Powered by TypePad

« With Torture In The News... | Main | Paul WhoZat On Times Select »

November 10, 2005

Comments

p.lukasiak

He wasn't scoring points. He was tap dancing - mostly upon your head and shoulders. To all of our great delight.

Let me guess. You were one of the people who voted to keep Evander Holyfield on Dancing With the Stars, right?

Rick Ballard

It's going to take more tha Prosecutor Clousseau's ham sandwich indictment to get me to agree to "smartest guy in the room" - unless we're talking about a phone booth. Perhaps his ace interrogators have finally asked Ambassador Munchausen if there might be some small, tiny possibility that Mrs. Wilson's employment was not exactly treated as a State Secret avec la famille, les amis occasionnels et les étrangers complets.

A question that needs an answer is "when did Fitzgerald understand that the underlying potential charge was without merit".

p.lukasiak

First report I saw says Libby's lawyers are making a first Amendment case--

Clarice, I believe that you are referring to Libby's lawyers comments about resolving evidentiary questions pertaining to the First Amendment --- basically, issues surrounding the question of how much access to the journalists involved in the case the defense would have.

That being said "I lied to the grand jury, but I was exercising my first amendment rights in doing so" is a novel defense that I hadn't yet considered.


cathyf
before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife.
Doesn't this imply more than 'Wilson's wife is CIA'? Which is all Andrea claimed or misspoke to having known?
Does it imply even that? "Mrs Wilson is a WMD analyst" would seem to fit the bill... Her "occupation" is not the same thing as her "employer." Given the "bureau" comment in Miller's Rorschack Notebook, it might have even been "Wilson's wife is DNR."

cathy :-)

Gary Maxwell

Puke

Clarice is an attorney and does not make the kind of mistake you inferred ( although you do ALL the time).

I am guessing that she also does not care much about what you think about her legal theories, she is just too polite to say so. Unlucky for you that I was not raised as well.

Marion Wormer

This poor woman will leap out of the witness chair sobbing hysterically when the defense is finished with her lying ass

p.lukasiak

All Libby has to do is show that 'I heard that too' needs no qualifiers.

except that Libby isn't using Rove's excuse of "I heard that too." He isn't claiming that Cooper volunteered the information about Wilson's wife, and that he (Libby) just affirmed the existence of a rumor. And he didn't claim to have said "I heard that too" to Russert --- indeed, his testimony was precisely the opposite.

So, not withstanding any question of validity of your argument as an argument, I'm afraid that its not relevant to the known facts of the case at hand.

boris

Not the point.

The Libby-Cooper dialog is in the indictment and there's no there there. How smart is that?

Rick Ballard

boris,

I wonder if Fitzgerald had "5" in the "total indictments brought" office pool?

p.lukasiak

The Libby-Cooper dialog is in the indictment and there's no there there. How smart is that?

boris, the "there" that is "there" is Libby's claim that he told Cooper he was only repeating what he had heard from other reporters.

to wit:

Q. The next set of questions from the Grand Jury are – concern this fact. If you did not understand the information about Wilson's wife to have been classified and didn't understand it when you heard it from Mr. Russert, why was it that you were so deliberate to make sure that you told other reporters that reporters were saying it and not assert it as something you knew?

A. I want – I didn't want to – I didn't know if it was true and I didn't want people – I didn't want the reporters to think it was true because I said it. I – all I had was that reporters are telling us that, and by that I wanted them to understand it wasn't coming from me and that it might not be true. Reporters write things that aren't true sometimes, or get things that aren't true. So I wanted to be clear they didn't, they didn't think it was me saying it. I didn't know it was true and I wanted them to understand that...

(I would also note that this question was asked by someone on the grand jury.....)

boris

You still don't get it.

That's what Cooper confirmed.

Libby and Cooper agree on the fundamental point of their conversation.

boris

You seem to be claiming that Libby is being charged with "lying to Cooper"

Didn't think even you were that dumb.

TP

"Of course, Libby's pardon petition could consist of "Jabberwocky" written in Sanskrit, and Bush would pardon him."

This would be a nice outcome for you p.luk. You are probably the only person in North America who would be capable of translating it.

topsecretk9

Re-read Libby's answer again...legalities aside. He is right. A summary version:

Reporters are nothing but gossips and whores who intentionally distort peoples words and are blind to their blighted contribution to our society.

topsecretk9

That's what I got form it at least.

Jim E.

Let's see if I have what the righties (some of them) are arguing here:

1. Libby, a former trial lawyer, is smart enough to not have lied in the blatent manner which the indictment against him alleges. Therefore he must be innocent.

2. Fitz is stupid.

Do I have that right?

Bill in AZ

nah... Fitz is autistic - we try to not make fun of people like that. He's still trying to find out who leaked Plames name while wading around in a swamp of leakers.

p.lukasiak

Boris, that is not what Cooper confirmed... allow me to quote from the indictment...

In truth and fact, as LIBBY well knew when he gave this testimony, it was false in that LIBBY did not advise Matthew Cooper or other reporters that LIBBY had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise Cooper or other reporters that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true;

TP

JimE,

1. I wouldn't argue Libby is innocent. His attorneys are going to do that. I would argue that he has a right to a fair trial and that an indictment is not a conviction.

2. Fitz is very smart, but my guess is that even he would not claim infallibility.

Sue

P. Luk,

You are basing your arguments on facts? What facts? You haven't seen the evidence, you have seen snippets of GJ testimony that Fitzgerald used to make the charges. You could very well be right in your analysis, but you don't have facts to back it up. That is, unless you are privy to information the rest of us aren't.

Rick Ballard

"If you did not understand the information about Wilson's wife to have been classified"

and didn't understand it when you heard it from Mr. Russert,

why was it that you were so deliberate to make sure that you told other reporters that reporters were saying it


and not assert it as something you knew?

Jim E.,

How smart is a prosecutor to make a compound unintelligible question the basis for a perjury indictment? That question is gibberish.

p.lukasiak

Do I have that right?

well, its true, but it not central to the righties argument, which is:

Joe Wilson is evil incarnate. Therefore, any allegation against him is necessarily true, because no explanation other than "evil" is possible when the subject is evil incarnate. Furthermore, any effort made against Joe Wilson is good because any effort made against evil incarnate must be good, and any theory that defends Wilson' enemy is good, because any theory that defends those who are good is necessarily good in and of itself.

Once you understand the simple rule that Joe Wilson is evil incarnate, you will understand why even the most bizarre theories and off the wall speculations are treated as if they were sacred text that must be celebrated....

Sue

P. Luk,

Does that only work on righties? Could I not take your post, remove Wilson's name and insert Bush/Rove/Cheney/Libby and come up with the same ending? You are unwilling to see anything but an evil theory as to why the WH was pushing back.

TP

p.luk,

Actually, the argument is that he is a blowhard being used by the Kerry campaign to embarrass the Bush Administration. : ^ )

Sue

P. Luk,

Actually, I can only speak for myself, but I don't see Wilson as evil. I see him as a clown, who just happened to get lucky. How do you see him?

JM Hanes

Rick --
"A question that needs an answer is "when did Fitzgerald understand that the underlying potential charge was without merit".

I'll take this one: Feb. 6, 2004 when, in response to a request for clarification from Fitz, the Acting Attorney General confirmed that the Special Prosecutor's authority was not limited to investigating the particulars of the alleged disclosure alone.

He was appointed in Dec. '03, and I suspect he already knew that there was no underlying exposé charge to be made by the time he finished his initial review of the case.

clarice

Clarice, I believe that you are referring to Libby's lawyers comments about resolving evidentiary questions pertaining to the First Amendment --- basically, issues surrounding the question of how much access to the journalists involved in the case the defense would have.

Some people are confusing the First and Sixth Amendments--the 6th will surely come into play when the defendant (Libby) argues that he is entitled to question the reporters about more than the Prosecutor did..The 6th BTW refers to the right of a defendant to defend himself by knowing the charges and evdence being raised against him


boris

That question is gibberish.

That's what originally made me wonder if Libby didn't see an opportunity in Fitz's questioning to essentially answer in riddles that would be impossible to prosecute successfully. Thus drawing the conspira-seeking Fitzle to the Libby countermeasure and protecting the administration from further attack.

boris

what Cooper confirmed

"I heard that too"

Means the same thing. Deal with it.

p.lukasiak

Sue....

You are basing your arguments on facts? What facts? You haven't seen the evidence, you have seen snippets of GJ testimony that Fitzgerald used to make the charges. You could very well be right in your analysis, but you don't have facts to back it up. That is, unless you are privy to information the rest of us aren't.

Sue, you are absolutely right. I'm basing my arguments on the facts that we have at hand.

If you prefer -- since it may well fit better with the overall feeling of most of the commenters on this thread --- I can go into full-blown Democratic Underground mode, discussing vast conspiracies centered on the Carlyle group, and citing the Socialist Workers Weekly as a source of factual information.

Or I can continue to discuss the facts concerning the case against I Lewis Libby.

I mean, we really don't even know who outed Valerie Plame to Bob Novak -- let alone whether "everybody knew" that Wilson's wife was CIA, or whether this whole thing is part of a vast left-wing-CIA conspiracy to destroy George W. Bush OR its part of a massive cover-up of the manipulation of intelligence including the forgery of the Niger documents at the behest of Dick Cheney --- or if its just a case of "loose lips sink ships."

And since I know I'm not going to convince anyone here that the Niger documents were forged by the same people Karl Rove hired to forge the Killian memos, I try to stick to the facts that are known about the Libby case. :)

boris

Killian memos

There's a leak in your tin foil hat.

boris

Dan and Mary still think they're real. Even Newsmax won't hire them now.

p.lukasiak

Does that only work on righties? Could I not take your post, remove Wilson's name and insert Bush/Rove/Cheney/Libby and come up with the same ending?

sure, if you go to Democratic Underground, or even the diarists and commenters at Daily Kos, I think that would work.

I guess I was hoping that this site was not another right-side equivalent of DU or Kos diaries. Silly me.

p.lukasiak

There's a leak in your tin foil hat.

obviously, I need to figure out a way to make my smilies much larger.

Gary Maxwell

I got it. First remove Joe Wilson from Puk's 4:26 pm post and insert instead "Pluk" in each instance. Then replace "evil incarante" with "Idiot savant" again in all places. Of course where it just says "evil" instead put "idiocy".

Tell us more about him than he does about the poster community here.

p.lukasiak

Some people are confusing the First and Sixth Amendments--the 6th will surely come into play when the defendant (Libby) argues that he is entitled to question the reporters about more than the Prosecutor did..The 6th BTW refers to the right of a defendant to defend himself by knowing the charges and evdence being raised against him

some people don't realize that this is a case in which the interests of the 1st and 6th amendment are likely to collide.

I mean, come on Clarice, not even you could possibly assert that Libby's lawyers are considering a defense which consists of "Lewis Libby had the right to lie to the Grand Jury under the First Amendment"

Rick Ballard

Boris,

I'd love to hear "I understood the question to mean" from Libby on the witness stand. I believe that you may be correct about Libby's answer. I wonder how long he stared at Fitz (if it was Fitz) before answering. If I parse the question to the nut of "why was it that you were so deliberate" then I can parse Libby's response on the basis of the questions initial conditional "If".

richard mcenroe

But Andrea's one of the GOOD (Democratic) PEOPLE... it's okay for her to lie like a cheap Persian rug...

JM Hanes

pluka -
"Remember, the issue of whether "everybody knew" about Wilson's wife is not relevant to this case."

Of course it is, otherwise Libby couldn't contend he was hearing about it from reporters. What Mitchell knew is esp. relevant since, as she has repeatedly stated, it would go from her mouth to Russert's ears, thereby calling Russert's credibility -- which is central to the charge, and thus the defense -- into question.

"now, where is Russert's focus on the NAME again?"

I'll raise you one: where exactly is the focus on what he actually did, as opposed to what he says he "would have" done in one hypothetical situation or another?

Your description of the "righties" argument is such a disappointment! Apparently, your talent for channeling everyone from Fitz in DC to Mayaki in Niger has its limits after all.

p.lukasiak

I'd love to hear "I understood the question to mean" from Libby on the witness stand.

Rick, would you care to provide us with what you think Libby could say that would get him off the hook for what he said in his response.

Like this little gem (which I didn't include in my original excerpt)

And among the other things, I didn't know he had a wife. That was one of the things I said to Mr. Cooper. I don't know if he's married. And so I wanted to be very clear about all this stuff that I didn't, I didn't know about him. And the only thing I had, I thought at the time, was what reporters are telling us.

(and do keep in mind the date of the Cooper conversation that this refers to in your answer.)

Syl

p.luk.

Actually that's what Libby said to Russert. He just forgot.

JM Hanes

pluka-

"some people don't realize that this is a case in which the interests of the 1st and 6th amendment are likely to collide."

Guess who wins!

Syl

p.luk.

Anyway, you're missing the basic POINT. That's disinformation to make the hearer thing he's hearing something for the 2st time.

That's why Libby probably forgot it was Russert he said that to instead of Cooper.

OR, like Russert and his 'would have said' scenario, that's what Libby would have said so he thought he did.

Next!

Rick Ballard

Actual question parsed:

And at the same time you have a specific recollection of telling him,

you don't know whether it's true or not,

you're just telling him what reporters are saying?

Libby's actual response parsed:

Yes, that's correct, sir.

And I said, reporters are telling us that, I don't know if it's true.

I was careful about that because among other things, I wanted to be clear I didn't know Mr. Wilson. I don't know –

I think I said, I don't know if he has a wife, but this is what we're hearing.

GIGO cubed

Ask a stupid question.....

Rick Ballard

off

Barney Frank

I don't often comment here but I find the changing dynamic of the posts interesting.
Shortly after Libby's indictment the libs here were cocky, spoke in authoritative, sweeping terms and were quite convincing, while the cons were parsing every little phrase and saying how little anything meant until people like Russert etal were under oath.
Now the shoes seem to have exchanged feet and the libs are parsing and fretting talking about the meaningless of statements unless they're under oath, while the cons are sounding kind of cocky.
It could of course be meaningless but it is interesting to go away for a few days and then come back.
Incidentally, do any of you regular posters have either real jobs or lives? Nothing personal, but how can you spend so much time on this stuff and still feed yourselves?

Rick Ballard

The next set of questions from the Grand Jury are – concern this fact. If you did not understand the information about Wilson's wife to have been classified and didn't understand it when you heard it from Mr. Russert, why was it that you were so deliberate to make sure that you told other reporters that reporters were saying it and not assert it as something you knew?

Jon H

TM,

On your list of reporters, shouldn't you note those with close associations with people who might well have professional reasons to know Plame's work?

For example, Cliff May hangs out with the PNAC crowd, including ex-CIA chief James Woolsey, along with any number of people in the administration who could have, yes, passed him an unauthorized leak of her association with the CIA. Who told Cliff?

Andrea Mitchell is, of course, Mrs. Greenspan. Who told Andrea? Might that have been an illegal leak as well?

Marty Peretz? Doesn' have the tight PNAC connections of Cliff May, but as a hawk he may have hung out with that crowd.


The point, TM, is that these journalists you mention are part of a social circle which could include leaky gossipers with top secret clearances.

Which is rather different from the idea that it's just been common knowledge among gossipy reporters who heard it on the grapevine.

If Dan Froomkin said he knew, I'd believe it was common knowledge. But the people you list are tight with the administration hawks and one or two connections away from someone who could, and would, leak her association with the CIA.

There is no reason to think these people learned by seeing her drive into the CIA, and seeing her at a party with her husband. These people don't do that kind of reporting. Cliff May isn't even a journalist anymore, he's a hack and apologist.

This would certainly explain why Mitchell would want to change her story. And it would explain why Cliff May has never been more fothcoming with who told *him*. If they give up who told them, that would start a whole 'nother investigation.

So - can you dig up any names that do not fit this profile?

clarice

Just a note--Hume didn't think Mitchell's tap dance was very convincing either. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175227,00.html

and he does note that Vallely and Wilson had certainly had opportunities to share the green room in the specified period:

____________

"But in fact, Vallely and Wilson appeared on the same day nine times in 2002, and on the same show twice — on September 8 and September 12,[2002] when both men appeared within 15 minutes of one another."
___________________________

Jon H

I wrote: "Which is rather different from the idea that it's just been common knowledge among gossipy reporters who heard it on the grapevine."

Let me put it this way. Given your list of reporters and their connections, claiming that Plame's CIA job was common knowledge is a little bit like Martha Stewart claiming "everyone knew what was up with ImClone stock", and giving as examples a bunch of people who just happen to have also had close ties with Sam Waksal.

clarice

Jon--it's a city where the connections between the press and the government is so tight a chart of connections would have little open space.

Pincus' wife was a high profile Clinton appointee.

Beers and Clarke were Clinton holdovers who worked with Wilson ,a Clinton appointee to the NSC..

Matt Cooper's wife is Mandy Gruenwald, a Hillary Clinton consultant.

I find it hard to believe that Clarke and Beers didn't know Plame and what she did, and from there it's a small leap to believe Kerry's Chris Lehane knew and from there to believe that Lehane told some folks in the press.

Indeed, I think Wilson ?and Plame's social and press connections were more immediate than any connections PNAC had to Wilson or Plame..or knowledge about them.


TM

no, just pointing out that you are more interested in "scoring points" than you are in a rational discussion of this issue.

I guess that means you are not going to backup your specific claim that started this:

But Russert testified that not only didn't he not tell Libby that Wilson's wife was CIA, he didn't know it at the time the conversation took place.

This opens up the strong possibility that Russert co-operated with FitzG in setting a "perjury trap" for Libby --- i.e. Libby tells the FBI that Russert was his source, FitzG tells Russert what Libby is claiming, Russert denies it, and FitzG asks Russert to issue a denial that gives Libby enough room to fashion his lie around that denial.

I am very interested in the details of Russert's testimony, so I am eager to see your source for this.

Jon H

"Jon--it's a city where the connections between the press and the government is so tight a chart of connections would have little open space."

Then find me someone without such close connections to potential leakes. A Dan Froomkin.

Cliff May is simply not credible. He's a whore. He's not a journalist, he's a shill, with every incentive to lie and no reason not to. He's a think tank trust fund welfare baby, guaranteed a fat income regardless of his reputation or credibility.

Jon H

clarice writes: "I find it hard to believe that Clarke and Beers didn't know Plame and what she did, and from there it's a small leap to believe Kerry's Chris Lehane knew and from there to believe that Lehane told some folks in the press."

Then why is everyone on TM's list noticably hawkish or tight with the Bush administration?

If word was getting out through the Dems, wouldn't that list be a little more... bipartisan?

Sue

P. Luk,

You missed the point entirely. You have no facts. You have speculation based on snippets of GJ testimony. That would be like convicting Delay on Earle's indictment. Come to find out, Earle didn't even have the document that he based the indictment on. I'm just cautioning you to not put all your eggs in the indictment basket. :)

boris

Then find me someone

Get your own.

He's a whore

You're not his type.

Syl

Jon H

Cliff May told the investigators who told him. He just hasn't told us. Except for the fact he was a Democrat.

so there's one for ya.

clarice

From what he writes, I'd guess Froomkin is not on anyone's A list, jon..but the links to reporters are infinitely stronger on the Dem(that is to say Wilson) side and it is those folks(i.e. Russert and Cooper) I suspect of lying when they say they didn't "know..I have no reason to suspect those (like May and Barnes) who say they did know are making it up.

By the way, on the First Amendment issue--I went back and checked, and I seem to have misremembered Libby's counsel's statement re the 1st amendment and want to clarify what he said:
(WSJ)"William Jeffress Jr., an attorney for Mr. Libby, told a federal judge last week that he expected significant First Amendment issues that could delay the start date of the trial. While he declined to elaborate further, defense attorneys involved in the case and First Amendment advocates said Mr. Libby's lawyers would almost certainly want to go beyond the scope of the areas covered in testimony the reporters have provided to a grand jury."


--------
I always thought there would be a Sixth Amendment problem here--while the Ct limited what Fitz could go into with reporters, surely it cannot continuie that limitation against a criminal defendant...


This is the stupidest case I've seen in a long time. The problems respecting a successful prosecution leap off the page..When will someone give it the hook?

topsecretk9

Sue--

FYI...Larry is being his polite self again.

Sue

TS9,

Wow. I wished I had saved mine. They might be valuable some day. :) He is definitely unhinged.

Jim E.

I just followed the link (helpfully provided by TS9) over to redstate and read speculation about whether Larry Johnson was having an affair with Valerie Plame. Nice stuff, that. Yep, totally on point and quite helpful. And certainly what Larry Johnson means by saying he "personally" knows Plame. Pathetic. And TS9 is happy to link to it?

P.S. But since such classless innuendo about the personal lives of political opponents are TM's bag, maybe he'll put a link on the main page?

Sue

Jim,

I visited Mr. Johnson's blog site and posted a question. I got 2 personal emails from him, rather than addressing me on the blog site, telling me how stupid I was, a bonhead, etc. That is why TS9 posted the link, because of my personal encounter with the not so sane Mr. Johnson.

topsecretk9

Jon H

Then why is everyone on TM's list noticeably hawkish or tight with the Bush administration?

People like, say David Corn or others in love with Wilson's story (namely reporters) are going to step up to the plate throw Wilson out there...NOT UNLESS THEY'RE PUT UNDER OATH.

By the By all....Wilson's attorney sent a FORMAL (not his goofed up one with his clients email attached on a Saturday!) demand letter to various people.

Wanna take bets?

If another person comes out, and Wilson hasn't filed, then what does that say?

Jon H

boris writes: "You're not his type."

No, I won't dress up in the black uniforms and jackboots he likes so much.

"Cliff May told the investigators who told him. He just hasn't told us. Except for the fact he was a Democrat."

Oh, he did? News to me. Have a link?

All I've seen is this:
"That wasn't news to me. I had been told that - but not by anyone working in the White House. Rather, I learned it from someone who formerly worked in the government and he mentioned it in an offhanded manner, leading me to infer it was something that insiders were well aware of."

Well, gosh, most of Cliff May's war-hawk daddies fit that description.

"the links to reporters are infinitely stronger on the Dem(that is to say Wilson) side"

But they haven't said they knew Plame was CIA.

The people who have said they knew, and that it was common knowledge, are all Iraqs hawks and Bush shills.

So TM is just building an excellent case that administration hawks, thinktank hawks, and their fanboys are generally cavalier with classified information.

topsecretk9

Jim E

Nice spin. The link was to a "detailing" of the typical threatening, vitriolic and abusive email LCJ is fond of sending, if you read the comments then well that is your own problem.

...but I posted it to SUE with no other commentary. WHY smartbutt,?

because Sue was the recipient of an exact email detailed by your trusted brother Larry C. Johnson.

How many of these have you received from TM?

Jon H


Batchelor's a loon.

topsecretk9

LCJ is a dick and a loon

SteveMG

JonH:
Batchelor's a loon

Well, we all can't be as reasonable and sober-minded as you, as your posts amply demonstrate.

You set a very high Olympian standard of thoughtfulness and insight.

SMG


topsecretk9

oops..I guess I feel prey.

topsecretk9

Well, gosh, most of Cliff May's war-hawk daddies fit that description.

What are you guys so afraid of?

Take note all. The new meme. If it comes from a conservative no matter how un-impeachable the source is it's a lie

However, this approach poses a problem. The MSM is in the hottest of seats..what do you think happens when the cameras DIM?

Clarice

I'm really tired..If you guys take a vote after AI go to sleep , please tally me as follows:

(a) Mitchell is full of it; I do not credit her latest recalled memory and would call her to testify as an adverse wqitness were I Libby.

(b) Vallely was telling the truth; and we have more evidence that the facts in the referral letter upon which the prosecution was based and Miller and Cooper were forced to testify was false..whether or not Fitz knew that these were false..

p.lukasiak

You missed the point entirely. You have no facts.

Sue, unlike what Delay is being charged with, perjury is pretty much cut and dried. Unless Fitzgerald deliberately took Libby's statements out of context, I can't see how anyone could believe that he didn't deliberately lie to the grand jury.


There are two questions I'm interested here.

1) Is Libby guilty of the crimes that he is charged with? I think its glaringly obvious that the answer to that question is "yes."

2) Will Libby be found guilty of the charges? That remains to be seen, but so far I haven't seen anything that convinces me that, absent the exclusion of key evidence found in the indictment, that Libby stands an ice-cubes chance in hell of being acquitted.

Our host spoke of an "oh come on" moment in perjury trials -- the moment when a claim is made that is so at odds with the facts that the jury no longer considers the witness credible.

Lewis Libby's "oh come on" moment is his assertion that when Russert (allegedly) told him that about Wilson's wife being CIA, it came as complete news to him.

EricH

italics off

I think.

topsecretk9

"perjury is pretty much cut and dried."

Cite your source! This contrary to everything I have read on the subject.

Jon H

"This contrary to everything I have read on the subject."

Then you should be reading better sources.

topsecretk9

Then you should be reading better sources.

What is your source? Jon H. Inquiring minds are waiting?

Rick Ballard

TS9,

Perjury can be cut and dried if the question is clear and evidence is profered that the response is intentionally false.

If you are asked "Were you in Reno on April 12?" and you reply "No, I was at home in New Jersey." and then a casino security film is profered showing you reading a newspaper with the front page visible while standing in front of the casino sign, that would be pretty cut and dried.

Alternatively, if you have to bring in an English professor to diagram and explain the question it may be a little tougher sale to the jury.

Libby's indictment lays out a set of facts concerning when (and from whom) he learned about Mrs. Wilson that make the idea that he lied to the investigators or the GJ rather preposterous. The indictment appears to ask us to believe that Libby believed that there existed some sort of rule of omerta concerning everyone else who was questioned. If that is Fitzgerald's intent, then he's definitely not the brightest guy in the room.

topsecretk9

Jon H and Puke...this is what your comrades said then...a NYT'er to NTY'r

Perhaps the most egregious reporting came the day the story first broke, when journalists speculated as to whether or not Bill Clinton would be impeached for perjury or have to resign as president. As James Naughton wrote in Sunday's New York Times, "Never mind that no one has been charged with any crime in this case, that perjury is hard to prove, that even if it were proved it might not be found in these circumstances to constitute high crimes and misdemeanors." Forget all that. The press was out, from day one, to hang the president, and -- for now at least -- there's no stopping them.

You're beacons and forefathers may be found : HERE

Rick Ballard

TS9,

There was phsical evidence in that instance. Unless Russert and Cooper have given Fitzgerald tapes there is only their word and perhaps their notes. If they keep notes like Ms. Miller did their is only their word. A swearing contest.

topsecretk9

Rick--
Yes I know. I was merely trying to point out that PUKE (aka p.Luk) and Jon H were basing their pontifications and declarations on nothing more than conjecture...

I was not speaking to the Clinton case, bit rather showing Puke and DCo the prevailing wisdom on the subject.

p.lukasiak

Libby's indictment lays out a set of facts concerning when (and from whom) he learned about Mrs. Wilson that make the idea that he lied to the investigators or the GJ rather preposterous.

You seem to be forgetting that Libby also lays out information concerning what Libby did after he was told -- but before he says he heard it from Russert.

• On or about June 14, 2003, LIBBY discussed “Joe Wilson” and “Valerie Wilson” with his CIA briefer, in the context of Wilson’s trip to Niger;

On or about June 23, 2003, LIBBY informed reporter Judith Miller that Wilson’s wife might work at a bureau of the CIA;

On or about July 7, 2003, LIBBY advised the White House Press Secretary that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA;
....

On or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY advised reporter Judith Miller of his belief that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA; and

On or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY had a discussion with the Counsel to the Office of the Vice President concerning the paperwork that would exist if a person who was sent on an overseas trip by the CIA had a spouse who worked at the CIA;

Now, this is Libby on his conversation with Russert....

. . . . And then he said, you know, did you know that this – excuse me, did you know that Ambassador Wilson's wife works at the CIA? And I was a little taken aback by that. I remember being taken aback by it. And I said – he may have said a little more but that was – he said that. And I said, no, I don't know that. And I said, no, I don't know that intentionally because I didn't want him to take anything I was saying as in any way confirming what he said, because at that point in time I did not recall that I had ever known, and I thought this is something that he was telling me that I was first learning. And so I said, no, I don't know that because I want to be very careful not to confirm it for him, so that he didn't take my statement as confirmation for him.

in fact, its 'rather preposterous' that Libby is not lying.

topsecretk9

amphetamines anyone?

p.lukasiak

Yes I know. I was merely trying to point out that PUKE (aka p.Luk) and Jon H were basing their pontifications and declarations on nothing more than conjecture...

Top, you are right, I should have made it clear that in this case (as in the hypothetical cited by Rick) perjury is not that complicated. In a case where a witness is being deliberately evasive (e.g. a witness who says something along the lines of "that depends on what the definition of 'is' is") proving perjury is much more difficult.

JAZ

Do you guys remember September 12, 2001,when there were celebrations in the streets of Jordan over the heroes of Al Queda who had blown up the American infidels and the Jews. That was after eight years of Clintonian/Wilsonian containment/starvation policy "based on now 'false, fraudulent and lying' WMD intelligence.

Today, now that "demons" like Cheney and Libby had the guts to get rid of a dictator, stop the starvation of "oil-for-food" and live with decision of actually having American soldiers lay down their lives with other Arabs in defense of their rights of self-determination and our long-term national security, the Jordanians did not celebrate the bombing of American interests today. Instead they were on the street condemning the same terrorists they thought were heroes just four years ago.

In France, on the other hand, the French are still waiting for Chirac to come out of his hole and condemn the terrorism.

Libby was involved in promoting and defending a foreign policy that is finally and honestly attempting to change the face of the middle east.

The bottom line is Libby should be pardoned...his actions will, if convicted, result in his losing his right to vote, but it will have been to secure the right of 24 mil arabs to vote...

Does anyone know where we can contribute to Libby's defense fund.

topsecretk9

AH Puke...now we see what you ( and your ilk do)----side step a direct question

"cite your source"

and just sort of glob on the "cons" post.

Clever, but coward. And indicative.

topsecretk9

Jaz

Well noted, by me--

f Jordan over the heroes of Al Queda who had blown up the American infidels and the Jews.

Now that the lefties have adopted this policy (particularly their anti-Semitism) they have effectively pitted themselves against other countries that will take a no tolerance policy towards terror!

Jordan's actions will illustrate-- the luxury experienced at GITMO. I am pretty sure they won't give a fuck.

p.lukasiak

AH Puke...now we see what you ( and your ilk do)----side step a direct question

I wasn't side-stepping anything. I made a categorical statement that I shouldn't have, and I admitted it.

Rick Ballard

PL,

You need to run the logic of what you just posted through a functioning cerebral unit. Drop the journos and reflect upon whether Libby would rely on some sort of omerta on the part of WH personnel and a CIA briefer.

I'm leaning toward the idea that this indictment might be a rerun of the prosecutorial trick of rolling upward. If so, I think Fitz stubbed his toe. This isn't a cheap Illinois poll selling drivers licenses for campaign contributions.

Jon H

" If so, I think Fitz stubbed his toe. This isn't a cheap Illinois poll selling drivers licenses for campaign contributions."

How about like prosecuting the Al Qaeda bombings of the embassys in Africa?

topsecretk9

Pluk
WHERE? if you did good for you, but I can not see that in the comments at all. Would you point to the comment where you admitted it?

topsecretk9

Help me? I have no idea where Jon H. was going with his 10:48 post.

topsecretk9

oh, that was me, i meant 10:36.

JM Hanes

pluka-
"I made a categorical statement that I shouldn't have, and I admitted it."

Well, that's a start anyway.

"Will Libby be found guilty of the charges? That remains to be seen, but so far I haven't seen anything that convinces me that, absent the exclusion of key evidence found in the indictment, that Libby stands an ice-cubes chance in hell of being acquitted."

Maybe that's because, unless you're Ronnie Earle, prosecutors don't put exculpatory evidence in their indictments. You don't even have to be the smartest guy in the room to figure that one out. I hate to tell you this, but the prosecutor doesn't get to hide much up his sleeves, and the indictment is about as good as his case will ever get. It better be convincing; there's no room for ambiguity, either legally or tactically, and once issued, it's also the only case he gets to make -- unless the defendent's atty's are incompetent. If you relied solely on indictments, you'd get a conviction every time.

The larger part of the equation that you just don't seem to get is what we call a trial, where the prosecutor's case will ultimately depend on how his witnesses, not his assertions, stand up to cross-examination.

JM Hanes

Barney -

"Incidentally, do any of you regular posters have either real jobs or lives?"

LOL! It's called multitasking.

topsecretk9

JM Hanes...I, like you, welcomed this...but a careful scroll proves this untrue. This is the typical tactic. Admit nothing, explain nothing, just say you did thereby side stepping any responsibility to answer the hard questions.

I would be willing to overlook it, if P.Luk weren't always spouting superior knowledge, unnecessary attacks and invective when it gets too tough.

COLD WATER ALERT:

Parade Raining;

Hunkered down for almost all of October while a grand jury considered his fate, Karl Rove has rebounded as a visible presence at the White House over the last two weeks, according to administration officials and Republican colleagues. He is running meetings and pursuing candidates for the 2006 elections - and, associates say, devising long-term political plans that suggest he does not believe he will face future legal trouble despite the C.I.A. leak investigation in which he has been involved.

topsecretk9

DAMN:

A senior administration official said Mr. Rove was back "in a good mood," sending off rapid-fire e-mail, sticking his head into meetings uninvited and acting in a familiar, mischievous manner.

"He's Karl," the official said.

MJW

P.Luk: You seem to be forgetting that Libby also lays out information concerning what Libby did after he was told -- but before he says he heard it from Russert.

I assume by the first "Libby," you mean to say "Libby's indictment." However, if you actually mean Libby, you're probably correct: If Libby had denied the various discussions you enumerate, don't you suppose he would have been indicted on that very direct false statement instead of the roundabout accusation of lying his reaction to what Russert told him?

Given that Libby evidently didn't deny his previous official sources of information about Plame, and given that he emphasized that "I didn't want him to take anything I was saying as in any way confirming what he said," isn't possible Libby was attempting to convey his thought process in not revealing the officially obtained information to Russert?

As I've pointed out before, the "inconguous reaction" accusation is somewhat puzzling, since Fitzgerald claims Russert never revealed Plame's employment. So, one element of the charge is that Libby lied about his response to something that never occured.

Also, wouldn't you, P.Luk, be a little taken aback if Russert admitted he had revealed to Libby that Plame worked for the CIA? Does that mean you didn't previously know Plame's employer?

kim

I said a week or so ago that if Libby pleads he is Horatio at the Bridge. If he fights he's in the vanguard. The hard rain appears to be falling on the MSM, and Joe is running for his rubbers and mackie.

That's my cite. Or incite.
==============================================

p.lukasiak

If Libby had denied the various discussions you enumerate, don't you suppose he would have been indicted on that very direct false statement instead of the roundabout accusation of lying his reaction to what Russert told him?

From the indictment:

defendant herein, having taken an oath to testify truthfully in a proceeding before a grand jury of the United States, knowingly made a false material declaration, in that he gave the following testimony regarding a conversation that he represented he had with Tim Russert of NBC News, on or about July 10, 2003 (underlined portions alleged as false):

the "portions alleged as false" include the part of the text I presented in my previous post.

And on the very next page, you will see

3. In truth and fact, as LIBBY well knew when he gave this testimony, it was false in that:...

a. Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and

b. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA;

so, it appears to me that Libby is being indicted on "that very direct false statement".

TP

p.luk,

Libby was found not guilty yesterday. : ^ )

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame