Fitzgerald puts a defense witness to the test in Libby case! (1 Viewer)

[aps]

I am so proud of him!

In the Libby Case, A Grilling to Remember

With withering and methodical dispatch, White House nemesis and prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald yesterday sliced up the first person called to the stand on behalf of the vice president's former chief of staff. . . .

Fitzgerald's target in the witness box was Elizabeth F. Loftus, a professor of criminology and psychology at the University of California at Irvine. For more than an hour of the pretrial hearing, Loftus calmly explained to Judge Reggie B. Walton her three decades of expertise in human memory and witness testimony. Loftus asserted that, after copious scientific research, she has found that many potential jurors do not understand the limits of memory and that Libby should be allowed to call an expert to make that clear to them.

But when Fitzgerald got his chance to cross-examine Loftus about her findings, he had her stuttering to explain her own writings and backpedaling from her earlier assertions. Citing several of her publications, footnotes and the work of her peers, Fitzgerald got Loftus to acknowledge that the methodology she had used at times in her long academic career was not that scientific, that her conclusions about memory were conflicting, and that she had exaggerated a figure and a statement from her survey of D.C. jurors that favored the defense. . . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/26/AR2006102601612.html

You go Patrick Fitzgerald! It's called impeaching a witness.

 

[Navy Pride]

I am so proud of him!



You go Patrick Fitzgerald! It's called impeaching a witness.

yeah aps and he is a good Conservative Republican...

 

[Stinger]

I am so proud of him!



You go Patrick Fitzgerald! It's called impeaching a witness.

Yeah let's get him, 20 years hard labor...........for what aps? Why? What's the underlying crime?

It's just your way of going after people who oppose you politically. Phoney trials, get them out of the way.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Yeah let's get him, 20 years hard labor...........for what aps? Why? What's the underlying crime?

IIRC, he was indicted for lying to a grand jury and making false statements to the FBI.
Did you forget already?

 

[aps]

IIRC, he was indicted for lying to a grand jury and making false statements to the FBI.
Did you forget already?

LOL Of course the republicans forget about this; however, they surely will always remember that Bill Clinton lied under oath to a grand jury. :roll:

Stinger, you can attack this case all you want. Libby was indicted by a grand jury--this is part of the justice system. I am glad you think you know more than those who sat through testimony.

 

[BWG]

Sounds like Patrick J. Fitzgerald cuts through the BS and spin.

The cons are in trouble....:lol:

 

[Simon W. Moon]

LOL Of course the republicans forget about this...

I haven't forgotten.

 

[aps]

I haven't forgotten.

You're one of the good ones, Simon.

 

[Stinger]

IIRC, he was indicted for lying to a grand jury and making false statements to the FBI.
Did you forget already?

And the underlying crime, lied about what a snipet of a conversation of no bearing, something that was well known and of no consequences. In an investigation where the prosecutor already knew no crime had been committed. What was the obstruction of justice?

But yep let's give him 20 years just because we don't like him.

 

[Stinger]

LOL Of course the republicans forget about this;

No one has forgotten the facts of the case, hope you know them by now and not the garbage that was presented as facts in other threads. And I note that you weren't able to address the underlying issues.

however, they surely will always remember that Bill Clinton lied under oath to a grand jury. :roll:

And knowingly submitted a false affidavit for the purpose of obstructing justice. And you defended him.
Where is that here? There was no obstruction of justice, Fitzgerald already knew who told Novak who sent Wilson and that she worked at the CIA.

Stinger, you can attack this case all you want. Libby was indicted by a grand jury--this is part of the justice system. I am glad you think you know more than those who sat through testimony.

And you still can't say what the underlying crime was and how Libby obstructed justice.

Why not admit it doesn't matter? You have made no bones about the fact that if your political opponents get taken out by whatever means that's OK with you.

 

[aps]

No one has forgotten the facts of the case, hope you know them by now and not the garbage that was presented as facts in other threads. And I note that you weren't able to address the underlying issues.



And knowingly submitted a false affidavit for the purpose of obstructing justice. And you defended him.
Where is that here? There was no obstruction of justice, Fitzgerald already knew who told Novak who sent Wilson and that she worked at the CIA.



And you still can't say what the underlying crime was and how Libby obstructed justice.

Why not admit it doesn't matter? You have made no bones about the fact that if your political opponents get taken out by whatever means that's OK with you.

I don't understand your point. So the underlying statute (outing a CIA agent) was not violated. That doesn't mean that another crime cannot be committed in the process of investigating the underlying crime. Libby changed his story, and his story is not corroborated by anyone. In fact, his story is refuted by witnesses (Tim Russert, Judith Miller), who the grand jury obviously found more credible than Libby. A grand jury determined that Libby lied under oath and indicted him. What is it that you are questioning? Sure, I am basing my assessment on facts that I have heard in the news and via Fitzgerald's press conference, so, like you, I don't have any idea of what happened in the court room. But neither do you. There was enough evidence to indict him. Both the Special Prosector and the ENTIRE grand jury have to agree to indict. That is a lot of people coming to the same conclusion. Dismiss it all you want. Fitzgerald is NOT a partisan hack, and you won't see anyone (anyone credible) attacking him in this regard. Now we'll let the jury decide whether he lied under oath.

As for Clinton, I just don't think the lie he told under oath was a big deal. I like Clinton, and I am always more forgiving of people who I like versus an administration who I find utterly corrupt. Yes, I am a hypocrite, but so what? I'm human.

 

[Stinger]

I don't understand your point. So the underlying statute (outing a CIA agent) was not violated.

And not only that the primary question Fitzgerald was investigating had been answered. Why was he even investigating Libby? What is the obstruction of justice Libby is supposed to have committed.

That doesn't mean that another crime cannot be committed in the process of investigating the underlying crime.

Fitzgerald knew there was no underlying crime. So how was justice obstructed?

Libby changed his story, and his story is not corroborated by anyone.

About non-monumental conversations about nothing illegal. Conversations which had no bearing on anything.

Dismiss it all you want.

Dismiss what? What is there to dismiss?

Fitzgerald is NOT a partisan hack, and you won't see anyone (anyone credible) attacking him in this regard. Now we'll let the jury decide whether he lied under oath.

And you hope he goes to jail. You have stated that in the past. Why?

As for Clinton, I just don't think the lie he told under oath was a big deal.

So let's see, Libby's mistatement, which is all we can say about it at this time, has no bearing on anything. And you want his head.

Clinton purposely commited perjury and suborned the perjury of another EXPRESSLY for the purpose of obstructing justice. And he's your hero.

An amazing position to take.

I like Clinton,

The man who set up young intern he had engaged in an illicit affair inside the White House for a term in a federal prison in order to try and protect his political future.

Yeah, nice guy. Just love him to death.

 

[tecoyah]

And the underlying crime, lied about what a snipet of a conversation of no bearing, something that was well known and of no consequences. In an investigation where the prosecutor already knew no crime had been committed. What was the obstruction of justice?

But yep let's give him 20 years just because we don't like him.

\\


And the underlying crime, lied about getting a blow job, something that was well known and of no consequences. In an investigation where the prosecutor already knew no crime had been committed. What was the obstruction of justice?

But yep let's impeach him him just because we don't like him.

 

[BWG]

Just in case anyone needs a refresher.


I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, was indicted by federal grand jury on charges related to the investigation into the leak of a CIA operative's name to the media.

Libby was indicted on one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury and two counts of making false statements, court documents show.


Count one: Obstruction of justice
Alleges that Libby intentionally deceived the grand jury about how he learned, and "disclosed to the media," information about Valerie Plame Wilson's employment by the CIA.

Count two: Making a false statement
Alleges that Libby intentionally gave FBI agents false information about a conversation he had with NBC's Tim Russert regarding Valerie Plame Wilson, who is married to Joseph Wilson.

Count three: Making a false statement
Alleges that Libby knowingly gave the FBI false information about what he had told reporter Matt Cooper of Time magazine regarding Valerie Plame Wilson.

Count four: Perjury
Alleges that Libby knowingly provided false testimony in court about a conversation he had with Russert.

Count five: Perjury
Alleges that Libby knowingly provided false testimony in court about his conversation with reporters regarding Valerie Plame Wilson's CIA employment.

 

[Stinger]

\\


And the underlying crime, lied about getting a blow job, something that was well known and of no consequences. In an investigation where the prosecutor already knew no crime had been committed. What was the obstruction of justice?

But yep let's impeach him him just because we don't like him.

Nope the underlying offense was pressuring subordinate workers into sex and offering rewards and special favors inviolation of federal civil rights laws. Then of course evidence that he and Lewinsky were engage in a conspiricy to obstruct justice and were submitting a false affidavit for that purpose.

So yep, a President knowingly and willfully engaging in a conspiricy to obstruct a federal court proceeding.

There is no comparison as much as you desperately want to create one.

 

[Stinger]

Just in case anyone needs a refresher.


I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, was indicted by federal grand jury on charges related to the investigation into the leak of a CIA operative's name to the media.

An investigation that from day one the prosecutor knew that no crime had been committed.

Count one: Obstruction of justice
Alleges that Libby intentionally deceived the grand jury about how he learned, and "disclosed to the media," information about Valerie Plame Wilson's employment by the CIA.

And none of that had to do with an underlying crime. Where is the obstruction of justice?

Count two: Making a false statement
Alleges that Libby intentionally gave FBI agents false information about a conversation he had with NBC's Tim Russert regarding Valerie Plame Wilson, who is married to Joseph Wilson.

Which had to do with what crime since the prosecutor already knew it was Armitage who told Novak?

Count three: Making a false statement
Alleges that Libby knowingly gave the FBI false information about what he had told reporter Matt Cooper of Time magazine regarding Valerie Plame Wilson.

Which had nothing to do with anything criminal or against the law.

Count four: Perjury
Alleges that Libby knowingly provided false testimony in court about a conversation he had with Russert.

Which had nothing to do with the underlying crime.

Count five: Perjury
Alleges that Libby knowingly provided false testimony in court about his conversation with reporters regarding Valerie Plame Wilson's CIA employment.

And again the underlying crime. The prosecutor knew before he interviewed Libby that no crime had been committed. The source for the leak he was suppose to be investigating had already told him he was the leaker.

And all of the above could be a simple slip of the memory, who told who about something that wasn't very striking or eventfull or noteworthy to any of them.

If he was obstructing justice, don't see how, but if he willfully and knowingly did so then you have a point. But Fitzgerald is going to have a hard sell on all the points above.

Again, why is someone being prosecuted over moot points? That could well be simple inaccuracies in recalling not very noteworth events.

So what if he told a reporter he knew about Plames employement? What is the offense he was trying to obstruct prosecution of?

 

[aps]

An investigation that from day one the prosecutor knew that no crime had been committed.




And none of that had to do with an underlying crime. Where is the obstruction of justice?



Which had to do with what crime since the prosecutor already knew it was Armitage who told Novak?



Which had nothing to do with anything criminal or against the law.



Which had nothing to do with the underlying crime.



And again the underlying crime. The prosecutor knew before he interviewed Libby that no crime had been committed. The source for the leak he was suppose to be investigating had already told him he was the leaker.

And all of the above could be a simple slip of the memory, who told who about something that wasn't very striking or eventfull or noteworthy to any of them.

If he was obstructing justice, don't see how, but if he willfully and knowingly did so then you have a point. But Fitzgerald is going to have a hard sell on all the points above.

Again, why is someone being prosecuted over moot points? That could well be simple inaccuracies in recalling not very noteworth events.

So what if he told a reporter he knew about Plames employement? What is the offense he was trying to obstruct prosecution of?

You know, Stinger, you amaze me with your omniscient attitude about this case. Jesus Christ! You make it seem as though you sat through the entire grand jury proceedings, watched everyone testify, you know the law, and you know how it applies to the facts in the case. I think (and I am being sarcastic) that Fitzgerald may *sarcasm* have a little more experience in this than you do. I also think that a federal judge would have already dismissed the case if there was nothing to it. There are facts that MUST be weighed by a jury. But for you to dismiss the entire case because YOU think that there is nothing to it is rather ridiculous. Get real, will you? And stop talking like you're some know-it-all, because you arent.

 

[BWG]

aps,
The facts are, Libby has been indicted by a FEDERAL grand jury for:

Count 1: intentionally deceived the grand jury

Count 2: intentionally gave FBI agents false information

Count 3: knowingly gave the FBI false information

Count 4: knowingly provided false testimony in court

Count 5: knowingly provided false testimony in court


Now, I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TEE VEE, but IMHO these are very serious charges.

But cons believe IOKIYAR (It's OK If Your A Republican) :lol:

 

[Stinger]

You know, Stinger, you amaze me with your omniscient attitude about this case. Jesus Christ!

Well since I have been mostly correct in this matter and you have not.................

You make it seem as though you sat through the entire grand jury proceedings, watched everyone testify, you know the law, and you know how it applies to the facts in the case. I think (and I am being sarcastic) that Fitzgerald may *sarcasm* have a little more experience in this than you do.

Yeah he knew months before any of us who told Novak about Plame, that should have been the end of it.

I also think that a federal judge would have already dismissed the case if there was nothing to it.

Those hearings are just taking place.

There are facts that MUST be weighed by a jury.

What facts? You have been unable to address any of the salient points I have brought up.

But for you to dismiss the entire case because YOU think that there is nothing to it is rather ridiculous. Get real, will you? And stop talking like you're some know-it-all, because you arent.

I have clearly stated the facts. You continue to want to deal with hopes and wishes that Libby or ANYONE in the Bush administration will go to jail for SOMETHING. If Libby committed a crime then he should go to jail, but as has already been noted there was nothing to obstruct and whether he spoke to a reporter on this day or that day or who heard about Plame from who first has no bearing on ANYTHING, there was no crime.

Now if you can show how justice was obstructed, what crime was committed that he was covering up then do so.

 

[Stinger]

aps,
The facts are, Libby has been indicted by a FEDERAL grand jury for:

Count 1: intentionally deceived the grand jury

Count 2: intentionally gave FBI agents false information

Count 3: knowingly gave the FBI false information

Count 4: knowingly provided false testimony in court

Count 5: knowingly provided false testimony in court


Now, I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TEE VEE, but IMHO these are very serious charges.

But cons believe IOKIYAR (It's OK If Your A Republican) :lol:

And an indictment is not a finding of guilt.

So what was the underlying crime and how was justice obstructed when Fitzgerald already knew who tolde Novak about Plame and that it wasn't a violation of the law?

 

[aps]

Well since I have been mostly correct in this matter and you have not.................

You're delusional. I am done with you on this topic. Bye bye. :2wave:

 

[Stinger]

You're delusional. I am done with you on this topic. Bye bye. :2wave:

Too bad but it is true, you and others were betting the farm on Rove being indicted and that didn't happen, there has been no crime shown so there was nothing to obstruct. Libby would have gained nothing, that is NOTHING, by purposely lying and there was NOTHING to obstruct.

So what is the underlying crime and where was the obstruction of justice?

 

[aps]

Ha ha ha ha Fitzgerald was able to prevent this witness from testifying at the trial. Awww, Libby, isn't that too bad????? :lol:

Judge Excludes Memory Expert From Libby Trial
Associated Press
Friday, November 3, 2006; Page A11


Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby will not be allowed to use a memory expert at his perjury and obstruction trial, a federal judge ruled yesterday, blocking a key tactic in Libby's defense strategy.

Libby, who is accused of lying to investigators in the CIA leak case, wanted an expert to testify that memory is unreliable, especially during times of stress. Libby says he had national security issues on his mind and any misstatements he made about the leak of CIA officer Valerie Plame's name were mistakes, not lies. . . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/02/AR2006110201541.html

 

[Quik]

Too bad but it is true, you and others were betting the farm on Rove being indicted and that didn't happen, there has been no crime shown so there was nothing to obstruct. Libby would have gained nothing, that is NOTHING, by purposely lying and there was NOTHING to obstruct.

So what is the underlying crime and where was the obstruction of justice?

Stinger why do you feel compelled to defend a known liar and criminal, just because he was a member of the Bush administration? You are an extremist partisan.

Libby is a damned fool and everyone knows Plames name was leaked because of Wilsons critical op-ed on the Iraq war. It's unlikely that he was acting alone and probably had orders from hire up, most likely Karl Rove.

Anyways, Stinger your position on this issue is entirely inconsistant regarding previous statements, especially the NSA warrantless wiretapping issue, where you said the people who leaked that program were treasonous. Why only in one case is it treasonous (reveal existance of illegal program) but not in others (reveal identity of CIA agent)?

 

[Stinger]

Stinger why do you feel compelled to defend a known liar and criminal, ...........

Since I don't your post was entirely specious and also lacking in fact. If you want to discuss this specific case let me know.

What was the obstruction justice Libby was engaged in and why did Fitzgerald continue the investigation when on his first day in the office he learned who had leaked Plames name and it wasn't Libby or Rove or anyone in the White House and it was not criminal.

You can go back to the other threads concerning this matter especially those before we learned the truth and I was quite clear about Libby and Rove in those. If they did something illegal and there was an obstruction of justice then anyone guilty should face the conseqences. We now know that was not the case.