The wheels coming off the Scooter Libby case?

[Dr_Phibes]

Free the "Scooter" one!

Sin.

A threat to Thomas Hardy's legacy

[Mister Bushice]

Op ed? is that all you can manage, Choads?

[Mister Bushice]

Hell no. Libby is still out. He still lied, because no matter how some op ed guy spins it, russert wasn't the guy.

Try again.

[Mikey]

God this would be great. Liberals hanging their hats on a criminal investigation instead of election results (and who can blame them, how many election day ass kickings are we up to now?). Not to mention the fact their journalist "hero", Bob Woodward, may have played a hand in what could have ultimatly dealt them a fatal blow. Read on..............

Withdraw the Libby indictment
TODAY'S EDITORIAL
November 17, 2005


Bob Woodward's just-released statement, suggesting that on June 27, 2003, he may have been the reporter who told Scooter Libby about Joseph Wilson's wife, blew a gigantic hole in Patrick Fitzgerald's recently unveiled indictment of the vice president's former chief of staff.
While that indictment did not charge Mr. Libby with outing a CIA covert operative, it alleged that he lied to investigators and the grand jury. As we have stated earlier on this page -- and unlike many conservative voices then -- we believe perjury is always a serious offense (even in a political setting). And if sufficient evidence exists to support a conviction, then Mr. Fitzgerald's indictment of Mr. Libby was fully warranted.
However, the heart of his perjury theory was predicated upon the proposition that Mr. Libby learned of Valerie Plame's identity from other government officials and not from NBC's Tim Russert, as claimed by Mr. Libby. Indeed, Mr. Fitzgerald seemed to have a reasonable case because Mr. Russert, a respected and admired journalist, with no vested interest of his own, denied that he discussed the Mr. Wilson's matter with Mr. Libby.
However, given Mr. Woodward's account, which came to light after the Libby indictment was announced, that he met with Mr. Libby in his office -- armed with the list of questions, which explicitly referenced "yellowcake" and "Joe Wilson's wife" and may have shared this information during the interview -- it is entirely possible that Mr. Libby may have indeed heard about Mrs. Plame's employment from a reporter. Given the fact that the conversations in issue -- the one with Tim Russert and the one with Bob Woodward -- were separated by less than two weeks, and that officials like Mr. Libby juggle literally hundreds of matters on a daily basis, it is entirely plausible that he confused the two reporters. There certainly was no possible reason for him to mislead Mr. Fitzgerald on this issue, since the point he was trying to make, originally to the FBI investigators in October 2003, and later on to the grand jury, that Valerie Plame's identity was known to a reporter who imparted it to him was equally compelling, no matter what the identity of that reporter.
In light of these facts, it is at least doubtful whether a reasonable jury would find Mr. Libby guilty. Moreover, as argued by Washington lawyers David Rivkin and Lee Casey in an article appearing on today's op-ed page, under the U.S. Attorney's Manual provisions, no prosecution should be commenced unless the attorney representing the government believes that he has evidence that will probably be sufficient to obtain a conviction. Accordingly, Mr. Fitzgerald should do the right thing and promptly dismiss the indictment of Scooter Libby.

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20051116 ... -5614r.htm

WGARA?

Maybe you should try breathing into a paper bag for a few minutes.

[Cuda]

Hypocrisy much, Lefties?

Lying about a non-crime is only a big deal when it's Martha Stewart or somebody in a GOP administration, right?

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Hands off Scooter!

[Mister Bushice]

It always ends up being about Clinton with you guys. Never fails like a reflex.

How about if we just stick to the fact that the guy deceived the grand jury and that's why he was indicted?

Besides, this is such a nonstory. He's gone, he won't be back no matter what happens.

Op ed. Bah.

[Mister Bushice]

http://cryptome.org/libby-102805.htm

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

http://cryptome.org/libby-102805.htm

Nothing has been proven, you Jew-baiting freedom hater.

[Mister Bushice]

Fact. He lied to the Grand Jury. He told them under oath Things that later proved to be false, thus he was indicted.

No one said guilty or innocent, that verdict has yet to be read.

But as of now according to everyone but choads and his op ed friends libby lied to the grand jury, thus the obstruction of justice indictment.

[Mister Bushice]

:roll:

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Choads, what's with your fixation on erections and all things "penis"?

[Gunslinger]

Fact. He lied to the Grand Jury. He told them under oath Things that later proved to be false, thus he was indicted.

No one said guilty or innocent, that verdict has yet to be read.

But as of now according to everyone but choads and his op ed friends libby lied to the grand jury, thus the obstruction of justice indictment.

Somehow I don't think you would have posted the same thing about the Human Boner, Bill Clinton. It only matters if you lie if, and only if, you are a Republican.

Thats alright though, we Republicans don't mind being held to a higher standard.

GOOD GOD that is ignorant, but I would expect nonetheless from someone who supports a pussy that didn't go to war, yet sends our troops to war.

At least Clinton (the dodge drafting pussy) didn't get anyone killed in Bosnia and ousted a leader. Fucking failure that he was.

[Diogenes]

Fact. He lied to the Grand Jury. He told them under oath Things that later proved to be false, thus he was indicted.

No one said guilty or innocent, that verdict has yet to be read.

But as of now according to everyone but choads and his op ed friends libby lied to the grand jury, thus the obstruction of justice indictment.

Being indicted for lying isn't the same as having been proved for a FACT to lie.

Saying things under oath that you believe at the time to be true, yet later prove to be false can get you indicted. The burden of proof is still on the prosecution, not only to prove that his testimony was materialy untrue, but that he deliberatly intended to mislead. And Woodward's cover-up tends to show reasonable doubt about whether he was misleading or mearly mistaken.


Simple enough for you yet?

Everyone else got it already.






Dumbass.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

At least Clinton (the dodge drafting pussy) didn't get anyone killed in Bosnia

Except for thousands of innocent civilians.

Bubba and Dubya can share the same rope.

[Mister Bushice]

Fact. He lied to the Grand Jury. He told them under oath Things that later proved to be false, thus he was indicted.

No one said guilty or innocent, that verdict has yet to be read.

But as of now according to everyone but choads and his op ed friends libby lied to the grand jury, thus the obstruction of justice indictment.

Being indicted for lying isn't the same as having been proved for a FACT to lie.

Saying things under oath that you believe at the time to be true, yet later prove to be false can get you indicted. The burden of proof is still on the prosecution, not only to prove that his testimony was materialy untrue, but that he deliberatly intended to mislead. And Woodward's cover-up tends to show reasonable doubt about whether he was misleading or mearly mistaken.


Simple enough for you yet?

Everyone else got it already.






Dumbass.

YES. And OJ didn't kill anybody either. :roll: