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

Skip to comments.

Fitzgerald will "give direction" on the investigation (UPDATE: Fitzgerald Press Conference at 2pm )

Posted on 10/28/2005 5:00:46 AM PDT by kcvl

Per Fox News...


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cialeak; doublestandard; fitzgeraldism; fitzgeraldpressconf; fitzpressconference; getbush; getrove; iraqwar; joewilson; livethreads; mediabias; plamegate; rattricks; scooterlibby; smearcampaign; witchhunt; zogbyism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 3,001-3,0203,021-3,0403,041-3,060 ... 3,201-3,206 next last
To: onyx

NO- did Gergen REALLY say that? I was just listening to Mark Levin and David Boies on Hannity- they agreed- LOL. Although Mark was obviously more upset.

Boies said- what's notable today is what we HAVEN'T seen. No Rove (and he doubts Rove will be indicted now) and no indictment on the original charge.


3,021 posted on 10/28/2005 1:21:01 PM PDT by SE Mom (God Bless those who serve..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2963 | View Replies]

To: Dave S

The best question asked by a reporterette was, if Libby had not lied or obstructed the investigation, i.e., told the truth, would charges be filed against him for divulging Plame's name. Fitzgerald couldn't give her an answer, because the process couldn't be completed. He did indicate however, that it would have been a difficult call because of the law. Personally, I think Libby would not have been charged if he had been truthful.


3,022 posted on 10/28/2005 1:21:03 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3009 | View Replies]

To: onyx
They really, truly wanted Rove's indictment.

Of course! That is why today was an utter defeat for liberals and their media whores because they did not get Rove but someone called Libby and on charges not related to the “Leak itself”. Today is their worst disappointment for them since the 2004 elections. They will keep going on with their delusions and hallucinate about the end of President Bush as they have been doing for five years, but today was yet another bitter reality for them.

3,023 posted on 10/28/2005 1:21:47 PM PDT by jveritas (The Axis of Defeatism: Left wing liberals, Buchananites, and third party voters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2963 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze
Personally, I wouldn't believe a reporter who said the sky is blue. Not without fact checking it myself

It might also explain why all their sources are drying up

3,024 posted on 10/28/2005 1:22:18 PM PDT by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3007 | View Replies]

To: jennyjenny
Wow, you're now down to name calling......what's the matter, no Fitzmas for you today

What is your problem? Do you like people calling you liberal? Do you like people calling you a DUmmie? Im neither. Ive been a member here for more than six years. My hope was that no one would be indicted. However, I made the mistake of standing up for people earlier this morning that were reporting that Libby was going to be indicted and worse yet I made fun of those who fully expected Wilson to be indicted today. Geez, I wonder who was right.

3,025 posted on 10/28/2005 1:22:19 PM PDT by Dave S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1633 | View Replies]

To: Mo1

Wow, that says something! But be careful. He was Gore's attorney I believe.


3,026 posted on 10/28/2005 1:22:59 PM PDT by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3004 | View Replies]

To: SE Mom

they all argree that there is no chance of a plea deal


3,027 posted on 10/28/2005 1:25:34 PM PDT by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3021 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper
This whole thing is a mess.

Yes, it is. I heard some talking heads on one of the news channels asking why Libby would lie to the FBI and Grand Jury when it was clear that there was documentation otherwise. I guess he could argue on exactly what "knew she worked at the CIA" means, ie. he never saw her employee badge, but that's Clintonesque.

I guess he thought that he could deflect the FBI investigation and that it would blow over. Once he tried to do that, he couldn't contradict his FBI statements in the later Grand Jury. Still, the guy's no dummy, he had to know that all the details would be found out.

3,028 posted on 10/28/2005 1:26:16 PM PDT by mikegi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3010 | View Replies]

To: Mo1

Sheesh...so where does he end up?


3,029 posted on 10/28/2005 1:26:29 PM PDT by SE Mom (God Bless those who serve..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3027 | View Replies]

To: SE Mom

I don't know


3,030 posted on 10/28/2005 1:28:55 PM PDT by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3029 | View Replies]

To: Ditto

Your points are very good and relevant. Fitzgerald began with a conclusion that Plame had been outed, that a crime had been committed.

As you point out, he apparently began with the conclusion that Wilson was right all along, and that is very suspect.


3,031 posted on 10/28/2005 1:29:49 PM PDT by LibWrangler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2917 | View Replies]

To: kabar
Personally, I think Libby would not have been charged if he had been truthful.

I agree fully. I was afraid he was going to get charged on some minor technical discrepancy in his testimony but its pretty damaging to say Tim Russert ammong other reporters told me and then find out four government officals told him prior to talking to Russert and that he discussed it with six government officials and Russert said he didnt know about Wilson and didnt tell Libby.

3,032 posted on 10/28/2005 1:29:49 PM PDT by Dave S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3022 | View Replies]

To: Torie
MHO on the big picture.:-}

CIA and State saw an opportunity to take the King down. They missed. Look for Porter Goss to speed up the weeding process at CIA forthwith.

And now a question that's been bothering me for quite some time. Why would the CIA bureaucracy, obviously "outraged" at the "outing" of one of their "classified" employees, send that employees husband on a politically charged "covert" mission to Niger if they were so damned concerned about his wife being exposed to the press?

These are things I wonder about.

3,033 posted on 10/28/2005 1:31:08 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3027 | View Replies]

To: SE Mom

Well, let's add up the indicts during this administration and the indictments during the Clinton Administration AND the crimes and jail time on each side. It'll put things in perspective.


3,034 posted on 10/28/2005 1:31:47 PM PDT by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3029 | View Replies]

To: mikegi
Here is what I am confused on:

Was he being asked when he found out Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and from whom, or was he being asked when he found out what her name was, and from whom? I ask this because I thought initially the question was about when was her name (as Valeria Plame) actually passed on, not just the fact that she worked at the CIA. Of course, this all gets back to the initial charge of the investigation of outing a covert agent, which never happened.
3,035 posted on 10/28/2005 1:32:11 PM PDT by jennyjenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3028 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
Just one more thought. I had the terrible feeling that what Libby actually did was to lie to reporters. If I heard right, remembered right and reasoned right he told the reporters he heard from reporters and was not even sure Wilson was married to Plame.

What Fitzgerald proved, or will prove, is he lied to the reporters and really heard it from people in the WH.

Can anything be more bizarre. The original case was about outing a secret agent -- given up now. What we do have now is Libby was remiss in not telling the reporters the actual source of his information.

3,036 posted on 10/28/2005 1:33:47 PM PDT by shrinkermd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2772 | View Replies]

To: mikegi
I guess he could argue on exactly what "knew she worked at the CIA" means, ie. he never saw her employee badge, but that's Clintonesque.

Well, no it isn't. There are people who work for the CIA openly; there are people that work for the CIA quietly; and there are actual deep cover agents. It is not even remotely illegal to tell people about the first; only in extreme circumstances illegal for the second; and only sometimes illegal to tell people about the third. ...And knowingly telling that they are part of the third group is only illegal under certain circumstances.

Regardless, the law that protects the identity of a deep cover agent is NOT intended to act as a shield against their participation in a lie such as Wilson made in misattributing why he went to Niger. Her name was a direct answer to a point of the debate, and she was not in a physical location where she was under the unprotected control of a foreign country - which is what the law was about.

3,037 posted on 10/28/2005 1:34:45 PM PDT by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3028 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
Perjury requires a statement under oath as to a material issue. Query: If there's no underlying crime, material to what? Intent is a necessary element as to almost every crime.

I believe that "false statements" do not have to be under oath, just made to some kind of official like an FBI agent.
3,038 posted on 10/28/2005 1:36:11 PM PDT by Iwo Jima
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2905 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

Not only that, he was sent on a mission which would be included under HER work....WMD. That alone I would think would be an illegal exchange of information. That's like "Here, honey. Is this what you wanted". "Yes, but make sure you don't sign a non-disclosure (because of me) and burn anything you have....receipts etc.."


3,039 posted on 10/28/2005 1:36:49 PM PDT by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3033 | View Replies]

To: lepton

Very true! I just would have thought he would have been smarter then this but then a smart person wouldn't have written that note to Miller either. They would have had a one line statement that she was released to tell everything.


3,040 posted on 10/28/2005 1:37:32 PM PDT by PhiKapMom (AOII MOM -- Istook for OK Governor in 2006! Allen in 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3002 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 3,001-3,0203,021-3,0403,041-3,060 ... 3,201-3,206 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.

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