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

To: Courdeleon02; erton1
Libby being on trial has nothing to do with the Plame revelation but is simply about lying to the grand jury about when he found out about Plames's status.He said he found out about her from reporters including moonface Russert. He lied to the grand jury on this one but the whole trial is ridiculous.

Wait clarify this for me. The initial charge is lying to the Grand Jury about Plames status. But Plame had no status that is a violation of the law. So outing her is not a crime and never was a crime

So in essence, doesn't this amount to nothing more than taking free samples from a store and being charged with shop lifting?

27 posted on 01/29/2007 11:06:32 AM PST by Bommer (If people evolved from apes, why are there still apes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]


To: Bommer
Wait clarify this for me. The initial charge is lying to the Grand Jury about Plames status. But Plame had no status that is a violation of the law. So outing her is not a crime and never was a crime

Furthermore, Fitzgerald knew that no crime was committed.

As I recall, Bob Woodward "outed Plame" before Libby did, and Fitzgerald instructed Woodward to keep quit about it so he could continue his "investigation" of a non-crime.

Fitzgerald's goal is to entrap Bush or Cheney official(s). What going on here is prosecutorial malfeasance.

40 posted on 01/29/2007 11:32:29 AM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

To: Bommer; Howlin; Lancey Howard; Fedora; the Real fifi; Laverne; ravingnutter; Torie; All

I think what it might basically boil down to is something like this:

If Fitz asked Libby in front of the GJ, and FBI agents also asked him:

did you eat oatmeal on June 7th?

And, if Fitz had some testimony from his housekeeper and a Libby cohort who spoke to him while he was eating oatmeal that he had it on June 6th, not June 7th, but Libby said he had it on the 7th, Fitzie would charge Libby with lying under oath and 3 or 4 other counts of obstructing justice.


Am I close to the lilliputian prosecutorial character of Fitzie?


43 posted on 01/29/2007 11:36:55 AM PST by STARWISE (They (Rats) think of this WOT as Bush's war, not America's war-RichardMiniter, respected OBL author)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

To: Bommer
The initial charge is lying to the Grand Jury about Plames status. But Plame had no status that is a violation of the law

NO, NO, NO. He is charged with lying to the FBI and the federal grand jury about how and when he found out that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. He said he heard that from Russert so he couldnt have been telling that to reporters. They were telling him that. Unfortunately several people in the CIA, several people at state told him much earlier and Libby used that information reporting it to Cheney and discussing what to do about it in various staff meetings. Then he tried to get Fleischer to leak to press. When questionned about it, he concocted a story that is laughable on its face. He had known for months what he said Russert has just told him. He lied. Whether or not Plame was covert is totally irrelevant.

68 posted on 01/29/2007 1:42:55 PM PST by Dave S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | 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