Posted on 02/09/2006 10:33:40 AM PST by conserv13
I hadn't seen this....(Yahoo w/link to the Nation, gag)
"These newly released records disclose that former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer told Fitzgerald's grand jury that he had a lunch with Libby during which Libby told him that Wilson's wife did counterproliferation work at the CIA and that this information was "hush-hush." Fleischer described the lunch as "kind of weird." Usually, Libby "operated in a very closed-lip fashion," Fleischer said. But in this instance, it seems, he was trying to spread information that could be used against a White House critic."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060206/cm_thenation/357174;_ylt=A86.I0_cpOdDn0EA4QP9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--
something new?
This shit is much ado about nothing. Legal ranglings.
Drudge Report 11/29/98 ".Waas on Sunday night was said to be "bitterly angry" over the leak regarding the leak. "He is furious that word got out," a close friend to Waas explained late Sunday night in Washington. "He has been holding the documents close after showing them to two Washington newspaper editors." .. During the 1992 presidential campaign, both Clinton and Gore often praised Waas exclusives exposing the Bush administration's Iraq policy, which involved the leaks of thousands of pages of classified papers regarding the Gulf war. It is not clear when Waas will begin to unload on Clinton. Some in Washington speculate that left-wing Waas does not want to write a major expose about the Clinton administration in the midst of the impeachment hearings, fueling the flames for conservatives. "He's bitterly angry," says a close associate. "Conservatives have been spreading rumors to pressure him to do it. And now his White House contacts are now extremely angry and have stopped talking to him
More FAKE News from the MSM.
Add it to, the outraged Mayor of Los Angeles.
The Mayor's complaints continue to be broadcast, but the FACT that his office was notified is not.
I hope you are right, but the actual charges sound solid, even if the underlying crime never occurred.
As Fitzgerald said:
If Mr. Libby is proven to have done what we've alleged -- convicting him of obstruction of justice, perjury and false statements -- very serious felonies -- will vindicate the interest of the public in making sure he's held accountable.
In his October 2005 press conference, Fitzgerald said in effect that while his case began with an investigation of the illegal disclosure of Plame's classified status, the current charges against Libby had nothing to do with that status. The MSM continue to report a different story to promote their agenda, but their lies are not necessarily relevant to Fitzgerald's case.
The case isn't as solid as it sounds because there is no proof that Libby intentionally lied. The case is just a matter of Libby's memory, differing from the memory of the partisan reporters.
Have you read the indictment?
Deconstruction & link -> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1569428/posts?page=70#70
The last few paragraphs there refer only to Count 3.
bump
The key here is Plame's status. There is every indication, though not proven by CIA documentation (at least the prosecutor claims that he has none), that Plame's identity was not classified, so there is no way that Libby could have official knowledge of her classified status. It's a simple matter of semantics.
Not in the sense of "covert or not." Did you read the indictment? What allegation in it (that matters to a count) is demonstrably false?
What statement is demonstrably true?
LOL. Point taken.
It's the prosecutor's job to prove guilt, not Libby's job to prove his innocence.
Yep. But as you say, even Libby's assertions aren't demonstrably true either.
The narrow point my posts aim to transfer is that "covert or not" is irrelevant to the case. And further, that the case doesn't boil down to a difference in recollection between Libby and any reporter.
I've laid out my reasoning in that, and I don't really care to rephrase the logic the indictment, yet again.
If the assertions of the prosecutor are not demonstrably true, and the same for Libby's assertions. It is a case of he said, he said. The prosecutor is the one who has to prove his case. It is very difficult for the prosecutor to prove that Libby was intentionally misleading in regard to when he became officially aware of Plame's status, especially since her status is still in question. That's what the prosecutor has to prove, intention.
Yeah, between Libby and the investigators and the GJ, with some independent contemporaneaous evidence that Libby had authoritative knowledge that Wilson's wife in fact worked at the CIA.
The prosecutor is the one who has to prove his case. It is very difficult for the prosecutor to prove that Libby was intentionally misleading in regard to when he became officially aware of Plame's status, especially since her status is still in question.
Her "status" as you put it is not "covert or not." Her "status" as relevant to the case is something less than that, and maybe as little as "known to be an employee of the CIA."
That's what the prosecutor has to prove, intention.
Intention to conceal, from investigators, that he had authoritative knowledge that Wilson't wife was working at the CIA. The indictment itself says the lie relates to "LIBBY was well aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA." Not covert, not some special "status," just that "LIBBY was well aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA."
Now, as you say, the facts as stated in the indictment need to be proven to the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt. But if he proves that LIBBY was well aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, and further that he intended to conceal that from investigators and the GJ, then he should be convicted of the charges.
I thought that you stated earlier that the indictment stated that Libby had prior knowledge, outside of the rumor mill, of Plame's status. That would mean that Libby had been officially informed that Plame worked for the CIA, in other words, that Cheney had informed Libby and that Libby remembered the sequence in that way.
I remember hearing, some time ago, that Libby went into the questioning cold, without having reviewed his notes. That would make the case of intention extremely hard to prove.
The indictment says what it says. Read it. It says that Libby had various contacts, including some where he took the initiative to make the inquiry of the CIA himself, that provided him with authoritative knowlegde that Wilson's wife in fact worked at CIA. He had more detail than that, including that she was assigned to counterproliferation. So says the indicment, maybe the assertion is a lie.
That would mean that Libby had been officially informed that Plame worked for the CIA, in other words, that Cheney had informed Libby and that Libby remembered the sequence in that way.
Right.
I remember hearing, some time ago, that Libby went into the questioning cold, without having reviewed his notes. That would make the case of intention extremely hard to prove.
I reach a different conclusion after reading the indictment and thinking about the timeline as set forth therein. Again, as you say, the entire indictment could be a figment of Fitzgerald's imagination, but assuming the facts are as alleged, the case for "intentionally mislead investigators" is not a difficult stretch. Just my opinion, mind you.
"HAIRBALL !!!!!!!!" LOL ! I never heard that before ! hahahaha, thanks for the laugh !
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.