Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FITZGERALD DOCUMENTS RELEASED
US Dept. of Justice | oct. 28, 2005 | Patrick Fitzgerald

Posted on 10/28/2005 10:14:53 AM PDT by blogblogginaway

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1028051plame1.html


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cialeak; doj
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-133 next last
To: goldstategop
As GoldstateGop's post just reminded me: the other difference with Clinton's case is that there were one or more actual crimes being hidden/obstructed by Clinton's perjury.

This charge however concerns obstruction of justice in a case where there exists no corpus delicti, no evidence that a crime has actually occurred. If WE do not stand up and fight about this process crime, then the Libs will have criminalised Conservatism for another three decades.

51 posted on 10/28/2005 10:36:54 AM PDT by agere_contra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: maggief

I guess he may not be a criminal attorney, but, oh, I love Barry Richard.


52 posted on 10/28/2005 10:37:08 AM PDT by maranatha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk
Check out #32a starting at the bottom of page 11. Correct me if I'm wrong, but one of the charges is based on Libby acting surprised when Russert told him about Wilson's wife working for the CIA!

Cripes, now TV Interviews, where Libby said NOTHING about Plame, are now a ground for indictment!

53 posted on 10/28/2005 10:37:24 AM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk

Fitz knows it's bogus. That's why he uses the characterization that "her affiliation with the agency was classified." It's a much broader, vaguer term. Notice that NO WHERE in the indictment is there any allegation that Libby violated either the 1917 or 1982 laws. Only that he lied about talking about Plame. If you read between the lines, Fitz is admitting that her status is ambiguous. No mention of "covert status".


54 posted on 10/28/2005 10:37:47 AM PDT by atomicweeder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dems_R_Losers

And let's all make sure we are being consistent with what we wanted for Martha Stewart. She did the same thing. Lied to investigators because she believed (mistakenly as it turned out) that she had committed a crime.

And Fitz is not a hack or a moron - that paragraph is supported by some evidence. That's all it needs for the indictment.


55 posted on 10/28/2005 10:38:03 AM PDT by Julliardsux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Mister Baredog
It's amazing that Fitzgerald's docs repeat part of the classified info released by Wilson to Kristof to the NY Slimes, but Wilson is not indicted.
56 posted on 10/28/2005 10:38:53 AM PDT by pierrem15
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: blogblogginaway

Libby was charged with perjury (2 counts), obstruction of justice (two counts), and making a false statement (1 count).

Libby was NOT charged with the crimes Joe Wilson and his allies in the MSM were claiming. There was no disclosure of covert intelligence personnel, nor was there any improper disclosure of national defense information.

(Note, in recent times, the only public disclosures of classified information, that I am aware of, have been by Patrick Leahy and John Kerry).

It does appear that this is just another of those "Martha Stewart Crimes", where there was no crime until there was a witch hunt (er, an 'investigation').

We also understand, now, why the DEMONcrats have been going out of their way to praise Fitzgerald in the past week or so. They were leaked info on this indictment.

And, finally, we now know for certain that none of this would have happened in the first place if the CIA had not performed acts that, for all practical purposes, were intended to undermine the war effort and embarass the President.


57 posted on 10/28/2005 10:39:18 AM PDT by PhilipFreneau ("The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." -- Psalms 14:1, 53:1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
Was Wilson or Plame ever questioned under oath about this as to their actions regaring this whole matter?

No, but they should be the 1st and 2nd witnesses at Libby's trial, and it will be fun watching them be nailed on the stand. :-)

58 posted on 10/28/2005 10:39:53 AM PDT by Lurking in Kansas (Nothing witty here… move on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: drjimmy
But it's still all 'he said, she said'. I think the whole thing is bad farce. Two years - Two Years? - and this is what Fitzgerald came up with?
59 posted on 10/28/2005 10:39:56 AM PDT by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: atomicweeder
Exactly. There's no mention of "covert" anywhere in the press release or the indictment and neither the 1982 or 1917 laws are applicable to the case. There's no underlying crime. Its all smoke and mirrors.

("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")

60 posted on 10/28/2005 10:39:58 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: blogblogginaway

Tempest in a teapot bump.


61 posted on 10/28/2005 10:40:18 AM PDT by Antoninus (The greatest gifts parents can give their children are siblings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: atomicweeder

"Fitz knows it's bogus. That's why he uses the characterization that "her affiliation with the agency was classified." It's a much broader, vaguer term. Notice that NO WHERE in the indictment is there any allegation that Libby violated either the 1917 or 1982 laws. Only that he lied about talking about Plame. If you read between the lines, Fitz is admitting that her status is ambiguous. No mention of "covert status"."

You're right. This prosecutor is counting on the fact that most of the public is too stupid to understand that these indictments have nothing to do with the actual charges that required the special prosecutor in the first place.



62 posted on 10/28/2005 10:41:01 AM PDT by half-cajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
They got nothing on the underlying crime. They got an "entrapment" indictment which is a whole different kettle of fish. The Special Counsel had to manufacture a crime to justify the expenditure of several million dollars investigating a non-event.

Exactly!

63 posted on 10/28/2005 10:41:04 AM PDT by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: half-cajun

Yes Fitz knows its bogus. That's why he didn't indict on the underlying charges. But he has to put it in the indictment, because Libby's motivation to lie was that he thought he was committing the underlying offense. Or at least worried enough about it to lie.


64 posted on 10/28/2005 10:42:28 AM PDT by Julliardsux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: LesbianThespianGymnasticMidget
Lewis Libby was not indicted for outing Plame nor part of a conspiracy to do so. This has disappointed the liberal media and the DU big time. Still have to have "proof" and as I stated a week ago, as well yesterday in a story on FR, the Pardon could be brought into play as "the last card" thrown down on the table.

However, if he did purposely mislead, no one is above the law. It would be difficult to imagine that Libby would be so Hell bent on Wilson's Times' piece etc. (the "yellow stuff" was not the story to end all stories) to be in such a "fever" to denounce him and risk consequences to himself. Why Bother??? Definitely not a good day for Libby, not a washout for Bush Administration, but a disappointing day for the Liberals. ;)

65 posted on 10/28/2005 10:43:05 AM PDT by fight_truth_decay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: acapesket
No potted plants.


66 posted on 10/28/2005 10:43:23 AM PDT by A.A. Cunningham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Shermy

Novak's Source No. 1 = Official "A" = Rove.


67 posted on 10/28/2005 10:43:27 AM PDT by Julliardsux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: blogblogginaway

It says that Plame's status was "classified" but the only thing Libby is charged with is mischaracterizing the conversations that he had with the reporters. For example, it says that he told the Grand Jury that Russert asked him whether Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, but that in fact, Russert never asked him that.


68 posted on 10/28/2005 10:43:33 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
I'm reading it...some of it sounds like he lied to Cooper. So what? Legally I mean. And who is Novak's source no. 1???

The way I read it, Libby may have lied to Cooper, but he allegedly lied to the grand jury/FBI about exactly what he told Cooper, and what Cooper supposedly said to him. The indictment says that "Official A" discussed Wilson's wife with Novak, and describes Official A as a "senior White House official." I'll give you one guess who that must be.
69 posted on 10/28/2005 10:43:34 AM PDT by drjimmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: PhilipFreneau

THAT"S exactly why Libby needs to take this down full throttle! Wilson and Plame need to be exposed, but most of all WE need to go after the CIA and clean out that Rat's nest!


70 posted on 10/28/2005 10:45:31 AM PDT by acapesket (never had a vote count in all my years here)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
The end of the indictment states that its only charges and the defendant enjoys the presumption of innocent and the government has the burden of proving him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

Glad to hear it GGOP (/slightly mollified)

71 posted on 10/28/2005 10:45:39 AM PDT by agere_contra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: mykpfsu

If Libby's version turns out to be true, maybe Fitz will indict Russert, Miller and Coooper. <off sarcasm


72 posted on 10/28/2005 10:45:42 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: drjimmy; Julliardsux

"Novak's Source No. 1 = Official "A" = Rove"

Disagree. Rove was Novak's source no. 2.

Libby was not 1 or 2.

NO. 1 Novak described as "not a partisan gunslinger."

Wilkerson, Tenet, Clarke, Powell etc.


73 posted on 10/28/2005 10:47:33 AM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: drjimmy

Here's my guess as to why Rove is still under investigation. The indictment comes out against Libby. He will now be offered a cooperation agreement / plea deal to reduce his sentence to finger Rove, and maybe others.

There are a whole lot of soggy bottoms in foggy bottom right now...


74 posted on 10/28/2005 10:47:38 AM PDT by Julliardsux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: blogblogginaway
My god. This is one of the counts for false statements to FBI agents:

Page 16:

LIBBY ... stated that:"During a conversation with Tim Russert of NBC News on July 10 or 11 [db - note Fitz can't even nail down the specifics, but is charging Libby for being unable to nail down specifics], Russert asked LIBBY if LIBBY was aware that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Libby responded to Russert that he did not know that, and Russert replied that all the reporters knew it. Libby was surprised by this statement because, while speaking with Russert, Libby did not recall that he had previously learned about Wilson's wife's employment from the Vice President.

As defendent LIBBY well knew when he made it, this statement was false in that LIBBY spoke with Russert on or about July 10 or 11, 2003:

a. Russert did not ask Libby if Libby knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew it, and

b. At the time of the conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.

---------

Well, we see here why Fitz had to claim that it was not common knowledge that Plame worked at the CIA - in order to make this indictment plausible. Not only that, but he is basing it on a Libby said, Russert said situation. And Libby cannot even pin down the date of the conversation.

What a sham.

75 posted on 10/28/2005 10:47:46 AM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk

Check out my post #75 - it shows why Fitz had to claim that Wilson's affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge.


76 posted on 10/28/2005 10:49:31 AM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Julliardsux

And as a side note to my theory. If libby were a clinton administration official, he'd be in fort marcy park right now so he would never even have opportunity to sing like a birdie.


77 posted on 10/28/2005 10:49:34 AM PDT by Julliardsux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

Yeah, and Cooper denied he talked to Rove about "Welfare Reform"

But Rove's notes said he did.

And after testifying, Cooper said he found notes that during that week he was researching welfare reform.

Cooper's memory is the centerpiece of this case. Wooo!


78 posted on 10/28/2005 10:50:06 AM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Shermy

I wager Novak's source #1 was someone within the CIA.


79 posted on 10/28/2005 10:50:10 AM PDT by WildWeasel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: half-cajun
What has this guy been doing for 2 years?

Apparently trying to create a situation in which someone in the admin would make statements contradictory to someone else's statements.

80 posted on 10/28/2005 10:52:48 AM PDT by alnick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: mykpfsu
Its basically Libby's word against Russert, Cooper and Miller.

You are only half right. As I read the indictment, the prosecutor has alleged, and must prove, two things--

1. That Libby's statements to the FBI investigators were not true--i.e. that he in fact "put out" the information that Plame worked for the CIA, rather than confirming that information in response to their questions;

On this issue, it is Libby's word against Russert, Miller, and Cooper's.

and

2. That Libby made the untrue statements with the intent of misleading the investigators/grand jury.

In other words, it will be a complete defense to all the charges, and require Libby's acquittal, if the jury concludes that there is a reasonable possibility that Libby's recollection of the events, although confused and erroneous, was sincere.

Therefore, this is not just a he said/she said case. It will require the jury to conclude what was going on in Libby's mind. I personally think it is going to be very difficult for the prosecutor to prove these charges "beyond a resonable doubt."

81 posted on 10/28/2005 10:52:54 AM PDT by TheConservator (Confutatis maledictis, . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

The CIA suspected that Aldrich Ames ratted Plame out to the Russians no later than 1994, along with a number of other covert spies and therefore pulled Plame from the field.

In any event, she had not served overseas in a covert CIA role since then and thus no law was violated regardless, at least as far as the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982.

Plame was also introduced throughout the community while on the arm of Wilson as.."my CIA wife. The CIA, I believe is not too happy with Val beginning with the Vanity Fair article..as it is a personal responsiblity if you are in sensitive areas of the government that you rein in what could be deemed as "irresponsible" behavior of an agent.

The judge now chosen for Libby is known to seek the max on time served. That's not good.


82 posted on 10/28/2005 10:54:36 AM PDT by fight_truth_decay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: acapesket

Since the crooked attempts in Florida, the Dems have tried to destroy, smear, etc. the president and his staff. Always, it has turned out, like described in the Psalms, they fell into the pits they dug. They failed and Bush ended up as well or better off than before their attempts.

I believe we shall see that now in spades. We are aware of the suspicions that the Wilson trip was a covert CIA operation to harm Bush and it is possible that because of these charges, the truth will come out and they are going to fall into the pits they have dug. This will be very harmful for those who have done evil things against the administration. I believe that will include the special prosecutor.


83 posted on 10/28/2005 10:55:08 AM PDT by maranatha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan

DUmmy response, "Two years of investigation, and all I got was this crummy Scooter".


84 posted on 10/28/2005 10:56:27 AM PDT by 6SJ7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: alnick

It has been discussed Fitzgerald move into the top spot of the FBI. He has not "said no". He has even joked about it.
Fitzgerald does have an impressive history no doubt about that. What movitivates him or what his future plans are, time will tell.


85 posted on 10/28/2005 10:58:50 AM PDT by fight_truth_decay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: maranatha

I certainly concur with your assessment! Like the guy who just called Rush said, we should get a "Scooter Libby Defense Fund" going. Perhaps someone more computer literate than I (that would include all American 2 and 3 year olds!) could get that going!
Wouldn't that be great fun! What would the media do with that huge an immediate "in your face" outpouring!


86 posted on 10/28/2005 10:59:15 AM PDT by acapesket (never had a vote count in all my years here)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: half-cajun
This prosecutor is counting on the fact that most of the public is too stupid to understand that these indictments have nothing to do with the actual charges that required the special prosecutor in the first place

As Rush says when he mocks the Left: "It's not the nature of the evidence, it's the seriousness of the charrrrrge."

87 posted on 10/28/2005 11:01:10 AM PDT by Yo-Yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: acapesket

I would love to see loud, in your face, offensive objection to this whole sleazy investigation; from the common people and on up right to Cheney.


88 posted on 10/28/2005 11:05:17 AM PDT by maranatha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: blogblogginaway
Imagine seeing a document saying "United States of America vs. YOU".

Pretty scary stuff.

89 posted on 10/28/2005 11:05:27 AM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conserv13
The top deputy to the Vice President is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice and thats 'nothing'? I'm not happy about this but I'm not going to dismiss it either. If Libby lied he should be charged.

And, not only that, IF he lied, there's a reason which is not yet apparant.

90 posted on 10/28/2005 11:05:36 AM PDT by Jim Noble (In a time of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act - Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: blogblogginaway
What I pray we never see:

SEN. CLINTON: "Mr Libby, were there any recording devices in the office of the Vice-President?"

LIBBY: "Well, now that you mention it..."

91 posted on 10/28/2005 11:06:19 AM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blogblogginaway
Better link: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf
92 posted on 10/28/2005 11:06:29 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shermy

Charge #3 is even lamer. He's getting nailed for statements he made to the FBI in October and December about details of a conversation he had with Cooper in July.


93 posted on 10/28/2005 11:11:58 AM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: blogblogginaway

I read the whole smoking gun indictment, and important points to me were:

"that official asked LIBBY whether information about Wilson's trip could be shared with the press to rebut the allegations that the Vice President had sent Wilson. Libby responded that there would be complications at the CIA in disclosing that information publicly"

This is the heart of the matter. He understood the law, and he knew that it would be problematic to expose Plame. I dont' fault him for the choices he made.

More text from the indictment:

"On or about the morning of July 8, 2003 LIBBY met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. When the conversation turned to the subject of Joseph Wilson, LIBBY asked that the information LIBBY provided on the topic of Wilson be attributed to a "former Hill stafer" rather than to a "senior administration official" as had been the understanding with respect to other information that LIBBY provided to Miller during this meeting.

LIBBY thereafter discussed with Miller Wilson's trip and criticized the CIA reporting concerning Wilson's trip. During this discussion LIBBY advised Miller of his belief that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA."

And more:

"LIBBY asked the Counsel to the Vice President, in sum and substance, what paperwork there would be at the CIA if an empolyee's spouse undertook an overseas trip"


LIBBY was doing his homework!!!


Final indictment:

I Lewis Libby defendant herein, did knowingly and willfully make a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement and representation in a matter within the jurisdiction of the FBI investigation, an agency within the executive branch of the US, in that the defendant, in response to questions posed to him by agents of the FBI stated that:

yadda yadda yadda... Rusert, Matt Cooper, Judy Miller...

Ok, so he obstructed justice, he lied about what he knew and when he knew it.

He also helped exposed the FACT that Valerie Plame sent her husband to NIGER. And like the loyal underling that he is, he wanted to expose the selective publishing of facts that were being tossed out by the CIA.

Isn't this what we want in a White House official??

Someone who is willing to protect and fight for his presidents agenda???

I'm sorry that he felt the need to lie when he talked about what he knew and when he knew it. And I am sorry that he is probably going to be prosecuted for that.

But when is Joe Wilson going to be held accountable for his lies?? Who is going to press charges against him for misleading the whole country for two years?

When is the left going to admit that Sadaam was working feverishly on WMDs and had the will to use them?

Why isn't anyone talking about this speech given by Bill Clinton in 98? (I know, I know, he gave it on the day Monica was going to testify, but still, he made this speech)

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec98/clinton_12-16.html

It is all just so nauseating.

Let all the truth be told, let all the lies be exposed, and please let us all understand that we have terrorists in our world who would like to nuke the west off the planet.

Jenny




94 posted on 10/28/2005 11:12:46 AM PDT by Jenny Hatch (Go Iraq Go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blogblogginaway

I read the whole smoking gun indictment, and important points to me were:

"that official asked LIBBY whether information about Wilson's trip could be shared with the press to rebut the allegations that the Vice President had sent Wilson. Libby responded that there would be complications at the CIA in disclosing that information publicly"

This is the heart of the matter. He understood the law, and he knew that it would be problematic to expose Plame. I dont' fault him for the choices he made.

More text from the indictment:

"On or about the morning of July 8, 2003 LIBBY met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. When the conversation turned to the subject of Joseph Wilson, LIBBY asked that the information LIBBY provided on the topic of Wilson be attributed to a "former Hill stafer" rather than to a "senior administration official" as had been the understanding with respect to other information that LIBBY provided to Miller during this meeting.

LIBBY thereafter discussed with Miller Wilson's trip and criticized the CIA reporting concerning Wilson's trip. During this discussion LIBBY advised Miller of his belief that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA."

And more:

"LIBBY asked the Counsel to the Vice President, in sum and substance, what paperwork there would be at the CIA if an empolyee's spouse undertook an overseas trip"


LIBBY was doing his homework!!!


Final indictment:

I Lewis Libby defendant herein, did knowingly and willfully make a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement and representation in a matter within the jurisdiction of the FBI investigation, an agency within the executive branch of the US, in that the defendant, in response to questions posed to him by agents of the FBI stated that:

yadda yadda yadda... Rusert, Matt Cooper, Judy Miller...

Ok, so he obstructed justice, he lied about what he knew and when he knew it.

He also helped exposed the FACT that Valerie Plame sent her husband to NIGER. And like the loyal underling that he is, he wanted to expose the selective publishing of facts that were being tossed out by the CIA.

Isn't this what we want in a White House official??

Someone who is willing to protect and fight for his presidents agenda???

I'm sorry that he felt the need to lie when he talked about what he knew and when he knew it. And I am sorry that he is probably going to be prosecuted for that.

But when is Joe Wilson going to be held accountable for his lies?? Who is going to press charges against him for misleading the whole country for two years?

When is the left going to admit that Sadaam was working feverishly on WMDs and had the will to use them?

Why isn't anyone talking about this speech given by Bill Clinton in 98? (I know, I know, he gave it on the day Monica was going to testify, but still, he made this speech)

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec98/clinton_12-16.html

It is all just so nauseating.

Let all the truth be told, let all the lies be exposed, and please let us all understand that we have terrorists in our world who would like to nuke the west off the planet.

Jenny




95 posted on 10/28/2005 11:12:47 AM PDT by Jenny Hatch (Go Iraq Go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mister Baredog

"I want Wilson indicted along with his slut wife".

Here here!


96 posted on 10/28/2005 11:13:06 AM PDT by LongsforReagan (Dick Cheney is the best elected official in this country. Period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: alnick

>>>Apparently trying to create a situation in which someone in the admin would make statements contradictory to someone else's statements.>>>

Get enough people making statements, someone is going to contradict someone else and bingo, you have a case!


97 posted on 10/28/2005 11:13:46 AM PDT by sandbar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Shermy

My money is on Tenet as Novak source #1.


98 posted on 10/28/2005 11:16:12 AM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
"Charge #3 is even lamer. He's getting nailed for statements he made to the FBI in October and December about details of a conversation he had with Cooper in July."

And relies on Cooper's memory two years later.

99 posted on 10/28/2005 11:16:53 AM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: maranatha

He (Fitzgerald) is on now, he's got nothing!


100 posted on 10/28/2005 11:17:41 AM PDT by acapesket (never had a vote count in all my years here)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-133 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson