"SCOOTER" LIBBY?

Hate Bush = Hate Bush.  Logic does not enter into it.

"Bombarded"?

Two threads are a bombardment? As opposed to the probably 20 threads on the Muslim/Cartoon/Mohammed stuff.

In my thread I never said that he did it to save his ass;

"So yes, they did only leak a portion. It just so happens that in this instance, that the portions they leaked served to cast doubt on the credibility of Wilson."

And since you want to start spouting legalese. He wasn't only indicted for perjury. He was also indicted for Obstruction of Justice and for Making False statements.

Two threads are a bombardment? As opposed to the probably 20 threads on the Muslim/Cartoon/Mohammed stuff.

Bombardment? Please give links and attibutions. I am breathlessly waiting to see this. It will be a good show.

Bombardment? Please give links and attibutions. I am breathlessly waiting to see this. It will be a good show.

What are you talking about? Waiting breathlessly? You really don't have much of a life do you?

any grown man with a name of scooter deserves to be slapped and sent to jail .

"Bombarded"? Two threads are a bombardment? As opposed to the probably 20 threads on the Muslim/Cartoon/Mohammed stuff. In my thread I never said that he did it to save his ass; "So yes, they did only leak a portion. It just so happens that in this instance, that the portions they leaked served to cast doubt on the credibility of Wilson." And since you want to start spouting legalese. He wasn't only indicted for perjury. He was also indicted for Obstruction of Justice and for Making False statements.

Okay, but you still haven't answered the question. In none of your last statements say "anything" about him being indicted for anything even resembling leaking classified info. So he would have no reason to try and involve the VP, would he? Personally I think this whole pile of BS involving the VP is just that.......BS!

Bombardment? Please give links and attibutions. I am breathlessly waiting to see this. It will be a good show. What are you talking about? Waiting breathlessly? You really don't have much of a life do you?

Seems like neither do you.

Okay, but you still haven't answered the question. In none of your last statements say "anything" about him being indicted for anything even resembling leaking classified info.

No one said he was indicted for leaking classified info. What's your point?

So he would have no reason to try and involve the VP, would he? Personally I think this whole pile of BS involving the VP is just that.......BS!

But he did involve the VP. For what reason, I don't know...but he obviously did.

'National Journal': Libby Authorized to Leak by Cheney, Others

By Greg Mitchell

Published: February 09, 2006 2:30 PM ET

NEW YORK Lewis “Scooter” Libby testified to a federal grand jury that he had been "authorized" by his boss, Vice President Dick Cheney, and other White House "superiors" in the summer of 2003 to disclose classified information to journalists to defend the Bush administration's use of prewar intelligence, according to an article posted today by the National Journal.

Reporter Murray Waas writes that this information comes from attorneys familiar with the matter, and from recently released court records. Waas has broken several stories on the Plame/CIA leak case in recent weeks for the nonpartisan National Journal.

“Libby specifically claimed that in one instance he had been authorized to divulge portions of a then-still highly classified National Intelligence Estimate regarding Saddam Hussein's purported efforts to develop nuclear weapons,” Waas writes, according to correspondence recently filed in federal court by special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald.

Seems like neither do you.

The day I ever wait "breathlessly" for anything on a messageboard is the day that I officially don't have a life. I doubt that day will ever come though.

#8 by davad70 Sunday, February 12, 2006

Now you want to answer the question? I am tired and going to bed. After all, there is nothing here.

Now you want to answer the question? I am tired and going to bed. After all, there is nothing here.

As soon as you identify what the question is I'll be more than happy to.

"But he did involve the VP. For what reason, I don't know...but he obviously did."

Maybe because people with brains realize this isn't going anywhere, and nothing would be better for Republicans running in 2006 than everyone tossing a fit about a lame duck President and Dems acting all holier-than-thou like they always do...

It's going to be really interesting to see if it truly plays out as you outline Baker. I could cite some polls that show that people don't trust the GOP in general these days, but people around here don't seem to take too kindly to those. So....we'll just have to wait and see.

Okay, but you still haven't answered the question. In none of your last statements say "anything" about him being indicted for anything even resembling leaking classified info. No one said he was indicted for leaking classified info. What's your point?

My point is I think it's all BS! The thing is, that he has "absolutely" no reason to implicate the VP.

So it's all a lie? The court documents with the statements about Cheney from Libby are fake?

So it's all a lie? The court documents with the statements about Cheney from Libby are fake?

Seems you love to assume for everyone.  Do you also move their mouths when you put words in them?

I didn't put words in anyone's mouth. Did you happen to notice the question marks at the end?

I'm asking him if that's what he believes.

So it's all a lie? The court documents with the statements about Cheney from Libby are fake?

What court documents? As of "right" now all they have are documents filled by the special prosecutor. None of which have been proved. And funny the only MSM carrying this is CBS and Yahoo. Noticeably absent are the likes of CNN, ABC, MSNBC, etc.

Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said in documents filed last month that he plans to introduce evidence that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's former chief of staff, disclosed to reporters the contents of a classified National Intelligence Estimate in the summer of 2003.

See "no" proof". I hope that eventually they can prove it's a lie and they slap the pee out of Fitzgerald for slander. According to Libby's lawyers he has never said anything of the sort. From CNN:

Attorneys for Libby say Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has repeatedly refused to turn over documents to which they are entitled. "This motion concerns the defense's request for production of documents and information regarding three important issues in this case: what did the press know prior to July 14, 2003 about whether Valerie Plame Wilson worked at the CIA, from whom did they learn it, and with whom did they discuss it," his lawyers argued in court papers.

Kind of funny, ain't it?

What court documents?

These court documents Link

If you read it, it's pretty clear that Fitzgerald has testimony from Libby that states that Libby was authorized by his superiors to disclose contents of the NIE.

So again I ask you, do you really think that a highly esteemed Federal Prosecutor like Fitzgerald would introduce lie about what he has in writing and intends to show in court?

And funny the only MSM carrying this is CBS and Yahoo. Noticeably absent are the likes of CNN, ABC, MSNBC, etc.

Sorry to break it to you, but CBS and Yahoo are not the only ones carrying it. That tell you something?

CNN Link

ABC Link

MSNBC Link

Fox NewsLink

AP Link

I'm sure I could find more for you want if you want...just let me know.

According to Libby's lawyers he has never said anything of the sort. From CNN:Attorneys for Libby say Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has repeatedly refused to turn over documents to which they are entitled. "This motion concerns the defense's request for production of documents and information regarding three important issues in this case: what did the press know prior to July 14, 2003 about whether Valerie Plame Wilson worked at the CIA, from whom did they learn it, and with whom did they discuss it," his lawyers argued in court papers.

That stuff you quoted doesn't say anything about Libby's lawyers denying it. Do you have another link that says that?

According to Libby's lawyers he has never said anything of the sort. From CNN:Attorneys for Libby say Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has repeatedly refused to turn over documents to which they are entitled. "This motion concerns the defense's request for production of documents and information regarding three important issues in this case: what did the press know prior to July 14, 2003 about whether Valerie Plame Wilson worked at the CIA, from whom did they learn it, and with whom did they discuss it," his lawyers argued in court papers. That stuff you quoted doesn't say anything about Libby's lawyers denying it. Do you have another link that says that?

No, what I quoted shows that Mr. Fitzgerald is NOT playing by the required rules of evidence by "not" turning over copies of the "alleged" documents (it's called non-disclosure). And in doing so is shooting his case in the foot. And while I'm thinking about it. "If" this all were true (and I do stress "if".) Then what reason would Libby have to lie to the FBI and a grand jury about the leaking of classified info? All he would have had to do was implicate the VP and Libby would have been scot free.

Fitzgerald declined both requests. "A formal assessment has not been done of the damage caused by the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee, and thus we possess no such document," he wrote in a January 9, 2006, response. In any event, Fitzgerald argued, "we would not view an assessment of the damaged caused by the disclosure as relevant to the issue of whether or not Mr. Libby intentionally lied when he made the statements and gave the grand jury testimony that the grand jury alleged was false." On the question of Wilson's status, Fitzgerald wrote, "We have neither sought, much less obtained, 'all documents, regardless of when created, relating to whether Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee, or any aspect of that status, was classified at any time between May 6, 2003 and July 14, 2003.'" Although Fitzgerald said that "if we locate" such documents, he might turn them over, he argued that he has no responsibility to do so, because they are not relevant to the perjury and obstruction of justice prosecution.

Out of Fitzgerald's own mouth it comes. They do "not" have the required proof. At this point he's shooting off his foot. He is "not" allowed to make such a decision. That has to be done by a judge.

As far as Libby denying it I'm still working on it. I can't remember where I saw it. Damnable CRS.

No, what I quoted shows that Mr. Fitzgerald is NOT playing by the required rules of evidence by "not" turning over copies of the "alleged" documents (it's called non-disclosure).

If you read through the papers, you'll see they state they have never actually has posession of the documents in question. Non-disclosure wouldn't seem to apply to something that there's no evidence it even exists. Also, as he stated, they are irrelevent to the actual charges, so again, non-disclosure doesn't apply. It doesn't seem like Libby's lawyers have proof thet have them either, so I really doubt that Fitzgerald is "shooting himself in the foot". Say you what like about Fitzgerald, but there's nothing in his past that indicates he's a dummy.

If you read through the papers, you'll see they state they have never actually has posession of the documents in question

I guess you didn't "read" my entire post. I quote.....

Fitzgerald declined both requests. "A formal assessment has not been done of the damage caused by the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee, and thus we possess no such document," he wrote in a January 9, 2006, response. In any event, Fitzgerald argued, "we would not view an assessment of the damaged caused by the disclosure as relevant to the issue of whether or not Mr. Libby intentionally lied when he made the statements and gave the grand jury testimony that the grand jury alleged was false." On the question of Wilson's status, Fitzgerald wrote, "We have neither sought, much less obtained, 'all documents, regardless of when created, relating to whether Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee, or any aspect of that status, was classified at any time between May 6, 2003 and July 14, 2003.'" Although Fitzgerald said that "if we locate" such documents, he might turn them over, he argued that he has no responsibility to do so, because they are not relevant to the perjury and obstruction of justice prosecution.

Now wipe the egg off your face. It looks disgusting.

Say you what like about Fitzgerald, but there's nothing in his past that indicates he's a dummy.

Fitzgerald is a "jerk" and he's on a witch hunt. He's pissed because he couldn't get Libby on the original charge.

I guess you didn't "read" my entire post. I quote..... Fitzgerald declined both requests. "A formal assessment has not been done of the damage caused by the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee, and thus we possess no such document," he wrote in a January 9, 2006, response. In any event, Fitzgerald argued, "we would not view an assessment of the damaged caused by the disclosure as relevant to the issue of whether or not Mr. Libby intentionally lied when he made the statements and gave the grand jury testimony that the grand jury alleged was false." On the question of Wilson's status, Fitzgerald wrote, "We have neither sought, much less obtained, 'all documents, regardless of when created, relating to whether Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee, or any aspect of that status, was classified at any time between May 6, 2003 and July 14, 2003.'" Although Fitzgerald said that "if we locate" such documents, he might turn them over, he argued that he has no responsibility to do so, because they are not relevant to the perjury and obstruction of justice prosecution. Now wipe the egg off your face. It looks disgusting.

What are you talking about?? You highlighted the part where Fitzgerald says he "posesses no such document" and "We have never sought, much less obtained,"...

You are arguing against yourself. You said earlier Fitzgerald "is NOT playing by the required rules of evidence by "not" turning over copies of the "alleged" documents (it's called non-disclosure)"

So I ask again...how is he supposed to turn over something he hasn't even tried to get, and has never had?

Do you even read this tuff you post before you hit Submit? If so, why do you keep proving yourself wrong? I'm honestly having a hard time following what your argument is here.

Fitzgerald is a "jerk" based on.....what?

Did you find that link to Libby's people denying implicating Cheney yet?

Fitzgerald is a "jerk" based on.....what?

Again, but this time try comprehending what your reading...

Fitzgerald is a "jerk" and he's on a witch hunt. He's just pissed because he couldn't get Libby on the original charge.

Since this "is" my blog, for something like this I don't need to base it on anything but "my opinion".
And "you" stated...

If you read through the papers, you'll see they state they have never actually has posession of the documents in question.

Thus making an assumption that I had not read "through the papers". To which I pointed out that your "asumption" was wrong and that I "had" read them. What I high-lighted in reply #21 was the same dang thing I had high-lighted in reply #19, that is "if" you had been paying attention.

Since this "is" my blog, for something like this I don't need to base it on anything but "my opinion". And "you" stated...

I just asked what you're basing that on. It's not as if I got all huffy and said "PROVE IT" like many are fond of doing around here. I'm just curious about what he's done to make you think he's a jerk.

Thus making an assumption that I had not read "through the papers". To which I pointed out that your "asumption" was wrong and that I "had" read them. What I high-lighted in reply #21 was the same dang thing I had high-lighted in reply #19, that is "if" you had been paying attention.

If you read them, then why do you persist on saying Fitzgerald is guilty of non-disclosure? How can he turn over something he doesn't have?

If you read them, then why do you persist on saying Fitzgerald is guilty of non-disclosure? How can he turn over something he doesn't have?

"Where" do you get that I persist in saying it? I said it "one time", and only once.

I just asked what you're basing that on. It's not as if I got all huffy and said "PROVE IT" like many are fond of doing around here. I'm just curious about what he's done to make you think he's a jerk.

Again "if" you were paying attention I gave you my reasons, not once but twice. Let's make it 3 times, shall we?

Fitzgerald is a "jerk" and he's on a witch hunt. He's just pissed because he couldn't get Libby on the original charge.

And before you ask, what he's doing to Libby is a witch hunt. They started on one charge and when they "realized" they couldn't make it stick ( after a lot of legal wrangling) they changed gears and indicted him on something else entirely by saying he lied to the FBI during questioning. Mark my words this too shall pass.