Posted on 10/21/2005 7:13:40 AM PDT by procomone
...wanna ask Dan Rather?
Doogle
I don't understand Newsmax sometimes.
They read articles, and then write an article telling you what they just read.
High quality journalism. At least it's free.
There are no charges on leaking, but there may be charges on obstruction.
...psssssst, I started a rumor...see post #43...psssst
*grins*
Doogle
Liberals always accuse conservatives of uncritically lapping up info from conservative sources, but I'd say the percentage of people in FR who respect Newsmax is about 10% or less.
Tatze wrote:
Yeah, I cant reconcile these two developments, supposedly both from the NY Slimes.
Drudge still has the following headline:
NYT: Rove and Libby have been advised that they may be in serious legal jeopardy...
While Newsmax has this headline:
NY Times: Karl Rove, Lewis Libby Likely Cleared on Leakgate Charges
WHICH IS IT?
**endquote**
NYT's headline says they have been advised that they *may* be in serious legal trouble. If that advice came from the SP, it means the target letter, and that's not good. If the advice came from their own attorneys, so what? That would be SOP to say that to anyone testifying to a GJ, especially if conflicting testimony was an issue.
Isn't the question not being answered is, did they or did they not receive a target letter? Why doesn't the article come out and say what the answer was to that question, or say that they refused to answer that question?
This is a story without news, just more inuendo.
Newsmax just re-hashes it to point out that the "outing" part of the investigation is as dead as a Star Trek extra.
The administration was merely defending itself from false statements circulating in the media about Wilson's trip, the nature of his findings, and Cheney's role in the process. It was inevitable that Plame's role would come out, and it was negligent for the CIA to have chosen Wilson for the trip knowing that Plame's identity would be compromised even more than it already was. It is ludicrous to see a crime in this. Compared to the Clinton administration's efforts to interfere with and onstruct Starr's investigation, this is nothing.
Deciding not to charge is not clearing someone. Fitzgerald probably just believes given the high burden the law has that proving it beyond a reasonable doubt is not likely. It does sound like he may be charging Libby or Rove on any number of other fellony charges. We will know next week.
On local lib talk radio this morning the conversation is "Can Bush be executed for war crimes?" They already are planning the war crimes trials and yesterday were debating whether Bush and company should be tried in the US (unlikely because he would be protected by his own), or would the Libs have to go to the world Court. Then I go over to Rush and all is wine and roses for the Repubs? This is not going to end until Bush is out of office and it is so sickening I am going to turn all radio off.
Witnesses are free to talk about their testimony, but the prosecutor's office is not, and there is an appearance that the prosecutor's office is now leaking like a sieve. There should be an investigation of the prosecutor's office to see if there were any illegal leaks. It sure looks that way.
Troll?
Well that seems a stretch but if you lie to an FBI agent, or lie in front of the grand jury, or attempt to get someone else to lie or shade their testimony, you have committed a felony. Also if the information you provided to reporters was classified information then you could be guilty of another crime although not necessarily the statute that started the whole case.
Like a Whitewater prosecutor investigating blue dresses? When you have these prosecutors, it's understood they can have a broad scope.
Quick! Who did YOU talk with on June 23, 2003? Explain your very move, thought, word, and meeting that day and remember that if you make a mistake we will fry your butt for 'perjury'........
From what I have heard, Barrett's report cites Clinton IRS abuses and a case of tax fraud by Cisneros that the DoJ under Reno had snuffed out. Kerry and crew tried to cut Barrett's funding to end the probe by attaching an amendment to a spending bill, which would have prevented Barrett from releasing his findings,
but fortunately it was defeated. The lawyers for Clinton and Cisneros, Williams & Connolly, are trying to get those parts of the report redacted for Hillary's '08 run. They have filed more than 190 motions and appeals, one of which alone took 18 months to deal with. On October 7, yet another secret delay order was granted by the court. The report is said to be a real eye-opener that Hillary doesn't want to see the light of day.
Rove and Libby won't be indicted. Netiher will anyone else from the Bush administration. For one thing, does anyone really believe for a minute that a liberal Times reporter would go to jail for months to protect a Republican? And the most hated Republican at that? Come on! 8) No frikken' way. And now she's said she doesn't remember where she heard it from. Right. So she went to jail for months to protect a source, whose name she can't even remember. WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!!! I wouldn't be a bit surprised if it's a liberal member of the media or some democrat she's covering up. The whole thing is such a joke, especially since it's still called the "CIA leak" case, since there was NO CIA leak. The broad wasn't covert for over five years before the leak supposedly took place, and the law protecting covert operatives covers three years AT MOST! NO LEAK! Anyone who knew wilson, knew that his wife was valerie plame and knew that she worked at the CIA. It was common knowledge to those who were just familar with either of them. Even more suspicious is the fact that all the media contacts with Rove and Libby were with the media calling THEM, NOT THEM calling the media. ALL Republicans should black ball the ny times from this day forward, simply stating, "Sorry, I can't talk to you about anything political or professional. Everytime my colleagues talk to your paper, we're threatened with indictments down the road. Put the slimes out of business once and for all.
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.