Courage.
Posted on 03/06/2007 8:34:59 AM PST by Dog
Breaking on MSNBC
the factual error is right there in the referral - she wasn't undercover. once that was established, the case was over.
Howlin, is this juror the same Denis Collins who wrote:
SPYING: The Secret History of History (Hardcover)
by Denis Collins (Author) "It always didn't take a thief..." (more)
But Denis Collins saying "it's all about Niger" when Niger was never a subject of testimony? Oh sure, he heard it in the mens' room between the verdict and his speech on the steps! LOL!
“This verdict brings accountability at last for official deception and the politics of smear and fear,"
Do we really pay this fetid billionaire to lie like this?
They were asked to determine whether a crime had been committed and if so who committed it. The CIA initiated it. Then the Justice Department took their referral and assigned the case to the agents. You dont know that until you investigate. I'm assuming that the agents didnt deal with the covered nature of the position because the referal had come from the CIA who should know that aspect. So they focused on determining who and Libby obstructed their investigation.
but it would have allowed him to retain his rights in the GJ. he could never have gotten immunity for testimony, while an active member of the administration.
"Oh, yes, and conveniently the FBI guy who interviewed Russert is retired and his notes are lost."
And those notes were constructed from an interview of Russert at home, on the weekend, on the phone by someone identifying himself as an FBI investigator.
"the FBI guy who interviewed Russert is retired and his notes are lost."
Yeah, the FBI always loses investigation notes.
those jurors sounded prejudiced to me...they wanted a Bush official, just not libby. Libby will eventually walk away from this fine
Exactly...and Rush is very right when he says that the only thing the "public" will understand from this verdict is what they are told by the MSM..and that is that somehow this verdict means that Pres. Bush LIED to get us into Iraq...
Because that is how the MSM and the Dems have been spinning this since it started..
It is ALL about Iraq...and Iraq is ALL about getting Pres. Bush and Dick Cheney impeached..and getting them impeached is all about 2000....and that is all about Clinton's impeachment.....
Need I go on??
William Jefferson Clinton writing a New York Times editorial defending his pardon of Mark Rich:
"the case for the pardons was reviewed and advocated not only by my former White House counsel Jack Quinn but also by three distinguished Republican attorneys: Leonard Garment, a former Nixon White House official; William Bradford Reynolds, a former high-ranking official in the Reagan Justice Department; and Lewis Libby, now Vice President Cheney's chief of staff;"
1. Obstruction of Justice (by misleading the GJ)
2. False Statement (to FBI re: convo w/ Tim Russert)
3. False Statement (misled FBI re: convo w/ Matt Cooper)
4. Perjury (during GJ testimony re: convo w/ Russert)
5. Perjury (during GJ testimony re: convo w/ Cooper)
I think the whole thing is BS and agree he should be pardoned right away.
It is especially annoying (but not surprising) how the MSM and Congressional Lefties are twisting this and making statements how it is about the war in Iraq and the Bush Administration lying blah, blah. I feel like we are on completely different planets and living in totally different realities. The sad thing is most nincompoops out there will believe what these nasty lying spinmeisters are saying about it!
It's scuttlebutt. It could be accurate, but the only people saying so are those who have simply asserted it (Fitz) but refused adamently to provide evidence thereof. Why? Name a motive for keeping this "fact" secret? She's long ago been "outed" by Novak and Armitage. Who's being protected? Why?
It's all about providing talking points for Hillary's elecetion.
None of that really mattered. Facts didn't matter, defense didn't matter. To the DC jury, Libby was ONLY and THE ONLY proxy for administration - "WHERE WAS ROVE, WHERE WERE THE OTHERS...?"
That's what they really wanted, even if it didn't have anything to do with Libby's trial which they were supposedly there to judge. It was about justifying Fitz's "investigation" for them. They were ONLY disappointed that Libby was that proxy.
Boy, I do get under your skin dont I?
FitzFong makes me want to vomit hard. I hate that fraud with such a passion. He lies through his teeth in his post verdict press conference, saying how CIA agents privacy must be protected and BUT DOES NOT GO AFTER THE LEAKER.
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.