this perverse joy you seem to get from defending loathesome liars that betray their country? Libby lied to Fitzgerald on many occasions. The Russert thing was just the most stupid lie he told.
A small mackeral might lead to the killer fish that eats them.They call that chumming dontcha know. http://newenglandsharks.com/chumming.htm
(BTW- I do know that a whale is not a fish. I say that so Sirs wont have to wear out his fingers on trivia as he always does.)
Ths little baitfish is the biggest thing that has ever been found ,what other offense was there any evidence of?
Partizen politics is endangering the fredom of an innocent man , not only to the shame of his accusers but to te shame of us all.
-
>>Ths little baitfish is the biggest thing that has ever been found ,what other offense was there any evidence of?
Partizen politics is endangering the fredom of an innocent man , not only to the shame of his accusers but to te shame of us all.<<
Give it time to unfold my friend. Catching the whoppers sometimes takes a while. Outing a CIA operative and leading to the death of other operatives for political gain isnt taken lightly. Lying US into a war isnt very nice either.
-
>>Ths little baitfish is the biggest thing that has ever been found ,what other offense was there any evidence of?
Partizen politics is endangering the fredom of an innocent man , not only to the shame of his accusers but to te shame of us all.<<
Give it time to unfold my friend. Catching the whoppers sometimes takes a while. Outing a CIA operative and leading to the death of other operatives for political gain isnt taken lightly. Lying US into a war isnt very nice either.
"..........Outing a CIA operative and leading to the death of other operatives for political gain isnt taken lightly. Lying US into a war isnt very nice either......"
Is there any evidence at all that any of these things have happened?
-
He outed an undercover CIA agent. That is indisputable. We don't know, probably won't be allowed to know, whether any of her contacts abroad were killed when her identity was made known.
This endangers future CIA recruitment. Who in their right mind is going to work for an agency whose own country outs them? Much less foreign citizens abroad. This isn't how we won the Cold War.
See this article: CIA Adds Four Stars To Memorial Wall
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/cia-adds-four-stars-to-memorial-wall.html
-
<<"..........Outing a CIA operative and leading to the death of other operatives for political gain isnt taken lightly. Lying US into a war isnt very nice either......"
Is there any evidence at all that any of these things have happened?<<
Plenty of it, but you refuse to see it. The lie speaks for itself on WMD's & ties to Al Queada on the war since there were none.
We might never know the latter for certain since the CIA wont let her talk about it.
http://www.calendarlive.com/books/cl-et-wilson1jun01,0,5527825.story?coll=cl-books-util
Valerie Plame, publisher plan to sue CIA
The former agent and Simon & Schuster claim the agency tried to block her proposed book.
By Josh Getlin
Times Staff Writer
June 1, 2007
NEW YORK — Simon & Schuster and author Valerie Plame, a former covert agent for the Central Intelligence Agency, said Thursday that they are suing the CIA for attempting to block her efforts to write a book about her years of service.
Plame became the focus of controversy when several Bush administration officials were accused of leaking her covert status to journalists in 2003 after her husband, former envoy Joseph C. Wilson IV, publicly raised questions about the intelligence used to justify the invasion of Iraq. In a subsequent federal prosecution, former vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice.
Plame's memoir, "Fair Game," is due in October, and the publisher said it was asking a New York federal court to declare that Plame can list her years of service in the agency, even though officials have said such information is considered classified. In a statement, Simon & Schuster said these dates were already part of the public record, in an unclassified document released by the CIA and also on a website, www.gpoaccess.gov.
Adam Rothberg, a corporate spokesman for Simon & Schuster, said the CIA's effort to keep such information classified — particularly the details of Plame's service before 2002 — was "an unreasonable attempt at prior restraint of publication." The lawsuit also criticized the CIA for requesting that significant portions of Plame's book be censored or masked as fiction to avoid reference to her service in the agency before 2002.
The CIA, which has acknowledged only that Plame worked for the agency since 2002, has approval rights over all writings of former officers before they can be published.
George Little, a CIA spokesman, declined Thursday to comment on the specifics of the lawsuit. But he said that typically "the sole yardstick for pre-publication review" of such manuscripts was that "they contain no classified information," the revelation of which "could cause damage to operations." He said the agency was continuing to review the matter.
Rothberg said that Simon & Schuster still expected to publish Plame's book on schedule. She is due to appear Saturday on an author's panel at the BookExpo America convention in New York, Rothberg added.
josh.getlin@latimes.com
-
He outed an undercover CIA agent. That is indisputable.
Actually, it is. Or perhaps you can point to the pertinent paragraph from the Fitzgerald investigation that provides that indisputable conclusion. And BTW, who is "He", in your alledged outing? We look forward to your non-answers.