Woodward said Libby did not reveal Plame CIA job name or role to him.
Woodward tapes show it is Armitage who gave the name clearly,
weeks before Woodward and Libby spoke at all.
Plame - not a CIA overt or covert agent at the time.
Plame - worked at a desk job at the CIA.
Libby did not reveal name to Novak or Woodward.
Judith Miller did not publish her story on the issue.
Corn of The Nation did.
Libby claims the Bush Administration is putting him out to dry for
Yet, the White House has cooperated with the Libby defense team
with witnesses and material. More so than expected.
Cheney may still testify for Libby's side, freely. May not, they
may work out some other way to do it. Just as Gore and Clinton
and other executive office holders have over the years.
Problem is only that Fitzgerald is hanging out old Libby...he
needs something to back up his lauded indictment and long
When he had Armitage and Fleischer names days after the investigation
began, and he gave them immunity.
Again, Plames name and job were known among the DC media, news,
and govt. personnel - who all hang out together, left and right.
Feb 12th, 2007, 06:02 PM
What I would like to see investigated is how did North Korea
get our nuke secrets?
How did China get our nuke plans from New Mexico?
Why are the two border agents in prison when they should
have been fired and fined instead?
How did Sandy Berger steal documents and escape
prosecution with penalty?
How come our soldiers don't have better tanks and
helicopters - with all we've learned from the Israeli
How did the Senate and House keep 'leaking' information to
the NY Times in a time of war?
Why do we give money to the UN?
Who is Anna Nicole's baby's father?
Why is Rosie still on tv?
Why does Donald Trump brush his hair that way?
Get on that Fitzgerald.
Feb 12th, 2007, 08:03 PM
Another Pulitzer Prize writer under oath - no, Libby did not give
or discuss Valerie Plame with them.
That's three today alone.
In the end, we now know just about everyone in DC knew old Val was
a CIA employee, not a CIA covert spy.
Again, that CIA law is not in question here - not broken because she
wasn't covert and the time period had expired for it to apply.
Libby is not even on trial for being a leaker of information.
He's on trial for perjury obstruction of justice on technicalitites
in the 2 year investigation.
Armitage, Corn, Novak, Andrea Mitchell, Tim Russert, David Gregory,
Woodward, right-left, it's all over the map...and none of them point
to Libby as doing anything illegal. Nor does it even point to Rove or
Cheney doing anything illegal.
Wilson wrote a false op-ed piece, as the Senate bi-partisan committee
pointed out on the record afterwards, and the White House wanted it
to be explained that Cheney did not ask old Joe to go to Africa - as he
claimed in speeches and in writing.
Since when is that a crime? It's not. This is a fishing expedition.
Again, Sandy Berger stealing federal documents for the 9/11 hearings
is a crime. People allowing China to steal documents and information
from Los Alamos is a crime. Stealing money meant for Iraq War soldiers
and the new Iraq govt. is a crime. Stealing money at the UN by France
and Khofi is a crime.
Feb 14th, 2007, 06:12 PM
Cheney won't testify.
The Libby Defense team figures he won't have to afterall.
The witnesses they've called have done enough damage
to the Fitzgerald case so far.
Even Huffington gang has been disappointed with how weak
the Fitzgerald case was - so far. He could easily come up
with a big rebuttal.
So far, Russert and Judith Miller and the NY Times Editor,
Woodward, and the other Pulitzer Prize winning writers have
contradicted each other, backed up Libby, or given us
.....'don't recall', 'no, Libby didn't say that', 'no, Fleischer
said that, not Libby', 'Armitage said it', 'Russert said this',
'Andrea Mitchell said this'....
Amazingly, if all these people were being held to the same
standard Libby is being held, about 12 more folks would be
on trial for perjury and obstruction of justice, and forgetting
when they said blue instead of red 4 years ago.
Personally, I think they have created a lot of doubt.
However, it seems risky not to call Cheney, or keep hammering
away at the Fitzgerald case.
They're hoping for a hung jury I guess.
With a D.C. jury pool of 99% Democrats, that's not a good
Libby, in my best guess, will be found guilty of at least one
count. He'll appeal. Probably win there with a judge only looking
at the information. But, a D.C. jury isn't going to lean his way
no matter how bad the Fitzgerald case has been so far.
Feb 14th, 2007, 06:27 PM
Threads like this remind me why I like WTAworld: a variety of posters with diverse opinions.
Feb 14th, 2007, 07:11 PM
:lol: @ Sandy "guess what's in my pants" Berger. :lol:
Feb 14th, 2007, 08:33 PM
Sandy Berger should be in jail.
Regardless of whether Libby is found guilty or not guilty.
The defense rests.
Fitzgerald will call no more witnesses.
Libby didn't testify.
Judge not happy w/ that.
But, it's his right not to be a witness in his own trial.
He doesn't have to.
He should have in my view.
The defense feels it put out enough 'doubt' for the jury.
Maybe it did.
I wouldn't count on it.
He needed a homerun witness. Didn't get it - from what
I have read of the transcripts online.
Personally, if the guy is found guilty of perjury, even
on a small level, he's guilty. Long prison for it? No. But,
a penalty would be due.
He's a very smart, well educated man, and he should have
spoken only when an attorney was with him.
Lesson. Like Martha Stewart, look what happens when a smart
person tries to talk to federal officials, about anything, without
a lawyer with you. Bad things follow.
Smart people can sometimes be too smart for their own good, they
presume they can handle it.