Libby trial begins and Rove and Cheney are in the spotlight!

So Fitzgerald is talking about how involved the Vice President was with this whole thing (surprise surprise--NOT). This trial is going to show Cheney for the sneaky, lying, son of a b!tch that he is.

Libby's attorney is asserting that Libby was sacrificed to save Rove. To those of you who have said that Rove is not guilty, I hope you have the openmindedness to reconsider such assertion. LOL

Libby: White House sacrificed him for Rove - Politics - MSNBC.com

I love it. The infighting and the lying within the White House will be exposed. Life is good.

This is fascinating: Mr. Wells [Libby's defense attorney] told the jury that the unnamed White House officials wanted to protect Mr. Rove because they believed his survival as President Bush’s political adviser was crucial to the health of the Republican Party.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/23/washington/23cnd-libby.html

Wait.


Hold on.


You mean that a guy who is on trial and facing prison is attempting to present things in a light that shifts much of the blame onto other people and leaves him looking good?


This is unprecedented in all of documented history.

RightatNYU said:

Wait.


Hold on.


You mean that a guy who is on trial and facing prison is attempting to present things in a light that shifts much of the blame onto other people and leaves him looking good?


This is unprecedented in all of documented history.

Click to expand...

LOL I just like seeing what was perceived to be a cohesive White House fall apart. I also like seeing Cheney's credibility in the spotlight.

Interesting that the cons/repubs on this message board are ignoring this topic. Hmmmmmmmmm

The name "Scooter" is really going to come in handy while he's in prison.

Could get interesting, depending on what's revealed behind the facade.

aps said:

Interesting that the cons/repubs on this message board are ignoring this topic. Hmmmmmmmmm

Click to expand...

What's interesting is how the first witnesses are already contradicting their previous testimony saying they can't remember or remember different.


BTW what was the underlying crime here? What was the obstruction of justice?

aps said:

Interesting that the cons/repubs on this message board are ignoring this topic. Hmmmmmmmmm

Click to expand...

...I was the first one to respond...?

RightatNYU said:

...I was the first one to respond...?

Click to expand...

I know--and you ignored the significance of the issues involved, didin't you?

I am going to see about sitting in on one day of the trial. I'll take a day off of work for something like this!

aps said:

I know--and you ignored the significance of the issues involved, didin't you?

Click to expand...

:rofl significant issue? This trial is a joke, everyone involved has shoddy memories over who knew what and when and what they knew was in significant in the first place.

Why did Fitzgerald even bring everyone in for questioning and put a reporter in jail when he already knew who mentioned Plame's name and it was a violation of the law?

I am going to see about sitting in on one day of the trial. I'll take a day off of work for something like this!

Click to expand...

As I remember you didn't care if Rove broke the law or not you still wanted him in jail just so he'd be out of the way. Same with Libby I guess.

Oooh, so the plot thickens. Today, Cheney's former press secretary, Cathie Martin, testified that Libby and Cheney were obsessed with the Wilson article. Her testimony directly contradicts Libby's allegations that he was told about Valerie Wilson from reporters.

I don't want to read you all attacking her credibility. She is currently working for Bush in the White House.

She said that Cheney went against protocol and delegated Libby to be the one who communicated with the press. She also stated that Cheney had written talking points for Ari Fleisher. This all happened in July 2003. Let's not forget that Cheney was interviewed on the Meet the Press in September 2003 and acted like he had no idea who Joe Wilson was. Cheney, your credibility is slowly unraveling. I love it!

This is getting good! I found out the specifics of what courtroom the trial is being held and the hours as well.

Testimony by Former Cheney Aide Hurts Libby

WASHINGTON, Jan. 25 — A former spokeswoman for Vice President Dick Cheney gave testimony in the trial of I. Lewis Libby Jr. today that directly contradicted Mr. Libby’s version of events during a crucial period that is at the center of the perjury case against him.

Cathie Martin, Mr. Cheney’s former spokeswoman, testified that she has a clear memory of telling both Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby that a prominent war critic’s wife worked for the Central Intelligence Agency, days before he contends he first learned that from a reporter. . . . Unlike the previous three witnesses who worked at the C.I.A. and State Department, Ms. Martin’s testimony may prove especially damaging to Mr. Libby because of her perspective as a former insider in the vice president’s office, and as a former colleague of Mr. Libby, to whom she repeatedly referred as “Scooter,” his nickname.

She testified that both Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby were intensely interested in Valerie Wilson and her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, who had been sent to Africa to investigate reports that Saddam Hussein was trying to buy uranium from Niger for his nuclear weapons program. . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/25/washington/25cnd-libby.html

Click to expand...

aps said:

Oooh, so the plot thickens. Today, Cheney's former press secretary, Cathie Martin, testified that Libby and Cheney were obsessed with the Wilson article.

Click to expand...

Here is a link to her testimony, where does she say he was obsessed?
Libby Prosecution: Cathie Martin Testimony » Outside The Beltway | OTB

Aps, you got burned on this once because you used such shoddy news sources, here from the trial

Defense Cross Examination commenced 2:29.
Were you there for whole conversation with Cooper? No, she had gotten a phone call with Jennifer Miller Wise and missed part of it.
You usually listen in on both sides of such conversations? Yes, when we’re at the White House.
Mr. Libby made it clear he wasn’t happy at having to make phone calls because it was his son’s birthday? Yes.
He only made the calls because you were nagging him? Yes. “We needed to decide affirmatively whether to be in the story or not.”
Except for 10 or 20 seconds when you recollect you told Mr. Libby and VP Cheney about Wilson’s trip and his wife’s role, you had no other discussions with either of them about Mrs. Wilson?
“Not that I recall.”
At no time during the talking points discussion, did you mention Mrs. Wilson? No.
You wanted to get the whole story out? Yes.
But you didn’t think the wife was part of that whole story? “I didn’t think it was helpful to us.”
Your understanding was that Vice President Cheney’s intention was to get all the truth out about Wilson’s trip? Yes.
Is it correct that “at no time IN YOUR ENTIRE LIFE” did the VP indicate to you that Mrs. Wilson or her status was part of getting that story out? Correct.
“Do you have any knowledge of Libby EVER discussing with ANY reporter information about Mrs. Wilson and her employment status?” No.
Did the conversations with Andrea Mitchell or deal with Mrs. Wilson? No.

What she conveyed was they were concerned about the false information MR Wilson was spouting in public and wanted to get the truth out to the public. And if you read her testimony you see even she has some memory lapses as to who said exactly what to whom and who took notice.

So what exactly is the underlying crime this is suppose to be material to?

aps said:

I know--and you ignored the significance of the issues involved, didin't you?

Click to expand...

Hmm let's see. Wilson lies and says Cheney sent him on a mission and then lies about what he told his CIA debriefers. Cheney issues talking points to rebut Wilson's lies.

Just what is the significant issue here?

I will wait until I read the actual transcript from her testimony before I change my assessment. But when the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Hardball all essentially say the same thing, I'm not too worried that I am getting bad information.

aps said:

But when the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Hardball all essentially say the same thing, I'm not too worried that I am getting bad information.

Click to expand...

It will get you in as much trouble as you got in with Rove. Try FOX you'll get a balanced view. Did you know Martin got it wrong in her statements and testimony about when she first heard about Plame, she was off by a month. Here the witness who is suppose to supply the absolute evidence about when Libby knew can't even remember about her own self. Everyone who has testified just about has mis-stated from faulty memories which is ALL THIS IS ABOUT.

But note how the new sources you use don't state that Wilson was lying and that's why the administration was letting out the facts or was even concerned about it. How they don't mention that Fitzgerald knew long before he started indicting people and sending reporters to jail that there was NO Underlying crime. And how they left out the salient testimony from Martin's cross-examination and claim Cheney was "obsessed" when there was not testimony saying anything of the sort.

They are slanting their reporting, desperately trying to declare Libby guilty just as they did with Rove.

Do yourself a favor, change your news sources.

Who CARES when Libby or anyone else said anything at all about Plame? If has nothing to do with nothing, no one was trying to obstruct justice.

It was just reported that Karl Rove and Dan Bartlet have been subpeonaed by the defense. LOL

aps said:

It was just reported that Karl Rove and Dan Bartlet have been subpeonaed by the defense. LOL

Click to expand...

Why is that funny? Who cares what they have to say about anything.

What is it you hope for?

And for the umpteenth time, where is the obstruction of justice?

Stinger, I honestly don't care about your opinion on this issue. I would recommend NOT bothering to post in here.

aps said:

So Fitzgerald is talking about how involved the Vice President was with this whole thing (surprise surprise--NOT). This trial is going to show Cheney for the sneaky, lying, son of a b!tch that he is.

Libby's attorney is asserting that Libby was sacrificed to save Rove. To those of you who have said that Rove is not guilty, I hope you have the openmindedness to reconsider such assertion. LOL

Libby: White House sacrificed him for Rove - Politics - MSNBC.com

I love it. The infighting and the lying within the White House will be exposed. Life is good.

Click to expand...

Fitzgerald needs to be brought up on charges himself, he knew from the get go that Libby wasn't the leaker and he pursued this until he could get some trumped up charges, this is just like the Duke lacross case.

Originally posted by TOT:
Fitzgerald needs to be brought up on charges himself, he knew from the get go that Libby wasn't the leaker and he pursued this until he could get some trumped up charges, this is just like the Duke lacross case.

Click to expand...

Where's your evidence?

Post your proof!

Billo_Really said:

Where's your evidence?

Post your proof!

Click to expand...

Right here soldier:

Armitage leak admission creates new questions

Why did Fitzgerald continue probe if he knew where CIA leak came from?


WASHINGTON - For three years, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald knew the answer to one of the biggest questions in Washington: Who leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame?

Now that former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage acknowledged this week that he was the leaker, the new question is what Fitzgerald has been looking for during a quest that rattled the White House and sent a reporter to jail.

“What was the rationale for seeking an answer to a question he already knew the answer to?” asked Wayne Berman, a former assistant secretary of commerce and a supporter of the only person indicted in the leak case, former White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby.

Fitzgerald’s office had no response to that question Friday.

Probe went on despite admission

Early in the inquiry, Armitage told authorities he was Novak’s source. Armitage said Fitzgerald asked him to not to say that publicly. Fitzgerald then pressed on with the investigation, questioning White House aides. Among them was top Bush adviser Karl Rove, who appeared five times before a grand jury before being cleared of wrongdoing this summer.
Armitage leak prompts new questions - U.S. Security - MSNBC.com

Click to expand...

It was Armitage and Fitzgerald knew it the whole ****ing time!!!!

Can't wait for the response...

Trajan Octavian Titus said:

Right here soldier:



It was Armitage and Fitzgerald knew it the whole ****ing time!!!!

Click to expand...

There was no need to lie.
There was no obstruction of justice nor need to obstruct anyone.

RightatNYU said:

Can't wait for the response...

Click to expand...

What response? Billo's response? Unlike Ken Starr, Fitzgerald kept the whole investigation secret. Thus, no one really knows what transpired and when it transpired.