"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
says...

"bb" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 16:08:24 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


Obstruction for What?
Libby is charged with lying about a crime that wasn't committed.

Last I checked a bj wasn't a crime.

Precisely. So what were your thoughts about Clinton's impeachment?
And
how
do they jive with your eagerness to see Libby burn for a non-crime?

Oh for ****'s sake Toothy!

Clinton lied about an embarrassing bj.

Libby lied about the outing of a CIA agent.

Libby is *accused* of lying. It hasn't been proven that Libby lied. It
easily could be Russert lying. Perhaps he heard Plame's name from people
in
the CIA (perhaps Wilson or Plame!) who were seeking to use the press to
destabilize the Bush administration? Being the loyal liberal Democrat
that
he is, he went right to the VP's office to let the CIA-led set-up begin.

That's the type of scenario that Jim Hoagland from the Washington Post
presented when he wrote:

"The hidden management of the criminal justice process AND THE NEWS MEDIA
practiced by spooks in Wilson-Rove-Libbygate is nothing short of
brilliant.

So you (Bush) were right to fear the agency. Where else do you think the
one-page
crime report that triggered the investigation and then the
pressure-building
leaks disclosing its existence came from?""


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2/AR2005110202
277_pf.html



And there was no "outing" of a CIA agent either.

In article et,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
says...

"bb" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 16:08:24 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


Obstruction for What?
Libby is charged with lying about a crime that wasn't committed.

Last I checked a bj wasn't a crime.

Precisely. So what were your thoughts about Clinton's impeachment? And
how
do they jive with your eagerness to see Libby burn for a non-crime?

Oh for ****'s sake Toothy!

Clinton lied about an embarrassing bj.

Libby lied about the outing of a CIA agent.

Libby is *accused* of lying.

So, if there was no crime or misuse of power, why did Libby testify the
way he did?

Why would Libby say something that directly contradicts his own notes?

Perjury isn't something that's taken lightly by federal prosecutors.

Would you tell a different story than what you know is in your own notes
about the details being investigated?

If you'd like to wait until after he's gone to trial to find out whether
he did lie, so be it but don't bitch about the outcome beforehand.

If he's accused and not-guilty he'll get off. If he's convicted or plea
bargains then we'll know he lied and I'll once again ask the question,

Why would he lie?

jps

NOYB wrote:

A policy dispute indeed! One that culminated into treason committed by
bureaucrats in State and the CIA who worked in concert to destabilize a
President.

And that is the way it is...treason by the Wilsons. They have done great
damage to America.

--
Skipper

In article , says...
NOYB wrote:

A policy dispute indeed! One that culminated into treason committed by
bureaucrats in State and the CIA who worked in concert to destabilize a
President.

And that is the way it is...treason by the Wilsons. They have done great
damage to America.

You are an anti-american scum.

If anyone in Clinton's administration had outed a CIA agent, you'd have
called for their head on pike pole and the outed CIA agent would have
received the congressional medal of honor, a concert played for them at
the Kennedy Center featuring the marches of John Phillips Souza and a
lifetime supply of 24 hour security.

You're ****ing insane Snippy.

jps

On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 09:23:36 -0800, jps wrote:

In article , says...
NOYB wrote:

A policy dispute indeed! One that culminated into treason committed by
bureaucrats in State and the CIA who worked in concert to destabilize a
President.

And that is the way it is...treason by the Wilsons. They have done great
damage to America.

You are an anti-american scum.

If anyone in Clinton's administration had outed a CIA agent, you'd have
called for their head on pike pole and the outed CIA agent would have
received the congressional medal of honor, a concert played for them at
the Kennedy Center featuring the marches of John Phillips Souza and a
lifetime supply of 24 hour security.

You're ****ing insane Snippy.

jps

Anyone in the Clinton administration outing a CIA agent would deserve all you
suggest. The same is true for anyone in the Bush administration. No one in
either administration has been shown to have done so.

So, why are you calling names?
--
John H

"It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!"

HK

In article , PocoLoco415
@hotmail.com says...
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 09:23:36 -0800, jps wrote:

In article , says...
NOYB wrote:

A policy dispute indeed! One that culminated into treason committed by
bureaucrats in State and the CIA who worked in concert to destabilize a
President.

And that is the way it is...treason by the Wilsons. They have done great
damage to America.

You are an anti-american scum.

If anyone in Clinton's administration had outed a CIA agent, you'd have
called for their head on pike pole and the outed CIA agent would have
received the congressional medal of honor, a concert played for them at
the Kennedy Center featuring the marches of John Phillips Souza and a
lifetime supply of 24 hour security.

You're ****ing insane Snippy.

jps

Anyone in the Clinton administration outing a CIA agent would deserve all you
suggest. The same is true for anyone in the Bush administration. No one in
either administration has been shown to have done so.

So, why are you calling names?

My rectal sphincter tightens when Snippy makes his outlandish claims
that he just read on his fave White Power website.

jps

In article et,
says...

Obstruction for What?
Libby is charged with lying about a crime that wasn't committed.

Then why lie?

If Scooter had nothing to hide, why lie?

TO A GRAND JURY??? Was Scooter asleep during Clinton's second term?

Clinton didn't commit a crime. He certainly was guilty of indiscretion
but philandering isn't a crime.

Were you unhappy when he was prosecuted for lying under oath?

jps

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article et,
says...

Obstruction for What?
Libby is charged with lying about a crime that wasn't committed.

Then why lie?

I don't think the facts will bear out that he lied. His testimony may not
square with the testimony of a few news reporters (Russert, Cooper, etc0
but that doesn't mean that his testimony is false.

Finding out who lied is what the trial is about. Someone obviously isn't
telling the truth...and it very well could be Russert and Cooper. (As a side
note, Bush must be absolutely delighted that someone in his staff is getting
raked over the coals as a result of speaking with the media. Bush hates
leaks, and he can use this Libby incident as an example to warn other admin
officials to shut up)


So your next question is: why not charge Russert and Cooper? Because it's
impractical at this point to charge two people whose stories match rather
than one single entity whose story doesn't match the other two. Did you
read the indictment?

Here are the important excerpts:

According to Libby:

"Russert asked LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife worked for

the CIA, and told LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and

At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was surprised to hear that

Wilson's wife worked for the CIA;"



According to Russert:

"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"



(so why are we supposed to believe Libby over Russert? This is where
perjury charge came from)



Libby then repeated the same statement to the FBI that he made to the grand
jury:



During a conversation with Tim Russert of NBC News on July 10 or 11, 2003,

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 previously had learned
about

Wilson's wife's employment from the Vice President.



(this is where the obstruction of justice charge came from. Notice that it
uses the same Russert/Libby dispute about where the Plame info came
from...and Libby stands by his story)



Two days later, Libby spoke with Cooper. Once again, Libby stated

that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson's wife

worked for the CIA, but LIBBY did not know if this was true. Or if he did,

he states that he didn't confirm the story for Cooper.



Cooper's testimony is :



"LIBBY confirmed for Cooper, without qualification, that

LIBBY had heard that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA"

(So is Libby telling the truth or Cooper?)

Even if Libby and Russert knew about Plame before they each spoke (which
Libby disputes), Libby refused to confirm for Russert that he knew for sure
that Plame was a CIA agent:

" I didn't want him (Russert) to take anything I was saying as in

any way confirming what he said, because at that point in time I did not
recall that

I had ever known, and I thought this is something that he was telling me
that I was

first learning. And so I said, no, I don't know that because I want to be
very careful

not to confirm it for him, so that he didn't take my statement as
confirmation for him.



Mr. Russert said to me, did you know that Ambassador Wilson's wife, or his
wife, works at the CIA? And I said, no, I don't know that. And then he said,
yeah - yes, all the reporters know it. And I said,

again, I don't know that. I just wanted to be clear that I wasn't confirming
anything

for him on this."

In article . net,
says...

I don't think the facts will bear out that he lied. His testimony may not
square with the testimony of a few news reporters (Russert, Cooper, etc0
but that doesn't mean that his testimony is false.

His testimony doesn't square with his own notes, contemporaneously
recorded when Cheney told him about Valerie Plame.

Game, set, match.

He lied. You prefer to wait for the replay to spin the truth.

OK.

jps

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
says...

I don't think the facts will bear out that he lied. His testimony may
not
square with the testimony of a few news reporters (Russert, Cooper, etc0
but that doesn't mean that his testimony is false.

His testimony doesn't square with his own notes, contemporaneously
recorded when Cheney told him about Valerie Plame.

He testified that Russert told him about Plame...not the other way around.
He also testified that he told Russert that he didn't know it to be true or
not. Did he lie to Russert? Perhaps. Did he lie to Fitzgerald? Maybe
not. But is it a crime to lie to a news reporter? Especially a reporter who
is fishing for a story by pretending to know the answer to the questions
he's asking?