Skip to comments.Hannity Thread - Monday 11/7/2005
Posted on 11/07/2005 12:11:50 PM PST by sofaman
Hannity Time!!! Three hours until the Great One!
I remember hearing Victoria Toensing tell Sean that the status of whether Plame was undercover, thus establishing a possible "crime" was supposed to be done BEFORE the investigation by Fitzy...
IF he had not determined an outing...there would have not been an investigation...
HE screwed up, by not establishing a crime to investigate, IMHO.
Glad you can hear it! Wasn't that General Valalley interview AWESOME!!! 8)
3 segments and no torture bill question!!!!!
C whats Section 422? You know?
The recognition polls are about as reliable (I hope) as the exit polls were on election day...LOL
Check here ...
Bonus snippets, regarding continuation of the grand jury ...
Oh yeah the Bush White House manipulating the media. Whatever. Is that anything like how the Eagles manipulated the Patriots into letting them lose last year in the Super Bowl?
Read 251, thoughts? Good or no good?
There were thirty-six (36) major news organizations and professional reporters' groups (including CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, Reuters, The Associated Press, The Tribune Company, The Washington Post, The New York Press Club and The White House Corespondents) who asserted that "no crime" had been committed in the "Plame Leak" case because, among other things, Valerie Plame's identity had previously been disclosed to both the Russians and the Cubans.
On March 23, 2005 these news organizations and professional reporters' groups filed this legal motion:
Section 422 is defenses and exceptions to prosecution under Section 421.
Those are good questions...and from the talk show hosts and pundits that I trust, one of their main questions is...
why would Libby allegedly tell a different story to the GJ, than the notes HE turned over to them??? and, why did he keep the notes to begin with?
This whole thing is confusing...and there could be a personal reason for his involvement...but, I want there to be a jury trial...and I want the defense attorney to put as many of the Washington "elites" on the stand that he can...
I will supply the popcorn!
The Gang of 14 = RINO's
Only half of them....the other 7 are REAL democrats! ;>)
Yes, you are correct! McLame just pi**es me off!
It's the "no crime" defense to giving testimony (in the case of Miller, Cooper, Russert, et al), and to giving false testimony for Libby.
Miller didn't pursue that defense, although the 36 media outlets did in their amicus brief. Libby may pursue it in the form of prosecutorial misconduct; but that's still a tough mountain to climb as a matter of giving false testimony.
I can't stand him either!! Allen H. pointed out how he dumped his sick wife to marry current wife Cindy, and isn't it her father we have to thank for his political career? Didn't he bankroll it?? Thanks a lot!
He did? What a SOB!
"she's gone undercover."
It's a bit late now......duh!
But if she has she musn't have told Joe. If he had knowledge of it he'd be blabbing it to anyone who'd listen.
A couple minutes ago, another stupid lib caller. They ALWAYS ONLY have the SAME STUPID talking points. How pathetic. I could argue for hours with a liberal about the war the economy abortion taxes, on and on and I'd never say the same thing two times, but a liberal has the same few talking points and they can never expound on them. NO WAY those idiots are getting back the Congress next year.
Okay....I am really at the point where Libby isn't the point..if he lied...he was stupid...but he shouldn't be disciplined any harder than Sandy Burglar was...
BUT, this becomes a matter of setting the record straight...
BTW...Chrissy Matthews had on John Fund and a guy from C--span talking about the NEW charge of the media and dems being manipultated...
the guy from C-span said that the problem with THAT tactic, is that is shows the media and dems as weak and ignorant and easily manipulated...which puts them in a position of "weakness"....LOL loveit!!
I don't know that it has been established that he turned over the notes (the pages faxed from CIA that had the names "Wilson" and "Joe Wilson" handwritten on them). Those pages did not mention Wilson by name, and the indictment makes no assertion that those note had any mention whatsoever of "Wilson't wife."
This whole thing is confusing...and there could be a personal reason for his involvement...but, I want there to be a jury trial...and I want the defense attorney to put as many of the Washington "elites" on the stand that he can.
It's not that confusing. People just naturally gravitiate to the "covert/not-covert" angle, even though in the perjury case, the underlying action is literally irrelevant. Libby's counsel has promised a vigorous defense.
Does anyone know if Vallely will be on Sean's TV show tonight? Sometimes his radio guests double up for the TV show the same night.
With men and woman like the General and his brave son, the nation will be safe.
The principle in play is that law enforcement and the court system depend on getting truthful testimony.
The time to raise the charge of "bogus prosecution" is before lying to the investigator.
As long as I have you around to set me straight when I get things jumbled in my head and in my posts here on FR...
I know that I will be fine!! You amaze me...how you put things in their place and make the complicated, easier to understand...
My Dad and I think McCain in all seriousness, is not right in the head anymore since he was tortured like he was by the vietnamese while a POW there. I've heard several people who knew him before he was a POW, and they've all said that he just wasn't himself, just isn't "right in the head" when he got back. Understandibly so, but truly, I think mccain just isn't who he used to be. And he definitely isn't a conservative.
It is the old classified v covert ploy. If you can't get him on one, go for the other. Who told what to whom first. Crazy.
If I can find some time. Right now I'm in the middle of something else.
I sure hope he is. A similar interview to the one he gave on t he radio would hit about 20 or more million people this week as it's spread around all over on radio, emails, and blogs like FR. I hope he is on Hannity and colmes tonight. 8)
"Don't you dare tell the truth about me General! Don't you dare! I'll sure you if you don't take it back! I'll sue!" 8)
Get over to the Levin Thread:
He's replaying the general.
Blech. RINO speak.
Couldn't have said it better. Respect his service, reject his milk toast RINO behavior.
Heheheh. Except the "classified" one is meaningless mumbo jumbo with no legal ramifications whatsoever. IOW, you can't get him on the "classified agent" charge, because there is no such thing as a "classified agent."
When people outside the CIA know you work for the CIA, you are not "covert CIA."
I got a kick out of the "not widely know outside the intelligence community" throwaway line too. The intelligence community includes people from many many countries, most of whom are not covert agents.
That's my Russerty side.
they may have claimed no crime was committed on the technicalities of the statutes (they were correct about that) - but I don't see anywhere there where they admit that Russert, Cooper, and Miller were amongst the people "in the know" about who she was - that she had been outed to them.
to have admitted that, they would have had to admit that the conversations with Libby and Rove were setups (since they already knew who WIlson's wife was), they would not have been able to send those reporters in there with their BS testimony "oh, we knew nothing, we found out everything from Libby and Rove". it would have changed the entire case.
he wanted to trump up his prose on the outing charge (for which there was no indictment), by trying to show that her identity was not "common knowledge". so he sends the FBI to interview the coached neighbors, so he can say "see, wouldn't the neighbors have known if it were common knowledge?". its pure BS, and it gives great insight into Fitzgerald that he would do that.
in my opinion, the biggest risk to Libby is if Fitzgerald can show he destroyed his notes (or otherwise had easy access to them but did not provide them), Fitzgerald was able to obtain and authenticate those notes from an independent source (someone made a copy, an attachement on a saved email), and Libby testified to the contrary and can't get by with simply saying "I forgot about that meeting".
Yes....you do have a good point.
President Bush said he wanted all to cooperate fully, and tell the truth...so, for Libby's sake, I hope he did tell the truth, but something else went haywire.
However, when it was Libby that they were "going after"...he seemed like a big target to the dems...but, now that he is the "only one" that Fitzy has indicted..do you notice how fast Chrissy Matthews has changed his tune....
and the dems have changed theirs, to pre-war intelligence again??? LOL
my own opinion - unless our side can do some thing to knock this story down; in time, Rove will be indicted also.
GACK..don't like the sound of that.
I hope that Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely coming out against Wilson's contention that his wife wasn't known before Novak's article....will make Fitzy and others think twice about having this go to trial...
I mean, just think of how much fun Libby's lawyers could have calling people in media and politics to testify!
Not necessarily, "in the know," but Cooper is alleged to have brought Wilson's wife up to Libby, rather than Libby bringing it up to Cooper. The indictment does not probe, nor does it need to probe how and when Cooper learned.
Page 8, paragraph 23: "On or about July 12, in the afternoon, Libby spoke by telephone with Cooper, who asked whether Libby had heard that Wilson's wife was involved in sending Wilson on the trip to Niger. Libby confirmed to Cooper, without elaboration or qualification that he had heard this information too."
... they would not have been able to send those reporters in there with their BS testimony "oh, we knew nothing, we found out everything from Libby and Rove"
The case is not about where the reporters heard it first. The case is about where Libby heard it first. Libby is the one who is charged with not being truthful with investigators regarding where he first learned of Plame, he relationship to Wilson, and her relationship to Wilson's trip.
You are thinking in terms of "who did the outing," but the case is not about that - it is about whether or not Libby gave truthful testimony to investigators.
I believe Cooper's claim is that he heard it from Rove - he mentioned it to Libby because he heard about it from Rove. None of the reporters claim prior knowledge.
yes, I know the case is not about when the reporters knew. but had it been established that they knew already, it simply lends credence to the idea that the only reason they were asking - was to entrap Rove and Libby. already this case involves no crime on the underlying statute, if we then add entrapment to that - making the indictments seem "fair" becomes even harder.