Posted on 10/28/2005 1:05:49 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob
I believe that this goes much deeper than Libby, and will in fact expose the CIA to scrutiny unlike they have ever being exposed to. this whole episode reminds me of the movie where the military is trying to take over the U.S.A. policy and sideline the President. Seven Days in May was the movie, and the plot this time revolves around the CIA.
yes; he answered that witnesses can give a press conference on the front steps of the courthouse if they want to; rules apply to prosecutor, staff and GJers.
Hitlary has his file -- this guy is afraid big time.
yeah, he swallowed pretty hard before he got started.
I took my maiden cruise of Democratic Underground, and one of the demo-groundlings was commenting on this thread.
Something like this: "How can they complain about Joe Wilson when they sent him there (presumably, Niger)?"
Are they really that uninformed, that they don't know his wife Val bought his ticket?
(And I feel so . . . dirty. Hug me, slug me, drug me===de-louse me)
Where do i send dollars for the "Scooter Defense Fund?" This could be fun!
I don't think the wishful-thinking media heard what Fitzgerald said. He clearly stated that "the bulk" of the investigation is over. The grand jury has expired. Unless there is some new big development, this thing will be over shortly (Fitzgerald said weeks).
I hate to disagree with you, because I respect your opinions so highly, but Bogie made "The Barefoot Contessa", "Desperate Hours" and "The Harder They Fall" - all major movies - after "Caine Mutiny". Google needs to get a clue!
If there was inconsistency in Libby's testimony, what harm was done? How COULD it hurt Plame, or more broadly, the national security? If Wilson's had wished to protect his wife's cover, he should not have taken part in a political campaign. Given that so many people know what she did, for him so openly to raise the subject was bound to involve his wife.
During the press conference, Fitz answered that questoin at least three different times. He said that he could not determine whether a violation of that statute occured because he needed to know what Libby knew and what his intent was. Libby's lying over about when he knew and what he knew made it impossible for him to answer the central question.
Have a little charity man/women.....perhaps he's a lawyer first and not an actor.......I got the impression that he DID NOT want to be in front of 10,000 cameras.
No, I am being perfectly honest. Since I wasnt looking at him on TV, I had nothing to distract me. I was listening strictly to his voice. He was slurring his words. He sounded drunk.
true, but she would have associates who had nothing to do with her poor taste in husbands, and the dots could be connected to stuff she was invoved in.
I bet Russert, Miller and Cooper are all praying that the indictments get dismissed before they get put on the stand and get subject to cross-examination in a criminal case. Fervently praying.
He has already determined that Libby outted her to two reporters prior to Novak's article. Plame was outted as soon as the info was given to Miller. It didnt have to be published.
Everyone's being too hard on the guy. What's he going to do, call a press conference and tell everyone, "I have good news! Despite the best efforts of myself and my staff, many months of intense, high-level and high-profile investigation has revealed no crime has been committed. Thank you all very much for coming." ;-)
Perjury prosecutions. Never saw one in my entire career. Not to say they don't happen, like getting struck by lightning happens. But most prosecutors realize shading the truth comes with the territory. There is plenty of other work to do. That's what cross-examination is for. Besides, once you go down that perjury road, what are you going to do next time the state's witness is caught in a fib, hmmmm?
I heard the tremble of a true believer in his voice when he was talking about not letting people deliberately get in the way of the fact finding by lying. Yeah, maybe. If Libby flat out got caught in a lie under oath, then I guess he gets what's coming to him. On the other hand, perjury only becomes a crime when the prosecutor is offended. That's not my kind of law.
You sound as if you were in the GJ room? If you were not, then you're making stuff up as you are going along about Libby's testimony. How do you know he didn't fess right up, first time he was asked?
hopefully, they do better than that, and expose the anti-Bush CIA'ers.
Absolutely, he couldn't charge him with a crime of substance so he just continuously implied Libby committed a crime. He definitely has delusions of Grandjur(y)
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.