Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Verdict in Libby Trial in....reading at noon. (Guilty On 4 of 5 Charges)
MSNBC

Posted on 03/06/2007 8:34:59 AM PST by Dog

Breaking on MSNBC


TOPICS: Breaking News
KEYWORDS: armitage; beltwayjustice; bushpardon; callwhitehouse; cialeak; contemptiblecourts; cooper; corn; doublestandard; elctnshaveconsqncs; fitzfong; fitzgerald; fitzmas; getbush; injustice; libby; lyingliars; miller; mitchell; movie; muckthefedia; nationalinsecurity; neomccarthyism; nojusticeforlibby; nomorenewtone; novak; ojjuryparttwo; pardon; pardonscooter; partisanwitchhunt; pincus; plame; plamegate; playingwithfire; pokingthebear; powell; puckflame; reporter; russert; scooterlibby; sharonstone; showtrial; slimeyjoe; stalinistmedia; trolls; tyranny; vengeance2008; washingtonpost; watchoutfortrolls; whataboutmarcrich; whynotberger; wilson; witchhunt; woodward; wuckfilson; zogbyism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,151-1,2001,201-1,2501,251-1,3001,301-1,342 last
To: Della Street
For the sake of accuracy - he didn't initially tell the FBI he learned it from Cheney. He told them that after the note surfaced. Then he changed his story to the VP told me, but I forgot and when I talked to Russert more than a month later I was surprised. The part he left out of that is talking with the two CIA guys, Grossman, Martin, Fleischer, Miller, Addington etc.

I still maintain that if he had followed what Rove did and gradually came clean as more facts came out, he wouldn't have been prosecuted. But he stuck with a story that frankly isn't that credible. There isn't a poster on this board that would believe that story from a Democratic senior White House official.

1,301 posted on 03/06/2007 7:21:21 PM PST by lugsoul (Livin' in fear is just another way of dying before your time. - Mike Cooley)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1280 | View Replies]

To: oceanview

That is a remarkable stretch of the truth. Mitchell's 'mispeak' was reporters knew - she did not say that Wilson told HER.


1,302 posted on 03/06/2007 7:23:34 PM PST by lugsoul (Livin' in fear is just another way of dying before your time. - Mike Cooley)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1293 | View Replies]

To: Liberty Valance


Who needs dialog when you've got a sympathetic photo?
1,303 posted on 03/06/2007 7:26:21 PM PST by Liberty Valance (theconservativecandidate@still2early.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1289 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul

Um, he brought the note with him to his first FBI interview and told them within the first 15 minutes of his first meeting about it.


1,304 posted on 03/06/2007 7:28:15 PM PST by Della Street
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1301 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul

well, who told her? before any of this story about Niger broke and Armitage "chatted" up her name, who would even care to mention it - other then her husband.


1,305 posted on 03/06/2007 7:39:11 PM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1302 | View Replies]

To: bjs1779

just because someone works at the WaPo doesn't necessarily mean they're liberal (tho it is more likely than not)... some of the most biting anti-Clinton jokes I get come from an old college buddy who works at the NYT .. go figure.

I haven't followed the Libby case as closely as many, but the whole thing makes me sick ... and to think the US has the best judicial system in the world .... if that's the case, I don't want to imagine what the others are like.


1,306 posted on 03/06/2007 8:05:21 PM PST by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1288 | View Replies]

To: Dog

Best of the Web Today - March 6, 2007
By JAMES TARANTO


The Libby Travesty
We won't gainsay the jury's verdict in the Scooter Libby trial--"guilty" on four of five counts on perjury and obstruction of justice in the investigation of the Valerie Plame kerfuffle. Life is too short to immerse oneself in the tedious details of the case. (If you're interested in Libby minutiae, we recommend Tom Maguire.) But it remains a travesty that Libby was ever prosecuted to begin with.

This was a political show trial, and partisans of Joe Wilson will use the guilty verdict to declare vindication. But along the way we learned that virtually all the claims Wilson and his supporters made were false:

On his trip to Niger, Wilson found no evidence that contradicted the famous "16 words" in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address, contrary to his New York Times op-ed claim.


Plame, his wife, who worked for the CIA, did recommend him for the Niger junket, contrary to Wilson's denials.


Plame was not a covert agent under the definition of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, contrary to Wilson's insinuations, which many of his backers, including in the press, presented as fact.


No one from the White House "leaked" Plame's identity as a CIA functionary to Robert Novak, who received the information from Richard Armitage at the State Department.
Libby stands convicted of lying in the course of Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation of the Valerie Plame kerfuffle--but that investigation was undertaken on the basis of a tissue of lies. When Fitzgerald began the case, in 2003, no one had committed any crime in connection with the kerfuffle, and that was fairly easy to ascertain, given that Plame was not a covert agent and Armitage had already owned up to the so-called leak. Fitzgerald looks like an overzealous prosecutor, one who was more interested in getting a scalp than in getting to the truth of the matter.

Of course, Libby could have avoided indictment and conviction if he had simply said "I don't remember" a lot more during the course of the investigation. Therein lies a lesson for witnesses in future such investigations--which may make it harder for prosecutors to do their jobs when pursuing actual crimes.




we recommend Tom Maguire

March 06, 2007
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2007/03/from_the_jurors.html

From The Juror's Mouth...
Denis Collins, former journalist and an author of a book on the history of spying: "The primary thing which convinced us on most of the accounts was the conversation... the alleged conversation... with Tim Russert...," he said.

TIME tells it a bit more usefully:

During the investigation into the leak of Plame's identity, Libby told the grand jury he heard about Plame being a CIA officer from NBC's Tim Russert. Libby testified that he recalled being "surprised" at the news during his conversation with Russert. The jury, looking at their compilation of facts posted on the wall, were convinced Libby already knew about Plame at that point. Denis Collins, 57, a novelist and former journalist who served on the jury, said this discrepancy persuaded them that Libby had perjured himself.

Well. As to the Russert conversation, possible doubt-inducing explanations include the following:

1. Libby was sincere but mistaken, and had the breakthrough phone call with another reporter, possibly Bob Novak on the 9th.

2. Russert was sincere but mistaken - the gist of his story was that he could not remember the Libby call on the 10th or 11th, but since he remembers learning about Plame in the Novak column (published on the 14th) he could not have mentioned her to Libby.

Fine, but... the Novak column hit the news wires on the morning of the 11th. Since Russert's story is undated, maybe an NBC producer slipped him an embargoed copy of the column for his perusal on the 11th. Impossible? Worth checking? How come no one has?

3. Russert is, hmm, misremembering in order to conceal sources. David Gregory received a leak on the morning of the 11th, according to the memory-challenged Ari Fleischer. Or perhaps Andrea Mitchell had received a Plame leak from a source whom she and Russert would prefer to protect.

All that said, if the jury focused on Libby's surprise rather than the fact of the conversation, believing Russert is not an issue. Since that was essentially my prediction, I can't get as exercised as I would like. My earlier guess:

As to the rest, the jury could (and IMHO, ought to) have reasonable doubt as to whether Libby sincerely believes (or actually) did hear about Ms. Plame from Tim Russert. However, they might not also believe that the Plame news surprised him - in other words, they might reject the "I Forgot" part of Libby's story. That would result in convictions on counts 1, 2, and 4, depending on how the jury interprets any "materiality" qualifications in the jury instructions.

I still want to hear from David Gregory, just for starters. Eventually, someone ought to grill some NBC producers and see whether they might have had access to the Novak column on the 11th, either directly or from a contact in the news biz. Had Fitzgerald been running a serious leak investigation (or even a serious perjury investigation) he would have done this himself just to pin down a loose end and maybe avoid a serious mistake. Oh, but then he couldn't have indicted Libby as a way-station on the road to Dick Cheney - my bad.

Or, if NBC News had investigative journalists and an interest in the truth, they would examine this themselves. Never happen. Clearly, protecting Tim "The Franchise" Russert trumps other considerations.

Posted by Tom Maguire on March 06, 2007 | Permalink


1,307 posted on 03/06/2007 8:19:50 PM PST by Valin (History takes time. It is not an instant thing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog

I'm so absolutely disgusted by the travesty of justice done today. If something like this could happen, I could never advise any young person to consider going into politics. It's just too dangerous. In fact, I couldn't even advise going into traditionally neutral disciplines like science, which are being distorted by the falsehoods of global warming. What is happening to this country???


1,308 posted on 03/06/2007 8:23:29 PM PST by jddqr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
I don't recall a single proffer of a witness to show that anyone other than SAOs told reporters about Plame's wife.

I haven't been as immersed in the trial's details as some here, but I do recall quite a bit of argument over the defense's request to call Andrea Mitchell as a witness, since she stated on television that Plame's CIA employment was "widely known" in the press corps. I believe the judge in the end did not allow it. Just as he didn't allow any discussion of what Plame's actual status was.

1,309 posted on 03/06/2007 8:35:49 PM PST by PhatHead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1260 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
And if it were proven that Joe Wilson told a bunch of reporters about Plame, then that would help bolster Libby's testimony that this is where he learned it.

Would it really, if those reporters weren't named Cooper or Russert? Would the judge have even allowed the testimony that some other reporters knew, if there was no evidence that they told Russert or Cooper?

IF Wilson telling reporters about his wife was helpful to the defense, and IF it happened, they'd know about it. I don't recall a single proffer of a witness to show that anyone other than SAOs told reporters about Plame's wife. If they all knew about her, why is this?

On May 26, 2006, Libby's defense team told the judge that they had located "five witnesses who will say under oath that Mr. [Joseph] Wilson told them his wife worked for the CIA." Do you suppose that the defense team was then acting in bad faith? And why do you suppose that Joe Wilson didn't come out and flatly deny he told others that his wife worked for the CIA at that time? Perhaps because he had done so?
1,310 posted on 03/06/2007 11:43:13 PM PST by conservative in nyc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1260 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul

Russert on 3 of the 5 counts. Russert had a secret conversation with a now retired FBI agent whose notes are lost. Russert then withheld this conversation from the subpoena. There's solid reason to question whether his testimony should be impeached.

Clearly you are convinced that he's guilty. I am not persuaded.

Not because he's conservative-- if I were persuaded that he did it, I would want him punished for his crime for the reason that I don't believe in a double standard when it comes to the rule of law. And the rule of law mandates that if Russert and Mitchell were making accusations about Libby to the FBI, then Libby has a right to confront them in trial.

Moreover, there is so much evidence that there was greater incentive for the reporters to lie than for Libby. It's reasonable to question it. It doesn't mean necessarily that they did lie, but it warrants closer and more vigorous scrutiny.

BTW Libby's friends assisting him include liberal editor of the New Republic, Marty Peretz.

You and I disagree. We just different sources and have different understandings of the case.


1,311 posted on 03/07/2007 4:22:04 AM PST by saveliberty (Liberalism (called Middle of the Road by MSM) = You are free to do as you are told.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1261 | View Replies]

To: conservative in nyc
On May 26, 2006, Libby's defense team told the judge that they had located "five witnesses who will say under oath that Mr. [Joseph] Wilson told them his wife worked for the CIA." Do you suppose that the defense team was then acting in bad faith? And why do you suppose that Joe Wilson didn't come out and flatly deny he told others that his wife worked for the CIA at that time? Perhaps because he had done so?

And yet they didn't proffer any of those witnesses, even to have the judge deny them. Who are they? Where are they? Does the representation by a lawyer convince you of the fact of what was stated, when they have completely failed to offer such evidence?

1,312 posted on 03/07/2007 4:22:54 AM PST by lugsoul (Livin' in fear is just another way of dying before your time. - Mike Cooley)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1310 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

Good reads this morning from Tom Maguire of Just One Minute

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2007/03/media_matters_c.html

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2007/03/howard_kurtz_co.html


1,313 posted on 03/07/2007 4:29:34 AM PST by saveliberty (Liberalism (called Middle of the Road by MSM) = You are free to do as you are told.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1311 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

Clarice Feldman who has been following this case closely writes a very good column today

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/03/i_call_for_justice.html


1,314 posted on 03/07/2007 4:40:52 AM PST by saveliberty (Liberalism (called Middle of the Road by MSM) = You are free to do as you are told.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1313 | View Replies]

To: Della Street

That's exactly the opposite of what Rush said yesterday. Care to post portions of the commentary?


1,315 posted on 03/07/2007 7:20:53 AM PST by LS (CNN is the Amtrak of News)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1300 | View Replies]

To: saveliberty

Thank you for all the links, save; I'm trying to catch up here; at least it sounds like SOME people feel and think like we do, huh?


1,316 posted on 03/07/2007 7:28:09 AM PST by Howlin (Honk if you like Fred Thompson!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1314 | View Replies]

To: saveliberty
I agree that Libby should be able to confront his accuser. Why wasn't the FBI agent subpoenaed? Even if retired he would have to show up in court then.
1,317 posted on 03/07/2007 7:31:59 AM PST by McGavin999 ("Hard is not Hopeless" General Petraeus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1311 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

If Clarice Feldman and Tom Maguire are suppposed to be bad company, I am in :-)


1,318 posted on 03/07/2007 7:37:13 AM PST by saveliberty (Liberalism (called Middle of the Road by MSM) = You are free to do as you are told.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1316 | View Replies]

To: McGavin999

Agent Bond was sent in his place. I think it depends on how the subpoena was issued.

She did what she could with the information she had, but was unsatisfactory.


1,319 posted on 03/07/2007 7:40:45 AM PST by saveliberty (Liberalism (called Middle of the Road by MSM) = You are free to do as you are told.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1317 | View Replies]

To: LS
If Rush said that he is wrong. Libby wanted McClellan to publicly clear himself like he did Rove and Cheney defended Libby:

Cheney's handwritten scribbles were introduced into evidence at the trial, including one that hinted Cheney believed his own staffer, Libby, was being sacrificed.

"Not going to protect one staffer + sacrifice the guy who was asked to stick his neck in the meat-grinder because of the incompetence of others," the note read.

Cheney has consistantly supported Libby throughout and to this day without equivocation.

(the incompetence of others refers to the CIA)

1,320 posted on 03/07/2007 7:44:19 AM PST by Della Street
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1315 | View Replies]

To: saveliberty

I understand that, but the man who claims Libby lied to him is not there. Without that, how can anyone prove he "lied"


1,321 posted on 03/07/2007 7:45:19 AM PST by McGavin999 ("Hard is not Hopeless" General Petraeus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1319 | View Replies]

To: Della Street

Ok, well that is directly contradictory to my recollections of the headlines the day after the lawyer's opening statement. That's what we're talking about---the lawyer (Wills? Wells?) abandoned that line AFTER his opening statement, but he had, I thought, already introduced that notion into the trial. Do you have the opening statement or a link?


1,322 posted on 03/07/2007 7:55:50 AM PST by LS (CNN is the Amtrak of News)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1320 | View Replies]

To: Dave S
Are you too stupid or too lazy to get them yourself?

LOL This is the typical response of a person who claims to have facts, but when asked for proof, knows he can't produce it.

Nuff said.

1,323 posted on 03/07/2007 8:23:49 AM PST by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1287 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
The conversations proven at trial were in June and July. He talked to the FBI in October, he testified to the GJ in March.

Got links for this timeline?

1,324 posted on 03/07/2007 8:24:27 AM PST by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1247 | View Replies]

To: McGavin999

On those counts, that's correct.


1,325 posted on 03/07/2007 8:25:34 AM PST by saveliberty (Liberalism (called Middle of the Road by MSM) = You are free to do as you are told.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1321 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf


1,326 posted on 03/07/2007 8:36:14 AM PST by lugsoul (Livin' in fear is just another way of dying before your time. - Mike Cooley)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1324 | View Replies]

To: LS

Wells' opening said that Libby felt like a fall guy for the WH because Rove had been cleared but they balked at clearing Libby when he asked McClellan and Card so he (Libby) went to Cheney. It's all consistant and not contradictory.

Incidentally, it does not mean the WH was making Libby a fall guy, but that he felt that way at that time due to what I outlined above. Cheney defended Libby and wrote that note and McClellan then did make the requested statement.


1,327 posted on 03/07/2007 8:50:16 AM PST by Della Street
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1322 | View Replies]

To: Della Street

"Felt like a fall guy." See, these kinds of mini-distinctions are absolutely lost on jurors, who hear, "The White House did it." You have confirmed my view that it was not a good defense.


1,328 posted on 03/07/2007 10:00:57 AM PST by LS (CNN is the Amtrak of News)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1327 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
This is the typical response of a person who claims to have facts, but when asked for proof, knows he can't produce it.

Bullshit, it's the response of someone that knows he's dealing with a closed mind individual who wouldnt believe his mother if she didnt toe the conservative line. So why bother hunting for a link when you are just going to say well that is what some MSM person says or that is what Fitz says that Cheney said. Blah. Blah.

1,329 posted on 03/07/2007 10:09:41 AM PST by Dave S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1323 | View Replies]

To: McGavin999
Why wasn't the FBI agent subpoenaed?

And why wasnt Cheney for that matter or why didnt Libby testify after falsely telling the judge and the jury that he would. The judge only allowed certain evidence in because Libby's lawyer said Libby was going to testify. He was visably pissed when Libby did not testify after making the assertion that he would. The jury was also disappointed because Libbys DEM lawyer implied he would testify in the opening statement.

1,330 posted on 03/07/2007 10:14:39 AM PST by Dave S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1317 | View Replies]

To: LS

My point was to correct the "Cheney threw him overboard" claim.


1,331 posted on 03/07/2007 10:18:31 AM PST by Della Street
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1328 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
And yet they didn't proffer any of those witnesses, even to have the judge deny them. Who are they? Where are they? Does the representation by a lawyer convince you of the fact of what was stated, when they have completely failed to offer such evidence?

Former General Paul Valleley would likely be one. I have not been watching this case all that closely and have no clue about the rest. I have no idea if the judge denied the witnesses because they had no ties to Russert. And, yes, a representation by a lawyer in open court is good enough for me.

If you think Joe Wilson is a doe-eyed innocent who told nobody that his wife worked for the CIA, I've got a bridge to sell you. When directly asked that question, he's never issued a simple denial. What would you infer from that?
1,332 posted on 03/07/2007 11:05:43 AM PST by conservative in nyc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1312 | View Replies]

To: conservative in nyc
Yep. I've heard Vallely talk about that. Though it is odd that no one seems to be able to put them in a green room together before all this happened. Vallely says Wilson outed his wife in Spring '02. Trouble is, no one can find a TV appearance by Wilson in that time frame, much less one concurrent with Vallely.

But that probably wouldn't matter to someone who simply believes whatever a lawyer says. Wells said they are five, so there must be five -whether five people ever make such a claim or not - right?

1,333 posted on 03/07/2007 11:15:47 AM PST by lugsoul (Livin' in fear is just another way of dying before your time. - Mike Cooley)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1332 | View Replies]

To: Dave S

Why would Cheney be? He had nothing to do with accusing Libby of lying. It was said he lied to the FBI, but the agent who took the testimony wasn't there nor were his notes. So, what happened to face your accusers?


1,334 posted on 03/07/2007 11:29:34 AM PST by McGavin999 ("Hard is not Hopeless" General Petraeus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1330 | View Replies]

To: Dave S
why didnt Libby testify after falsely telling the judge and the jury that he would.

Libby TOLD the judge he would testify? Are you sure of that? Do you perhaps mean that his LAWYER told the judge that?

Let's see, perhaps I can follow your thinking here. Libby is guilty because Cheney didn't testify. What was Cheney supposed to testify about? He wasn't at the interview with the FBI agent, nor was he in the grand jury room, so Cheney had nothing to do with Libby being in court.

Now you also think Libby "falsely" told the judge he would testify. Now if only it wasn't for that pesky little constitutional thingy then maybe you guys could have FORCED him to testify.

1,335 posted on 03/07/2007 11:34:04 AM PST by McGavin999 ("Hard is not Hopeless" General Petraeus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1330 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
I've heard Vallely talk about that. Though it is odd that no one seems to be able to put them in a green room together before all this happened.

Define "before all this happened". Contrary to your claim, Wilson and Vallely were on the same Fox show on September 9, 2002. Even if that's not in the Spring 2002, it is well before Wilson's op-ed hit piece and "all this happened".

But that probably wouldn't matter to someone who simply believes whatever a lawyer says. Wells said they are five, so there must be five -whether five people ever make such a claim or not - right?

Point me to a statement where Joe Wilson specifically denied that he's told others that his wife worked with the CIA. Every time I've seen that this issue has come up, he has changed the subject, claiming the trial was not about him. Until then, there is no reason to believe that Wells was lying when he made a statement in open court. You're essentially accusing an officer of the court of acting in bad faith and lying to a judge without any evidence that he did so. And perhaps the witnesses weren't "proffered" because Fitzgerald objected to these witnesses being called , and the judge was sympathetic to those claims.
1,336 posted on 03/07/2007 12:11:05 PM PST by conservative in nyc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1333 | View Replies]

To: McGavin999
Libby TOLD the judge he would testify? Are you sure of that? Do you perhaps mean that his LAWYER told the judge that?

Who does the lawyer represent? The defendent. When the defendent sits mute while his lawyer says he will testify that, that could be characterized as fraud.

Let's see, perhaps I can follow your thinking here. Libby is guilty because Cheney didn't testify. What was Cheney supposed to testify about? He wasn't at the interview with the FBI agent, nor was he in the grand jury room, so Cheney had nothing to do with Libby being in court.

No Libby is guilty because Cheney didnt testify that he didnt tell Libby about Plame, but then he did and he told the investigators that. No, I think its pretty clear why Cheney didnt testify, he would have assured Libby of a guilty verdict.

1,337 posted on 03/07/2007 12:37:47 PM PST by Dave S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1335 | View Replies]

To: Dave S

Ah, I see, your little crystal ball tells you all this stuff. Do you have a 900 number?


1,338 posted on 03/07/2007 3:41:10 PM PST by McGavin999 ("Hard is not Hopeless" General Petraeus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1337 | View Replies]

To: Dave S
No Libby is guilty because Cheney didnt testify that he didnt tell Libby about Plame, but then he did and he told the investigators that.

I see, so if I don't testify in court about something Libby is guilty again? Funny, I didn't realize that Libby would be guilty each time someone didn't testify in court.

1,339 posted on 03/07/2007 3:43:04 PM PST by McGavin999 ("Hard is not Hopeless" General Petraeus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1337 | View Replies]

To: Dave S

if the defense believes that the prosecution has not made their case, the defense doesn't have to testify


1,340 posted on 03/07/2007 6:30:36 PM PST by machogirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1330 | View Replies]

To: All; holdonnow

FYI,

Say It Ain't So Joe!
(about all that missing uranium and Africa... over years)
http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/03/09/say-it-aint-so-joe-1/


1,341 posted on 03/10/2007 12:25:54 PM PST by AliVeritas (Stop Global Dhimming. Demand testicular fortitude from the hill. Call the crusade.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AliVeritas

Congo is in Africa, afterall.This is gonna drive the libs nuts.
Of course it doesn't mean that Saddam had anything to do with the "vast network aimed at the fraudulent exploitation of DR Congo's uranium".

Nothing, short of a nuclear bomb going off in their back yard matters.


1,342 posted on 03/10/2007 12:57:49 PM PST by griswold3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1341 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,151-1,2001,201-1,2501,251-1,3001,301-1,342 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson