To: SolidSupplySide
You could not be more hopelessly wrong.
I am more accurate than you will ever be in this case.
I'll agree with Mark Levin.
You keep your lib-like analysis.
23 posted on
02/10/2006 3:50:21 PM PST by
new yorker 77
(FAKE POLLS DO NOT TRANSLATE INTO REAL VOTERS!)
To: new yorker 77
Per NRO, Fitz's letter says Libby testified that he was "authorized to disclose info about the NIE to the press by his superiors."
This is not about Plame.
28 posted on
02/10/2006 3:58:29 PM PST by
roses of sharon
("I would rather men ask why I have no statue, than why I have one". ) (Cato the Elder)
To: new yorker 77
I'll agree with Mark Levin. Given how you've misrepresented the article here, I have no faith that you are fairly representing Mark Levin's views. Charitably assuming that you are, it does not matter. I read the article. Jeffress never said he wouldn't defend Libby by saying that Cheney authorized Libby to rebut Wilson's false claims. Jeffress merely stated that he had not communicated such a defense to the court or prosecutor.
That said, I have no idea what defense Jeffress will employ. I'm sure that he's still gathering information in order to develop his most effective defense.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson