Skip to comments.
Verdict in Libby Trial in....reading at noon. (Guilty On 4 of 5 Charges)
MSNBC
Posted on 03/06/2007 8:34:59 AM PST by Dog
Breaking on MSNBC
TOPICS: Breaking News
KEYWORDS: armitage; beltwayjustice; bushpardon; callwhitehouse; cialeak; contemptiblecourts; cooper; corn; doublestandard; elctnshaveconsqncs; fitzfong; fitzgerald; fitzmas; getbush; injustice; libby; lyingliars; miller; mitchell; movie; muckthefedia; nationalinsecurity; neomccarthyism; nojusticeforlibby; nomorenewtone; novak; ojjuryparttwo; pardon; pardonscooter; partisanwitchhunt; pincus; plame; plamegate; playingwithfire; pokingthebear; powell; puckflame; reporter; russert; scooterlibby; sharonstone; showtrial; slimeyjoe; stalinistmedia; trolls; tyranny; vengeance2008; washingtonpost; watchoutfortrolls; whataboutmarcrich; whynotberger; wilson; witchhunt; woodward; wuckfilson; zogbyism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,281-1,300, 1,301-1,320, 1,321-1,340, 1,341-1,342 next last
To: saveliberty
I understand that, but the man who claims Libby lied to him is not there. Without that, how can anyone prove he "lied"
1,321
posted on
03/07/2007 7:45:19 AM PST
by
McGavin999
("Hard is not Hopeless" General Petraeus)
To: Della Street
Ok, well that is directly contradictory to my recollections of the headlines the day after the lawyer's opening statement. That's what we're talking about---the lawyer (Wills? Wells?) abandoned that line AFTER his opening statement, but he had, I thought, already introduced that notion into the trial. Do you have the opening statement or a link?
1,322
posted on
03/07/2007 7:55:50 AM PST
by
LS
(CNN is the Amtrak of News)
To: Dave S
Are you too stupid or too lazy to get them yourself?LOL This is the typical response of a person who claims to have facts, but when asked for proof, knows he can't produce it.
Nuff said.
1,323
posted on
03/07/2007 8:23:49 AM PST
by
MEGoody
(Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
To: lugsoul
The conversations proven at trial were in June and July. He talked to the FBI in October, he testified to the GJ in March.Got links for this timeline?
1,324
posted on
03/07/2007 8:24:27 AM PST
by
MEGoody
(Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
To: McGavin999
On those counts, that's correct.
1,325
posted on
03/07/2007 8:25:34 AM PST
by
saveliberty
(Liberalism (called Middle of the Road by MSM) = You are free to do as you are told.)
To: MEGoody
www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf
1,326
posted on
03/07/2007 8:36:14 AM PST
by
lugsoul
(Livin' in fear is just another way of dying before your time. - Mike Cooley)
To: LS
Wells' opening said that Libby felt like a fall guy for the WH because Rove had been cleared but they balked at clearing Libby when he asked McClellan and Card so he (Libby) went to Cheney. It's all consistant and not contradictory.
Incidentally, it does not mean the WH was making Libby a fall guy, but that he felt that way at that time due to what I outlined above. Cheney defended Libby and wrote that note and McClellan then did make the requested statement.
To: Della Street
"Felt like a fall guy." See, these kinds of mini-distinctions are absolutely lost on jurors, who hear, "The White House did it." You have confirmed my view that it was not a good defense.
1,328
posted on
03/07/2007 10:00:57 AM PST
by
LS
(CNN is the Amtrak of News)
To: MEGoody
This is the typical response of a person who claims to have facts, but when asked for proof, knows he can't produce it. Bullshit, it's the response of someone that knows he's dealing with a closed mind individual who wouldnt believe his mother if she didnt toe the conservative line. So why bother hunting for a link when you are just going to say well that is what some MSM person says or that is what Fitz says that Cheney said. Blah. Blah.
To: McGavin999
Why wasn't the FBI agent subpoenaed? And why wasnt Cheney for that matter or why didnt Libby testify after falsely telling the judge and the jury that he would. The judge only allowed certain evidence in because Libby's lawyer said Libby was going to testify. He was visably pissed when Libby did not testify after making the assertion that he would. The jury was also disappointed because Libbys DEM lawyer implied he would testify in the opening statement.
To: LS
My point was to correct the "Cheney threw him overboard" claim.
To: lugsoul
And yet they didn't proffer any of those witnesses, even to have the judge deny them. Who are they? Where are they? Does the representation by a lawyer convince you of the fact of what was stated, when they have completely failed to offer such evidence?
Former General Paul Valleley would likely be one. I have not been watching this case all that closely and have no clue about the rest. I have no idea if the judge denied the witnesses because they had no ties to Russert. And, yes, a representation by a lawyer in open court is good enough for me.
If you think Joe Wilson is a doe-eyed innocent who told nobody that his wife worked for the CIA, I've got a bridge to sell you. When directly asked that question, he's never issued a simple denial. What would you infer from that?
To: conservative in nyc
Yep. I've heard Vallely talk about that. Though it is odd that no one seems to be able to put them in a green room together before all this happened. Vallely says Wilson outed his wife in Spring '02. Trouble is, no one can find a TV appearance by Wilson in that time frame, much less one concurrent with Vallely.
But that probably wouldn't matter to someone who simply believes whatever a lawyer says. Wells said they are five, so there must be five -whether five people ever make such a claim or not - right?
1,333
posted on
03/07/2007 11:15:47 AM PST
by
lugsoul
(Livin' in fear is just another way of dying before your time. - Mike Cooley)
To: Dave S
Why would Cheney be? He had nothing to do with accusing Libby of lying. It was said he lied to the FBI, but the agent who took the testimony wasn't there nor were his notes. So, what happened to face your accusers?
1,334
posted on
03/07/2007 11:29:34 AM PST
by
McGavin999
("Hard is not Hopeless" General Petraeus)
To: Dave S
why didnt Libby testify after falsely telling the judge and the jury that he would.Libby TOLD the judge he would testify? Are you sure of that? Do you perhaps mean that his LAWYER told the judge that?
Let's see, perhaps I can follow your thinking here. Libby is guilty because Cheney didn't testify. What was Cheney supposed to testify about? He wasn't at the interview with the FBI agent, nor was he in the grand jury room, so Cheney had nothing to do with Libby being in court.
Now you also think Libby "falsely" told the judge he would testify. Now if only it wasn't for that pesky little constitutional thingy then maybe you guys could have FORCED him to testify.
1,335
posted on
03/07/2007 11:34:04 AM PST
by
McGavin999
("Hard is not Hopeless" General Petraeus)
To: lugsoul
I've heard Vallely talk about that. Though it is odd that no one seems to be able to put them in a green room together before all this happened.
Define "before all this happened". Contrary to your claim,
Wilson and Vallely were on the same Fox show on September 9, 2002. Even if that's not in the Spring 2002, it is well before Wilson's op-ed hit piece and "all this happened".
But that probably wouldn't matter to someone who simply believes whatever a lawyer says. Wells said they are five, so there must be five -whether five people ever make such a claim or not - right?
Point me to a statement where Joe Wilson specifically denied that he's told others that his wife worked with the CIA. Every time I've seen that this issue has come up, he has changed the subject, claiming the trial was not about him. Until then, there is no reason to believe that Wells was lying when he made a statement in open court. You're essentially accusing an officer of the court of acting in bad faith and lying to a judge without any evidence that he did so. And perhaps the witnesses weren't "proffered" because
Fitzgerald objected to these witnesses being called , and the judge was sympathetic to those claims.
To: McGavin999
Libby TOLD the judge he would testify? Are you sure of that? Do you perhaps mean that his LAWYER told the judge that? Who does the lawyer represent? The defendent. When the defendent sits mute while his lawyer says he will testify that, that could be characterized as fraud.
Let's see, perhaps I can follow your thinking here. Libby is guilty because Cheney didn't testify. What was Cheney supposed to testify about? He wasn't at the interview with the FBI agent, nor was he in the grand jury room, so Cheney had nothing to do with Libby being in court.
No Libby is guilty because Cheney didnt testify that he didnt tell Libby about Plame, but then he did and he told the investigators that. No, I think its pretty clear why Cheney didnt testify, he would have assured Libby of a guilty verdict.
To: Dave S
Ah, I see, your little crystal ball tells you all this stuff. Do you have a 900 number?
1,338
posted on
03/07/2007 3:41:10 PM PST
by
McGavin999
("Hard is not Hopeless" General Petraeus)
To: Dave S
No Libby is guilty because Cheney didnt testify that he didnt tell Libby about Plame, but then he did and he told the investigators that.I see, so if I don't testify in court about something Libby is guilty again? Funny, I didn't realize that Libby would be guilty each time someone didn't testify in court.
1,339
posted on
03/07/2007 3:43:04 PM PST
by
McGavin999
("Hard is not Hopeless" General Petraeus)
To: Dave S
if the defense believes that the prosecution has not made their case, the defense doesn't have to testify
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,281-1,300, 1,301-1,320, 1,321-1,340, 1,341-1,342 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson