Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Crooks and Liars thinks this might be the article the lady read. Re: Libby Trial

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 (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-26-07 07:29 PM
Original message
Crooks and Liars thinks this might be the article the lady read. Re: Libby Trial

Trial in Error
If You're Going to Charge Scooter, Then What About These Guys?

By Victoria Toensing
Sunday, February 18, 2007; Page B01

Could someone please explain to me why Scooter Libby is the only person on trial in the Valerie Plame leak investigation?

Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald charged Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff with perjury on the theory that Libby had a nefarious reason for lying to a grand jury about what he told reporters regarding CIA officer Plame: He was trying to cover up a White House conspiracy to retaliate against Plame's husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV. Wilson had infuriated Vice President Cheney by accusing the Bush administration of lying about intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war.


Fitzgerald apparently concluded that a purported cover-up was sufficient motive for Libby to trim his recollections in a criminal way. So when Libby's testimony differed from that of others, it was Libby who got indicted.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...


Link to Crooks and Liars: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/02/26/libby-juror-di...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Fridays Child Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-26-07 07:34 PM
Response to Original message
1. When that article came out, it was immediately exposed as a transparent...
...attempt at jury tampering. Victoria Toensing is a shit bag, in my opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sam sarrha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-26-07 07:34 PM
Response to Original message
2. if they couldn't conclude that from the testimony they were deaf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
librechik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-26-07 07:36 PM
Response to Original message
3. heh--others here were speculating about the Toensing hatchet job
altho since the Post had 4 anti-prosecution opeds this weekend it would be hard to avoid unless you were A GOOD JUROR and avoided the news altogether like the judge told you to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tishaLA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-26-07 07:40 PM
Response to Original message
4. FDL said the same thing
It's all just speculation....I'm just glad the juror's gone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissWaverly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-26-07 07:48 PM
Response to Original message
5. Oh, Barf, cut me a break
I am tired of this whining of unfairness, the Supreme Court gave Bill Clinton, no slack
NONE over a perjury case. We are talking about the investigation of leaked classified
information, I am tired of the Puke whining.

Here's what the Supreme Court said about why they could not give special treatment to
the prez and he had a lot more responsibility than Scooter Libby for God's sake.

The Supremes definitely stated that the President was not entitled automatically to special treatment that was a civil case, a misdemeanor and they wouldn't even let him delay it.

"If the Judiciary may severely burden the Executive Branch by reviewing the
legality of the President's official conduct...it must follow that the federal
courts have the power to determine the legality of his unoffical conduct..
We therefore hold that the doctrine of seperation of powers does not require
federal courts to stay all private actions against the President until
he leaves office."

Page 41-42 No Island of Sanity by Vincent Bugliosi, Paula Jones v Bill Clinton: The
Supreme Court on Trial, Ballantine Books

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 Wed Jul 23rd 2014, 08:11 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) 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