Washington Post article

Must read for you Dogger. Topical from our last discussion.

If Libby is found guilty it will be because he couldn't get this show trial moved out of DC, odds are the jurors are all Dems.

GGniner Wrote:If Libby is found guilty it will be because he couldn't get this show trial moved out of DC, odds are the jurors are all Dems.

Have you been following it? He's clearly guilty of lying to that grand jury.

cue "Baghdad Bob"

OUGwave Wrote:

GGniner Wrote:If Libby is found guilty it will be because he couldn't get this show trial moved out of DC, odds are the jurors are all Dems.

Have you been following it? He's clearly guilty of lying to that grand jury.

Are you on the jury? In this country they aren't guilty until they are found guilty. You gotta crystal ball or something?

Machiavelli Wrote:cue "Baghdad Bob"

i miss him.

yeah, and Libby did what exactly again? Got conversations confused when asked to recall them from long before, in a non-crime purely political witch hunt....uh yeah, "guilty" in a Show Trial.

Fitzgerald should be fired.

[quote]THIS GRAND JURY CHARGES PATRICK J. FITZERALD with ignoring the fact that there was no basis for a criminal investigation from the day he was appointed, with handling some witnesses with kid gloves and banging on others with a mallet, with engaging in past contretemps with certain individuals that might have influenced his pursuit of their liberty, and with misleading the public in a news conference because . . . well, just because. To wit:

Machiavelli Wrote:cue "Baghdad Bob"

LOL! You can always count on Dogger, when presented with reason and facts, to brush them aside and deflect with a bad joke. I like the constants in life. lmfao

BTW OU,

How is it so clear that he's guilty? Usually those who lie to a grand jury do so for fear of prosecution for a crime. It's abundantly clear, and was for a very long time, no crime was committed.

So is Libby guilty of lying for no reason, since there was no crime, or could it actually be his recollections of every conversation he had with every person wasn't clear. I can't recall half the conversations I had last week in great detail, and I sure don't have the pressure or responsibilities that Libby did.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Machiavelli Wrote:cue "Baghdad Bob"

LOL! You can always count on Dogger, when presented with reason and facts, to brush them aside and deflect with a bad joke. I like the constants in life. lmfao

BTW OU,

How is it so clear that he's guilty? Usually those who lie to a grand jury do so for fear of prosecution for a crime. It's abundantly clear, and was for a very long time, no crime was committed.

So is Libby guilty of lying for no reason, since there was no crime, or could it actually be his recollections of every conversation he had with every person wasn't clear. I can't recall half the conversations I had last week in great detail, and I sure don't have the pressure or responsibilities that Libby did.

There is a reason that there is "no crime" -- its because Libby is the only person that could prove it, and he lied to the grand jury to protect Cheney. Hence the grand jury's perjury charge.

Libby, like anybody in HIS position, keeps detailed notes of all conversations he has precisely BECAUSE something like this might happen. You want to have a paper trail to CYA.

These people don't "forget" conversations like this. He is contending that he FIRST heard of Plame from Russert, and that he "simply forgot" that Cheney had told him already that Wilson's wife was a CIA operative. Now, if you're in Libby's position, you are going to remember the FIRST time you heard a juicy piece of information like that. He is going to jail to protect Cheney. You guys are lucky that you have someone who is willing to go in the clink to protect you boy. That kind of loyalty is tough to find. Though I do bet he's going to get pardoned.

OUGwave Wrote:There is a reason that there is "no crime" -- its because Libby is the only person that could prove it, and he lied to the grand jury to protect Cheney. Hence the grand jury's perjury charge.

Libby, like anybody in HIS position, keeps detailed notes of all conversations he has precisely BECAUSE something like this might happen. You want to have a paper trail to CYA.

These people don't "forget" conversations like this. He is contending that he FIRST heard of Plame from Russert, and that he "simply forgot" that Cheney had told him already that Wilson's wife was a CIA operative. Now, if you're in Libby's position, you are going to remember the FIRST time you heard a juicy piece of information like that. He is going to jail to protect Cheney. You guys are lucky that you have someone who is willing to go in the clink to protect you boy. That kind of loyalty is tough to find. Though I do bet he's going to get pardoned.

He hasn't been convicted of anything, nutjob.

OUGwave Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Machiavelli Wrote:cue "Baghdad Bob"

LOL! You can always count on Dogger, when presented with reason and facts, to brush them aside and deflect with a bad joke. I like the constants in life. lmfao

BTW OU,

How is it so clear that he's guilty? Usually those who lie to a grand jury do so for fear of prosecution for a crime. It's abundantly clear, and was for a very long time, no crime was committed.

So is Libby guilty of lying for no reason, since there was no crime, or could it actually be his recollections of every conversation he had with every person wasn't clear. I can't recall half the conversations I had last week in great detail, and I sure don't have the pressure or responsibilities that Libby did.

There is a reason that there is "no crime" -- its because Libby is the only person that could prove it, and he lied to the grand jury to protect Cheney. Hence the grand jury's perjury charge.

Libby, like anybody in HIS position, keeps detailed notes of all conversations he has precisely BECAUSE something like this might happen. You want to have a paper trail to CYA.

These people don't "forget" conversations like this. He is contending that he FIRST heard of Plame from Russert, and that he "simply forgot" that Cheney had told him already that Wilson's wife was a CIA operative. Now, if you're in Libby's position, you are going to remember the FIRST time you heard a juicy piece of information like that. He is going to jail to protect Cheney. You guys are lucky that you have someone who is willing to go in the clink to protect you boy. That kind of loyalty is tough to find. Though I do bet he's going to get pardoned.

So you're saying that everywhere Libby went he was supposed to have a secretary following behind 24/7 with a laptop to type down every conversation or a tape recorder to record every conversation? Don't be ridiculous man.

RebelKev Wrote:

OUGwave Wrote:There is a reason that there is "no crime" -- its because Libby is the only person that could prove it, and he lied to the grand jury to protect Cheney. Hence the grand jury's perjury charge.

Libby, like anybody in HIS position, keeps detailed notes of all conversations he has precisely BECAUSE something like this might happen. You want to have a paper trail to CYA.

These people don't "forget" conversations like this. He is contending that he FIRST heard of Plame from Russert, and that he "simply forgot" that Cheney had told him already that Wilson's wife was a CIA operative. Now, if you're in Libby's position, you are going to remember the FIRST time you heard a juicy piece of information like that. He is going to jail to protect Cheney. You guys are lucky that you have someone who is willing to go in the clink to protect you boy. That kind of loyalty is tough to find. Though I do bet he's going to get pardoned.

He hasn't been convicted of anything, nutjob.

Oh, so I suppose you think OJ didn't kill anyone? If not, you're a nutjob too?

I'm not a court of law, and I'm not on the jury, so I can have my opinion. As far as Libby... He hasn't been convicted yet -- give it a few days.

Ninerballin Wrote:

OUGwave Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Machiavelli Wrote:cue "Baghdad Bob"

LOL! You can always count on Dogger, when presented with reason and facts, to brush them aside and deflect with a bad joke. I like the constants in life. lmfao

BTW OU,

How is it so clear that he's guilty? Usually those who lie to a grand jury do so for fear of prosecution for a crime. It's abundantly clear, and was for a very long time, no crime was committed.

So is Libby guilty of lying for no reason, since there was no crime, or could it actually be his recollections of every conversation he had with every person wasn't clear. I can't recall half the conversations I had last week in great detail, and I sure don't have the pressure or responsibilities that Libby did.

There is a reason that there is "no crime" -- its because Libby is the only person that could prove it, and he lied to the grand jury to protect Cheney. Hence the grand jury's perjury charge.

Libby, like anybody in HIS position, keeps detailed notes of all conversations he has precisely BECAUSE something like this might happen. You want to have a paper trail to CYA.

These people don't "forget" conversations like this. He is contending that he FIRST heard of Plame from Russert, and that he "simply forgot" that Cheney had told him already that Wilson's wife was a CIA operative. Now, if you're in Libby's position, you are going to remember the FIRST time you heard a juicy piece of information like that. He is going to jail to protect Cheney. You guys are lucky that you have someone who is willing to go in the clink to protect you boy. That kind of loyalty is tough to find. Though I do bet he's going to get pardoned.

So you're saying that everywhere Libby went he was supposed to have a secretary following behind 24/7 with a laptop to type down every conversation or a tape recorder to record every conversation? Don't be ridiculous man.

I'm suggesting that when his boss has a conversation with him, he writes stuff like "Wilson's wife is a CIA agent" down. I'm sorry, thats the way things work in Washington, don't be naive. These people keep track of these things -- often so they can write detailed memoirs after the fact. Its not like you and your job. This is the big leagues.

Dude, read the testimony. Cheney's press secretary, and other sources, remember the conversation with Libby and Cheney weeks before Russert was ever called. Everyone else on the staff remembers when they first heard the Plame info and who they heard it from. Furthermore, Russert has detailed notes of the conversation and neither his notes nor his recollection support that he even knew about Plame at the time he spoke with Libby. Other testimony supports this. So not only is it a question of whether he remembered hearing it from Cheney before he heard it from Russert, the question is whether he heard it from Russert at all! Journalists remember conversations with sources, they take notes, its their job. Every other journalist that testified remembered when they discussed this with Libby. Russert emphatically denies it and says he didn't even know about Plame until days later.

Libby has changed his story a lot. He's going down.

OUGwave Wrote:There is a reason that there is "no crime" -- its because Libby is the only person that could prove it, and he lied to the grand jury to protect Cheney. Hence the grand jury's perjury charge.

OU you're a smart guy but apparantly you don't understand the nature of this case.

Libby didn't out Plame, Armitage did. And outing Plame wasn't a crime because if it was, Armitage would be charged. Fitzgerald continued to investigate, for 3 years, something he knew in 3 months was not a crime.

So basically you are saying the Libby lied to a grand jury to protect Cheney from something that wasn't a crime. If it wasn't a crime, what exactly did Cheney need protecting from?

Quote:These people don't "forget" conversations like this. He is contending that he FIRST heard of Plame from Russert, and that he "simply forgot" that Cheney had told him already that Wilson's wife was a CIA operative. Now, if you're in Libby's position, you are going to remember the FIRST time you heard a juicy piece of information like that. He is going to jail to protect Cheney. You guys are lucky that you have someone who is willing to go in the clink to protect you boy. That kind of loyalty is tough to find. Though I do bet he's going to get pardoned.

There is nothing to protect Cheney from. There was no crime. Have you bothered to notice that no one has been charged with the outing of a covert CIA agent, the actual crime that Fitzgerald was investigating? Did you note that the person who actually did "out" her came forward just a few months into the investigation yet was never charged? If it was a crime OU, why hasn't Armitage been charged? Exactly for the reason it wasn't a crime. That's why you can't develop a conspiracy theory that Libby is protecting Cheney, for the precise reason that there is nothing to protect him from.

I know this was the left's Watergate wet dream for the new century, but it's time for you to face facts and hope for a new one. There was no crime. Learn to deal.

Speaking of Watergate................

Was anyone ever charged with the actual break-in? The plumbers??? Prosecuters don't always bring all the charges that they can. Think of Capone and the IRS charges. This is such a juvenile argument really. He could of brought the charges against Armitage if he wanted to. But Armitage COOPERATED. Do you get that? SCOOTER DIDN"T COOPERATE. Hence, he facing twenty years for Cheney's crimes

Machiavelli Wrote:Speaking of Watergate................

Was anyone ever charged with the actual break-in? The plumbers??? Prosecuters don't always bring all the charges that they can. Think of Capone and the IRS charges. This is such a juvenile argument really. He could of brought the charges against Armitage if he wanted to. But Armitage COOPERATED. Do you get that? SCOOTER DIDN"T COOPERATE. Hence, he facing twenty years for Cheney's crimes

Keep grasping at straws Dogger. Capone was charged with tax evasion b/c they had the evidence to back it up. Had Capone walked in and actually admitted he was a crime boss that killed tons of people he'd have been charged.

Fitzgerald doesn't have the luxury of not charging someone with a crime if they admit to the crime. A prosecutor doesn't say, "Oh, well, you cooperated by admitting you killed that person, so I just won't charge you."

If it had been a crime, and Armitage admitted to it, he would have been charged. Plain and simple.

You have no leg to stand on Dogger, you'd be better served by just accepting that and moving on. Everytime you post to try and keep the dream alive you just humilate yourself that much more. It's bordering on pathetic now dude. Really, let it go.

Quote:This is such a juvenile argument really.

Finally we agree one something. Easiest way to remove it from the juvenile area is for you to take your fingers out of your ears and quit pretending that your ignoring the facts will somehow make them go away.

quit pretending that your ignoring the facts will somehow make them go away

Someone is pretending about the facts and it's not me Baghdad Bob. Have you ever heard of "climbing the ladder". It's a common practice. You let little fish go for the bait of the big fish. Cheney was the obvious target. Scooter wouldn't cooperate so he's the biggest fish that will fry. Pretty simple really. Armitage did by the letter of the law commit a crime. He cooperated and Fitzgerald wanted to see how far up the chain it went. Bush denied it. Cheney denied it. The only person who could prove Cheney directed him to disclose was Scooter. Rove was involved, but they didn't have enough on him to prosecute. Scooter will be found GUILTY. That I promise you.

Quote:Fitzgerald doesn't have the luxury of not charging someone with a crime if they admit to the crime. A prosecutor doesn't say, "Oh, well, you cooperated by admitting you killed that person, so I just won't charge you."

Not so fast my friend................... Many crimes have been solved by the person admitting to a killing if the prosecuter won't charge them with it. Jeffrey Dahmer........ Bundy........ the list is literally endless. An arsonist from BG admiited to killing a girl a couple of years back. The prosecuter never brought charges for her death. VERY VERY COMMON.

Machiavelli Wrote:Someone is pretending about the facts and it's not me Baghdad Bob.

You kill me Dogger. Tell you what junior, how bout you dispute one, just one of the facts I've offered about this situation. Should be pretty easy, given how very educated you are about this case.

Quote:Have you ever heard of "climbing the ladder". It's a common practice. You let little fish go for the bait of the big fish. Cheney was the obvious target. Scooter wouldn't cooperate so he's the biggest fish that will fry. Pretty simple really.

Wow, the black helicopters are everywhere huh. So Cheney was the target of what exactly Dogger? For fun maybe? Since there was no crime, a fact you have yet to gain a grasp of, why don't you inform us all of what he was a target of. Did your former student at the CIA filter this info to you?

Quote:Armitage did by the letter of the law commit a crime. He cooperated and Fitzgerald wanted to see how far up the chain it went.

BUZZZ! Thanks for playing our game Dogger but you lose. In order for your theory to hold either Bush or Cheney would have had to ordered Armitage to leak the name. Armitage has testified that no such thing occurred. In light of that the Prosecutor isn't going keep going. Nice try, but you lose, again I might point out.

Quote:Bush denied it. Cheney denied it. The only person who could prove Cheney directed him to disclose was Scooter. Rove was involved, but they didn't have enough on him to prosecute. Scooter will be found GUILTY. That I promise you.

I see. So Scooter could testify that Cheney ordered Armitage, who he had exactly NO authority over whatsover, to leak the name. Brilliant. And to top it all off, ordering Armitage to leak the name, and Armitage leaking the name, WASN'T A CRIME!!!!!

Dogger I mean this from the bottom of my heart. You have nothing. You have no facts, you have no evidence. The Washington Post says you're wrong, the federal prosecutor says you're wrong. But no, you still say you're right. I'm starting to think you need to seek professional help. Really.

IT WAS A CRIME... Fitzgerald CHOSE not to prosecute it, BECAUSE ARMITAGE COOPERATED!!!!!! What don't you get about that. SCOOTER DIDN"T COOPERATE..... he's going to have to buy some soap on a rope for about twenty years. JEEZZZZZZZZZZ... your impossible Baghdad.