Libby found guilty...

[Wacka]

Hey Joey Balls,

Any reply to my post. I met your dare almost immediately with an article from a liberal paper

[DC Tom]

Hey Joey Balls,

Any reply to my post. I met your dare almost immediately with an article from a liberal paper

 

He's too busy right now giving himself a visual inspection of his colon, but he'll get back to you.

 

 

 

And he apologizes for interrupting your visual inspection of your colon.

[Joey Balls]

Hey Joey Balls,

Any reply to my post. I met your dare almost immediately with an article from a liberal paper

 

 

 

The Washington Post is "liberal"? Maybe a time ago it was but it has become more and more appearent over the last few years or so that the paper's editorial direction has taken a right ward veer. The link you posted, which is of course making the rounds of the right wing media these days, still doesn't dispell anything about Plame being "covert" rather it adds to the mud slinging and innuendo by using terms Like "alleged" and "Washington cocktail circuit" to form the basis of reasoning that heck by golly everyone knew Vally girl was a CIA covert operative.

 

 

That's pretty flimsy reasoning to dismiss Fitzgerald's case doncha think? It's almost like comparing the mainstream media's slavishly frothing coverage of the Lewinsky affair to the non-descript mundane sporadic coverage of the Libby/Rove/Cheney fiasco.

 

 

Not that any rational attuned person would make such comparisons mind you.

[Wacka]

The Washington Post is "liberal"? Maybe a time ago it was but it has become more and more appearent over the last few years or so that the paper's editorial direction has taken a right ward veer. The link you posted, which is of course making the rounds of the right wing media these days, still doesn't dispell anything about Plame being "covert" rather it adds to the mud slinging and innuendo by using terms Like "alleged" and "Washington cocktail circuit" to form the basis of reasoning that heck by golly everyone knew Vally girl was a CIA covert operative.

That's pretty flimsy reasoning to dismiss Fitzgerald's case doncha think? It's almost like comparing the mainstream media's slavishly frothing coverage of the Lewinsky affair to the non-descript mundane sporadic coverage of the Libby/Rove/Cheney fiasco.

Not that any rational attuned person would make such comparisons mind you.

 

 

Then the PEOPLE WHO WROTE THE LAW are idiots and don't understand the law ? They were the authors of that article.

[Joey Balls]

Then the PEOPLE WHO WROTE THE LAW are idiots and don't understand the law ? They were the authors of that article.

 

 

Deputy attorney general in the Ronnie Ray-gun administration?

 

That should tell anyone where she's coming from.

 

The right wing in this country...and yes that includes this board...has been pretty dismissive of the whole Libby affair including one unfortunate chap who managed to stretch credulity here by comparing it to the Ken Starr "witch hunt".

 

 

My main point, which you still haven't managed to confront with that silly "editorial", is that Plame WAS a CIA covert operative whose cover was blown by the administration in an attempt to stifle any criticism of the criminal war effort our leaders mounted.

 

 

Instead you give me a piece that uses terms like "alleged" and "Washington cocktail circuit" written by some old republican hack in a supposedly "liberal" daily.

 

My breath is still held.

[Joey Balls]

This should deflate your Toensing editorial Mister Wacka.

 

 

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/13/04720/9340

[erynthered]

For Joey Blue Balls

 

 

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column....2007&page=1

 

 

WASHINGTON -- There are lies and there are memory lapses. Bill Clinton denied under oath having sex with Monica Lewinsky. Unless you're Wilt Chamberlain, sex is not the kind of thing that you forget easily. Sandy Berger denied stuffing classified documents in his pants, an act not quite as elaborate as sex, but still involving a lot of muscle memory, and unlikely to have been honestly forgotten.

 

Scooter Libby has just been convicted for four felonies that could theoretically give him 25 years in jail for ... what? Misstating when he first heard a certain piece of information, namely the identity of Joe Wilson's wife.

 

 

 

Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former chief of staff to U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, is trailed by photographers as he departs a federal courthouse after the third day of jury deliberation in his federal perjury trial in Washington February 23, 2007. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst (UNITED STATES) Think about that. Can you remember when was the first time you heard the name Joe Wilson or Valerie Plame? OK, so it is not a preoccupation of yours. But it was a preoccupation of many Washington journalists and government officials called to testify at the Libby trial, and their memories were all over the lot. Former presidential press secretary Ari Fleischer testified under oath that he had not told Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus about Mrs. Wilson. Pincus testified under oath that Fleischer definitely had.

 

Obviously, one is not telling the truth. But there is no reason to believe that either one is deliberately lying. Pincus and Fleischer are as fallible as any of us. They spend their days receiving and giving information. They can't possibly be expected to remember not only every piece, but precisely when they received every piece.

 

Should Scooter Libby? He was famously multitasking a large number of national security and domestic issues, receiving hundreds of pieces of information every day from dozens of sources. Yet special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald chose to make Libby's misstatements about the timing of the receipt of one piece of information -- Mrs. Wilson's identity -- the great white whale of his multimillion-dollar prosecutorial juggernaut.

 

Why? Because on his essential charge as special prosecutor -- find and punish who had leaked Valerie Plame's name -- he had nothing. No conspiracy, no felony, no crime, not even the claim that she was a covert agent covered by the nondisclosure law. Fitzgerald knew the leaker from the very beginning. It was not Libby, but Richard Armitage. He also knew that the ``leak'' by the State Department's No. 2 official -- a fierce bureaucratic opponent of the White House and especially the vice president's office -- was an innocent offhand disclosure made to explain how the CIA had improbably chosen Wilson for a WMD mission. (He was recommended by his CIA wife.)

 

Everyone agrees that Fitzgerald's perjury case against Libby hung on the testimony of NBC's Tim Russert. Libby said that he heard about Plame from Russert. Russert said he had never discussed it. The jury members who have spoken said they believed Russert.

 

And why should they not? Russert is a perfectly honest man who would not lie. He was undoubtedly giving his best recollection.

 

But he is not the pope. Given that so many journalists and administration figures were shown to have extremely fallible memories, is it possible that Russert's memory could have been faulty?

 

 

 

Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former chief of staff to U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, is trailed by photographers as he departs a federal courthouse after the third day of jury deliberation in his federal perjury trial in Washington February 23, 2007. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst (UNITED STATES) I have no idea. But we do know that Russert once denied calling up a Buffalo News reporter to complain about a story. Russert later apologized for the error when he was shown the evidence of a call he had genuinely and completely forgotten.

 

There is a second instance of Russert innocently misremembering. He stated under oath that he did not know that one may not be accompanied by a lawyer to a grand jury hearing. This fact, in and of itself, is irrelevant to the case, except that, as former prosecutor Victoria Toensing points out, the defense had tapes showing Russert saying on television three times that lawyers are barred from grand jury proceedings.

 

This demonstration of Russert's fallibility was never shown to the jury. The judge did not allow it. He was upset with the defense because it would not put Libby on the stand -- his perfect Fifth Amendment right -- after hinting in the opening statement that it might. He therefore denied the defense a straightforward demonstration of the fallibility of the witness whose testimony was most decisive.

 

Toensing thinks this might be the basis for overturning the verdict upon appeal. I hope so. This is a case that never should have been brought, originating in the scandal that never was, in search of a crime -- violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act -- that even the prosecutor never alleged. That's the basis for a presidential pardon. It should have been granted long before this egregious case came to trial. It should be granted now without any further delay.

 

 

Charles Krauthammer

[Joey Balls]

Oh my goodness what did you do to yourself? Run on over to www.nro.com and raid their homepage?

[erynthered]

Oh my goodness what did you do to yourself? Run on over to www.nro.com and raid their homepage?

 

 

Na, not at all Joseph. Come on, lets play link wars. Its all the rage. Your turn!

[X. Benedict]

If I had to give up two years of my life to sit on a Grand Jury with a couple of dozen people and I thought somebody was lying when I asked direct questions - I would merrily indict him.

[DC Tom]

If I had to give up two years of my life to sit on a Grand Jury with a couple of dozen people and I thought somebody was lying when I asked direct questions - I would merrily indict him.

 

But would accuse him of commiting crimes he didn't commit and gush about it like a schoolgirl?

[X. Benedict]

But would accuse him of commiting crimes he didn't commit and gush about it like a schoolgirl?

like that petit juror?

[erynthered]

Could someone pin a thread for HA, Tom and Ramius?

 

!@#$ing please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

So that they can continue to beat each other to death, for !@#$ing Christ sakes.

 

Darin?