trickybeck wrote:
He embarrassed the LAPD, created a national spectacle, and would have been run off the road if he wasn't a white guy.
Fixed.
Edited, Fri Oct 28 18:04:17 2005 by pickleprince
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Libby indicted.
Libby indicted.Follow
He embarrassed the LAPD, created a national spectacle, and would have been run off the road if he wasn't a white guy.
Fixed.
Edited, Fri Oct 28 18:04:17 2005 by pickleprince
Prince pickleprince wrote:
trickybeck wrote:
He embarrassed the LAPD, created a national spectacle, and would have been run off the road if he wasn't a white guy.
Fixed.
Edited, Fri Oct 28 18:04:17 2005 by pickleprince
He isn't white.
gbaji wrote:
I'm still going with my theory that Plame outted herself when she appeared in that meeting with INR members (State Department) in which Wilson was briefed for his mission to Niger. If she appeared there as a CIA operative, but did not identify herself as a NOC, and did not ensure that everyone was cleared to know she was a NOC, then she broke cover. Everything that followed that break of cover cannot be considered a violation of national security, since those involved couldn't have known that her employment at the CIA was a matter of national security. Cheney's office "digging" into her identity is not evidence of a crime, since they would have been trying to figure out who arranged the meeting, and logically followed up on realizing that Plame was Wilson's wife. All of that can be derived from that one meeting without ever having access to a NOC list, or violating national security protocols.
Remember. In order for a crime to be commited, someone who knew that Valerie Plame was a NOC and who was codeword cleared for that infomation, had to pass on the fact that she worked for the CIA to someone who did *not* know she was a NOC and was not codeword cleared for that information. Every piece of evidence points to Valerie herself as being the one who did that. Everything after that point was people who had no knowledge of her status as a NOC simply passing on that she worked at the CIA. She was already "outted" at that point.
Remember. In order for a crime to be commited, someone who knew that Valerie Plame was a NOC and who was codeword cleared for that infomation, had to pass on the fact that she worked for the CIA to someone who did *not* know she was a NOC and was not codeword cleared for that information. Every piece of evidence points to Valerie herself as being the one who did that. Everything after that point was people who had no knowledge of her status as a NOC simply passing on that she worked at the CIA. She was already "outted" at that point.
Oh, yes, indeed. RIGHT on the money.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
fenderputy the Shady wrote:
Prince pickleprince wrote:
trickybeck wrote:
He embarrassed the LAPD, created a national spectacle, and would have been run off the road if he wasn't a white guy.
Fixed.
Edited, Fri Oct 28 18:04:17 2005 by pickleprince
He isn't white.
/WHOOSH
Samira wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm still going with my theory that Plame outted herself when she appeared in that meeting with INR members (State Department) in which Wilson was briefed for his mission to Niger. If she appeared there as a CIA operative, but did not identify herself as a NOC, and did not ensure that everyone was cleared to know she was a NOC, then she broke cover. Everything that followed that break of cover cannot be considered a violation of national security, since those involved couldn't have known that her employment at the CIA was a matter of national security. Cheney's office "digging" into her identity is not evidence of a crime, since they would have been trying to figure out who arranged the meeting, and logically followed up on realizing that Plame was Wilson's wife. All of that can be derived from that one meeting without ever having access to a NOC list, or violating national security protocols.
Remember. In order for a crime to be commited, someone who knew that Valerie Plame was a NOC and who was codeword cleared for that infomation, had to pass on the fact that she worked for the CIA to someone who did *not* know she was a NOC and was not codeword cleared for that information. Every piece of evidence points to Valerie herself as being the one who did that. Everything after that point was people who had no knowledge of her status as a NOC simply passing on that she worked at the CIA. She was already "outted" at that point.
Remember. In order for a crime to be commited, someone who knew that Valerie Plame was a NOC and who was codeword cleared for that infomation, had to pass on the fact that she worked for the CIA to someone who did *not* know she was a NOC and was not codeword cleared for that information. Every piece of evidence points to Valerie herself as being the one who did that. Everything after that point was people who had no knowledge of her status as a NOC simply passing on that she worked at the CIA. She was already "outted" at that point.
Oh, yes, indeed. RIGHT on the money.
Yes. Had Fitzgerald actually investigated the actual crime for which the investigation he was heading was supposed to be investigating, that's likely what would have been discovered.
Further down, I went on to say that since it was obvious that Fitzgerald had abandoned actually investigating the crime the investigation was based on, he would likely drum up a few perjury and obstruction charges instead.
Like I said. Right on the money. He didn't find who actually violated national security, but instead ran into some discrepancies in testimony that he could use to make charges of perjury and obstruction. Exactly as I said he would...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
You have absolutely no evidence for saying that he's dropped the investigation. I realize that's never stopped you before, but for whatever masochistic reason I just felt the need to point it out.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Samira wrote:
You have absolutely no evidence for saying that he's dropped the investigation. I realize that's never stopped you before, but for whatever masochistic reason I just felt the need to point it out.
Huh? The investigation ended today. It's over. Done. Finito...
The result? No discovery of who caused a CIA NOC's identity to become public knowledge. Not even a hint or direction of who did it, or how it happened. But hey! We did hand down some indictments against the VPs right hand man for some inconsistencies in his testimony. They have nothing at all to do with the actual leak, but hey! They're indictable charges, so we'll charge him with them.
And btw. I'm not talking about pardons here. I'm saying that they do not have enough evidence on those charges to have any chance of a conviction. That's why they are bogus. He handed them out because he failed to find what he was really supposed to find, and felt pressure to indict someone on something. And when the music stopped, the one left without a chair happened to be Libby.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
Huh? The investigation ended today. It's over. Done. Finito...
Negative, Ghost Rider. Wrong on just about all counts, in fact.
The investigation is continuing. Other charges may yet result for Libby or for others.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Samira wrote:
Quote:
Huh? The investigation ended today. It's over. Done. Finito...
Negative, Ghost Rider. Wrong on just about all counts, in fact.
The investigation is continuing. Other charges may yet result for Libby or for others.
My understanding was that he had a set time period for the grand jury he was working with, and that it expired today.
You're correct that he may very well continue the investigation with a new grand jury. I'll have to do some poking around though. I'd not heard that he was going to do so...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
He can continue investigating, or he may have requested that the grand jury be held over. Should he have done so we wouldn't know about it until Monday, probably.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/28/leak.probe/index.html
Time of the post is 6:57pm. Searching Google News for "libby grand jury extension" I see quite a few news sites (including USA Today) stating that an extension could be pursued. However, most of the articles no longer include text referencing the possibility of an extension. (Gotta love our news cycle; instead of things being updated for tomorrow's edition, we have to contend with editors who are revising content minute by minute around the clock!)
I thought I had read that the jury extension needed to be requested by 2pm EST today - the time of the expiration. None of the major news outlets are reporting that the jury has been extended, and I'm having trouble finding any reference to the possibility of extension in this hour's media. It doesn't seem to have been done.
It'll be neat finding out next week.
Quote:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The CIA leak investigation is "not over," special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said Friday after announcing charges against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President **** Cheney's chief of staff.
Time of the post is 6:57pm. Searching Google News for "libby grand jury extension" I see quite a few news sites (including USA Today) stating that an extension could be pursued. However, most of the articles no longer include text referencing the possibility of an extension. (Gotta love our news cycle; instead of things being updated for tomorrow's edition, we have to contend with editors who are revising content minute by minute around the clock!)
I thought I had read that the jury extension needed to be requested by 2pm EST today - the time of the expiration. None of the major news outlets are reporting that the jury has been extended, and I'm having trouble finding any reference to the possibility of extension in this hour's media. It doesn't seem to have been done.
It'll be neat finding out next week.
Well, like all Grand Jury dealings, that would theoretically at least have been a secret proceeding.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Ok. So I finally got finished reading the indictment. Looks like I was right about the makeup of the charges. One count of obstruction, specifically related to his testimony with regards to his account of a conversation with Russert (a reporter). One count of perjury and one count of false statements arising from that same conversation. One count of perjury and one count of false statement arising from his account of a conversation with Cooper (another reporter).
The Cooper one is kinda vague. Just a blanket "Libby said one thing, Cooper says another". Not sure how that's going to hold up, since the idictment doesn't say *why* the investigators choose to believe Coopers account of events and not Libby's.
The Russert one is *really* strange. Basically, Libby knew from both official source and unofficial sources that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. He had a conversation with Russert about Wilson's wife and rummors of her employment at the CIA. When asked what he knew, Libby told Russert that he had not heard anything official, but that he'd heard the same rummors Russert had heard.
He's being charged with perjury and false statement in that case, bucause that statement was not true since he most definately *did* have official knowledge of her status as a CIA employee at that time. What's strange is that his testimony was about what he said to Russet. He lied to Russert in their conversation (not a crime btw, and some would argue required since if he'd told the truth to Russert he *would* have been passing classified information), and his testimony is a repeat of that lie. But it's an accurate depiction of the conversation itself, which is what he was being asked to testify about.
It's not perjury to accurately retell a conversation you had with someone in which you lied to that person. But what it looks like is happening here is that they grand jury decided that since the account of the facts stated in the conversation with Russert does not match the actual facts (ie: He did know about her employment at CIA), that this constitutes perjury. I think that's pretty darn silly.
If anything this shows that Libby was actively trying to prevent any sort of official confirmation of Plames CIA status. Which is exactly what he *should* have done. Not sure how an investigation into the leak results in this sort of charge. We're going to charge Libby with perjury becuase he lied to a reporter in order not to confirm a rummor that compromised national security? Exactly how does that make sense?
The Cooper one is kinda vague. Just a blanket "Libby said one thing, Cooper says another". Not sure how that's going to hold up, since the idictment doesn't say *why* the investigators choose to believe Coopers account of events and not Libby's.
The Russert one is *really* strange. Basically, Libby knew from both official source and unofficial sources that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. He had a conversation with Russert about Wilson's wife and rummors of her employment at the CIA. When asked what he knew, Libby told Russert that he had not heard anything official, but that he'd heard the same rummors Russert had heard.
He's being charged with perjury and false statement in that case, bucause that statement was not true since he most definately *did* have official knowledge of her status as a CIA employee at that time. What's strange is that his testimony was about what he said to Russet. He lied to Russert in their conversation (not a crime btw, and some would argue required since if he'd told the truth to Russert he *would* have been passing classified information), and his testimony is a repeat of that lie. But it's an accurate depiction of the conversation itself, which is what he was being asked to testify about.
It's not perjury to accurately retell a conversation you had with someone in which you lied to that person. But what it looks like is happening here is that they grand jury decided that since the account of the facts stated in the conversation with Russert does not match the actual facts (ie: He did know about her employment at CIA), that this constitutes perjury. I think that's pretty darn silly.
If anything this shows that Libby was actively trying to prevent any sort of official confirmation of Plames CIA status. Which is exactly what he *should* have done. Not sure how an investigation into the leak results in this sort of charge. We're going to charge Libby with perjury becuase he lied to a reporter in order not to confirm a rummor that compromised national security? Exactly how does that make sense?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
If anything this shows that Libby was actively trying to prevent any sort of official confirmation of Plames CIA status. Which is exactly what he *should* have done.
Scotbaji: I'm givin er all she's got, capn.
Wingchild wrote:
WASHINGTON (CNN)
Vice President @#%^ Cheney's chief of staff.
Vice President @#%^ Cheney's chief of staff.
Ahahahahahahahahahaha.....
Go go Alla filter~
Danalog the Vengeful Programmer wrote:
Nah, absolute power would be using this knowledge to find people and leave flaming dog poo on their doorstops
Sshhhh! you said you weren't going to tell them!
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
Clinton is laughing his *** off right this second.
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin
The investigation is indeed not closed.
From what I saw of Fitzgeral's press conference (largely gleaned while in an airport magazine shop, watching a smallish TV), when asked by a reporter if the purjury/obstruction charges meant that they couldn't find anything concrete, Fitzgerald remarked that he couldn't comment on that yet because he didn't have all the facts and part of the reason why is because Libby intentionally withheld facts and lied to investigators. Gbaji can spin that into "Fitzgerlad indicted him by twisting his words around!" if it pleases him. We'll see what the trial decides and I'm sure if Libby is found guilty, Gbaji will be crying about that as well instead of accepting the possibility that someone from the administration actually DID attempt to conceal information about what he knew during the investigation.
This isn't Clinton getting dinged for lying about a ******* during a completely unrelated real estate investigation -- this is Libby getting dinged for lying to the FBI and investigation about his dealings with the CIA and press during an investigation explicitly about who had leaked a CIA agent's identity to the press.
From what I saw of Fitzgeral's press conference (largely gleaned while in an airport magazine shop, watching a smallish TV), when asked by a reporter if the purjury/obstruction charges meant that they couldn't find anything concrete, Fitzgerald remarked that he couldn't comment on that yet because he didn't have all the facts and part of the reason why is because Libby intentionally withheld facts and lied to investigators. Gbaji can spin that into "Fitzgerlad indicted him by twisting his words around!" if it pleases him. We'll see what the trial decides and I'm sure if Libby is found guilty, Gbaji will be crying about that as well instead of accepting the possibility that someone from the administration actually DID attempt to conceal information about what he knew during the investigation.
This isn't Clinton getting dinged for lying about a ******* during a completely unrelated real estate investigation -- this is Libby getting dinged for lying to the FBI and investigation about his dealings with the CIA and press during an investigation explicitly about who had leaked a CIA agent's identity to the press.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Quote:
this is Libby getting dinged for lying to the FBI and investigation about his dealings with the CIA and press during an investigation explicitly about who had leaked a CIA agent's identity to the press.
Yup. But you have to admit, that the only differance between the two is that Clinton lied about an unrelated matter, while it would appear Libby lied when being question directly about the topic of the investigation.
Unfortunatly, at this point, I'm unsatisfied. For no one has been indicted for breaking the law by "outing" Mrs. Plame. Granted the matter is still under investigation, so there's hope.
You have to admit, that there are quite a few similarities between this and Clinton's impeachment. Lying under oath, being indicted not because you're guilty of the crime being investigated, and the media's complete obsession of any and all related matters.
We shall see what happens. I've been completely turned off by the cable news networks over this matter. Interrupting your current segment with "breaking news" just to say that there would be no news regarding this case today (happened wednesday...on CNN, MSNBC, and FOX) is just...not news?
The Daily Show has been great though. I recomend reading the paper then ending your night with Jon Stewert. He can fill you in on what you've been missing on TV...which isn't much, lol.
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin
Jophiel wrote:
This isn't Clinton getting dinged for lying about a ******* during a completely unrelated real estate investigation -- this is Libby getting dinged for lying to the FBI and investigation about his dealings with the CIA and press during an investigation explicitly about who had leaked a CIA agent's identity to the press.
so what about Burger and his lies, why was he not brought up on the same types of charges. he lied, he obstructed justice, he stole top secret documents and worse yet he intentionaly destroyed them.
both libby's and burger's actions are tatamount to high treason and both should be hunted down and destroyed, so why is Burger still on the lose and getting away with nothing more then having to pull out of the race of president and libby is looking at grandjury inditments? simple libby is working for GW Bush, were Burger worked for Clinton.
er...
More like cause what Libby did is related to a serious matter of national security while Berger's dealt with stuffing documents down his pants.
(edited per the post below)
Edited, Sun Oct 30 09:54:31 2005 by Omegavegeta
More like cause what Libby did is related to a serious matter of national security while Berger's dealt with stuffing documents down his pants.
(edited per the post below)
Edited, Sun Oct 30 09:54:31 2005 by Omegavegeta
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin
Might want to sub `Clinton` in for `Berger` above; Sandy Berger was the guy who stole classified material from the National Archives by stuffing documents down his pants.
Singdall wrote:
so what about Burger and his lies, why was he not brought up on the same types of charges. he lied, he obstructed justice, he stole top secret documents and worse yet he intentionaly destroyed them.
Omega wrote:
But you have to admit, that the only differance between the two is that Clinton lied about an unrelated matter, while it would appear Libby lied when being question directly about the topic of the investigation.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Sure. But the typical response to why the charges against Clinton were a partisan witch hunt wasn't "He didn't lie" it was "He lied about something that he never should have been asked about in the first place because it had no bearing at all to the investigation." So the response to "You liberals thought it was bogus when Clinton was hit up for perjury!" is simply that they were two unrelated events with unrelated contexts. It's very important to the Pubbies to try to deflect this into "Fitzgerald couldn't prove anything" or "It wasn't really a lie" or "This is perjury just like Clinton" or something similar because they don't want to state the basic fact: Libby was caught lying multiple times to the FBI and to Fitzgerald while being asked about his knowledge of Plame and when he related it to the media.
That's an extreme oversimplification of the issue though. While I do agree with you that the biggest complaint about the Clinton thing was its utter irrelevance to the case being investigated, I think it's unfair to say that the basic motivation for an investigator to veer off the investigation to secondary charges is somehow totally different in this case.
At issue is the tendency for investigations of this type to get sidetracked, or fail in some other way to find the crime/person responsible for the investigation in the first place, so they switch modes at some point from "find out who did X", to "find a crime that someone can be indicted on". Sure. In this case, the indictment against Libby at least is somewhat related to the case but it's still a result of the same kinda flawed thinking.
That's how it's similar to the Clinton impeachment. In both cases, if the investigation had "succeeded" in solving the mystery and/or finding the crime/criminal that it originally was created to find, the chargest that ultimately arose would *not* hae occurred. If Fitzgeralds investigation had actually traced the leak back to a source or multiple sources, you can bet that those people would have been the focus of any indictments. Handing out the indictments against Libby is essentially an admission that he's failed at his investigation and settled for secondary charges. Exactly as Ken Start did with the Whitewater investigation. What exactly those charges are, and to what extent they are relevant to the case doesn't matter. At some point, the investigation switches into "find things in testimoney that we can nail people on" mode. That is the same in both cases.
Oh. Read the indictment Joph. It's not that Libby was "caught lying multiple times". That's nice spin, and I'm sure it plays well. But the fact is that all 5 of the charges derive from the exact same inconsitency in Libby's testimony. One thing. 5 charges. I did a bit more digging and reading and it turns out the the Cooper related charges are *also* based on the fact that he knew from official sources that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, but lied to reporters about that fact, pretending that he only kew the same rummors that they'd heard. So when he related those conversations to investigators, he repeated what he told the reporters (Russert and Cooper). The grand jury interpreted that as perjury, but there's absolutely no way that's going to hold up in any court.
I still call them "bogus" charges.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Patrick Fitzgerald wrote:
And he told the FBI that when he passed the information on on July 12th, 2003, two days before Mr. Novak's column, that he passed it on understanding that this was information he had gotten from a reporter, that he didn't even know if it was true.
And he told the FBI that when he passed the information on to the reporters he made clear that he did know if this were true. This was something that all the reporters were saying and, in fact, he just didn't know and he wanted to be clear about it.
Later, Mr. Libby went before the grand jury on two occasions in March of 2004. He took an oath and he testified. And he essentially said the same thing.
[...]
It would be a compelling story that will lead the FBI to go away, if only it were true. It is not true, according to the indictment.
And he told the FBI that when he passed the information on to the reporters he made clear that he did know if this were true. This was something that all the reporters were saying and, in fact, he just didn't know and he wanted to be clear about it.
Later, Mr. Libby went before the grand jury on two occasions in March of 2004. He took an oath and he testified. And he essentially said the same thing.
[...]
It would be a compelling story that will lead the FBI to go away, if only it were true. It is not true, according to the indictment.
FBI interview + two seperate grand jury questionings = multiple times. And yes, I've read the indictment.
Gee, I dunno... maybe Fitzgerald just thought it was a nice spin that'd play out better
Quote:
In both cases, if the investigation had "succeeded" in solving the mystery and/or finding the crime/criminal that it originally was created to find, the chargest that ultimately arose would *not* hae occurred.
Quote:
The grand jury interpreted that as perjury, but there's absolutely no way that's going to hold up in any court.
Edited, Sun Oct 30 23:07:59 2005 by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Recent Visitors: 215
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (215)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Libby indicted.
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC