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

To: Labyrinthos
I've about reached the point of arguing with people about what the indictment stands for. Most posters here are convinced that the entire case boils down to reporters' word v. Libby, or some variation on a timeline theme.

Persistently overlooked is Libby's decision to independently inquire of the CIA and obtaining of authoritative knowledge, in adavance of conversations with reporters, and in advance of his statements and testimony.

17 posted on 11/17/2005 5:27:58 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: Cboldt

And if Woodward told Libby before the CIA inquiry?


26 posted on 11/17/2005 5:34:35 AM PST by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

To: Cboldt

That means precisely nothing. The entire indictment accuses Libby of lying to prosecutors about what he told reporters. Libby says he told reporters that he heard about Plame from other reporters. Woodward now qualifies as one of those "other reporters", so Libby's testimony looks to be true.


39 posted on 11/17/2005 5:41:32 AM PST by advance_copy (Stand for life, or nothing at all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

To: Cboldt

Persistently overlooked is Libby's decision to independently inquire of the CIA and obtaining of authoritative knowledge, in adavance of conversations with reporters, and in advance of his statements and testimony.


Almost in tears, the SP implied in his "press conference" Plame was undercover. If all this was true, why couldn't he make the case for the leak?


63 posted on 11/17/2005 6:29:45 AM PST by Linda Sandoval (Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent-the Lord detests them both. Proverbs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

To: Cboldt

Thank you -- you should have put that in bold -- exactly the reason I very seldom post on these threads but just read through them and talk to my computer!


92 posted on 11/17/2005 7:39:40 AM PST by PhiKapMom (AOII MOM -- Istook for OK Governor in 2006!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

To: Cboldt
Persistently overlooked is Libby's decision to independently inquire of the CIA and obtaining of authoritative knowledge, in adavance of conversations with reporters, and in advance of his statements and testimony.

Why is it so important to you that Libby be guilty of something?

On another thread yesterday, if I recall correctly, you identified yourself as a prosecutor. Well, this ordinary non-lawyer American thinks it stinks to high heaven that a prosecutor would begin investigating Charge A, discover that no crime was committed on that allegation, yet continue to play games with a Grand Jury in an attempt to entrap somebody for perjury, making false statements, obstruction of justice, etc.

If you are a wise prosecutor, you will understand the enormous credibility problem such cases create for prosecutors everywhere.

Libby might or might not be guilty of what Fitzgerald charged him with, but he is still entitled to his day in court. And he is still innocent until proven guilty. Or don't you prosecutors believe in that particular Constitutional protection?

99 posted on 11/17/2005 7:57:30 AM PST by Wolfstar (The stakes in the global war on terror are too high for politicians to throw out false charges.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

To: Cboldt; PhiKapMom

yes, but the trial will be about more then just these facts. John DeLorean was on video sitting in front of a pile of cocaine and cash - but he walked anyway. Anything that can demonstrate Fitzgerald's mis-steps in this, his smearing of Libby in the charging document, even for things he was not indicted for, his apparent willingness to let members of the media say anything they wanted in their testimony without fear of investigation for perjury - the whole thing just stinks.


121 posted on 11/17/2005 8:39:43 AM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

To: Cboldt
Ok. I can see that.

But if he knew that, but did not comment until he was told by a reporter...then what's the big deal?

Is it because he said he first heard it from a reporter? Or did he say he didn't talk about it publicly until he heard it from a reporter. If that is the conflict, whew. It's ridiculous.
209 posted on 11/17/2005 11:11:08 AM PST by pollyannaish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

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