Libby's Jury Hears Rant Of Diplomat ... (Armitage:profanity-laden rant)

NY Sun ^ | February 13, 2007 | JOSH GERSTEIN

[lugsoul]

No, I haven't. I don't care whether you think it is true or not. Your believing it, or not believing it, does not have a scintilla of impact on the truth of the assertion. And, yes, I can most certainly prove that it is true. But I have no need to do so, and don't intend on posting the information necessary to do so on a bulletin board.

[Carolinamom]

Lack of proof, then, proves that it's just an assumption, and I will treat it as such.

Now, if you don't mind, let's get back to the subject of this thread.

[BigSkyFreeper]

If it is the article posted by Howlin', please note that it, on its own face, is based on "speculation."

The only one who is speculating is you lugsoul. You didn't even bother to look at the dates and times contained in that article. None of what Plame or Wilson, or any dingbat on the left has said since this all exploded in our faces is jiving. Meanwhile, Fitzfong continues to dig that hole of his.

[BigSkyFreeper]

And, yes, I can most certainly prove that it is true. But I have no need to do so, and don't intend on posting the information necessary to do so on a bulletin board.

Admit you're wrong and move on. No harm, no foul.

[lugsoul]

About what? That I'm an attorney? I won't do that. That the article qualifies its premise by saying "knowledgable sources speculate"? It is right there in the article, FGS.

[lugsoul]

Um, no. The article itself says "knowledgable sources speculate" on the very dates and times you rely upon. But if that makes it fact in your mind, good for you. It must be nice to be able to simply take a speculative statement and assume it to be established fact. I am unable to do so.

[Carolinamom]

That's knowledgEable. But I will assume that you know that, n'est ce pas?

[art_rocks]

As I am not a lawyer, I have a question. If the prosecutor is allowed to play tapes from the grand jury as evidence, is the defense allowed to see the grand jury evidence so they could tapes that are beneficial to their case?

[jpl]

Based on the little I have seen and heard from Armitage, I am not impressed.

He's a lying blowhard who used to go around telling people that he was a Navy SEAL (he wasn't).

I can't remember who it was, but I once heard someone in Washington call him the most dishonest guy he had ever met.

[BigSkyFreeper]

About what? That I'm an attorney? I won't do that.

Yeah? So is Fitzfong. I know what the article says, it also breaks down the timeline "O' knowledgeable lawyer".

[lugsoul]

If proofreading is your passion, have at it.

[Lee'sGhost]

"Yes yes, but when did the the bartender at Kinkead's and the maitre de at CityZen know about it?"

That's my take on it as well. In other words, who DIDN'T know VP was an agent?

[lugsoul]

"Breaks down the timeline" based upon dates derived by speculation. If that's "evidence" in your mind, have at it.

I'm sure that Ted Wells and his $5M legal team and the entire effort to discredit Wilson has just left this tidbit out of the mix, until Byron York and Clarice put 2 + 2 with some knowledgable speculation to come up with a devastating factual scenario that is appropos of - nothing?

Assume the "speculation" is true - what does it prove? That the CIA persons who told Wilson that the VP asked about the issue were lying to him? Or that they started putting together the trip to respond to State or DIA before OVP asked, then folded that in as well? So what?

[Carolinamom]

Do you have any reputable source (other than yourself) refuting Byron York's and the "knowledgeable source" statement re: the time line?

I am unaware of one. Perhaps you can enlighten us.

[lugsoul]

You mean before they were told by gov't officials or read the Novak column?

Just a bunch of uninformed outsiders like Novak, Woodward, Pincus, etc.

[lugsoul]

You mean refuting the speculation? I don't think speculation can be disproven, because it isn't based on fact. What I cited above, i.e. the DO report on 2/5, the INR report the previous year, etc., would all serve as fuel for "speculation" that 2/13/02 wasn't the first time the VP was exposed to this issue.

[Carolinamom]

Not even one published outcry that York is speculating and therefore inaccurate in his 'speculation'?

[lugsoul]

What are you talking about? Usually, when someone says "I'm just guessing," it doesn't spur a spate of articles on the same day screaming "WAIT! He's just guessing!"

Especially when the point he is guessing about doesn't really prove - or contradict - anything of note.

[Carolinamom]

Au contraire. There is the hint of CIA's CYA in not submitting ALL documents, resulting in an incomplete report. Either that or incompetence/carelessness. Which is it?

[BigSkyFreeper]

I'm sure that Ted Wells and his $5M legal team and the entire effort to discredit Wilson has just left this tidbit out of the mix, ...

In case you hadn't been paying attention, Wells started making his case this week. We've gone through a litany of Fitzfong witnesses. Wells now is beginning to unravel all this mess Fitzfong, Plame, Wilson, Armitage, and every other left-winged psychopath erected in front of our faces.

I'd take the word of Byron York over some kid on a computer who claims to be a lawyer any day. I will gladly go beyond and speculate that Byron York has probably been in that courtroom. The evidence is clear you you haven't even set foot in the courtroom. I'll take the word of Byron York, over some body sitting behind a keyboard who claims on an internet forum they're a lawyer.