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

Skip to comments.

What Scooter Libby And I Talked About
TIME Magazine ^ | 10/30/05 | Matt Cooper

Posted on 10/30/2005 4:13:47 AM PST by SE Mom

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-184 next last
To: SE Mom
" The Wilson part that really interested Fitzgerald was tiny, as I told TIME readers. Basically, I asked Libby if he had heard anything about Wilson's wife having been involved in sending him to Niger. Libby responded with words to the effect of, "Yeah, I've heard that too."

This looks like a setup by the MSM and their Democratic cohorts!

141 posted on 10/30/2005 9:00:29 AM PST by Anti-MSM (Conservatives wish 9/11 never happened-liberals pretend it didn't! [www.cafepress.com/therightsite])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: palmer
 
Actually, the Libby indictment makes it pretty clear that Fitzgerald thinks she WAS COVERT prior to this whole episode.

I'm paraphrasing here but Fitz said "while it is clear that Libby knew she worked for the CIA there was no evidence that he knew she was covert."

!

 

142 posted on 10/30/2005 9:04:59 AM PST by HawaiianGecko (Facts are neither debatable nor open to "I have a right to this opinion" nonsense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert56
"I, me, my, I me my. Buried in this narcissistic diatribe is absolutely no new information."

I thought the tuna sandwich was interesting.

143 posted on 10/30/2005 9:12:30 AM PST by norton (This is not about the DIA or the CIA. This is about CYA...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SE Mom

Fitzgerald has refered to Valerie Wilson's position as "classified".

Apparently every position at the CIA is "classified" including janitors etc.

So either Fitzgerald has determined that she was not "covert" (as in the law that makes it illegal to out a covert agent) or he thought he did not have to publicly make that determination in Libby's indictment because he is charged with lying to the Grand Jury, Obstruction of Justice, not outing a covert agent.

But there also laws governing releasing "classified information." Of course, it is done everyday and few people are charged and convicted with releasing classified information.

But it is still unethical for someone with security clearance (Libby) to release classified information to reporters (even if was the name of the classified janitor at the CIA or the former but now washed-up agent Ms. Plame.)

Thus, Libby didn't want to get painted with leaking classified information so he lied and hoped the whole thing would just blow over.

Or Libby thought that Fitzgerald might eventually determine she was a covert agent.


144 posted on 10/30/2005 9:14:02 AM PST by JustDoItAlways
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
He's probably writing a book....why else would he be so clammed up?

That might explain part of it. Of course they are not letting him back on CNN right now either.

145 posted on 10/30/2005 9:15:04 AM PST by pepperhead (Kennedy's float, Mary Jo's don't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: mikegi

Ok--then tell me why he would intentionally lie about that when there was nothing wrong about where he got it?

And in any event in March he went before the gj and testified he had gotten it officially--he didn't name all the times he had, but he did acknowledge he heard in his official capacity..Normally, if you recant earlier testimony, there is no perjury. Again, why would he intentionally lie instead of simply having no independent recollection?


146 posted on 10/30/2005 9:17:02 AM PST by the Real fifi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: SE Mom
Bush NEVER CLAIMED IRAQ sought yellow cake. Bush claimed that the BRITISH have information that IRAQ sought yellow cake from Niger.

I hate the way REPORTERS use shorthand to tell a story that while accurate, isn't TRUE or FACTUAL.

147 posted on 10/30/2005 9:20:33 AM PST by PISANO (We will not tire......We will not falter.......We will NOT FAIL!!! .........GW Bush [Oct 2001])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Archon of the East
I think he wants to give that impression but I doubt she was Covert.

Yes that is what he did. And the term he used during the press conference was that her status was classified.

148 posted on 10/30/2005 9:21:17 AM PST by pepperhead (Kennedy's float, Mary Jo's don't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Jaidyn
I believe Fitzgerald exaggerated during his press conference to enhance his indictment of Libby.

No way, he wouldn't do that.(/sarcasm)

149 posted on 10/30/2005 9:28:56 AM PST by pepperhead (Kennedy's float, Mary Jo's don't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: feedback doctor
Thus the obstruction of Justice charge. /sarcasm

LOL

150 posted on 10/30/2005 9:30:31 AM PST by pepperhead (Kennedy's float, Mary Jo's don't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: SE Mom
Gag order? How else would you poison the jury pool?

Yeah Fitzgerald can't do it all by himself.

151 posted on 10/30/2005 9:33:47 AM PST by pepperhead (Kennedy's float, Mary Jo's don't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

Hey I think Andy McCarthy (former Fed prosecutor & Fitz friend) agrees with me (maybe) on my assessment of the Cooper call (that it boils down to he said/he said) and not some tie in to what Libby knew when.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_10_30_corner-archive.asp#081211

At a minimum, it is not clear, as evidenced by your's, mine and other's varying interpretations. I can honestly say, every time I re-read the indictment, I find it to be less compelling (and much less so they Fitz's press conference where he was insinuating things that were not in the indictment nor charged). The other things I think that work in Libby's favor (as memory problems vs. intentionally lying): 1) he testified without invoking the 5th, 2) he signed a waiver allowing reporters to testify and gave his personal OK if they called asking for it, 3) some of his own notes are used against him (then why not destroy them beforehand).

As you said, it will be interesting to hear Libby's defense...at least we will then have both sides of the story to judge.


152 posted on 10/30/2005 9:35:54 AM PST by frankjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
An investigator should be clear. This one is not.

I think he even said he isn't going to write a report about this. I don't think he wants to clear if she was covert or not. (s)You know because this is serious. A CIA agents, who's status is classified, has been reveled to the press. This is hurting CIA recruitment. This damaged the CIA. This is just awful. And oh yeah, Libby lied.(/s)

153 posted on 10/30/2005 9:46:06 AM PST by pepperhead (Kennedy's float, Mary Jo's don't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: pepperhead

For those keeping score on Mr. Fitzgerald's political targets, the count currently stands at 60-plus Republicans vs. 2 Democrats - not counting Mr. Libby.


154 posted on 10/30/2005 9:46:44 AM PST by inpajamas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

Bush fights back by actions, not words. He fights back by television appearances. He fights back by getting rid of that Scott doofus who holds the daily White House briefing. He doesn't score points by doing his "off the record" bit with the NYTimes and other White House press lowlifes who will use words of their own choosing. And he certainly shouldn't diss the blogosphere.


155 posted on 10/30/2005 10:07:41 AM PST by gaspar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ironman
"Can you state the paragraph in the indictment where he [Fitzgerald] claims this?"

You made my point by having to put [Fitzgerald] in brackets. Where's the quote from Libby himself? In his GJ testimony he is recalling what he "thought". Is Fitzgerald a mind reader? Maybe Libby did really think and say to himself "I've never heard of Valerie Plame" because that what he wanted Russert to believe.

Obviously, Libby isn't going to out and out say "I knew I looked up Plame's employment with the CIA in June when I told investigators that I first learned of Plame in July conversations with reporters." That would be an overt admission of perjury.

No, Fitgerald is not a mind reader, and he will have to make his case in court. But the contention that Libby did really think and say to himself "I've never heard of Valerie Plame" is counterbalanced by the fact that he cared enough, wondered enough, to go to the effort to call the CIA and ask for himself.

He's going to have to sell the amnesia excuse to the jury.

156 posted on 10/30/2005 10:10:13 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

Bush fights back by actions, not words. He fights back by television appearances. He fights back by getting rid of that Scott doofus who holds the daily White House briefing. He doesn't score points by doing his "off the record" bit with the NYTimes and other White House press lowlifes who will use words of their own choosing. And he certainly shouldn't diss the blogosphere. It is an old saying but one that every adminstration forgets: "The Press lives by disclosures." (The London Times, 1851)


157 posted on 10/30/2005 10:11:19 AM PST by gaspar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: cgbg

Having worked in Washington, it seems that every government bureaucrat feels that he can manage the press. Whether Libby had the OK to blab to the press (and one wonders why an aide to the tight-lipped Cheney was given such freedom), he should have known better. Who did he think he was? Colin Powell?


158 posted on 10/30/2005 10:16:28 AM PST by gaspar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
That should have been his first act....determine if the statute covers Valerie Plame. If not, this should have stopped right there. No subpoenas for reporters' notes, no grand jury, etc.

This is the key which is being ignored. If the statute did not cover her, then there could have been no crime to investigate. If there was no crime, there would be no reason for a grand jury.

You could find out if there was a crime committed in about a day by interviewing her superiors at the CIA to find out what her job was.

I'm not like most on this board: if Libby lied to the Grand Jury, he should be indicted. We argued blue-faced that Clinton should have been prosecuted, no matter the underlying reason, for the simple reason that the most humble citizen doesn't get to lie under oath.

Having said that, I think these special prosecuters have a cushy job, with a huge budget and staff, and no boss to report to on a day to day basis, and so they naturally just DO STUFF BECASUE THEY CAN.

If she was not covert, the grand jury was illegitimate.

159 posted on 10/30/2005 10:24:48 AM PST by Taliesan (The power of the State to do good is the power of the State to do evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

ya it sure worked well this time. the press HATES bush period.


160 posted on 10/30/2005 10:35:02 AM PST by fantom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-184 next 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