tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16821859.post113132018247840651..comments2024-03-26T16:03:42.608-06:00Comments on Flares into Darkness: Fitzgerald's Defenseambisinistralhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03836786826294202405noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16821859.post-1131347392798464892005-11-07T00:09:00.000-07:002005-11-07T00:09:00.000-07:00An excellent WSJ Online analysis of the defense pl...An excellent WSJ Online analysis of the defense plans re reporters--HEH<BR/><BR/> href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113132953054089733.html?mod=politics_first_element_hs<BR/><BR/>CAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16821859.post-1131333931390450082005-11-06T20:25:00.000-07:002005-11-06T20:25:00.000-07:00C,The indictment is one of the damnedest documents...C,<BR/><BR/>The indictment is one of the damnedest documents I have ever read. If it were possible, I would swear in and depose each grand juror individually and separately and demand that they explain precisely what they think it says while letting them hold it in their hands.<BR/><BR/>I bet I could come up with 20 perjury indictments solely on the basis of those depositions. Impressive in it's clarity, it ain't.<BR/><BR/>Vnjagvet,<BR/><BR/>I continue to concur - only more fervently.Rick Ballardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11082425215912372067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16821859.post-1131331814320677432005-11-06T19:50:00.000-07:002005-11-06T19:50:00.000-07:00Technically, I think Fitz' indictment is that Libb...Technically, I think Fitz' indictment is that Libby repeated these converations in response to an inquiry as to where HE first learned of the CIA connection.That is, that he was trying to conceal that he had independent, perfectly legal information about this earlier from government sources.<BR/><BR/>Absent an entire transcript I can't say if there is any evidence for this. <BR/>My hunch is that it is less clear cut than Fitz would have us believe. Else why no simple question in the indictment's transcript snippets--when, from any source, did you learn...?<BR/>In any event, the way Fitz framed it, I expect the trial will muddle on to become a he said/she said type hearing and Levy has a good point.<BR/><BR/>If Libby had heard it in a manner that was unlawful ,one might argue intent to hide, but he didn't, did he?And in the end that comes down to-- so what?How do you get to intention to misstate a material fact?And materiality is essential to a perjury conviction.If he heard it first from Tenet or Cheney or Russert, isn't the question who he told it to? Was that person cleared to hear it?<BR/><BR/>I suppose if he were looking for a conspiracy to "out" Plame it might be relevant, but quite obviously there is no evidence of that and one person (Libby) can't conspire with himself.<BR/><BR/>I also am troubled about the materiality of these conversations themselves. If the question were did he violate the IIPA or espionage acts in them, I could see it. That was the thrust of the investigation which adds to my belief that he'll argue the questions were ambiguous and he truthfully answered them to the best of his ability.But that isn't the charge. And we get back to what difference does it make what he said to Russert as long as he didn't break the law in what he said? In other words, it's not material.<BR/><BR/>I'm sorry if this sounds incoherent, but I'm proud--I choose to think it's the indictment which is confusing and incoherent and not me.<BR/><BR/>LOL<BR/>CAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16821859.post-1131330905094575852005-11-06T19:35:00.000-07:002005-11-06T19:35:00.000-07:00syl:You can imagine Libby's reaction when talking ...syl:<BR/><BR/>You can imagine Libby's reaction when talking to someone like Russert:<BR/><BR/>What does this guy know? <BR/><BR/>How did he find out?<BR/><BR/>Is he fishing?<BR/><BR/>I can't let him know that I know he knows etc.<BR/><BR/>Like I said before that bum Wilson should be the one in jail for starting this whole thing.terryehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16609746018265953069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16821859.post-1131329175974271752005-11-06T19:06:00.000-07:002005-11-06T19:06:00.000-07:00Here is what I said in response to one of Terrye's...Here is what I said in response to one of Terrye's probing questions on October 28:<BR/><BR/>"Here's what the indictment says happened:<BR/><BR/>In Libby's interviews with the FBI he gave them a version of his conversations with Russert on July 9 and with Miller and Cooper on July 12.<BR/><BR/>This version was consistent in all of his interviews with the FBI. <BR/><BR/>Then he gave his grand jury testimony. Libby's version of those conversations stayed the same. I quoted his version of the Russert conversation from the indictment.<BR/><BR/>The allegations in all counts is essentially that his version of the conversations with Russert, Cooper and Miller (as related to the FBI and grand jury) was false in material respects.<BR/><BR/>The only way this could be so is if the other parties to the conversations, Russert, Cooper and Miller gave testimony differing from Libby in those material respects."<BR/><BR/>I got alot of arguments on JOM and other places at the time that I was parroting Republican talking points. Of course, that was BS. The quote sounds about like what the WAPO reporter says today, but shorter.<BR/><BR/>As this goes on, it will be interesting to see how our other presdictions play out. Where on the record, exposed to the elements. Bring it on (I think I heard that somewhere before)!vnjagvethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15904498408683884983noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16821859.post-1131327724032689712005-11-06T18:42:00.000-07:002005-11-06T18:42:00.000-07:00To clarify. Libby was surprised at hearing about m...To clarify. Libby was surprised at hearing about mrs wilson from Russert and was careful to pretend he didn't already know it.<BR/><BR/>Which explains his 'forgetting' which was really only pretending to forget.<BR/><BR/>I wonder if these lawyers have any experience dealing with classified information and what your mental state would be if you knew something you weren't supposed to say and boom someone who isn't supposed to know it tells you.Sylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03069871911665125873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16821859.post-1131327536200488092005-11-06T18:38:00.000-07:002005-11-06T18:38:00.000-07:00It's not just memory. I don't think Libby could ha...It's not just memory. I don't think Libby could have really forgotten he didn't know about mrs. wilson being CIA since he'd already been told a few times, the latest within a couple of days of his conversation with russert.<BR/><BR/>These lawyers, unless they're not saying it, don't seem to see what's obvious. That Libby was surprised at hearing about mrs. wilson's cia connection from Russert.<BR/><BR/>However Russert says they didn't discuss it..though we have no quotes.<BR/><BR/>And from some transcripts Tom Maguire has found, Russert seems a bit confused and it looks to me like he was just guessing what he might have said/not said to Libby when he was asked the question by investigators. I think Russert simply does not remember what he said to Libby.<BR/><BR/>Which is fine, but it's really important for Libby's case that Russert told him that mrs wilson is CIA.<BR/><BR/>Andrea mitchel (the transcript has been found) admitted she knew it...had gotten it on her own.<BR/><BR/>But we do have to give WaPo credit for printing that. I doubt the New York Times would.Sylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03069871911665125873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16821859.post-1131325989849095202005-11-06T18:13:00.000-07:002005-11-06T18:13:00.000-07:00It is very difficult to prove intent.I know I have...It is very difficult to prove intent.<BR/><BR/>I know I have had the experience of remembering the same conversation differently than someone else. The reporters might keep notes of all these conversations but Libby is a busy man and he spends a great deal of his life on the phone and I would imagine he was trying to not say certain things, so his recollection might well be different.<BR/><BR/>A bad memory is not a criminal offence.<BR/><BR/>Time will tell, but I will be suprised if he is convicted and I will be surprised if Rove gets in any deeper.<BR/><BR/>But of course the press will milk it.terryehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16609746018265953069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16821859.post-1131321845615518672005-11-06T17:04:00.000-07:002005-11-06T17:04:00.000-07:00hah - you're exactly right david - i went back to ...hah - you're exactly right david - i went back to quote something from the thread but it's now so long ago that it's fallen off. <BR/>still, perhaps we should view WaPo plagiarizing the contributors here as a positive development.ex-democrathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02985594718240980140noreply@blogger.com