Posted on 10/20/2005 7:14:44 PM PDT by Pikamax
"Letting the liberal press have their orgasms until the very end."
Yep, and echoing the DNC, Screaming Howie and Nancy Lugoisi's talking point about how 'corrupt', etc., etc., the Bush Administration and the Republicans are, especially coupled w the Delay bogus indictment and Frist's issues.
Um, the WH's chief political advisor being indicted is a bit of a bigger deal.
Amen, sister!
I always hated that.
CA....
Wilson and Plame were Pincus' sources..go read his May article. Ditto with Kristoff..There is the "envoy" and the "CIA analyst" and they are most certainly Wilson and Plame.
Nothing new in this article. Move on.
"Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby have been advised that they may be in serious legal jeopardy, the lawyers said, but only this week has Mr. Fitzgerald begun to narrow the possible charges. The prosecutor has said he will not make up his mind about any charges until next week, government officials say""
What lawyers...what govt people. Fitz folks aint said a word....according to people like the TIMES. So any other lawyer would not be worth a spit for info.
The SLimes needs to decide which road they are gonna take here. Either Fitz folks are talking....or they are not.
It can't be both.
Good post. Shows two things. Showing how the law allows for the human mind.
One could have said something in passing years ago...or sent an e-mail that they did not remember....
Later on in the trial..the person faces that or remembers it..... They were not misleading the first time...they just did not remember it.
FURTHERMORE..... INTENT. the word Knowingly. Good luck convicting on that one, Fitz.
That's funny. Mine was like..."who the hell is Susanne".
Gotta stop talking in my sleep....
There lawyers would not be in when Rove or Libby testified.
And Fitz could not share info on Rove or Libby with them.
OH MAN........MAYBE HE'S GOING AFTER WILSON!!!!
This happy thought was brought to you by ArmyBratProud.
30 plus years of hating liberals.
I don't know .. the whole thing is such a mess - I still say this "mess" has Hillary's fingerprints all over it.
Bill Clinton knew this was going down when he and Hillary were perusing Europe trying to sell her book. At a London function, Clinton was overheard to say to Blair, "If you don't stop supporting Bush and his war, you will not be able to win your next election". Within a few days of that exchange of words, the Wilson story broke.
Was there more to that conversation, and was Bill trying to warn Blair about what was coming down about Niger and the yellowcake ..?? And .. how would Bill have known about Wilson .. except for the connection to the Wilsons - who were fund raisers for the Clintons.
When you have people raise money for you - you know everything about them. I still believe it was Hillary who told Miller about Valerie - and that's why Miller now says that she cannot remember who told her .. and why she was willing to sit in jail until Fitz agreed not to ask her about any source other than Libby. I love that condition - you can't me about any other source except Liddy - which means that she doesn't have to expose it was Hillary.
This has absolutely nothing to do with Rove or Libby. They are just the scapegoats to protect the Clintons - AGAIN!
So, Russert could have told Libby "Joe Wilson's wife works at the CIA", and his testimony would be technically truthful. Too cute by half, IMHO.
That shows you what kind of cowards we have in the MSM. Let the woman do the time not the ivory tower, perfumed princes.
I wish Conservatives/Republicans would learn to keep their damn mouths shut and stop talking to these back-stabbers!
It's MADDENING.....they never seem to learn that no matter WHAT, the poofs over at the NY Times are NEVER going to like them, or give them "good press", unless, like McCain, they stab the rest of us in the back.
You find the best back up quotes!
They have a direct interest in the outcome of this GJ since they testified in it. I have yet to hear one of them admit or disclose to their viewers or readers that they were PART OF THE STORY.
I think they can clearly be called whores (pardon my French). They are also the same people who are pushing this story to their desired outcome. All things being equal they are the ones who should be indicted along with JOE WILSON, the bold faced LIAR.
Do you know anyone who puts our National Security in jeopardy anymore than MSM on a daily basis? They also keep pushing the story of NO WEAPONS OF MASS DISTRUCTION in Iraq. I wonder where the hell all of it went then since Saddam had it for YEARS & USED IT? Maybe Syria since we had to WAIT for the UN to OKAY going in to Iraq?!!!
There was a guy on Fox News the other day who has written about Saddam for over 20 years who said that he had WMDs and that was the REAL STORY in all of this.
This article says nothing different than the article last week.
Indeed it does.
Who has informed Libby and Rove they are in legal jeopardy?
I've been following this case closely. While I totally understand the entire Wilson ugly story, I'm still confused as to this special prosecutor and the waste of time being spent going after Rove and Libby.
Come on. The jails are full and Osama Bin Laden still runs free. To put two people in jail for saying "I heard that" is just not going to happen.
I think Fitzgerald is somehow, someway, going after Judith Miller and the NY Times.
Indeed.
Don't forget that Judith Miller, for reasons not clear to me, WARNED two Islamic charities, back right after the 9/11 attacks (October 2001) of an impending raid on their offices.
It was guised by the NY Times as a "followup" to a story, ie Judith (and another NY Times reporter) called up the charities in question, both of whom were scheduled for a raid, BEFORE the raid and asked them questions about it.
In other words, the drug people are ready to spring on my house to look for illegal drugs on Monday. But on SUNDAY before my local paper phones me up and asks questions about the drug raid.
It's a tip off disguised as normal newspaper business.
Fitzgerald was the prosecutor investigating that bit of outright treason. The Times got away with because Fitzgerald subpoenaed the Times phone records to ascertain who at the FBI Judy Miller talked to to gain warning about the raid. But a liberal Judge, in a 157 page settlement, would not let Fitzgeral get those phone records.
Nonetheless, out there, is the factoid that the NY Times and two of their reporters WARNED our enemies of an impending raid.
I can't imagine that Fitzgerald wasn't pissed over this. Now during THIS hearing, I'm of a mind that Fitz is trying to get Judy to reveal that source.
Because somebody in the FBI, along with the treasonous NY Times, is a TRAITOR. Pure and simple.
Add to this the Joe WIlson traitorous act. His little trip to Niger. During which he also stopped in France, did you know? Wilson speaks fluent French and Chirac is one of his buddies.
The French supposedly controlled the distribution of yellowcake in Niger. Iraq was supposedly trying to buy some. The French were involved in this, don't let anybody tell you different.
Then there was that cute little forgerie that turned up in Italy. A forgery that I'm thinking Wilson himself dropped off into the swirling order of things. That's right, I think Wilson engaged in outright traitorous acts and was helped along by the NY Times.
A newspaper owned outright by Saudi Arabia. Does anyone doubt that the NY Times is no longer an American "paper of record"?
Why did the NY Times warn those terrorist funding organizations posing as charities about an impending raid? Why did they give the traitorous Wilson such a wide forum for his crop of lies about Niger? Why is everything that paper prints anti-American?
This thing is NOT about going after Rove and Libby. It's about finally getting the NY Times. Now, with this leak, it's only the NY Times that benefits by continually casting the blame on the administration. Much like they did with the Niger thing.
Seeing a pattern here?
Somebody got and is still getting oil money to protect their own behinds and to continue a propaganda war against the United States of America.
Anonymous lawyers close to the investigation say so according to the NYT.It implies they have been officially notified..We are to trust them that this is so.
I have no idea if it is true.
You might have a point there...
Denying a fact like whether you had sex with someone is different then remember a conversation a year ago. No one can plausably claim they forgot whether they were having sex with a person. But who remembers specific details about an old conversation? Shoot, I get in arguements with my wife what we discussed two days ago. That's just normal that two people remember things differently.
That would be smart politically
Is O'Donnell still pushing the 22 indictments and the indictment of Cheney. Are we now back to Rove and Libby for things that were no big deal.
We have to start putting out that everyone fibs about politics and trivalize the charges like Clinton did.
Are there enough leaks from the leak case itself for this thing to be thrown out yet?
Some could interpret the "no comment" to be uh-oh, deep do-do. Others could interpret this as our clients are in the clear, at least to major issues, and why screw things up now by commenting?
18 U.S.C. § 1001. Statements or entries generally
Release date: 2005-08-03
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.
semper ubi sub ubi
< b>maybe some bolding?< /b>
Same as hr said, leave out the space inside the < > to make the html command take effect.
The NY Times and the Washington Post have been printing rumor after rumor after rumor. They don't know anything more than we do. It will all be revealed when Fitzgerald is finished.
This wording says explicitly that it is not members of the Special Prosecutor's staff. That means it's lawyers representing people involved.
It is true that Libby and Rove have lawyers that this could be referring to, but in the past the Times and Post have generally made it clear, either explicitly or implicitly, that the sources were Libby's or Rove's lawyers.
So who else has "lawyers involved in the case?"
The New York Times
The Washington Post
Joe Wilson
Valerie Plame
The DNC
The CIA
et al
I believe this is a blatant attempt to either try and push the prosecutor to a conclusion that they hope will occur, or an attempt to deflect attention from their own client's guilt and preempt any contemplated indictment of them.
"What happened to the initial intent of the Grand Jury?? Does that get thrown aside and you just bring charges Willy Nilly??"
As i understand it, grand juries have the right to deal with new crimes they discover in the course of the investigation.... of course, ideally, such crimes would be real and not politically motivated.
Hm......
This appears to be coverup in case of no indictments.
The leak - possible serious legal trouble - means that the two are quilty of serious legal trouble whether they indict or not. If no indictments come down, the leak has already said they were guilty - so the republican prosecutor just decided to cover for them.
They are working on a win-win solution to this mess whether indictments are issued or not. How? By leaking that it was serious legal trouble for those two.
I agree.
“Lawyers involved in the case” is so vague that it could refer to lawyers representing any number of journalists who have been interviewed by Fitzgerald. Which means these “lawyers involved in the case” the NYT has anonymously quoted may not be all that sympathetic to Rove and Libby. Consider that if these lawyers were part of either the special prosecutor’s team or were a part of Rove’s or Libby’s legal team that they would have confirmed or denied that target letters had been sent by the special prosecutor to Rove or Libby. But they didn’t. And the NYT piece is written as though these “lawyers involved in the case” weren’t even asked if target letters had been sent. I suspect that’s because there is no sense in asking someone a question who would have no idea what the answer is. Reporting an 'I dunno' would have undermined the entire authoritative premise that the NYT is relying on for its piece.
Instead it was said that Rove and Libby had “been advised that they may be in serious legal jeopardy.” That sounds like an answer from people who are not in a position to know whether target letters have been sent – i.e. lawyers who are not part of the special prosecutor’s team and who are not part of Rove’s or Libby’s legal team. Further, any time a person is brought before a grand jury to testify in a case where he is not given assurances that he will not be prosecuted, it is reasonable to assume that he would be warned that it is possible that he could fall into “serious legal jeopardy” by the statements he makes. Sounds rather boilerplate.
If these lawyers that the NYT used as its source had been asked about target letters and they had refused to comment that could have been reported too. After all, the NYT did report on other lawyers who are in a position to know about target letters when it wrote in the VERY SAME PIECE: “Lawyers for the two men [Rove and Libby] declined to comment on their legal status.”
But a 'no comment' from the "lawyers involved in the case" that the NYT is relying on to indicate that Rove and Libby may be in “serious legal jeopardy” would have made no sense considering all the other 'inside' information they had divulged. An answer of 'no comment' would have undermined the piece almost as bad as an answer of 'I dunno'. So the NYT didn't ask these lawyers because they were in no position to know whether target letters had been sent. That way the NYT doesn't have to report an answer that would undermine the premise of the whole piece.
Since there are no new facts presented, the NYT's report is a cheap excuse for rank speculation.
Bottom line: Nothing new here.
The prozac must be working, LOL!
That was a sticking point for me, I don't understand what Fitzgerald is thinking...Cooper testified that he did not have a conversation about welfare with Rove, but clearly the e-mail indicates he did, just as Rove testified he did. And like I posted on another thread, if they asked me what I had for lunch yesterday, I couldn't remember without some thought. Much less a conversation I had a year ago, without checking such things as my e-mails.
Of course not. It's ridiculous!
Only Republicans get indicted and convicted. Dems, since we know they only want to help the little people, get a free pass.
The other day, several threads reported that Fitz won't issue a report because all of the testimony is confidential. If indictments come down, the WH must immediately demand an investigation of these leaks from the past few days, which appear to be coming from the prosecutor's office. If Fitz is going to file cheap indictments, then the same level of scrutiny must be applied to his own staff. There is definitely the appearance that his staff is leaking GJ testimony.
<i>italics</i>
<b>bold</b>
<u>underlined</u>
<s>strikethru</s>
<i><b><u><s>all at once </s></u></b></i>
For what it's worth I sent this letter to the GOP today:
"We can only hope that this story will make some, should be all, Republicans realize that the media are not their friends.
Why Karl Rove, Scooter Libby or any Republican would feel a need to communicate with these people, except for the most perfunctory of reasons, is beyond me.
What would make administration officials believe they could trust anyone from the NY Times, Time magazine, or Tim Russert for that matter?
STOP trying to get along with these people...THEY HATE YOUR GUTS!
As if Matt Cooper of Time, or any other MSM regular, cares that Joe Wilson was lying. Joe Wilson was singing their tune, and if he lied, THEY (Cooper, et al) would make sure that aspect of the story got buried.
Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and the rest of the GOP hierarchy got played... by the CIA, Plame, Wilson, the media and the Democrats.
Lesson learned (we hope) the hard way."
I agree.
No one who is connected with the Grand Jury is talking to the NY Slimes.
This is another one of their Perverted Lunatic Lefty Wet Dreams trying to be made into news. Just think of Jayson Blair, the lying pervert, who made up stories when he was not even at the news sites while he was getting stoned and whatever.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.