Nice try. We all can read the thread and see how you humiliated yourself and are now trying to cover that detail up. I'll give you this, you are one of the most shameless people I EVER have encountered on the internet.
Nice try. We all can read the thread and see how you humiliated yourself and are now trying to cover that detail up. I'll give you this, you are one of the most shameless people I EVER have encountered on the internet.Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Aegeon
Uh, that's kind of ignoring significant details such as Libby hearing about Valerie Plame working for the CIA from sources such as Dick Cheney first, instead of first hearing about it from three reporters on different occassions as he claimed in front of a grand jury. In fact, the testimony of all three reporters contradicted Libby account of hearing the info from them. Basically that's a minor part of the total set of charges, and certainly NOT what you claimed previously.
You are backpedaling (shock, shock)
I never made any statements or claims about the other circumstances claimed in the indictment. I was speaking strictly about the sections which relate Libby and Russert talking on MTP about the events in question. You tried to deny it.
Originally posted by: Aegeon
Nice try. We all can read the thread and see how you humiliated yourself and are now trying to cover that detail up. I'll give you this, you are one of the most shameless people I EVER have encountered on the internet.
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Aegeon
Nice try. We all can read the thread and see how you humiliated yourself and are now trying to cover that detail up. I'll give you this, you are one of the most shameless people I EVER have encountered on the internet.
LOL why don't you try explaining how Libby's indictment has nothing to do with conversations with Tim Russert? I can't believe you tried to deny a fact which is so clear.
Originally posted by: totalcommand
Yes, let's argue over facts that don't matter whatsoever. Your argument was that it wouldn't stand up in court. That argument has failed, because it doesn't matter whether it was MTP or a phone call. Argue something substantive.
The fact that it doesn't add up since Libby is as a lawyer should know better just makes me think that Libby is REALLY trying to cover something up.
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: totalcommand
Yes, let's argue over facts that don't matter whatsoever. Your argument was that it wouldn't stand up in court. That argument has failed, because it doesn't matter whether it was MTP or a phone call. Argue something substantive.
Actually, Aegeon is the one who is continuing to "argue" it. He tried to dismiss the fact that conversation(s) with Russert were part of the indictment.
The fact that it doesn't add up since Libby is as a lawyer should know better just makes me think that Libby is REALLY trying to cover something up.
OK, but what? The conspiracy theory is that he's covering for his boss (Cheney). But what is he covering? Cheney had every right to discuss Plame et al.
That's an absolute MAYBE. Having an appropriate security clearance is not necessarily enough to give him the right to see specific information, let alone share it, even with someone else with the same or higher clearance. A lot of classified information is intended to be shared on a need to know basis.Originally posted by: Pabster
OK, but what? The conspiracy theory is that he's covering for his boss (Cheney). But what is he covering? Cheney had every right to discuss Plame et al.
That is not even close to an excuse for Libby or anyone else. As I said, earlier, the Republicans chased Clinton for failure to return his fly to its full upright position after Monica blew his ummm... jets. :shocked:Originally posted by: piasabird
Politicians lie all the time. This is not such a big deal. Clinton Lied to a Grand Jury and he is not in Jail.
You're unbelievably PATHETIC. I noted that contrary to your claim, that was not the only reason Libby was indicted. I never made a claim remotely close to saying the conversation with Russert was definately not part of the indictment. I understand why you are trying to defend Libby so badly now, because you are at least as bad a liar as he is. (However you do a far worse job of effectively lying in the first place.)Originally posted by: Pabster
Actually, Aegeon is the one who is continuing to "argue" it. He tried to dismiss the fact that conversation(s) with Russert were part of the indictment.
And from another of your posts:Originally posted by: Pabster
I wonder how many here have read the actual indictment. I find the perjury and false statement allegations pretty laughable. They all revolve around Libby's (inaccurate) portrayal and recital of an interview that Tim Russert of MTP conducted with him in 2003. When it comes to the evidence to support the intention to mislead the grand jury and obstruct the investigation, it is said that Libby lied to Russert?
Your reading skills have failed you, again. Libby's indictment has nothing to do with lying to Tim Russert. It has to do with lying to the Grand Jury about what he told the investigators about the interview with Russert. From the indictment:Would you like to answer on two of those charges what Libby is accused of lying about? Ding-Ding-Ding - why, it is to Tim Russert during MTP.
Libby lied on several occasions to the FBI and to the Grand Jury, and he did so under oath. :|COUNT ONE (Obstruction of Justice)
THE GRAND JURY CHARGES:
.
.
20. On or about July 10, 2003, LIBBY spoke to NBC Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert to complain about press coverage of LIBBY by an MSNBC reporter. LIBBY did not discuss Wilson's wife with Russert.
.
.
26. As part of the criminal investigation, LIBBY was interviewed by Special Agents of the FBI on or about October 14 and November 26, 2003, each time in the presence of his counsel. During these interviews, LIBBY stated to FBI Special Agents that:
a. During a conversation with Tim Russert of NBC News on July 10 or 11, 2003, Russert asked LIBBY if LIBBY was aware that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. LIBBY responded to Russert that he did not know that, and Russert replied that all the reporters knew it. LIBBY was surprised by this statement because, while speaking with Russert, LIBBY did not recall that he previously had learned about Wilson's wife's employment from the Vice President.
.
.
32. It was part of the corrupt endeavor that during his grand jury testimony, defendant LIBBY made the following materially false and intentionally misleading statements and representations, in substance, under oath:
a. When LIBBY spoke with Tim Russert of NBC News, on or about July 10, 2003:
i. Russert asked LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, and told LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and
ii. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was surprised to hear that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA;
.
.
33. It was further part of the corrupt endeavor that at the time defendant LIBBY made each of the above-described materially false and intentionally misleading statements and representations to the grand jury, LIBBY was aware that they were false, in that:
a. When LIBBY spoke with Tim Russert of NBC News on or about July 10, 2003:
i. Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and
ii. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA; in fact, LIBBY had participated in multiple prior conversations concerning this topic, including on the following occasions:
[*] In or about early June 2003, LIBBY learned from the Vice President that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA in the Counterproliferation Division;
[*] On or about June 11, 2003, LIBBY was informed by a senior CIA officer that Wilson's wife was employed by the CIA and that the idea of sending him to Niger originated with her;
[*] On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was informed by the Under Secretary of State that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA;
[*] On or about June 14, 2003, LIBBY discussed "Joe Wilson" and "Valerie Wilson" with his CIA briefer, in the context of Wilson's trip to Niger;
[*] On or about June 23, 2003, LIBBY informed reporter Judith Miller that Wilson's wife might work at a bureau of the CIA;
[*] On or about July 7, 2003, LIBBY advised the White House Press Secretary that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA;
[*] In or about June or July 2003, and in no case later than on or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Assistant to the Vice President for Public Affairs that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA;
[*] On or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY advised reporter Judith Miller of his belief that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA; and
[*] On or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY had a discussion with the Counsel to the Office of the Vice President concerning the paperwork that would exist if a person who was sent on an overseas trip by the CIA had a spouse who worked at the CIA;
.
.
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1503.[/b]
COUNT TWO
(False Statement)
THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES:
.
.
3. On or about October 14 and November 26, 2003, in the District of Columbia,
I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY,"
defendant herein, did knowingly and willfully make a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement and representation in a matter within the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, an agency within the executive branch of the United States, in that the defendant, in response to questions posed to him by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, stated that:
During a conversation with Tim Russert of NBC News on July 10 or 11, 2003, Russert asked LIBBY if LIBBY was aware that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.
LIBBY responded to Russert that he did not know that, and Russert replied that all the reporters knew it. LIBBY was surprised by this statement because, while speaking with Russert, LIBBY did not recall that he previously had learned about Wilson's wife's employment from the Vice President.
4. As defendant LIBBY well knew when he made it, this statement was false in that when LIBBY spoke with Russert on or about July 10 or 11, 2003:
a. Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and
b. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA; In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2).
COUNT THREE
(False Statement)
THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES:
.
.
2. On or about March 5, 2004, in the District of Columbia,
COUNT FOUR
(Perjury)
THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES:
.
.
I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY,"
defendant herein, having taken an oath to testify truthfully in a proceeding before a grand jury of the United States, knowingly made a false material declaration, in that he gave the following testimony regarding a conversation that he represented he had with Tim Russert of NBC News, on or about July 10, 2003 (underlined portions alleged as false):
. . . . And then he said, you know, did you know that this -- excuse me, did you know that Ambassador Wilson's wife works at the CIA? And I was a little taken aback by that. I remember being taken aback by it. And I said -- he may have said a little more but that was -- he said that. And I said, no, I don't know that. And I said, no, I don't know that intentionally because I didn't want him to take anything I was saying as in any way confirming what he said, because at that point in time I did not recall that I had ever known, and I thought this is something that he was telling me that I was first learning. And so I said, no, I don't know that because I want to be very careful not to confirm it for him, so that he didn't take my statement as confirmation for him.Now, I had said earlier in the conversation, which I omitted to tell you, that this -- you know, as always, Tim, our discussion is off-the-record if that's okay with you, and he said, that's fine. So then he said -- I said -- he said, sorry -- he, Mr. Russert said to me, did you know that Ambassador Wilson's wife, or his wife, works at the CIA? And I said, no, I don't know that. And then he said, yeah -- yes, all the reporters know it. And I said, again, I don't know that. I just wanted to be clear that I wasn't confirming anything for him on this. And you know, I was struck by what he was saying in that he thought it was an important fact, but I didn't ask him anymore about it because I didn't want to be digging in on him, and he then moved on and finished the conversation, something like that.
3. In truth and fact, as LIBBY well knew when he gave this testimony, it was false in that:
a. Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and
b. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA;
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623..
COUNT FIVE
(Perjury)
THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES:
.
.
Q. The next set of questions from the Grand Jury are -- concern this fact. If you did not understand the information about Wilson's wife to have been classified and didn't understand it when you heard it from Mr. Russert, why was it that you were so deliberate to make sure that you told other reporters that reporters were saying it and not assert it as something you knew?
A. I want -- I didn't want to -- I didn't know if it was true and I didn't want people -- I didn't want the reporters to think it was true because I said it. I -- all I had was that reporters are telling us that, and by that I wanted them to understand it wasn't coming from me and that it might not be true. Reporters write things that aren't true sometimes, or get things that aren't true. So I wanted to be clear they didn't, they didn't think it was me saying it. I didn't know it was true and I wanted them to understand that. Also, it was important to me to let them know that because what I was telling them was that I don't know Mr. Wilson. We didn't ask for his mission. That I didn't see his report. Basically, we didn't know anything about him until this stuff came out in June. And among the other things, I didn't know he had a wife. That was one of the things I said to Mr. Cooper. I don't know if he's married. And so I wanted to be very clear about all this stuff that I didn't, I didn't know about him. And the only thing I had, I thought at the time, was what reporters are telling us.
. . . .
Well, talking to the other reporters about it, I don't see as a crime. What I said to the other reporters is what, you know -- I told a couple reporters what other reporters had told us, and I don't see that as a crime.
3. In truth and fact, as LIBBY well knew when he gave this testimony, it was false in that LIBBY did not advise Matthew Cooper or other reporters that LIBBY had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise Cooper or other reporters that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true;
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.
Would you like any particular condiments with your healthy serving of crow? :laugh:It shall be rather interesting to see how this can stand up in court.
Originally posted by: Harvey
And from another of your posts:Originally posted by: Pabster
I wonder how many here have read the actual indictment. I find the perjury and false statement allegations pretty laughable. They all revolve around Libby's (inaccurate) portrayal and recital of an interview that Tim Russert of MTP conducted with him in 2003. When it comes to the evidence to support the intention to mislead the grand jury and obstruct the investigation, it is said that Libby lied to Russert?
Your reading skills have failed you, again. Libby's indictment has nothing to do with lying to Tim Russert. It has to do with lying to the Grand Jury about what he told the investigators about the interview with Russert. From the indictment:Would you like to answer on two of those charges what Libby is accused of lying about? Ding-Ding-Ding - why, it is to Tim Russert during MTP.
Libby lied on several occasions to the FBI and to the Grand Jury, and he did so under oath. :|COUNT ONE (Obstruction of Justice)
THE GRAND JURY CHARGES:
.
.
20. On or about July 10, 2003, LIBBY spoke to NBC Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert to complain about press coverage of LIBBY by an MSNBC reporter. LIBBY did not discuss Wilson's wife with Russert.
.
.
26. As part of the criminal investigation, LIBBY was interviewed by Special Agents of the FBI on or about October 14 and November 26, 2003, each time in the presence of his counsel. During these interviews, LIBBY stated to FBI Special Agents that:
a. During a conversation with Tim Russert of NBC News on July 10 or 11, 2003, Russert asked LIBBY if LIBBY was aware that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. LIBBY responded to Russert that he did not know that, and Russert replied that all the reporters knew it. LIBBY was surprised by this statement because, while speaking with Russert, LIBBY did not recall that he previously had learned about Wilson's wife's employment from the Vice President.
.
.
32. It was part of the corrupt endeavor that during his grand jury testimony, defendant LIBBY made the following materially false and intentionally misleading statements and
representations, in substance, under oath:
a. When LIBBY spoke with Tim Russert of NBC News, on or about July 10, 2003:
i. Russert asked LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, and told LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and
ii. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was surprised to hear that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA;
.
.
33. It was further part of the corrupt endeavor that at the time defendant LIBBY made each of the above-described materially false and intentionally misleading statements and representations to the grand jury, LIBBY was aware that they were false, in that:
a. When LIBBY spoke with Tim Russert of NBC News on or about July 10, 2003:
i. Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and
ii. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA; in fact, LIBBY had participated in multiple prior conversations concerning this topic, including on the following occasions:
[*] In or about early June 2003, LIBBY learned from the Vice President that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA in the Counterproliferation Division;
[*] On or about June 11, 2003, LIBBY was informed by a senior CIA officer that Wilson's wife was employed by the CIA and that the idea of sending him to Niger originated with her;
[*] On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was informed by the Under Secretary of State that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA;
[*] On or about June 14, 2003, LIBBY discussed "Joe Wilson" and "Valerie Wilson" with his CIA briefer, in the context of Wilson's trip to Niger;
[*] On or about June 23, 2003, LIBBY informed reporter Judith Miller that Wilson's wife might work at a bureau of the CIA;
[*] On or about July 7, 2003, LIBBY advised the White House Press Secretary that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA;
[*] In or about June or July 2003, and in no case later than on or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Assistant to the Vice President for Public Affairs that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA;
[*] On or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY advised reporter Judith Miller of his belief that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA; and
[*] On or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY had a discussion with the Counsel to the Office of the Vice President concerning the paperwork that would exist if a person who was sent on an overseas trip by the CIA had a spouse who worked at the CIA;
.
.
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1503.[/b]
COUNT TWO
(False Statement)
THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES:
.
.
3. On or about October 14 and November 26, 2003, in the District of Columbia,
I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY,"
defendant herein, did knowingly and willfully make a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement and representation in a matter within the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, an agency within the executive branch of the United States, in that the defendant, in response to questions posed to him by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, stated that:
During a conversation with Tim Russert of NBC News on July 10 or 11, 2003, Russert asked LIBBY if LIBBY was aware that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.
LIBBY responded to Russert that he did not know that, and Russert replied that all the reporters knew it. LIBBY was surprised by this statement because, while speaking with Russert, LIBBY did not recall that he previously had learned about Wilson's wife's employment from the Vice President.
4. As defendant LIBBY well knew when he made it, this statement was false in that when LIBBY spoke with Russert on or about July 10 or 11, 2003:
a. Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and
b. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA; In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2).COUNT THREE
(False Statement)
THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES:
.
.
2. On or about March 5, 2004, in the District of Columbia,
COUNT FOUR
(Perjury)
THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES:
.
.
I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY,"
defendant herein, having taken an oath to testify truthfully in a proceeding before a grand jury of the United States, knowingly made a false material declaration, in that he gave the following testimony regarding a conversation that he represented he had with Tim Russert of NBC News, on or about July 10, 2003 (underlined portions alleged as false):
. . . . And then he said, you know, did you know that this -- excuse me, did you know that Ambassador Wilson's wife works at the CIA? And I was a little taken aback by that. I remember being taken aback by it. And I said -- he may have said a little more but that was -- he said that. And I said, no, I don't know that. And I said, no, I don't know that intentionally because I didn't want him to take anything I was saying as in any way confirming what he said, because at that point in time I did not recall that I had ever known, and I thought this is something that he was telling me that I was first learning. And so I said, no, I don't know that because I want to be very careful not to confirm it for him, so that he didn't take my statement as confirmation for him.Now, I had said earlier in the conversation, which I omitted to tell you, that this -- you know, as always, Tim, our discussion is off-the-record if that's okay with you, and he said, that's fine. So then he said -- I said -- he said, sorry -- he, Mr. Russert said to me, did you know that Ambassador Wilson's wife, or his wife, works at the CIA? And I said, no, I don't know that. And then he said, yeah -- yes, all the reporters know it. And I said, again, I don't know that. I just wanted to be clear that I wasn't confirming anything for him on this. And you know, I was struck by what he was saying in that he thought it was an important fact, but I didn't ask him anymore about it because I didn't want to be digging in on him, and he then moved on and finished the conversation, something like that.
3. In truth and fact, as LIBBY well knew when he gave this testimony, it was false in that:
a. Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and
b. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA;
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623..
COUNT FIVE
(Perjury)
THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES:
.
.
Q. The next set of questions from the Grand Jury are -- concern this fact. If you did not understand the information about Wilson's wife to have been classified and didn't understand it when you heard it from Mr. Russert, why was it that you were so deliberate to make sure that you told other reporters that reporters were saying it and not assert it as something you knew?
A. I want -- I didn't want to -- I didn't know if it was true and I didn't want people -- I didn't want the reporters to think it was true because I said it. I -- all I had was that reporters are telling us that, and by that I wanted them to understand it wasn't coming from me and that it might not be true. Reporters write things that aren't true sometimes, or get things that aren't true. So I wanted to be clear they didn't, they didn't think it was me saying it. I didn't know it was true and I wanted them to understand that. Also, it was important to me to let them know that because what I was telling them was that I don't know Mr. Wilson. We didn't ask for his mission. That I didn't see his report. Basically, we didn't know anything about him until this stuff came out in June. And among the other things, I didn't know he had a wife. That was one of the things I said to Mr. Cooper. I don't know if he's married. And so I wanted to be very clear about all this stuff that I didn't, I didn't know about him. And the only thing I had, I thought at the time, was what reporters are telling us.
. . . .
Well, talking to the other reporters about it, I don't see as a crime. What I said to the other reporters is what, you know -- I told a couple reporters what other reporters had told us, and I don't see that as a crime.
3. In truth and fact, as LIBBY well knew when he gave this testimony, it was false in that LIBBY did not advise Matthew Cooper or other reporters that LIBBY had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise Cooper or other reporters that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true;
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.
Would you like any particular condiments with your healthy serving of crow? :laugh:It shall be rather interesting to see how this can stand up in court.
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Its a shame that Rove, who appears to have just as big of a role in this as Libbly, might walk without anything.
If he had the same role as libby then he would be indicted. Remember we are seeking justice here, not a witch hunt.
Ah, but that's what this whole thing has been. From the sounds of it, there aren't any indictments about this so-called "leak", but rather a perjury charge. So what it means in the end is that all this whining from the hardcore left over this has proved to be nothing.
I wonder how some people are going to be able to handle the news that there wasn't anything to the so-called "leak" BS. I suppose though, that they are used to that whole emotional rollercoaster. They get themselves all worked into a tizzy and then bounced back to reality. It's happened the last couple election cycles, and it's happened every time they've tried to "get" Bush. I'm almost starting to feel sorry for them. Well, ok, maybe not!
BTW, nothing has been handed down yet so everything is still speculation.
Originally posted by: StarTech
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Its a shame that Rove, who appears to have just as big of a role in this as Libbly, might walk without anything.
If he had the same role as libby then he would be indicted. Remember we are seeking justice here, not a witch hunt.
Ah, but that's what this whole thing has been. From the sounds of it, there aren't any indictments about this so-called "leak", but rather a perjury charge. So what it means in the end is that all this whining from the hardcore left over this has proved to be nothing.
I wonder how some people are going to be able to handle the news that there wasn't anything to the so-called "leak" BS. I suppose though, that they are used to that whole emotional rollercoaster. They get themselves all worked into a tizzy and then bounced back to reality. It's happened the last couple election cycles, and it's happened every time they've tried to "get" Bush. I'm almost starting to feel sorry for them. Well, ok, maybe not!
BTW, nothing has been handed down yet so everything is still speculation.
I wonder why one would get into perjury? Is there a fun in doing it or may be it was to cover up something dirty? hmm, I wonder what that be?
Originally posted by: piasabird
Politicians lie all the time. This is not such a big deal. Clinton Lied to a Grand Jury and he is not in Jail.
Originally posted by: piasabird
Personally, He should have just refused to answer on grounds of National Security.
Originally posted by: tooltime
what a fvcked up situation this guy is in...he (had) a lot going for him with his career...i'm sure he will bounce back somewher else
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: tooltime
what a fvcked up situation this guy is in...he (had) a lot going for him with his career...i'm sure he will bounce back somewher else
Yeah, right, great guy. Treason and perjury. Plenty going for him in his career. :roll:
I hope he bounces back in a federal prison sharing a cell with Bush and Cheney.
Originally posted by: judasmachine
I wonder how these guys feel when they take the big one for the team? Is there a golden parachute included?
Obviously, Libby hasn't been convicted... yet, but the amount of detail Fitz included in the indictment is rare and very convincing for the purpose of discussion, which is just as obviously all we have until the trial.Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
So he's guilty before there has even been a trial?
Let's see... At least two administration officials, Libby and Rove, are known to have disclosed classified information about Valerie Plame Wilson's identity as a covert CIA operative to journalists not authorized to have access to such classified information. Libby is charged with obstruction of justice and perjury for lying to the FBI and to the Grand Jury under oath. Fitzgerald stated that these lies obscured the facts regarding the facts surrounding the underlying charges related to blowing her cover."Treason"? Where did you pull that from besides your hind side?
You can always argue the point with him.I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors.
You Bushwhacko apologists are great! Since you were so quick to jump on Clinton's misdeeds, compare the potential consequenses of blowing classified information about covert intelligence agents and operations to the consequences of blowing Willy's willy. :shocked:You leftists are great! Keep up with the deluded rantings, Americans love to see and hear you. :laugh: