Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A Trial by Fitz Should Put the WHIGS to the Flame err.Plame!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 10:08 AM
Original message
A Trial by Fitz Should Put the WHIGS to the Flame err.Plame!
Edited on Sat Oct-29-05 10:11 AM by bluedawg12
Fitzgerald can only indict on the facts and scooter with held facts from the inquiry.

Imagine being investigated by the feds for a felony and dissembling and lying- maybe they can't prove the crime they are investigating because you are obstructing justice-so they have to indict you and take you to trial during which time they will make their case that not only did you obstruct justice but the facts that you refused to reveal also hold damaging information.

What else can Fitz do if Libby won't talk? Put a dog collar on him?
Fitz did the prudent thing, the only option left when someone won't talk to investigators.

The obstruction of justice and perjury mean that Libby lied and with held facts from this two year long investigation.

Imagine if Big Dog has said, I never met her and I won’t talk about her. Well, Fitz did not let Libby, no matter how well connected, get away with it.

The trial should open up a whole can of worms for the neopigs.

Fitz can call others to the stand to show how Libby allegedly lied, and bring out exactly what he lied about the trial will actually allow the investigation to continue in a new venue- the US Court system. It will keep the neo pigs on the front burner of the news for years.

Fitz has to work with the facts and Libby with held the facts. That's a big deal.

I think Fitz did a great job, his report yesterday was thorough, reasonable, cautious and prudent. Wild eyed speculation from a man in his position would have been attacked viciously with in seconds.

Instead, he is left above the fray with a reputation intact. Which is important because he will lead the team in the trial of Mr. Scooter.

So, enough with secret Grand Juries, let’s get all this trash out into to the fresh light of a new day and "out the truth", the neoscum work in secrecy, the trial is brilliant and will expose them to cleansing light. Because when confronted by his own inconsistencies during trial scoots will have no where to hide.

Thoughts? Any lawyers out there care to weigh in?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
hwmnbn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 10:18 AM
Response to Original message
1. My only concern is......
that the trial will be done in secret because of "national security" reasons. There were 8 pages of redacted material that propelled this investigation. That will remain hidden even in this trial.

Is it possible there will be no cameras, no reporters, and gag orders on all the participants?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #1
6.  hwmnbn- Just read part of the indictment, it is all in the open now
Libby began getting information from the CIA early in June because he was alerted that Wilson's report was not favorable to their yellow cake claims and he had rumors of bad press coming fro pinkus.

Libby was getting verbal info, classified documents, and even info, from Darth Dick himself. He knew who Wilson was and he knew his wife's name was Valerie and that she worked for the CIA.

Then, when Joe Wilson wrote his op-ed piece in July, Libby contacted the infamous neocreep Judy Miller and told her the bomb-shell- that this guy Wilson's wife was a CIA agent. He told Miller.

It still cannot be determined who leaked the CIA agents name to that old vampyr Novakula- but that is why a trial will be so important.

This excerpt from the Indictment says it all:

c. LIBBY advised Judith Miller of the New York Times on or about July 12,
2003 that he had heard that other reporters were saying that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA but
LIBBY did not know whether that assertion was true.

33. It was further part of the corrupt endeavor that at the time defendant LIBBY made
each of the above-described materially false and intentionally misleading statements and
representations to the grand jury, LIBBY was aware that they were false, in that:

a. When LIBBY spoke with Tim Russert of NBC News on or about July 10,
2003:

i. 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

ii. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that
Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA; in fact, LIBBY had participated in
multiple prior conversations concerning this topic, including on the
following occasions:

• In or about early June 2003, LIBBY learned from the Vice
President that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA in the
Counterproliferation Division;

• On or about June 11, 2003, LIBBY was informed by a senior
CIA officer that Wilson’s wife was employed by the CIA and
that the idea of sending him to Niger originated with her;

• On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was informed by the
Under Secretary of State that Wilson’s wife worked for the
CIA;

• On or about June 14, 2003, LIBBY discussed “Joe Wilson”
and “Valerie Wilson” with his CIA briefer, in the context of
Wilson’s trip to Niger;

• On or about June 23, 2003, LIBBY informed reporter Judith
Miller that Wilson’s wife might work at a bureau of the CIA;

• On or about July 7, 2003, LIBBY advised the White House
Press Secretary that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA;

• In or about June or July 2003, and in no case later than on or
about July 8, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Assistant to
the Vice President for Public Affairs that Wilson’s wife
worked for the CIA;

• On or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY advised reporter Judith
Miller of his belief that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA; and
• On or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY had a discussion with the
Counsel to the Office of the Vice President concerning the
paperwork that would exist if a person who was sent on an
overseas trip by the CIA had a spouse who worked at the
CIA;

b. LIBBY did not advise Matthew Cooper, on or about July 12, 2003, that
LIBBY had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did
LIBBY advise him that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true; rather, LIBBY
confirmed to Cooper, without qualification, that LIBBY had heard that Wilson’s wife worked at the
CIA; and

c. LIBBY did not advise Judith Miller, on or about July 12, 2003, that LIBBY
had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise
her that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1503.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirrera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 10:21 AM
Response to Original message
2. What if he pleads guilty and there is no trial??
I agree with you, and am preserving hope with the same thoughts, BUT, the big but is what if he pleads guilty? Will they really sentence him hard? Is that what Fitzgerald was saying when he kept stressing how serious it is for a top W.H. official to lie to a federal G.J.. Is he saying "you better not plead guilty to this because we are going to throw the book at you? Lawyers any thoughts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. What I have heard and read suggests Fitz would need something in return
from Scooter before allowing Scooter to plead guilty w/o a trial.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. scoots will have to sing like a canary to be let off the hook. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirrera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #4
11. Isn't pleading guilty allowed?
If Libby chooses to plead guilty, Fitzgerald can't stop him can he? I mean all he can do is threaten to go for maximum penalty right? I am not a lawyer, so I do not know. I would think Libby would plead guilty, refuse to talk and wait for a pardon. These guys are fanatics for their cause, I can't imagine they haven't figured out how to let go of their trapped tail and grow a new one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim__ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. I believe he has the right to plead guilty
Edited on Sat Oct-29-05 11:49 AM by Jim__
From Google - the court has the right to ask some questions.

A guilty plea would be extremely expensive for libby - he'd lose his law license. It saves the bush admin - but what does it get libby? I doubt he'd do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. What would have been the sentence if convicted on leaking agent?
I wonder if this is calculated lesser of two evils?

Some are saying that even if found guilty of current charges scoot would only get a few years and not 30.

But, what penalty does outing a CIA covert agent carry?

Anyone know or remember?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. figured out how to let go of their trapped tail and grow a new one. LMAO!
if he pleads guilty game over and it's a matter of sentencing.

If he enters into a plea "bargain" he gives the Prosecutor something in return for a felony conviction and a lesser sentence. Hence, the bargain part.

Just heard a former prosecutor on MSNBC say that even if he were found guilty- he would not get 30 years, maybe just a couple of years.

But, a felony conviction, even with a short sentence would mean no more law practice and never work in govt. again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
3. I don't think this will be a secret trial- it is a criminal case
and not one of those secret tribunals or a military court martial, also Fitz might have said if it were to be secret.

I do think that certain matters pertaining to National Security may be kept secret, reviewed only by the Judge, or in a closed session with the jury.

But, I think the spectre of a very public trial is pasrt of Fitz' strategy. How humiliating for the neobugs who work in the dark.

As far as the other question, he may plead guilty but then he would still have to answer other questions and IF Fitz is still working fattyKKKarl then he may in fact have more evidence against scoots- imagine if KKKarl had to take the stand against Libby his tubby little career would be dead in conservapig circles.

They can always plea bargain- but the smart money siad that if they wanted to cop a plea- they woud likely ot have opted to go to trial and to try and defend scoots.

I am hoping olfleftielawyer drops by for some more wisdom on this!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 11:08 AM
Response to Original message
5. Here I am!!!
Your on-command, pop-up OldLeftieLawyer.

First, Libby will never go to trial. If he doesn't strike some kind of deal, and agree to testify against others, as yet unnamed and unindicted, then he'll be pardoned by Fuckface, because that's a fine Bush family tradition when their collective asses are in a sling - see "Presidential Pardons, Christmas Eve, 1992, Iran-Contra, Weinberger, et al.".

There is no provision for "secret trials," even if he did go to trial. It's got to be out in the open. As for cameras, that's left to the discretion of the Court, and, honestly, I don't remember the policy of the District Court for the District of Columbia on cameras.

But, as I said, I doubt it will ever go that far.

Fitzgerald is the newest Great American Hero, in the fine tradition of Sam Ervin, Pete Rodino, and John Sirica. I'm very happy today to watch our Constitution at work.

But, let me caution that this stuff moves at a glacial pace. If you're old enough to remember Watergate (or have read about it), you'll see that judicial matters unfold slowly, and, in this case, especially, Fitzgerald is going to continue to proceed cautiously.

I think he threw people a hint, but in a most sideways, Jesuit-sanctioned way yesterday, when he said so little about what he'll be doing next, and left that door ajar. He was most understated about it, primarily, I think, because much of what happens next depends on what Libby's got to barter in exchange for any kind of plea deal.

The only thing we have to fear now is the Presidential pardon, and I don't for one minute believe that Fuckface would hesitate to use it, citing "national security" as a reason, in much the same way as he cited "weapons of mass destruction" for invading Iraq.

And the sheep will moo and continue chewing contentedly on their cuds.

:::: sigh :::::

Can I go out and play now? Please?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. (((Leftie!!))) hugs you old legal beagle! Thanks for dropping by-
Yes, the chance of a pardon is a daunting thought and a kick in the old juris prudence- I dare say.

This Presidential Pardon thing is so un-American, and so Imperial- unless, you are a turkey, it should, IMHO, not be used. Maybe abandoned?

But, the progress to trial will be slow and by the time it comes most people will have their 15 minute attention span spent and will have moved on.


"Fitzgerald is the newest Great American Hero, in the fine tradition of Sam Ervin, Pete Rodino, and John Sirica. I'm very happy today to watch our Constitution at work." - Yes, a fine young man.

I am hoping for a trial, there is nothing like the power of the subpoena and a nice chance for cross examination to roast someone's chest nuts.

I testify as an expert in some legal matters, dogs do have expertice ya' know, and I can tell anyone who thinks that sitting on the stand being ripped by opposing counsel is dignified and a breeze is wrong- you are basically cooking on an open flame in public! LOL

Imagine a proud man like Libby under withering cross.

Thanks for stopping by and enjoy this great Saturday- drop by again,soon!

AMDG-

bluedogger and cats.p.s.

some day, when you have a chance please elaborate on the beer drinking cat rumor. heh heh

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. It's not a rumor
I honestly tried to get this to you on a latter post, but I suspect it had dropped off your screen by that time.

Anyway, he's real, and now he's all yours:



By the way, you can always reach me via PM. Remember your Milton? --

"They also serve who only stand and wait."

And now, a splendid Saturday to you, too, my Jebbie brother .........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. Damned that cat is scary!
Will PM you later, am on the way out the door--much to do, fall is here, sunny day and garage must be put in order! LOL.

No kidding- home work today.

cheers- bluedogger
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirrera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Me too going outside before hunting season danger, but...
Didn't bush change something so felons could work in government? I can't imagine his peeps have no felony convictions. Will check later to see what I can find.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. mirrera- if you find something on that let us know esp.
if there are convicted felons on the gov. payroll.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirrera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Convicted Felons in the Whitehouse...
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/bushco/bushcontra.htm

and

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1013789,00.html


I forsee pardons and future lucrative jobs with the next Republican administration for
these criminals. The things Poindexter and crew were convicted of were very serious also, and thousands died due to their operations, yet they still do their thing. They are a malignancy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. mirrera- thank you- I had no idea. really, really crepy stuff.
These guys are now thriving and Negroponte is the neocons intell czar now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
illflem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 11:18 AM
Response to Original message
7. Hopefully the Wilsons will sue
and a very public civil trial will insue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Right on! Her career has been damaged beyond repair
she can never go back to being a covert agent and they have also been attacked on credibility. They implied she placed her husband into the Niger investigation as if it were cronyism. ha ha that's shrubs specialty and they have called Wilson a liar one time too many.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 07:32 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC