Posts by Cboldt

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Hannity Thread - Monday 11/7/2005

    11/07/2005 6:14:52 PM PST · 301 of 317
    Cboldt to oceanview
    ... 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.

    If Libby thought the investigation was bogus, then he should have seaid so. The indictment recites a story that paints Libby as having lied to investigators.

    So, is your argument that it is okay to lie to investigators? I'm not sure there is entrapment - not on a read of the indictment. Libby learned about Plame, the investigators asked him some questions about where he learned about Plame, and he didn't tell them the truth (so reads the allegations of the indictment). He could have just as easily said, " I called the CIA and they told me, then I spread the rumor around to a buch of dumbass reporters to see how fast the rumor would spread." No crime there.

  • Hannity Thread - Monday 11/7/2005

    11/07/2005 5:47:24 PM PST · 299 of 317
    Cboldt to oceanview
    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

    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.

    http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf

    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.

  • The Mark Levin Show Thread November 7, 2005

    11/07/2005 3:30:54 PM PST · 117 of 527
    Cboldt to sofaman
    Good Lord, I almost destroyed my office. Hit a ruler which almost sent my laptop hurtling across the room. Secretary almost wet her pants...

    You have to watch each of these a few times to "get it."

    rubber-band.wmv
    papercut.wmv
    bad-pen.wmv

    From: http://www.stationeryisbad.com/movie2.html

  • Hannity Thread - Monday 11/7/2005

    11/07/2005 3:17:32 PM PST · 292 of 317
    Cboldt to Txsleuth
    You amaze me...how you put things in their place and make the complicated, easier to understand...

    That's my Russerty side.

  • Hannity Thread - Monday 11/7/2005

    11/07/2005 3:15:48 PM PST · 291 of 317
    Cboldt to gov_bean_ counter
    It is the old classified v covert ploy. If you can't get him on one, go for the other.

    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.

  • Hannity Thread - Monday 11/7/2005

    11/07/2005 3:01:40 PM PST · 279 of 317
    Cboldt to Txsleuth
    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.

    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.

  • Hannity Thread - Monday 11/7/2005

    11/07/2005 2:57:59 PM PST · 274 of 317
    Cboldt to Txsleuth
    why would Libby allegedly tell a different story to the GJ, than the notes HE turned over to them??

    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.

  • Hannity Thread - Monday 11/7/2005

    11/07/2005 2:52:13 PM PST · 267 of 317
    Cboldt to AliVeritas; Txsleuth
    Read 251, thoughts? Good or no good?

    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.

  • Hannity Thread - Monday 11/7/2005

    11/07/2005 2:48:33 PM PST · 262 of 317
    Cboldt to AliVeritas
    C whats Section 422? You know?

    Section 422 is defenses and exceptions to prosecution under Section 421.

  • Hannity Thread - Monday 11/7/2005

    11/07/2005 2:45:49 PM PST · 257 of 317
    Cboldt to AliVeritas
    But when asked (I think it was one of the first questions), "So was she covert", he either said he didn't know or that was a question for the CIA. I have to watch the clip again.

    Check here ...

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1511960/posts?page=90#90

    Bonus snippets, regarding continuation of the grand jury ...

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1511960/posts?page=102#102

  • Hannity Thread - Monday 11/7/2005

    11/07/2005 2:41:04 PM PST · 245 of 317
    Cboldt to Txsleuth
    The Libby case was about Libby "lying" during an investigation of a case that shouldn't have been brought...

    More specifically, (allegedly) lying to investigators (he is free to lie his ass off to reporters, before, during and after) about information that is material to figuring out the source of information published in the Novak column.

    What is puzzling though, is that the WH could have made the same argument raised by 36 news organizations, and it (the WH) could have done so with knowledge of the facts. But it didn't. Why not? Why did the WH permit the investigation when it knew beyond any doubt whatsoever that 50 USC 421 had not been violated, even if the WH was the source. Was it fear of political embarrassment? If so, it was silly, because what it has now is embarrassment delayed and magnified.

  • Hannity Thread - Monday 11/7/2005

    11/07/2005 2:27:27 PM PST · 224 of 317
    Cboldt to AliVeritas
    Why did he have agents at the neighbors two days before announcing the indictment? Thoughts? If he knew Libby had twice lied with documents proving the contrary, why would he still send them?

    To make sure the third sentence in paragraph 1.f. of the indictment was not easily shown to be untrue. Reporters would be nosing around Wilson's place after the indictment was handed down, and it would have been quite embarrassing if a reporter asked a neighbor, etc, ... you get the idea, it would be a fact automatically damaging to the prosecutor's credibility.

    Fitzgerald gratuitously set-up the meme that Plame was covert, even to the point of putting the phrase "and her employment status was classified" in the indictment. All part of setting a misleading stage. But he had his case against Libby even without that misleading setting.

  • Hannity Thread - Monday 11/7/2005

    11/07/2005 2:17:51 PM PST · 206 of 317
    Cboldt to Allen H
    Surely that will be introduced into evidence. I mean, REAL covert agents do not pose for a picture in a major magazine.

    The Libby case doesn't hinge on whether or not Plame was covert. Fitz tried to have it both ways, "the case is serious because outing agents is serious," and at the same time "I am not saying Plame was covert."

  • Hannity Thread - Monday 11/7/2005

    11/07/2005 2:08:04 PM PST · 191 of 317
    Cboldt to Rivendell
    However, if his "lie" is based on the reporter's saying they didn't know about plame until they heard it from Libby, and it is discoverd that this info was common knowledge (as it most certanly seems to have been), then there are more folks that should be on the hot seat than just Libby (and they're all in the dnc/msm).

    The alleged lie is not based on that.
    http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf

  • Hannity Thread - Monday 11/7/2005

    11/07/2005 2:06:23 PM PST · 188 of 317
    Cboldt to oceanview
    the media never claimed [that Plame was already outed] that at all.

    Only in an amicus brief. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1369614/posts

    they claimed they had a right to protect a source to deny testimony, none of the media people involved in this case ever admitted she was already outed - in fact, they all claimed they didn't know who she was before talking with Rove and Libby.

    As to the point that the reporters argued priviledge, I agree, that was their argument. Reporter-source confidentiality trumps the governments need to investigate. They lost that argument.

    As to the point of certain members of the media asserting they didn't know of Plame before Libby told them, I'll have to reread Libby's indictement to be sure, but to my recollection, that fact is neither assereted or necessary to establish the truthfullness of Libby's statements to investigators. IN other words, assume thatthe media did in fact know of Plame before Libby told them - the indictment wording and charges would not change.

  • Hannity Thread - Monday 11/7/2005

    11/07/2005 1:53:09 PM PST · 151 of 317
    Cboldt to Allen H

    I hear you. And to be consistent, if you were on a jury hearing a criminal contempt charge against Miller, Cooper or Russert, you would have to render the same verdict for them.

  • Vallely to speak re Joe Wilson TODAY on Hannity radio show

    11/07/2005 1:48:46 PM PST · 62 of 119
    Cboldt to JustaCowgirl
    Empty threat, IOW. I'm sure Paul Vallely is shaking in his boots.

    Not sure it's empty, but I agree that Paul Vallely isn't worried about it.

    Interesting case scenario. I don't recall any defamation cases where the allegation is based on a conversation between only the plaintiff and defendant, with no other witnesses. What would really be a hoot would having Wilson try to obtain a court order against Vallely, enjoining him against speaking out further.

  • Plame Case: Media Groups Back Reporters In Court Filing

    11/07/2005 1:44:32 PM PST · 7 of 7
    Cboldt to Pikamax; All
    Link to the brief asserting that no outing crime was committed ...
    March 23, 2005 Amici Brief of 36 News Organizations

    You were right on top of this when the brief was filed.

  • Vallely to speak re Joe Wilson TODAY on Hannity radio show

    11/07/2005 1:26:46 PM PST · 46 of 119
    Cboldt to JustaCowgirl
    A lawsuit on what grounds?

    I would think Wilson might sue for defamation.

  • Hannity Thread - Monday 11/7/2005

    11/07/2005 1:24:40 PM PST · 106 of 317
    Cboldt to Allen H
    Now Valaley says that he knows first hand that wilson told MANY people in 2002 that his wife worked at the CIA, and that was BEFORE the Bush admin supposedly outed her. I can't wait until the General goes to court under oath to testify about this in the Libby case.

    How would that excuse Libby's alleged lying to investigators? The media tried to get out of testifying at all, on the same grounds -- "she's already OUTED!" -- but it didn't get them out of testifying, truthfully one would expect.