• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Fitzgerald taking dangerous turn & twist...

Stu Ghatze

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
531
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
just as I predicted he "probably" would. No evidence against Karl Rove, ..but will keep him a person of interest, & a "possible" indictment for Scooter Libby is supposed to be handed out today,.. According to the media anyway!

So, ACCORDING TO THE MEDIA ..the next move will be what the DEMOCRATIC party always wanted, & that is to "tie in the REASONS for going to war in Iraq", & having Fitzgerald say it is central to the Valerie Plame CIA leak case??

So Chris Mathews is HOPING the grand jury investigates the "whole reasons for going to war", if so.....Fitzgerald better start handing out indictments to prominent DEMOCRATS for also supporting reasons to go to war.

Is this really Christmas for the democrats, or is it really "FITZMAS"! ..huh huh:smile:

Fitzgerald probablly will have NO proof for a deliberate outing of Valerie Plame, ..but will more than likely be "CREATIVE" in trumping some other charge up.

Maybe THIS will placate the democrats, ..or maybe turn it into a hoped watergate, Ahh..those republicans took us to war under false pretenses, WE GOTTA LOOK INTO CHENEY, & RUMSFELD's behavior, & LIES because THEY took us into war CRAPOLA!

This whole thing has turned into a PHONEY FRAUDULENT investigation that has not, nor can not prove the original intent for even conviening a grand jury in the first place.

BUT....the Fitzgerald grand jury will THINK of getting "SOMETHING" on somebody from the Bush administration.

The media loves this crap...especially IF it thinks it can help bring a republican presidency down, ..& that is the only reason!

Botton line: Fitzgerald has NOTHING about Plame being deliberatley exposed, but will invent SOMETHING to help bring down somebody from within the confines of the Bush aids, & advisors.

It is FRAUD, FRAUD...& more FRAUD by an aggressive prosecutor, & a phoney grand jury who IS stepping out of THEIR bounds of authority by trying to make the claim IF Chris Mathews is correct in saying Fitzgerald is looking into the reasons for going to WAR in Iraq!

Leading democrats, & the media are salivating for ANYTHING that can help bring the Bush presidency DOWN, ...but those that voted for Bush, THE MAINSTREAM MAJORITY,... ARE NOT GOING TO STAND FOR THIS MISCARRAIGE OF JUSTICE, .....IF it is as CHRIS MATHEWS says is what is going down??
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Stu Ghatze said:
It is FRAUD, FRAUD...& more FRAUD by an aggressive prosecutor, & a phoney grand jury who IS stepping out of THEIR bounds of authority by trying to make the claim IF Chris Mathews is correct in saying Fitzgerald is looking into the reasons for going to WAR in Iraq!
What exactly are "THEIR bounds of authority" as you understand it?
As far as the USG's concerned it includes:
""all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity" [it] is plenary and includes the authority to investigate and prosecute violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted; and to pursue administrative remedies and civil sanctions (such as civil contempt) that are within the Attorney General's authority to impose or pursue."
What does Stu Ghatze say "THEIR bounds of authority" are exactly?

Furthermore, FYI Fitzgerald is a "close friend" of a GWB appointee, Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey. So, if he's the wrong investigator for the affair, Team Bush is to blame for picking him.

Additionally, Team Bush did lie about Iraq's connections to al-Qaida, the quality of the threat presented to the US from Iraq, the urgency of the threat presented to the US from Iraq, as well as the certainty of the intel re Iraq's WMD.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
[Moderator Mode]

Moved this thread into the appropriate forum...

[/Moderator Mode]
 

scottyz

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
:rofl :rofl I guess the Republicans shouldn't have appointed Fitzgerald then?
 
H

hipsterdufus

Stu Ghatze said:
just as I predicted he "probably" would. No evidence against Karl Rove, ..but will keep him a person of interest, & a "possible" indictment for Scooter Libby is supposed to be handed out today,.. According to the media anyway!

So, ACCORDING TO THE MEDIA ..the next move will be what the DEMOCRATIC party always wanted, & that is to "tie in the REASONS for going to war in Iraq", & having Fitzgerald say it is central to the Valerie Plame CIA leak case??

So Chris Mathews is HOPING the grand jury investigates the "whole reasons for going to war", if so.....Fitzgerald better start handing out indictments to prominent DEMOCRATS for also supporting reasons to go to war.

Is this really Christmas for the democrats, or is it really "FITZMAS"! ..huh huh:smile:

Fitzgerald probablly will have NO proof for a deliberate outing of Valerie Plame, ..but will more than likely be "CREATIVE" in trumping some other charge up.

Maybe THIS will placate the democrats, ..or maybe turn it into a hoped watergate, Ahh..those republicans took us to war under false pretenses, WE GOTTA LOOK INTO CHENEY, & RUMSFELD's behavior, & LIES because THEY took us into war CRAPOLA!

This whole thing has turned into a PHONEY FRAUDULENT investigation that has not, nor can not prove the original intent for even conviening a grand jury in the first place.

BUT....the Fitzgerald grand jury will THINK of getting "SOMETHING" on somebody from the Bush administration.

The media loves this crap...especially IF it thinks it can help bring a republican presidency down, ..& that is the only reason!

Botton line: Fitzgerald has NOTHING about Plame being deliberatley exposed, but will invent SOMETHING to help bring down somebody from within the confines of the Bush aids, & advisors.

It is FRAUD, FRAUD...& more FRAUD by an aggressive prosecutor, & a phoney grand jury who IS stepping out of THEIR bounds of authority by trying to make the claim IF Chris Mathews is correct in saying Fitzgerald is looking into the reasons for going to WAR in Iraq!

Leading democrats, & the media are salivating for ANYTHING that can help bring the Bush presidency DOWN, ...but those that voted for Bush, THE MAINSTREAM MAJORITY,... ARE NOT GOING TO STAND FOR THIS MISCARRAIGE OF JUSTICE, .....IF it is as CHRIS MATHEWS says is what is going down??
Chris Mathews is a hack! This is the media's job, to report news. Would you rather have them talking about missing white girls in the carribean?

The corruption of the Republican party is the major news of the day. Libby - Delay - Frist etc.

To me it just once again proves that absolute power corrupts absolutely.
 
Last edited:

Stu Ghatze

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
531
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
hipsterdufus said:
Chris Mathews is a hack! This is the media's job, to report news. Would you rather have them talking about missing white girls in the carribean?

The corruption of the Republican party is the major news of the day. Libby - Delay - Frist etc.

To me it just once again proves that absolute power corrupts absolutely.




Your question: Would I prefer that Mathews was talking about missing "white" girls in the Carribean??

My answer: Does it matter if any girls missing anywhere, ..what the melanin count is in their blood?


To me it proves that the democrats, & liberals cannot ever hope to empower themselves UNLESS they help FIND, or INVENT a scandal, or a controversy, with MEDIA APPROVAL of course...& then use the disengenuine services of a so called "special prosecutor" who cannot, & could not find real solid evidence of the original intent of the grand jury probe, which was to investigate WHO OUTED VALERIE PLAME FIRST, & WHO LEAKED HER NAME FIRST!

Libby simply could not remember every word he said from two years ago, ..does that prove he intentionally lied??

The media which claims to be neutral, ...already is hinting at his guilt by their talking points; & so are MANY leading democrats.

The media is in GLEE, as is the Democratic party, ..but a tad upset because they wanted Rove, & CHeney indicted for "something".

Now...YOU know it, I know it, & we BOTH know it, ..so please lets cut with the crapola about the prosecutor simply looking for truth!

I bet it sucks for you, ..knowing that Cheney, & Rove were not touched.:smile:

In a court of law, ..it will be difficult for the prosecution to PROVE that Libby intentionally lied, ..& I suspect there were MANY reporters who KNEW of Plame's CIA/ link, including Tim Russert LONG before Libby ever knew, & THIS IS CENTRAL to the case!

IMO, ..our g-damn media behavior has become "scandalous", & their continued HIDING under the freedom of the press to protect them from prosecution should be looked into as well.
 
Last edited:

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Stu Ghatze said:
Libby simply could not remember every word he said from two years ago, ..does that prove he intentionally lied??
On Friday's Hardball with Chris Matthews, he had Tucker Carlson on there (a republican). This is what Tucker had to say about Libby:

MATTHEWS: We are back.

To get to the bottom of the political fallout from the Scooter Libby indictment today on five counts, we turn to the host of MSNBC‘s “THE SITUATION,” Tucker Carlson, and MSNBC chief Washington correspondent Norah O‘Donnell.

You had, what, dinner tonight with one of Scooter Libby‘s clients, and you learned some things about him.

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST, “THE SITUATION WITH TUCKER CARLSON”: Well, it - it reconfirmed what I have been hearing for, you know, the last couple of years. And that is that the—the person I ate with described a very long description of working through a contract, a nothing contract, but the point was with Scooter Libby.

He described him as maddeningly precise, the most rigorous, fact-based guy, with the best memory, almost uptight about facts, that he had ever dealt with. He meant this not as a compliment or a criticism, merely an observation. And it brought me back to my first reaction this afternoon, watching Pat Fitzgerald‘s press conference. And it was this.

What Scooter Libby is accused of doing is reckless, almost to the point of suicidal. He must have known. Look, Scooter Libby apparently told the special prosecutor and the FBI that he learned about Valerie Wilson on this date. He must have known that there were seven, at least, conversations containing her name that he participated in that took place before that date, and that provably took place before that date.

Why would a person like Scooter Libby, who is spending his life obsessing over details—and details of the law, for that matter—do something like that? Now, the conventional explanation is, oh, he was protecting Cheney. Really? It doesn‘t protect Cheney doing that at all. It hurts only him. And, arguably, I think it hurts the vice president as well.

I don‘t see an obvious explanation for that kind of behavior, assuming he did what the—the prosecutor says he did. It just doesn‘t make sense at all.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9862503/

Yeah, Libby just forgot where he got that information. Tim Russert stated that he and Libby never discussed Plame, and Libby even quoted Russert (a fake quote, of course). What kind of person makes crap up like that? Yes, a desperate person.

Stu, face reality--Libby intentionally lied. He had NOTES to prove he lied. Anyway, you keep telling yourself that this is nothing. It is an embarrassment to the White House, and you know it. :lol:

The media is in GLEE, as is the Democratic party, ..but a tad upset because they wanted Rove, & CHeney indicted for "something".
I wonder why you think that Rove and Cheney are off the hook. If the prosecutor had nothing on Rove, the investigation would have ended. I guess if I were you, I would be hoping that Rove was not going to be indicted either (although I have too much integrity to claim that he is off the hook when the investigation is not even over).

And if you think that Cheney doesn't look bad in Libby's being indicted, think again, my delusional friend. :lol: :lol: I am having so much fun watching the White House's ship slowly sinking...........
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Just a few factual corrections in case you're interested in the facts. If not, then the corrections are for the record.

However, I suspect of you were interested in the facts of the case, you would have already examined the indictment and would not have posted some of these factually incorrect statements

Stu Ghatze said:
My answer: Does it matter if any girls missing anywhere, ..what the melanin count is in their blood?
Melanin is primarily in the skin, not the blood.

Stu Ghatze said:
Libby simply could not remember every word he said from two years ago, ..does that prove he intentionally lied??
The time between conversation and lies was only three months, not two years.
Libby had a series of convrsation that took place an average of twice a week for a period of about a month. three months from that month long period, Libby made false statements to the FBI.

The Prosecution alleges that it's not "a two year old conversation." The prosecution says that 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;
So, we're talking about at least 8 times in about a month long period, about a twice a week average, when Mr. Libby's said to have had a conversation relating to about Mrs. Wilson and the CIA.

These are what he's said to have forgotten at the time he was making his statements.

Furthermore, he was questioned by the FBI October 14, 2003 and November 26, 2003. Near as I can figure it, October 2003 is only three months from July 2003. If this is true, that October is only three months from July and not the 24 months you claimed, then that would mean that the month long period where Libby discussed the matter twice a week was only three months from the time he was questioned about the matter, not the two years that you claimed.

The Grand Jury testimony occurred March 5, 2004 and March 24, 2004, just about another three months from Mr. Libby's last set of answers to the FBI. As I figure it, and maybe I'm wrong here, help me out, March 2004 is only about 9 months from July 2003. If this is true, then the month long period where Libby discussed the matter twice a week was about 9 months from the time he was testified about the matter, not the two years that you claimed.

The actual Libby indictment for you perusal.(pdf)
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Stu Ghatze said:
In a court of law, ..it will be difficult for the prosecution to PROVE that Libby intentionally lied ...
If you examine the indictment, you'll see that more than merely failing to remember something, there're instances of 'remembering' things that did not happen.
You should also notice that Libby cites reporters as his sole source of infor re the Wilsons.
Consider:
... in response to questions posed to him by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, [Libby] 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.
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 response to questions posed to him by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, stated that:
During a conversation with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine on July 12, 2003, LIBBY told Cooper that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, but LIBBY did not know if this was true.
... LIBBY did not advise Cooper on or about July 12, 2003 that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise him that LIBBY did not know whether this was true; rather, LIBBY confirmed for Cooper, without qualification, that LIBBY had heard that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA;

... he [Libby] 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.

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 ...
Testimony Given on or about March 5, 2004 Regarding a Conversation With Matthew Cooper on or About July 12, 2003:
Q. And it's your specific recollection that when you told Cooper about Wilson's wife working at the CIA, you attributed that fact to what reporters –
A. Yes.
Q. – plural, were saying. Correct?
A. I was very clear to say reporters are telling us that because in my mind I still didn't know it as a fact. I thought I was – all I had was this information that was coming in from the reporters.
Q. And at the same time you have a specific recollection of telling him, you don't know whether it's true or not, you're just telling him what reporters are saying?
A. Yes, that's correct, sir. And I said, reporters are telling us that, I don't know if it's true. I was careful about that because among other things, I wanted to be clear I didn't know Mr. Wilson. I don't know – I think I said, I don't know if he has a wife, but this is what we're hearing.
Testimony Given on or about March 24, 2004 Regarding Conversations With Reporters:
Q. And let me ask you this directly. Did the fact that you knew that the law could turn, the law as to whether a crime was committed, could turn on where you learned the information from, affect your account for the FBI when you told them that you were telling reporters Wilson's wife worked at the CIA but your source was a reporter rather than the Vice-President?
A. No, it's a fact. It was a fact, that's what I told the reporters.
Q. And you're, you're certain as you sit here today that every reporter you told that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, you sourced it back to other reporters?
A. Yes, sir, because it was important for what I was saying and because it was – that's what – that's how I did it.
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.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.
Reporters write things that aren't true sometimes, or get things that aren't true.
Given the record of Libby's month long series of discussions about the Wilsons, that occurred just three months before Libby was questioned by the FBI why should anyone believe that he suddenly forgot about the entire series?
 
Top Bottom