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

[Stinger]

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.

He did not and we do know what transpired and when, Armitage has disclosed it publicly. And just so you won't make the same mistatement again Starr did keep it confidential until he was required to file his report with the congress and then the congress voted to make it public.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

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.

No wrong we know that Fitzgerald knew that Armitage was the leaker from the very begining and yet he still held a year long investigation into Libby, Rove, Cheney et al for no reason what so ever. This is nothing like the Clinton investigation IE there was nothing to be investigated because Fitzgerald already knew who leaked the identity of Ms. Plame.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus
Right here soldier:
It was Armitage and Fitzgerald knew it the whole ****ing time!!!! [How do you know that?]

Can't wait for the response...[I bet you do!]

Originally Posted by aps
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.[You go girl!]

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus
No wrong we know that Fitzgerald knew that Armitage was the leaker from the very begining and yet he still held a year long investigation into Libby, Rove, Cheney et al for no reason what so ever. This is nothing like the Clinton investigation IE there was nothing to be investigated because Fitzgerald already knew who leaked the identity of Ms. Plame.

Well, here it is. On a scale far less than the anticipation for the release of the Beatles "Sargent Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" album, is

"THE RESPONSE"

You people (not you aps) remind me of Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz tapping her heels and chanting,

"There's no leak but Armitage's!"

"There's no leak but Armitage's!"

"There's no leak but Armitage's!"

Unfortunately, we all know now not to pay any attention to the Dick behind the curtain, or his little TOT shooting his even less Stinger...

Ya'll just want to concentrate on the only straw you have left. I hate to break it to you (that's not true, I actually love too), but that's all it is.

Your little straw!

In the real world, Fitzgerald has a lot more evidence.

And that evidence points up to 1600 Pensylvania Ave.

And its time to embrace the horror, people!

The Plame-gate Plot Thickens
By Robert Parry January 24, 2007

In the opening statements at the trial of former White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, new evidence emerged pointing toward a criminal conspiracy at the highest levels of George W. Bush’s White House.

As for your little straw, there's the odd way Armitage revealed himself...

Scooter Libby's Time-Travel Trial
By Robert Parry (A Special Report) January 17, 2007

About the same time as the Libby-Miller meeting, conservative columnist Robert Novak received a surprise call from Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage’s office offering an interview, Novak later recalled.

“During his quarter of a century in Washington, I had had no contact with Armitage before our fateful interview,” Novak wrote in a Sept. 14, 2006, column. “I tried to see him in the first 2 ½ years of the Bush administration, but he rebuffed me – summarily and with disdain, I thought.

“Then, without explanation, in June 2003, Armitage’s office said the deputy secretary would see me.”

Novak dated the call from Armitage’s office at about two weeks before Wilson went public with his Niger story via a New York Times Op-Ed on July 6, 2003, entitled “What I Didn’t Find in Africa.” In other words, Armitage's outreach to Novak and Libby's briefing of Miller came at virtually the same time.

I find it a little strange the timing Armitage's call.

But you guys just keep thinking their all innocent.

I'll put the crow on the slow cooker for later...

 

[RightinNYC]

Well, here it is. On a scale far less than the anticipation for the release of the Beatles "Sargent Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" album, is

"THE RESPONSE"

You people (not you aps) remind me of Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz tapping her heels and chanting,

"There's no leak but Armitage's!"

"There's no leak but Armitage's!"

"There's no leak but Armitage's!"

Unfortunately, we all know now not to pay any attention to the Dick behind the curtain, or his little TOT shooting his even less Stinger...

Ya'll just want to concentrate on the only straw you have left. I hate to break it to you (that's not true, I actually love too), but that's all it is.

Your little straw!

In the real world, Fitzgerald has a lot more evidence.

And that evidence points up to 1600 Pensylvania Ave.

And its time to embrace the horror, people!As for your little straw, there's the odd way Armitage revealed himself...I find it a little strange the timing Armitage's call.

But you guys just keep thinking their all innocent.

I'll put the crow on the slow cooker for later...

You're right billo, the unsourced accusations of some guy from "Consortium News" is definitely more reputable than NBC.

Also, you completely neglect to answer the question of why Armitage, who OPPOSED THE WAR, would have participated in a secret evil plan to destroy Joe Wilson and support the war?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by RightatNYU
You're right billo, the unsourced accusations of some guy from "Consortium News" is definitely more reputable than NBC.

Is this the "my dad can lick your dad" scenario again? I'm not going to comment on compare/contrast masked ad hom's...

Originally Posted by RightatNYU
Also, you completely neglect to answer the question of why Armitage, who OPPOSED THE WAR, would have participated in a secret evil plan to destroy Joe Wilson and support the war?

I don't know the answer to that.

 

[aps]

Apparently, Judy Miller's testimony refutes Libby's statements before the grand jury. Surprise surprise............NOT.

Reporter Disputes Libby in Leak Case
By DAVID STOUT

WASHINGTON, Jan. 30 – A former New York Times reporter testified today that I. Lewis Libby Jr. disclosed the identity of a C.I.A. agent to her more than two weeks before Mr. Libby has said he learned of the agent’s identity.

The reporter, Judith Miller, said that Mr. Libby, who was then the chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, made the disclosure to her in a June 23, 2003, meeting in the Old Executive Office Building, near the White House.

Mr. Libby was “agitated and frustrated and angry” during the meeting, she testified, because he thought the Central Intelligence Agency was beginning to “back-pedal to try to distance itself” from discredited assessments of Iraq’s weapons capabilities in the buildup to the American-led military campaign.

The C.I.A. was waging “a perverted war of leaks,” Ms. Miller said Mr. Libby told her. Ms. Miller’s account is potentially devastating to Mr. Libby, who is on trial for obstruction and perjury and has sworn that he first learned the C.I.A. agent’s identity on July 10, 2003. . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/30/washington/30cnd-libby.html

 

[Stinger]

Apparently, Judy Miller's testimony refutes Libby's statements before the grand jury. Surprise surprise............NOT.

Except one problem, her memory is just as bad as Libby's and she first testified she hadn't heard Plames name until a month AFTER she actually had. She went back and reviewed her notes and had to revise her testimony. Just like Libby did.

"Fitzgerald brought out that Miller did not mention the June 23 meeting in Libby's office during her first grand jury testimony _ after she finally decided Libby had freed her from a promise not to discuss their conversations. Miller testified that at Fitzgerald's request she went back and found notes of the June 23 meeting and then described it in a later grand jury appearance. Libby attorney Jeffress did come back at her again and again over her memory of the June 23 meeting and her memory in general. Their exchanges occasionally became testy.
In his most telling foray, Jeffress asked how she could testify that Libby was agitated on June 23 when she couldn't even remember the meeting in her first grand jury testimony. He played a tape of a broadcast interview in which she had said "it's really easy to forget details of a story you're not writing." She testified she never intended to write a Plame story herself.
Miller mostly held firm. Acknowledging her memory "is mostly note- driven," she insisted that rereading the notes "bought back these memories" of the June 23 meeting."
BREITBART.COM - Miller Testimony Contradicts Libby Story


Once again everyone seems to be confused as to when everyone else knew she worked at the CIA and it HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING ANYWAY! This is another Duke Lacrosse prosecution. What was the obstruction of justice?

 

[RightinNYC]

Is this the "my dad can lick your dad" scenario again? I'm not going to comment on compare/contrast masked ad hom's...

Uh, no it's a very simple comparison.

I have NBC and other mainstream media sources on my side. You have ONE GUY who runs his own shoddy "news" site that I've never even heard of before and that has a ridiculously obvious partisan tilt. It's like ptsd citing stormfront and wondering why you don't believe it.

I don't know the answer to that.

It completely removes motive, one of the key elements to proving a crime.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by RightatNYU
Uh, no it's a very simple comparison.

I have NBC and other mainstream media sources on my side. You have ONE GUY who runs his own shoddy "news" site that I've never even heard of before and that has a ridiculously obvious partisan tilt. It's like ptsd citing stormfront and wondering why you don't believe it.

You can call it a "comparison" until the cows come home, it's still an ad hominum. Just because it comes from a website you personally don't care for (or never heard of) does not make the assertion in the article true or false. BTW, that's not the only source I could post from regarding Mr. Libby. It just happened to be the most convenient.

Originally Posted by RightatNYU
It completely removes motive, one of the key elements to proving a crime.

Only if you completly discount all the other circumstantial evidence out there. Which raises many questions.

 

[Stinger]

Apparently, Judy Miller's testimony refutes Libby's statements before the grand jury. Surprise surprise............NOT.

Geez now get this

BREITBART.COM - Libby Lawyers Seize on Miller Hesitation

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- Former New York Times reporter Judith Miller acknowledged Wednesday that she had conversations with other government officials and could not be "absolutely, absolutely certain" that she first heard about an outed CIA official from I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby."

SHE CAN"T EVEN REMEMBER and she is the prosecutions star witness!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is such a sham trial.

What was the obstruction of justice, could one of you Death to Libby people please explain how justice was obstructed?

 

[disneydude]

I actually feel kinda sorry for Libby here....a little...because the real criminal here is Cheney....and Libby is going to take the fall for him. Don't get me wrong....Libby's conduct was criminal as well....but its kinda like the mob...the peon's doing to work of the insulated higher ups.

 

[Stinger]

I actually feel kinda sorry for Libby here....a little...because the real criminal here is Cheney....

OK I'll bite, what crime did Cheney commit?

and Libby is going to take the fall for him. Don't get me wrong....Libby's conduct was criminal as well....

What conduct of Libby was criminal?

 

[1069]

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

Why's that?

 

[Roberdorus]

Why's that?

Well, y'know how those homo inmates like to give each other pet-names. I mean so I've heard... no first hand knowledge or anything.....:neutral:

 

[Billo_Really]

The title says it all...

Cheney's Handwritten Notes Implicate Bush in Plame Affair

 

[RightinNYC]

The title says it all...

This is getting ridiculous. This is the third or fourth thread that you've posted snippets from articles that make outrageous claims, but are from absolute crap sites such as Truthout, Azzaman, or Consortiumnews. Why don't you try using a CREDIBLE source? It would make your argument much stronger and make you look a lot less frantic.

As it stands, I give the posts where you do this about as much credence as I do a ptsd post citing a poll on stormfront as concrete evidence that america has to get rid of blacks.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by RightatNYU
This is getting ridiculous. This is the third or fourth thread that you've posted snippets from articles that make outrageous claims, but are from absolute crap sites such as Truthout, Azzaman, or Consortiumnews. Why don't you try using a CREDIBLE source? It would make your argument much stronger and make you look a lot less frantic.

As it stands, I give the posts where you do this about as much credence as I do a ptsd post citing a poll on stormfront as concrete evidence that america has to get rid of blacks.

So, if I am to understand your point, since the assertion came from truthout.org, Cheney's notes were not admitted into evidence and they did not indicate the President knew of the outing. Even though this is a matter of public record, it is false because it came from truthout.org. Is that what you are saying? That the source of an assertion is the sole measure of it's validity? Is that what your telling me?

Are you also saying that the largest Iraqi newspaper in that country is not a good source for Iraqi opinions on current issues? Where should one go if they want to know what's going on in that country? Ask a Washington think tank?

 

[RightinNYC]

So, if I am to understand your point, since the assertion came from truthout.org, Cheney's notes were not admitted into evidence and they did not indicate the President knew of the outing. Even though this is a matter of public record, it is false because it came from truthout.org. Is that what you are saying? That the source of an assertion is the sole measure of it's validity? Is that what your telling me?

As a long time hater of Fox News, billo, you should be able to understand quite well how a "news" source can take a fact or two and make it seem like something quite different.

Are you also saying that the largest Iraqi newspaper in that country is not a good source for Iraqi opinions on current issues? Where should one go if they want to know what's going on in that country? Ask a Washington think tank?

The unabashedly biased editorials of a newspaper =/= unbiased reporting


If you want to make credible arguments, how about you find some respected sources that don't rely more on rhetoric than reality?

 

[aps]

Tim Russert is scheduled to testify today. That ought to be interesting.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by RightatNYU
As a long time hater of Fox News, billo, you should be able to understand quite well how a "news" source can take a fact or two and make it seem like something quite different.

I've never discounted a story based solely on the fact that it came from FOX News. I just don't think you are going to get he whole truth from US media outlets.

Originally Posted by RightatNYU
The unabashedly biased editorials of a newspaper =/= unbiased reporting

If they quote comments from Iraqi citizens commenting on Iraq, how can anyone discount that as Iraqi opinion? Not to say that is the only Iraqi opinion, but Iraqi opinion it is.

Originally Posted by RightatNYU
If you want to make credible arguments, how about you find some respected sources that don't rely more on rhetoric than reality?

Tell you what, give me some of your sources and I will check them out.

 

[Stinger]

Tim Russert is scheduled to testify today. That ought to be interesting.

Wonder what he won't be able to remember.

 

[RightinNYC]

I've never discounted a story based solely on the fact that it came from FOX News. I just don't think you are going to get he whole truth from US media outlets.

And that's fine. But then, why don't you post from actually REPUTABLE foreign sources? Use the BBC, the IHT, or any one of the millions of other papers that ARENT run by one guy who despises the US.

If they quote comments from Iraqi citizens commenting on Iraq, how can anyone discount that as Iraqi opinion? Not to say that is the only Iraqi opinion, but Iraqi opinion it is.

I never said it wasn't an Iraqi opinion. I criticized the fact that you cited it as if it was news, with the obvious intent to imply that it was the general feeling in the majority of Iraq.

Tell you what, give me some of your sources and I will check them out.

Feel free to take issue with any or all of my sources. I've posted from probably hundreds of different sources on here in the past, and if you think they're biased, call me out on it.

But if you're just asking for some decent sources, check out the "resources" tab where there are some good sites listed.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by RightatNYU
And that's fine. But then, why don't you post from actually REPUTABLE foreign sources? Use the BBC, the IHT, or any one of the millions of other papers that ARENT run by one guy who despises the US.

Actually, I have. Unfortunately, I don't live my life to the standard of what others call "REPUTABLE". Why automatically dismiss something because it comes from a source you don't care for? Isn't that a little juvenile? Putting all your eggs in THAT basket! Why can't you [not in the literal sense but figuratively speaking] give the benefit of the doubt (if you don't know) and go check out the validity of the assertions from sources you do like? If you really want to know the truth of an issue, you don't filter information during the "fact finding" phase.

Originally Posted by RightatNYU
I never said it wasn't an Iraqi opinion. I criticized the fact that you cited it as if it was news, with the obvious intent to imply that it was the general feeling in the majority of Iraq.

I would think that they are better sources (than we are) for knowing what's going on in their country.

Originally Posted by RightatNYU
Feel free to take issue with any or all of my sources. I've posted from probably hundreds of different sources on here in the past, and if you think they're biased, call me out on it.

But if you're just asking for some decent sources, check out the "resources" tab where there are some good sites listed.

I don't take issue with sources. I look at the assertions being made and do my research from there. Playing this source game is bullshit. It's just a way cowards avoid issues. Put a label on something, then you don't have to respond to it. That's the formula. The hardest part is finding the right buzzwords. I think it's a chickenshit way to debate and I think people that do this are just cowards!

 

[RightinNYC]

\Actually, I have. Unfortunately, I don't live my life to the standard of what others call "REPUTABLE". Why automatically dismiss something because it comes from a source you don't care for? Isn't that a little juvenile? Putting all your eggs in THAT basket! Why can't you [not in the literal sense but figuratively speaking] give the benefit of the doubt (if you don't know) and go check out the validity of the assertions from sources you do like? If you really want to know the truth of an issue, you don't filter information during the "fact finding" phase.

Fine. I'll make sure to only direct you to newsmax and free republic from now on when you ask me for sources.

I would think that they are better sources (than we are) for knowing what's going on in their country.

You're right, "they" as a whole are probably better. However, one ******* named Azzaman does not speak for "they" all in Iraq.

I don't take issue with sources. I look at the assertions being made and do my research from there. Playing this source game is bullshit. It's just a way cowards avoid issues. Put a label on something, then you don't have to respond to it. That's the formula. The hardest part is finding the right buzzwords. I think it's a chickenshit way to debate and I think people that do this are just cowards!

Well ****, you caught me. It's clearly much braver to only deal with sources that agree with my predetermined ideology than to force myself to look at the unvarnished issues and draw my own conclusions.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by RightatNYU
You're right, "they" as a whole are probably better. However, one ******* named Azzaman does not speak for "they" all in Iraq.

But they are the biggest and most popular media outlet in the country.

Originally Posted by RightatNYU
Well ****, you caught me.

No I didn't. You're not part of that group!