Posted on 10/28/2005 10:29:03 PM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
Even if Libby knew that Plame worked for the CIA when he was talking to Russert if he told Russert that he did not know that she worked their then maybe he was attempting to protect her from disclosure. When asked about it by the GJ he simply stated the conversation with Russert as he remembered it either way it is apparent that there was no crime committed since she was not covert and saying that she worked at the CIA was not a crime anyway so this whole affair is a farce. Why isn't Russert indicted since he apparently knew all along as well as other reporters that Plame worked for the CIA and it was the Press reporting that in fact outed her...
Her employment was classified information (though what aspect was unclear). Her status was/is something else.
I know I simply forget a lot of things. :^)
Nonsense!
From Libby's testimony.
From testimony.
"I want – I didn't want to – I didn't know if it was true and I didn't want people – I didn't want the reporters to think it was true because I said it. I – all I had was that reporters are telling us that, and by that I wanted them to understand it wasn't coming from me and that it might not be true. Reporters write things that aren't true sometimes, or get things that aren't true. So I wanted to be clear they didn't, they didn't think it was me saying it. I didn't know it was true and I wanted them to understand that. Also, it was important to me to let them know that because what I was telling them was that I don't know Mr. Wilson. We didn't ask for his mission. That I didn't see his report."
"Basically, we didn't know anything about him until this stuff came out in June. And among the other things, I didn't know he had a wife. That was one of the things I said to Mr. Cooper. I don't know if he's married. And so I wanted to be very clear about all this stuff that I didn't, I didn't know about him. And the only thing I had, I thought at the time, was what reporters are telling us."
What Libby is saying is that he lied to reporters. He never says he didn't know Valaries status. He simply say's that reporters were reporting this. Russert now lies and claims he didn't say this to Libby but that is simply his word against Libby. Read this Libby seems to be going out of his way to make clear that he did not take responsibility himself for this claim. Rather he attributed it to Russet. Fitz is so partisan though that he twist the denyal into Libby denying knowledge rather than Libby denying this to other reporters.
This is a real partisan hack job. Libby will not be found guilty of anything. It may even be thrown out of court before trial.What could Fitz have. Rummor is Libby's notes I doubt this strongly. Most likely Russett's notes but so what. Russett has had it in for Rove and Libby forever. His notes could hardly be trusted.
Fitz needs to be investigated for missconduct. But most of all GW need to grow some b@ll$ and defend his people for a change by a strong offence against the Dims. Kerry Hillary Bill and McDermot are easy targets. Investigate the dickens out of them and convict them.
D.C. just requires "one part notification," so a recording would have been legal, if both men were in Washington. I presume that a legal recording would be admissible.
http://www.callcorder.com/phone-recording-law-america.htm#State%20Laws%20(Table)
You forget, first and foremost, this is a media trial designed to bash Bush, the war on terror and conservatives. I see this whole matter as one aspect of an elaborate scheme to show the public how evil and corrupt Republicans and conservatives are.
It wouldn't surprise me that this never makes it to court.
If he was on our side, and had any aspirations whatsoever in the party, I think we'd at least be able to recognize his name prior to this indictment? How many politicos shy from recognition that you know?
How he held out as long as he did is the new mystery.
And it won't just be Wilson, Plame, and their
superiors and co-workers and friends, that will
be supeonaed..it would not surprise me to see
Fitzgeralds own clerks/investigators who find
themselves ubder oath, and answering questions about how Fitzgerald went after the WH staff, and his minset
and the focus of questioning taken with CIA & State
Dept "witnesses".
If you aren't the target, you have very limited 5th Amendment rights before a Grand Jury and they can force you to answer. That is why it is such a big thing that prosecutors inform people coming before Grand Juries that they are targets.
Listening to the first part of his press conference, Fitzgerald was carefully parsing his words, and I noticed a slight halt in his voice whenever he said "CIA officer" when talking about the 1982 law that covered covert operative. He was trying to mislead by using a generic term when a very specific one is used in the statute. He would also have had a hard time proving Libby, or anyone else, intended grave harm to anybody, which the law requires.
The investigation should have taken about 15 minutes, since none of the conditions of the 1982 law, or the 1917 law they considered as a backup, would hold up. Instead, they spent two years grilling people about something they knew they would not indict on, hoping for a slip somewhere.
I rejected the following phrases when klinton was investigated for real perjury, coverup, and obstruction of justice. Still, I feel those words should be heard again:
"Get on with the work of the country"
"Somebody only wants to write a book about this, and make money."
"Millions of taxpayer dollars wasted."
"It was only about sex (or gossip)".
"The real crime is in demeaning the office of the presidency."
I don't know that he is partisan. He is certainly zealous. The question is whether he is overzealous, or did Libby get cocky and stupid. Whichever it is, Libby's answers obviously ticked Fitzgerald off.
That's why this whole thing stinks. Libby doesn't get a target letter, can't have a lawyer in the GJ when he testifes and puts himself in legal jeopardy. The WH staff is bound by Bush's directive not to discuss their testimony, whereas Miller, Cooper, and Russert (how can he even claim to report objectively on this story?) leak all their GJ. So there's a stench from Libby that comes with the indictment and his side of the story isn't out there.
Why does Fitzgerald believe Russert's side of the story?
That's what it looks like to me.....Russert recorded it. Don't know if it's legal or not.....
Despite Fitzgerald's implications, according to Fitzgerald's own timeline, this appears to be true...or at worst, some time after May 29th.
That almost sounds exciting!
Libby's law firm specializes in Shari'a law...no kidding...it's on their dechert.com web site this very day.
So 5 will get you 10 that Dechert Price is a CIA front company.
Libby worked NSC and Defense under Clinton. I'd bet money that he's a spook.
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.