scottyz said:We should know for sure tomorrow if there will be any charges. What truth am I hoping to get? The point is the Starr wasn't able to get Clinton on the orignal charges but he was able to get him in a perjury trap. Sounds like Stu is saying that this strategy is an unacceptable way to get Rove or Libby indicted. I'm sure he didn't feel this way when it happened to Clinton. He sounds like Kay Bailey Hutchison atm.
scottyz said:So when Whitewater didn't pan out Lucienne Goldberg got them a new charge to work with, what is your point? Why is it wrong to use a perjury trap to get Rove or Libby?
Kandahar said:You're the one who's claiming that any possible charges (when you don't even know what they are yet) are false, when you have no idea what you're talking about.
I have remained neutral as to whether or not a crime was committed since I don't have access to Fitzgerald's evidence.
I don't know if the word "hold" is the best word to use...as in "hold accountable"...Simon W. Moon said:So, we should hold Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey for any of the "secondary" charges that stem from this case(pdf) being investigated by his "close friend" Fitzgerald?
cnredd said:I don't know if the word "hold" is the best word to use...as in "hold accountable"...
But if you were to say that Comey gave the greenlight for Fitzgerald to widen the investigation, that sounds about right...
I would imagine that Comey first had to go through the Court of Appeals like Reno did, but I don't know if that is a "must do"...
Nope. Perjury traps are perfectly acceptable. Why is it unacceptable for Fitzgerald to get Rove and Libby on perjury charges? Libby has already been indicted btw.Stinger said:So you are claiming Fitzgerald laid a perjury trap and caught Libby? That would be unethical, are you calling for him to step down?
Stu Ghatze said:It is BECAUSE I listen once in awhile to YOUR media heroes like Chris Mathews, who is so colorful in what HE SAYS is going on.
What, ..you think Mathews is as full of shyte as I'am now, ...naw! :smile:
Given Fitzgeralds reputation I highly doubt the charges are false.Kandahar said:What does Chris Matthews have to do with ANYTHING I just said? Stop bringing irrelevant names into the debate in an effort to bait me into a different discussion. We're talking about this case. How in the world can you claim that the charges are false when you haven't seen the evidence? I'm certainly not claiming that they're true without seeing the evidence. The only logical conclusion is that you're a party hack, and are more concerned with loyalty to your guys than you are with justice.
Kandahar said:What does Chris Matthews have to do with ANYTHING I just said? Stop bringing irrelevant names into the debate in an effort to bait me into a different discussion. We're talking about this case. How in the world can you claim that the charges are false when you haven't seen the evidence? I'm certainly not claiming that they're true without seeing the evidence. The only logical conclusion is that you're a party hack, and are more concerned with loyalty to your guys than you are with justice.
FinnMacCool said:Every single one of Stus posts are attacking the liberals or the democrats. Its almost as if he thinks the republicans and conservatives are gods that cannot do anything wrong. Seriously I'm a liberal (though not a democrat) and I'm willing to admit a lot of liberals are assholes so why can't Stu admit that a lot of conservatives or republicans are assholes?
After all of this time, why do you suppose Fitzgerald and the CIA have not addressed the issue central to the entire investigation?Stu Ghatze said:I also have a problem with this so called, COVERT label....& it appears that Fitzgerald is ASSUMMING that she was covert, & in actuality it has NOT been proven that she was.
Fitzgerald made it a point in "HIS OWN WORDS" to more or less say , TO THE MEDIA afterwards....its still a serious charge. I understand his words, ..but it might not be that she was actually covert!
Some have said she was NOT covert, & some have said she was????
Are you sure of what "hearsay" means in a legal sense?Stu Ghatze said:I believe that Fitzgerald is walking a fine line with that, & its only assumption, & I suspect any good defense attorney that LIbby gets will try to establish it as hearsay!
Please provide a source for this limitation on Fitsgerald's powers.Stu Ghatze said:His criminal INTENT is going to be kind of hard to prove by the prosecution, ..in a court of law, ..which is quite different than what powers the special prosecutor has to bring indictment.
Stu Ghatze said::2razz: Okay, ..so IF I admit that I'm a party hack, ..can YOU admit that Joe Wilson was too?
hipsterdufus said:One thing I think most of us can agree on is that Fitzgerald did an excellent job avoiding leaks to the media, as opposed to Ken Starr's leak fest.
All prosecutors could take a lesson from Fitzgerald on this one.
scottyz said:So when Whitewater didn't pan out Lucienne Goldberg got them a new charge to work with, what is your point? Why is it wrong to use a perjury trap to get Rove or Libby?
scottyz said:Nope. Perjury traps are perfectly acceptable.
Why is it unacceptable for Fitzgerald to get Rove and Libby on perjury charges? Libby has already been indicted btw.
Do you consider asking someone a question you know they wont answer truthfully a perjury trap?Stinger said:Originally Posted by Stinger
So you are claiming Fitzgerald laid a perjury trap and caught Libby? That would be unethical, are you calling for him to step down?
Nope, trapping someone into a perjury is unethical for the prosecutor and if the court ruled it was a perjury trap he could throw out the evidence.
So are you now trying to twist what you said from a perjury trap to a perjury charge?
scottyz said:So when Whitewater didn't pan out Lucienne Goldberg got them a new charge to work with, what is your point? Why is it wrong to use a perjury trap to get Rove or Libby?
scottyz said:Do you consider asking someone a question you know they wont answer truthfully a perjury trap?
It appears there was no perjury trap at all. Libby just kept on telling bogus stories to the prosecutor and got caught, so sorry.
He said that reporters were his only source, not merely his first source.Stinger said:Perhaps, or indeed he did hear it from a reporter first or
indeed it is a matter of 3 year memory of events ...
He had a converstaion about it at least twice a week for a month, and requested documents be faxed to him at the Office of the VP from the CIA regarding the matter. A mere three months after this month long period, he forgot and 'mis-remembered' it.Stinger said:... that were not very memorial.
Simon W. Moon said:He said that reporters were his only source, not merely his first source.
He remembered part of more than one conversation that is not remmbered by the other participants in the conversations.
The conflicting reports from Libby began three MONTHS after, not three years.
He had a converstaion about it at least twice a week for a month, and requested documents be faxed to him at the Office of the VP from the CIA regarding the matter. A mere three months after this month long period, he forgot and 'mis-remembered' it.
The crime is not what he told reporters, but what he told the FBI and the Grand Jury.Stinger said:Yes and we'll wait to see what he says in court. If you read the indictment he is telling reporters that this is new information to him and he doesn't know if it is true. If in fact, as it appears he did know it and it wasn't new to him, that would not be a crime. I want to see in more detail exactly what he told the FBI.
The crime is not what he told reporters, but what he told the FBI and the Grand Jury.Stinger said:His word against Russerts on whether they discussed it and it was not against to law to feed Russert a phoney story if that's what he did.
The crime is not what he told reporters, but what he told the FBI and the Grand Jury.Stinger said:"as if" that's a key, he may have known but pretended "as if" he didn't to the reporters. Not against the law. I want to see more about this.
The crime is not what he told reporters, but what he told the FBI and the Grand Jury.Stinger said:Understanding with whom, the reporter? Nothing illegal there either.
The crime is not what he told reporters, but what he told the FBI and the Grand Jury.Stinger said:Fine, make them go out and prove the story so that when they write they back it up with facts they have uncovered. Nothing wrong with that.
There are relevant portions in the indictment.Stinger said:THAT is where he might have a problem and until we see all the testimony ...
[Libby] remembered part of more than one conversation that is not remembered by the other participants in the conversations.
It is evidence (as opposed to proof) that he was making stuff up. If it was just one conversation it would look different than multiple conversations where he remembered "extras"Stinger said:Which is not evidence he did not hear what he claims.
On or about July 8, 2003 to October 14, 2003 => ~98 daysStinger said:Actaully about 5 months June to October.
Simon W. Moon said:The crime is not what he told reporters, but what he told the FBI and the Grand Jury.
The crime is not what he told reporters, but what he told the FBI and the Grand Jury.
On or about July 8, 2003 to October 14, 2003 => ~98 days
IMHO, that seems closer to 3 months than 5.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?