For the fans of "Scooter" Libby

[ QUOTE ]
Libby Lawyer: Woodward Testimony a 'Bombshell' for CIA Leak Case
Wednesday, November 16, 2005

WASHINGTON — Testimony by Washington Post editor Bob Woodward in the CIA leak case is a bombshell to the special prosecutor's case against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, an attorney for Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff told FOX News on Wednesday.

[/ QUOTE ]


Does this change any opinions?

[jt1]

Only the Partisans care about this case.
who is libby anyway? and y should i care if he lied or not?

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
Does this change any opinions?

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't followed this subject that closely, but I don't really understand what this changes. Libby was indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice, and the common belief is that he leaked to Miller. Why would this change any of that?

[cardcounter0]

because he might have been lying about something important, like a bj.

[ QUOTE ]
Only the Partisans care about this case.
who is libby anyway? and y should i care if he lied or not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you met peachy over at OOT?

[ QUOTE ]

Does this change any opinions?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Libby Lawyer: Woodward Testimony a 'Bombshell' for CIA Leak Case
Wednesday, November 16, 2005

WASHINGTON — Testimony by Washington Post editor Bob Woodward in the CIA leak case is a bombshell to the special prosecutor's case against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, an attorney for Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff told FOX News on Wednesday.



[/ QUOTE ]


Does this change any opinions?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the most non-informative post in the history of the Politics forum. You don't provide a link and the quoted portion provides absolutely no information of relevance whatsoever. What is this testimony? Why is it a 'bombshell?'

My opinion has changed a little bit with this 'bombshell' quote in that I think Libby's lawyer should join him in front of the treason-exterminating firing squad.

[ QUOTE ]
This is the most non-informative post in the history of the Politics forum.

[/ QUOTE ]
Was this voted on? Is there a committee or panel of judges? Do I get a prize? Is there a ceremony or banquet? Will David be there?


[ QUOTE ]
You don't provide a link and the quoted portion provides absolutely no information of relevance whatsoever.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, since you asked, so politely and seem to need help finding readily accessible news…

<ul type="square">for starters (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/16/woodward.leak/index.html)

and this (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175727,00.html)[/list]


[ QUOTE ]
What is this testimony? Why is it a 'bombshell?'

[/ QUOTE ]
See links provided above.


[ QUOTE ]
My opinion has changed a little bit with this 'bombshell' quote in that I think Libby's lawyer should join him in front of the treason-exterminating firing squad.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you “dare call it treason.” I don’t remember that being one of the charges. Oh, well, back to my “readily accessible news” sources.

Btw, “treason-exterminating firing squad?” LMAO. Great line there, Sparky.

[TakeMeToTheRiver]

[ QUOTE ]
Because Libby is charged not with leaking Plame's name but with lying about his conversations with three other journalists -- NBC's Tim Russert, Time's Matt Cooper and former New York Times reporter Judith Miller -- the relevance of Woodward's testimony on Libby's case is uncertain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everything else is bs. Libby is charged with the cover up not "the crime"... so the fact that "the crime" was less criminal does not effect the allegation that Libby lied to cover up his involvement in "the crime."

[Exsubmariner]

I still feel strongly that Libby will be pardoned. This is really a tempest in a teapot. The grand jury has to date concluded that there was no crime here and are only pursuing Libby because they believe he is guilty of perjury.

I care more about finding the Democratic career bureaucrat operatives in the CIA that leaked the "secret prisons" information. That is far more damaging to National Security than some unemployed diplomat drinking tea in Niger and making up some phoney report about it. I hope when the culprits are found they are hanged for treason, just like Joseph Wilson should be.

X

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
...some unemployed diplomat drinking tea in Niger and making up some phoney report about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly was phony about Wilson's report? And where's your proof of said phoniness?

Tell me what's wrong with the following: Wilson reported that the alleged Africa-Iraq deals did not exist. He was later proven to be correct. Bush mentioned the connection in his State of the Union address in spite of Wilson's report. Some now say Wilson should be hanged for treason.

[Exsubmariner]

This is where the finely nuanced minds of liberals miss out. The President said Saddam attempted to buy yellow cake uranium. That does not mean that he actually made the purchase. Of course no deals existed for Wilson to find, they never happened, but were attempted. I'm too lazy to link the the text of the state of the union address.

The entire point of the exercise was to undermine a sitting President who was acting to the best of his ability in the interests of national security. Sounds like treason to me.

X

[twowords]

[ QUOTE ]
I still feel strongly that Libby will be pardoned. The grand jury has to date concluded that there was no crime here and are only pursuing Libby because they believe he is guilty of perjury.


[/ QUOTE ]

See anything wrong with that second sentence?

It seems to be SOP for prosecutors to convict on cover up, obstruction, and perjury, when a conviction is difficult on a particular law despite the apparent guilt of the offender. The law against outing undercover CIA agents is extemely specific and limited and is hard to prosecute since you have to prove A) a concerted intent to out the agent and B) that the offender knew the agent was undercover. This makes it easy for someone to just plead ignorance or stupidity. Therefore, Fitz gets him on the other stuff which also happen to be serious crimes, although others involved will likely get a pass.

As for Wilson, watching fox news will teach you that: A) Wilson lied that Cheney sent him to Niger, B) Wilson's wife sent him or picked him to go, C) He was underqualified to go on the trip, D) He reported that Niger was possibly dealing with Iraq with nukes, E) He is a problem liar, he lies about everything, and he has a far-left political agenda.

Sadly, none of this is true. A) Wilson said the trip to Niger was insprired by the VP office and this was true, B) He was chosen by CIA who then asked wife if this was good idea, she said sure, C) CIA did pick him to go with VP office approval, D) His report stressed that Iraq was probably not dealing with Niger, E) According to Hannity and Newt, do you believe them?

[jt1]

[ QUOTE ]
This is where the finely nuanced minds of liberals miss out. The President said Saddam attempted to buy yellow cake uranium. That does not mean that he actually made the purchase. Of course no deals existed for Wilson to find, they never happened, but were attempted. I'm too lazy to link the the text of the state of the union address.

The entire point of the exercise was to undermine a sitting President who was acting to the best of his ability in the interests of national security. Sounds like treason to me.


[/ QUOTE ]


I don't have the facts, but it's my impression that the CIA now thinks (and possibly at the time that the President stated it in the SOUA) that Saddam never even tried to get Uranium.

As for the subject of treason, I have a nice little poll out there in the lobby if you'd like to put your two cents in.

[ptmusic]

You did not deny anything in my post.

[ QUOTE ]
This is where the finely nuanced minds of liberals miss out.

[/ QUOTE ]

What, in my post, are you referring to? I'm not liberal, by the way.

[ QUOTE ]

The President said Saddam attempted to buy yellow cake uranium. That does not mean that he actually made the purchase.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, but you completely miss the point. Wilson reported that attempts were not even made. He was later proven to be correct. He reported this BEFORE Bush's State of the Union.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course no deals existed for Wilson to find, they never happened, but were attempted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. See above.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm too lazy to link the the text of the state of the union address.

[/ QUOTE ] Don't bother: what you'll find is Bush making a statement that Wilson had previously reported to be untrue.

[ QUOTE ]
The entire point of the exercise was to undermine a sitting President who was acting to the best of his ability in the interests of national security.

[/ QUOTE ]

This part is debatable at best. Wilson was a Republican supporter in the past. It is highly unlikely that his initial goal before going to Niger was to undermine Bush. But even if that were the case, Wilson was correct.

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like treason to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Luckily, it doesn't sound like treason even to Wilson's biggest enemies, i.e. the most powerful men on earth. If Wilson's actions had the faintest hint of treason, they'd be tossing around the word "treason" in their daily talking points just like you (and Hannity etc.) are.

[peachy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Only the Partisans care about this case.
who is libby anyway? and y should i care if he lied or not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you met peachy over at OOT?

[/ QUOTE ]

why am i being brought up here?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Only the Partisans care about this case.
who is libby anyway? and y should i care if he lied or not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you met peachy over at OOT?

[/ QUOTE ]

why am i being brought up here?

[/ QUOTE ]

The juxtaposition of capitalizing "Partisan" and using "y" for "why" and a lower case "i" reminded me of your posts. Not that there's anything wrong with that. It just struck me as similar.