That's ridiculous. The scope of the investigation was to find out "who outed Valerie Plame". That was known within the first month of the investigation to be Richard Armitage, CoS to Colin Powell. During that investigation Powell resigned his post as SoS, and Armitage became a darling of the liberal left by frequently appearing on Olberpukes show to run down the Bush Administration on the WoT....And further the frothing hatred for the Bush administration by those on the liberal left, wanting to see openly not only the President, but anyone in that administration "frog marched" across the WH lawn was everywhere. The emotional lies, untruths, and rumor spread about that administration by news outlets like MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and the rest were disgusting, and were designed to undermine the administrations prosecution of the WoT.
Fitzgerald, if he was doing his job correctly, should have named Armitage when he found out, and closed the investigation at that point. Any other crap that you, or anyone else wanted investigated should have been able to stand on its own merit. As a consequence, we, the taxpayer spent millions chasing rumor, and innuendo, all to slap the VP CoS with a process charge that was totally unrelated to the named reason for the investigation, because he couldn't remember the exact words he told Fitz 15 months earlier....What a joke.
You libs are really funny. You will spare no expense when going after an administration you dislike, and no lie is out of bounds when doing such. But, put "your guy" in the seat, and its "hands off" when it comes to everything up to and including, trashing the constitution, weakening our defense, death of ambassadors, embassies attacked, etc. Weak dudes, very weak.
That's ridiculous. The scope of the investigation was to find out "who outed Valerie Plame". That was known within the first month of the investigation to be Richard Armitage, CoS to Colin Powell. During that investigation Powell resigned his post as SoS, and Armitage became a darling of the liberal left by frequently appearing on Olberpukes show to run down the Bush Administration on the WoT....And further the frothing hatred for the Bush administration by those on the liberal left, wanting to see openly not only the President, but anyone in that administration "frog marched" across the WH lawn was everywhere. The emotional lies, untruths, and rumor spread about that administration by news outlets like MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and the rest were disgusting, and were designed to undermine the administrations prosecution of the WoT.
Fitzgerald, if he was doing his job correctly, should have named Armitage when he found out, and closed the investigation at that point. Any other crap that you, or anyone else wanted investigated should have been able to stand on its own merit. As a consequence, we, the taxpayer spent millions chasing rumor, and innuendo, all to slap the VP CoS with a process charge that was totally unrelated to the named reason for the investigation, because he couldn't remember the exact words he told Fitz 15 months earlier....What a joke.
You libs are really funny. You will spare no expense when going after an administration you dislike, and no lie is out of bounds when doing such. But, put "your guy" in the seat, and its "hands off" when it comes to everything up to and including, trashing the constitution, weakening our defense, death of ambassadors, embassies attacked, etc. Weak dudes, very weak.
To a certain extent, you're right. No matter the outcome, no matter who fell on the company sword, the President would have pardoned him.
No, you are mistaken. If you run across a crime during the investigation, you don't just say, too bad. You continue. Armitage did not remove the possibility of a crime. Sorry.
Ok, well, let's hear what you did yesterday in minute by minute detail, and I'll take notes. Then in 15 months you come on back and I'll ask you again, however I will carefully reference my notes, and you must go by memory, and you damned well better get every detail correct or else you are charged with a crime, unrelated to what my investigation is about....Bull Joe....It was a process charge, designed to justify, and cover the fact that Fitz spent millions chasing someone whom he already knew committed the 'crime', but refused to prosecute for that crime, so if he brought that fact forward, the American people would have absolutely skewered him, and his name would have been mud, so Libby was the fall guy for a BS charge, in a BS case, brought forth by BS demo's that were playing to their whacked out base of frothing, irrational, hate filled base.
She was a CIA Agent..
and even trying to deny this is.. frankly pathetic.
Except that is NOT what happened....If you remember Bush and Cheney were at odds over this. Libby went to jail, and Bush refused to commute the sentence.
No, she was an analyst. Case Officer Working Undercover =/= Someone Who Lives In Beltway And Writes Papers For A Living.
Is it as pathetic about you attempting to lecture someone in the military about the military/intelligence labor structure?
Separate issue. But regardless of my minute by minute notes, I'd know if my boss asked met to out CIA personnel. You minimalize the crime because you don't really want to know.
Prove that is what happened.
Stay focused j. First we must agree it s possible. Once we do that, Libby's testimony takes on meaning, and we have to consider the charges against him of which he was convicted.
Boo Radley said:...I'd know if my boss asked met to out CIA personnel.
No, no....You don't get to do that pal....You said
Clearly making a declarative statement that you think that Cheney told him to out a CIA agent, when we know, and it was known at the time WHO outed Valarie Plame...That's pure BULL ****!!!!!
So why don't you just drop the dishonest crap Joe.
I would know. So would you. I don't think either of us are brain damaged.
And, I don't know if Cheney, but the charge against Libby is that he hindered knowing. He was convicted of that. J, I'm not he one being dishonest, but the way some throw that word around, we might have to define it.
"Memory can be unreliable, and misstatements can happen despite pure intentions. It’s only fair game to point this out.
So say Valerie Plame Wilson, former CIA case manager and Vanity Fair cover girl, and her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, former ambassador to Gabon and extravagant self-promoter. Too bad the Wilsons, a power-mad federal prosecutor, an officious federal judge, a confused jury and a badly misled president wouldn’t apply those same common-sense considerations to I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, wrongly convicted of perjury in the case stemming from State Department official Richard Armitage’s public identification of Mrs. Wilson as a CIA employee.
For the very first time since his conviction, Mr. Libby - former chief of staff to then-Vice President Dick Cheney - went on the record about his case.
As both Wilsons tried to explain away, each of them has been caught making significant false claims. Each claimed memory played tricks on them. The ambassador even justified one of his key falsehoods as “a little literary flair.” Yet neither Wilson was convicted of a felony. Mr. Libby was. He paid a quarter-million-dollar fine, served 400 hours of community service and had his law license taken away. All of this over a single dispute about whether his memory or that of TV journalist Tim Russert was correct, about a months-past conversation that had nothing to do with the actual leak of Mrs. Wilson’s name.
Never mind that Mr. Russert’s own memory had proved flagrantly untrustworthy in a previous instance. Never mind that equally famous journalist Bob Woodward testified that his own notes of a near-simultaneous conversation with Mr. Libby indicated that Mr. Woodward might have said to Mr. Libby what Mr. Libby remembered being told by Mr. Russert - in other words, that the conversations easily and innocently could have become conflated in Mr. Libby’s mind. And never mind that Mr. Libby was never shown to have a motive for lying about his conversation with Mr. Russert.
In our interviews, Mr. Libby explicitly and repeatedly asserted his innocence of knowingly misleading investigators. To this day, he says he thinks it was Russert who mentioned Mrs. Wilson’s name to him - but that either way, he remembers being surprised at hearing it from a journalist.
“America’s leading expert on the science of memory, Harvard professor Daniel Schacter, reviewed my case,” Mr. Libby said, “and he concluded that, ‘As someone who has studied memory for a lifetime, I could not render a fair decision based on the evidence before the jury.’”
U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton did not allow the Libby defense team to introduce scientific testimony about how memory works, and jurors later said they would have liked to have heard such evidence.
“What’s startling,” Mr. Libby said last week, “is that, at the dawn of the 21st century, we had a trial that excluded relevant, scientific evidence. And it’s startling that the jury was prevented from hearing about the very kinds of evidence that scientists say are critical to understanding what happened.”
Read more: HILLYER: Scooter Libby, on the record - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
So, an expert on memory wasn't allowed to testify, and says that he couldn't render a fair decision, but you somehow can?
Yes, define honesty for us Joe. :roll:
Yes I can. So can you. I remember precisely being charged with investigating changes in developmental education at my school. I know what I was asked to do. So would you.
You and others try to single on the smaller facts and then try to apply that to the issue at hand. It doesn't work. On the larger issue, Libby knew one way or the other, and so would we. Pretending that the misdirection to smaller issues means he wouldn't is more dishonest.
and remember, that testimony wasn't allowed. I wonder, in terms of honesty, if there might be a reason that would shoot down your claim. I'll try to look later.
All fine, except I am sure that investigating changes at your school, is far different than being questioned by a Federal Prosecutor about a passing conversation that happened some 15 months earlier, without notes, and with the two other subjects of that conversation also not being sure who heard what from whom (supposedly)....Not the same at all.
Nonsense Joe, what is dishonest about this is your trying to take for granted that Libby was prosecuted for something other than what he was...Do you even know what he was prosecuted for? Hint, it's in the article I gave you.
Yes, testimony that would have cleared Libby. The fact that you are in here trying to tie Libby to the outing of Plame, when we know who outed Plame is not only patently dishonest, it is just plain a lie.
The FBI can question me. I still know what I was asked to do. So would you. So did Libby.
Libby was charged with obstructing the investigation. It was not for not remembering minor details.
And, the testimony would not have cleared Libby. You just want to believe it would. You don't know why it was objected to, or if it really spoke to the actual point f the charge.
j said:To assert still today, that somehow Cheney, or Libby, or anyone else other than Richard Armitage, the person known to be responsible for .
You're missing the point.
1. I haven't claimed Cheney was quilty. Nor do I or anyone have to.
2. What Armitage did or didn't do has nothing to do with whether Cheney, Libby or anyone else also tried to out her. Both of them may have or tried to, or anything else.
3 you do not know the testimony you think was so special would have been significant. There is a reason it wasn't allowed.
Until you KNOW the reason you can't make wild claims about it would have done.
So, is there someone here who actually sees Cheney as a good man?
We have hashed this many times before, and I doubt neither of us would change our minds about who, what, where, and why. You say I am missing your point, and I assure you I am not, I just think it is drivel. That's not missing it, that is dis-missing it.
Not in so many words, see that is how the dishonest work. Yours is one of implication, and inference....
Maybe not, but what you have to prove is that the extended investigation from Fitz wasn't some kind of witch hunt fabricated to cover the fact that the real leak was not prosecuted for the leak. And why? Who was pulling the strings of that investigation? And finally, what is the agenda of those who still today are so driven by hatred of Bush, or Cheney that they will continue the sham?
Yeah, what was the reason? See, you don't know that either. So your speculation is just as off base as mine, just on the opposite end of the spectrum.
Well, isn't that convenient for you? You get to proclaim yourself the arbiter of what is and what is not acceptable....Sorry teach, not here you don't. :lol:
In not so many words, you're trying to read into my words the claim you want to fight instead of what was actually said. When you do that, as you did above, that is the definition of strawman, which if a form f dishonesty. You're doing that, not me.
I don't have to rove anything about a witch hunt. Libby was convicted. A jury found him guilty of the charge. That s a fact.
And no, I don't know the reason....
And quit with the abstract or nonsense. If you can't show the flaw in what I'm saying, just concede the point.
Ha! Typical...Your attempt at table turning may work on gullible 18 to 20 somethings in class, but not on me....Nice try.
Yep, every good boondoggle in DC is hung on a scapegoat of some sort...You know how many people in DC are wealthy for doing very little to nothing? Hint, it's a trick question, all of them....HA!
Ok, stop right there, the rest is BS.
And the jury did convict. A fact. No bs.
I don't need to show your flaws, you do a fine job all on your own...
J, your are in fact trying o ague what I didn't claim. You can't change that.
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?