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

[RightinNYC]

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

Being the biggest in a scattered field doesn't make them any more reputable.

What's the most popular television media outlet? Fox News. So by your logic, that would make the editorial opinions they spout somehow representative of the country? Or do you concede that simply because the largest media source has one stance, it has no impact on the reality of the situation?

As an aside, Azzaman isn't exactly a reputable/unbiased source:

Iraqi paper funded by Saudis, court told

Iraq's first independent media mogul has been running his empire with millions of pounds secretly provided by the Saudi regime, the high court in London was told.

Based on documents lodged with the court, Saad Al-Bazzaz - dubbed the Rupert Murdoch of Iraq - was alleged to have received the money for the launch of his newspaper Azzaman, which is now the most widely read daily in Iraq.

Bazzaz also controls Iraq's first private satellite TV channel.

The papers emerged during a libel action in which Bazzaz, a former exile in London, was accused of running a sophisticated covert propaganda operation funded by Saudi Arabian intelligence.

In public hearings and judgments in the high court last October, bank records were produced which showed transfers totalling £2.5 million from Riyad Bank in Saudi Arabia to Azzaman's London account.

Other documents and letters, which Bazzaz's lawyers say are of dubious provenance, suggest the money and political direction of the newspaper was covertly directed by senior officials in Saudi intelligence, which was then run by Prince Turki al-Faisal, the ambassador in London.

Lawyers for Bazzaz argued that Azzaman was raising issues of importance and it was not possible to check everything in an undemocractic and secretive country such as Qatar.

While accepting that the bank records were probably genuine, they said the question of who financed the paper and whether the Saudis had a covert hand in its journalism were "peripheral" matters and a "pure irrelevance."

Hilariously, even his lawyers don't contest that he DID receive the bribes.

So what we have here is someone who is the editor of a newspaper in Iraq, who worked for Saddam for many years (only leaving because of a spat re: Kuwait), who hates the US, and who is thoroughly funded by the Saudi's.

Sure sounds like I want to be taking his advice on what US foreign policy should be.

Iraqi paper funded by Saudis, court told - World - www.smh.com.au

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by RightatNYU
Being the biggest in a scattered field doesn't make them any more reputable.

What's the most popular television media outlet? Fox News. So by your logic, that would make the editorial opinions they spout somehow representative of the country? Or do you concede that simply because the largest media source has one stance, it has no impact on the reality of the situation?

As an aside, Azzaman isn't exactly a reputable/unbiased source:

There is no such thing as an "un-biased" media outlet. They don't exist. Azzaman is just one source in a field of many. And it is ridiculous to think when they publish a quote from Dr. Jamal or anyone else to treat that has anything different than a quote from Dr. Jamal or anyone else! But I'll tell you this, any Iraqi media outlet is more reputable when it comes to the subject of Iraq, than anything outside of the country. If you want to know the weather in California, you don't go ask teacher in Georgia! You ask billo from HB! BTW, I wouldn't ask you about NY because I hate that city!

 

[aps]

Excuse me, gentlemen, but can't we get back on topic here?

My husband went and sat in the court room during the morning session. No witnesses were called--it was just oral argument regarding evidence that the prosecution wants let in. My husband said it was riveting, but as the court proceedings were coming to a close, three high-school age kids walked into the court room and went and sat with Libby's family. He thought that these were Libby's kids, and it depressed him thinking what they must be going through as their father is on trial and could go to jail. I may not go to watch this in person, as this depressed me too.

 

[Stinger]

Excuse me, gentlemen, but can't we get back on topic here?

My husband went and sat in the court room during the morning session. No witnesses were called--it was just oral argument regarding evidence that the prosecution wants let in. My husband said it was riveting, but as the court proceedings were coming to a close, three high-school age kids walked into the court room and went and sat with Libby's family. He thought that these were Libby's kids, and it depressed him thinking what they must be going through as their father is on trial and could go to jail. I may not go to watch this in person, as this depressed me too.

Because someone who did nothing to obstruct justice or anything illegal may go to jail for political reasons?

 

[aps]

Because someone who did nothing to obstruct justice or anything illegal may go to jail for political reasons?

Jesus, Stinger, will you get off this "There was no obstruction of justice" issue? You don't have all the facts in this case, and thus you cannot state with any certainty whether Libby obstructed justice or not. Your saying the same thing over and over again isn't going to make this case go away. I think there is a good chance Libby is going to be found guilty; however, I would not say that with any certainty. Just let the judicial process run its course. If he is acquitted, you can come on here and say "I told you so." You sound like a broken record.

In all of this, I was so consumed in the issue and wanting Cheney's office to get caught "attacking the messenger" that I wasn't thinking about Scooter's personal life. When I learned that he has kids who are in high school, it depressed me. I certainly wouldn't feel that way about Cheney, who is a total a$$wipe.

 

[Stinger]

Jesus, Stinger, will you get off this "There was no obstruction of justice" issue?

NO

It is a key issue. Perjury is an obstruction of justice. What is it here?

You don't have all the facts in this case, and thus you cannot state with any certainty whether Libby obstructed justice or not.

Ahhh, why would Fitzgerald be hiding what he is accusing Libbey of from him? Where is it in the indictment that tells Libby what he is charged with doing?

Your saying the same thing over and over again isn't going to make this case go away.

Because no one seems to be able to say what the obstruction of justice was that he is suppose to have committed and why he would have done it in the first place.

I think there is a good chance Libby is going to be found guilty;

You said the same thing about Rove and I asked you the same thing then, explain how he broke the law. You couldn't then either.

You've heard the testimony, where is there a law being broken, where is the obstruction of justice require in a perjury charge?

however, I would not say that with any certainty. Just let the judicial process run its course. If he is acquitted, you can come on here and say "I told you so." You sound like a broken record.

No more than you do with your charges of guilt you keep repeating.

In all of this, I was so consumed in the issue and wanting Cheney's office to get caught "attacking the messenger" that I wasn't thinking about Scooter's personal life.

Why is "attacking the messenger", and in this case the messenger deserved to be "attacked" if that is what you call being exposed, now in a criminal trial. There was no law preventing the Administration doing exactly what it should have done, expose Joe Wilson's lies.

When I learned that he has kids who are in high school, it depressed me. I certainly wouldn't feel that way about Cheney, who is a total a$$wipe.

So like Rove, regardless of whether he committed a crime you would like to see him in jail so he is no longer a political foe.

 

[disneydude]

NO

It is a key issue. Perjury is an obstruction of justice. What is it here?
QUOTE]

Uh......lying to a federal prosecutor.

Why do I get the feeling Stinger that you probably defended Nixon and the other watergate players to the bitter end.....

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Uh......lying to a federal prosecutor.

Why do I get the feeling Stinger that you probably defended Nixon and the other watergate players to the bitter end.....

Why was Libby questioned in the first place? Fitzgerald was appointed to determine who leaked the name of Vallery Plame and he knew from the very begining that it was Armitage, so what the hell was he investigating?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by TOT:
Why was Libby questioned in the first place? Fitzgerald was appointed to determine who leaked the name of Vallery Plame and he knew from the very begining that it was Armitage, so what the hell was he investigating?

How do YOU know, HE knew?

 

[RightinNYC]

How do YOU know, HE knew?

TOT proved it earlier in this thread, in a post you ignored.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/477122-post22.html

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by RightatNYU
TOT proved it earlier in this thread, in a post you ignored.

"...ignored" is rather curt, don't ya think?

from TOT's link above:
“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.

Because he had evidence (that is now coming out in the trial) that showed Armitage wasn't the only one who leaked the information!

 

[RightinNYC]

"...ignored" is rather curt, don't ya think?Because he had evidence (that is now coming out in the trial) that showed Armitage wasn't the only one who leaked the information!

That wasn't the question you asked. You asked "How do you know he knew" despite the fact that you knew very well the answer to that question.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by RightatNYU:
That wasn't the question you asked. You asked "How do you know he knew" despite the fact that you knew very well the answer to that question.

Ya got me there!

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Perjury is an obstruction of justice. What is it here? Uh......lying to a federal prosecutor.

Hey, no fair bringing up the Clinton era.

 

[disneydude]

Hey, no fair bringing up the Clinton era.

Yes... Clinton lied to a federal prosecutor as well. And..as I have always indicated I think that Clinton had his own moral shortcomings and issues as well. I was very disappointed and think Clinton let the country down by this...

That said....one lie was about a blow job....the other involved issues of national defense and treason.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

"...ignored" is rather curt, don't ya think?Because he had evidence (that is now coming out in the trial) that showed Armitage wasn't the only one who leaked the information!

Bullshit no such evidence exists and as a matter of fact all the witnesses for the prosecution just came up with a bad case of amnesia once they hit the stand Armitage and Armitage alone was the leaker end of story.

 

[aps]

Yes... Clinton lied to a federal prosecutor as well. And..as I have always indicated I think that Clinton had his own moral shortcomings and issues as well. I was very disappointed and think Clinton let the country down by this...

That said....one lie was about a blow job....the other involved issues of national defense and treason.

Yes, I would like to know if TOT was concerned about Ken Starr, who had been hired to investigate Whitewater but then spent millions of taxpayer's dollars investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair. At least the whole thing with Libby was still within the scope of Valerie Plame. :roll:

I find it rather humorous to see some of you up in arms about this investigation. I will repeat what I said earlier in this thread--Patrick Fitzgerald has done an AMAZING job at keeping his investigation top secret. No one who has not been participating in the investigation (I don't mean those being questioned--I mean those questioning Libby, Cheney, etc.) has any idea of the order in which information was received. Libby could have lied to the FBI BEFORE Armitage came clean. Lying under oath is lying under oath. Clinton lying about Monica Lewinsky had NOTHING to do with Whitewater. Lying is lying is lying is lying. Oh, and lying under oath is a punishable crime--but you all knew that, right? Or does that only apply when Clinton lies? :roll:

 

[RightinNYC]

Yes, I would like to know if TOT was concerned about Ken Starr, who had been hired to investigate Whitewater but then spent millions of taxpayer's dollars investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair. At least the whole thing with Libby was still within the scope of Valerie Plame. :roll:

I find it rather humorous to see some of you up in arms about this investigation. I will repeat what I said earlier in this thread--Patrick Fitzgerald has done an AMAZING job at keeping his investigation top secret. No one who has not been participating in the investigation (I don't mean those being questioned--I mean those questioning Libby, Cheney, etc.) has any idea of the order in which information was received. Libby could have lied to the FBI BEFORE Armitage came clean. Lying under oath is lying under oath. Clinton lying about Monica Lewinsky had NOTHING to do with Whitewater. Lying is lying is lying is lying. Oh, and lying under oath is a punishable crime--but you all knew that, right? Or does that only apply when Clinton lies? :roll:

It's not so much a "lying isn't that big a deal" as it is a "well what the hell is this all for?" The entire point of this inquiry (and the only thing of consequence - surely you're not implying that Scooter Libby's honesty is as much a matter of national importance as Clinton's) was whether or not there were criminal actions taken to leak the identity of an undercover CIA agent purposefully with the intent of harming her family. It seems almost 100% sure that that is not the case now. So, if not, what really matters about it?

 

[aps]

It's not so much a "lying isn't that big a deal" as it is a "well what the hell is this all for?" The entire point of this inquiry (and the only thing of consequence - surely you're not implying that Scooter Libby's honesty is as much a matter of national importance as Clinton's) was whether or not there were criminal actions taken to leak the identity of an undercover CIA agent purposefully with the intent of harming her family. It seems almost 100% sure that that is not the case now. So, if not, what really matters about it?

The subject matter about which Libby lied is certaily a matter of national importance compared to Bill Clinton lying about a sexual relationship he had. There is a reason that there is statute making the leaking of a covert agent's name criminal--that is a mater of national importance.

My point is, NYU, none of us truly have an idea of what transpired and when it transpired nor what kind of thought processes Fitzgerald had with respect to Libby's statements and testimony. If he discovered that Libby lied, even after knowing that Armitage leaked Plame's name, is he supposed to ignore that? Personally, I think it's suspicious whenever someone lies. Just because Armitage leaked the name does make anyone else who leaked the name "not guilty" of a crime, to include a different crime.

My husband got the impression from the oral argument he watched on Thursday that what Fitzgerald wanted to charge Libby with was leaking CLASSIFED information, which is a different crime than leaking the name of a covert agent. If you look at Fitzgerald's press conference, he points out that Plame's position at the CIA was "classified." See Transcript of Special Counsel Fitzgerald's Press Conference. In the indictment, he points out the statute regarding leaking classfied information. See http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf (see bottom of page 1 to top of page 2) and how Libby is charged with knowing not to provide such information to people who don't have the security clearance. So my theory is that Fitzgerald saw a violation of the statute regarding the leaking of classified information and he had to further investigate it (just like Starr did in investigating perjury--just because Monica had NOTHING to do with Whitewater does not mean he has to look the other way if he saw Clinton committing some other crime). Like Starr, Fitzgerald was charged with investigating a possible crime, but once he saw signs that another statute was possibly violated, he investigated it. Looking the other way would be unethical.

 

[RightinNYC]

The subject matter about which Libby lied is certaily a matter of national importance compared to Bill Clinton lying about a sexual relationship he had. There is a reason that there is statute making the leaking of a covert agent's name criminal--that is a mater of national importance.

My point is, NYU, none of us truly have an idea of what transpired and when it transpired nor what kind of thought processes Fitzgerald had with respect to Libby's statements and testimony. If he discovered that Libby lied, even after knowing that Armitage leaked Plame's name, is he supposed to ignore that? Personally, I think it's suspicious whenever someone lies. Just because Armitage leaked the name does make anyone else who leaked the name "not guilty" of a crime, to include a different crime.

My husband got the impression from the oral argument he watched on Thursday that what Fitzgerald wanted to charge Libby with was leaking CLASSIFED information, which is a different crime than leaking the name of a covert agent. If you look at Fitzgerald's press conference, he points out that Plame's position at the CIA was "classified." See Transcript of Special Counsel Fitzgerald's Press Conference. In the indictment, he points out the statute regarding leaking classfied information. See http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf (see bottom of page 1 to top of page 2) and how Libby is charged with knowing not to provide such information to people who don't have the security clearance. So my theory is that Fitzgerald saw a violation of the statute regarding the leaking of classified information and he had to further investigate it (just like Starr did in investigating perjury--just because Monica had NOTHING to do with Whitewater does not mean he has to look the other way if he saw Clinton committing some other crime). Like Starr, Fitzgerald was charged with investigating a possible crime, but once he saw signs that another statute was possibly violated, he investigated it. Looking the other way would be unethical.

But here's the thing - lets say that it turns out that Libby did not knowingly and intentionally leak this classified information with malicious intent to break the law (which is what i do believe happened). What do we have then? A simple case of a government official who let something slip foolishly and then realizing later that it wasn't the best idea.

If we're going to be investigating every single breach of classified information, I can think of about 10 or 20 stories that were broken by the NYT and the Wash Post that were of much more serious matters that should be investigated as soon as Fitzgerald finishes with this case.

If we're not, then why this one so thoroughly?

edit: I'm not at all impugning Fitzpatrick here by saying that he should breach ethics and look the other way, I'm simply noting that if the policy is that matters of this significance warrant this level of investigation, we should be hiring another 10 or 15 special prosecutors. I think he's doing his job as well as can be expected in an incredibly charged atmosphere.

 

[aps]

But here's the thing - lets say that it turns out that Libby did not knowingly and intentionally leak this classified information with malicious intent to break the law (which is what i do believe happened). What do we have then? A simple case of a government official who let something slip foolishly and then realizing later that it wasn't the best idea.

And lying about it. If you saw me talking to a friend of yours and you asked me about what we talked about and I denied speaking to him--wouldn't you wonder what I had to hide by telling you I didn't talk to someone to whom you saw me talking? Rove didn't get charged, and I think it's because he came clean. Libby, however, had created a great story as to how he came to obtain this information. He actually got it from the Vice President. What is wrong with his obtaining the information from his boss--the Vice President of the United States? Personally, I think "absolutey nothing." But his providing some story that didn't jive with other evidence is rather suspicious. It was the cover-up is what got Libby into trouble.

If we're going to be investigating every single breach of classified information, I can think of about 10 or 20 stories that were broken by the NYT and the Wash Post that were of much more serious matters that should be investigated as soon as Fitzgerald finishes with this case.

If we're not, then why this one so thoroughly?

edit: I'm not at all impugning Fitzpatrick here by saying that he should breach ethics and look the other way, I'm simply noting that if the policy is that matters of this significance warrant this level of investigation, we should be hiring another 10 or 15 special prosecutors. I think he's doing his job as well as can be expected in an incredibly charged atmosphere.

I know what you mean. I would be more sympathetic if my party were the one being investigated.

I have to say that I don't believe that the NYT and Wash Post have the security clearance that someone like Scooter Libby had. I believe that he had to sign a document about not leaking classified information when he got his job in the White House. I don't think that the press has to do the same. He's almost held to a higher standard.

 

[RightinNYC]

And lying about it. If you saw me talking to a friend of yours and you asked me about what we talked about and I denied speaking to him--wouldn't you wonder what I had to hide by telling you I didn't talk to someone to whom you saw me talking? Rove didn't get charged, and I think it's because he came clean. Libby, however, had created a great story as to how he came to obtain this information. He actually got it from the Vice President. What is wrong with his obtaining the information from his boss--the Vice President of the United States? Personally, I think "absolutey nothing." But his providing some story that didn't jive with other evidence is rather suspicious. It was the cover-up is what got Libby into trouble.

Oh, no, I agree. But I'm just saying that this is something that happens day in, day out, in DC. This incident just happened to get politicized.

I know what you mean. I would be more sympathetic if my party were the one being investigated.

I have to say that I don't believe that the NYT and Wash Post have the security clearance that someone like Scooter Libby had. I believe that he had to sign a document about not leaking classified information when he got his job in the White House. I don't think that the press has to do the same. He's almost held to a higher standard.

I didn't make myself clear here, I apologize. What I meant to say was that if this is deemed worthy of investigations, there should be investigations into the people who are leaking things TO the press in other matters. It seems like every single week, there's a new breaking story in the NYT or the Wash Post such as the wiretapping, gitmo stuff, renditions, CIA actions, etc, that are all being leaked from within the government by people with the same or higher clearances than Libby. Yet none of these are investigated, because there would immediately be a cry from the press of "censorship" and claims would be tossed around that the government was trying to root out and arrest those who were "disloyal."

Leakers have gotten away with far too much, especially in recent years. I don't blame the press for publishing it, I blame the people who are leaking it with increasing abandon.

 

[aps]

Oh, no, I agree. But I'm just saying that this is something that happens day in, day out, in DC. This incident just happened to get politicized.

I didn't make myself clear here, I apologize. What I meant to say was that if this is deemed worthy of investigations, there should be investigations into the people who are leaking things TO the press in other matters. It seems like every single week, there's a new breaking story in the NYT or the Wash Post such as the wiretapping, gitmo stuff, renditions, CIA actions, etc, that are all being leaked from within the government by people with the same or higher clearances than Libby. Yet none of these are investigated, because there would immediately be a cry from the press of "censorship" and claims would be tossed around that the government was trying to root out and arrest those who were "disloyal."

Leakers have gotten away with far too much, especially in recent years. I don't blame the press for publishing it, I blame the people who are leaking it with increasing abandon.

Ahhh, I totally see your points, and I agree.

 

[RightinNYC]

Ahhh, I totally see your points, and I agree.

Really? Cool.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by RightatNYU:
I didn't make myself clear here, I apologize. What I meant to say was that if this is deemed worthy of investigations, there should be investigations into the people who are leaking things TO the press in other matters. It seems like every single week, there's a new breaking story in the NYT or the Wash Post such as the wiretapping, gitmo stuff, renditions, CIA actions, etc, that are all being leaked from within the government by people with the same or higher clearances than Libby. Yet none of these are investigated, because there would immediately be a cry from the press of "censorship" and claims would be tossed around that the government was trying to root out and arrest those who were "disloyal."

Leakers have gotten away with far too much, especially in recent years. I don't blame the press for publishing it, I blame the people who are leaking it with increasing abandon.

Are you nuts? Are you saying you don't want illegal actions by the government such as "...wiretapping, gitmo stuff, renditions, CIA actions, etc," to be leaked so the government can continue to destroy the integrity and foundations of this country with impunity? Is that what you're saying? Or are you saying:

• Non-FISA wiretapping
• GITMO
• Renditions

are legal and should be continued? Is that you're point here?

As far as Libby goes, there is a track history by this Administration that is very spiteful towards anyone that holds a different perspective that is not in goose-step with their agenda! The outing of Plame was a case of revenge perpetrated from the highest levels of our government. Here outing goes all the way to the Oval office and is much more serious than a blow job!