IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Fitzgerald calls new grand jury
[link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111800958.html|Washington Post]
The federal prosecutor investigating the leak of a CIA operative's identity says he plans to present information to a new grand jury, a sign that he is considering additional charges in his two-year-old probe.

I take this as a good sign that there is still a serious investigation. But it isn't a given that this new jury will produce charges, he may have called it to get people to testify under oath. Still, I find it hard to believe that he would have called a new grand jury if he was not at least considering charging somebody.

Jay
New Actually, it might allow Libby to walk.
Libby is not being charged with outing Plame, he is being
charged with lying to the FBI.

Fitzgerald says Libby is the starting point of the Plame
info. Libby says he heard it from a reporter.

Woodward (Editor of Wasington Post?) said that someone else
told him BEFORE the conversation Libby had with the reporter.

This means it would be possible the Libby recalled correctly,
the reporter was mistaken, and Libby get off.
New Not quite
Libby is not being charged with outing Plame, he is being
charged with lying to the FBI.
No. Libby is being charged with several lying type counts. None of wich are about lying to the FBI. They are all about lying to the Grand Jury.

Fitzgerald says Libby is the starting point of the Plame
info.
No, again. He says Libby lied during testimony. In his comments about the case, he mentioned the fact that Libby was the first *known* leaker.

Next two points don't amount to beans given the above.
-----------------------------------------
No new taxes.
--George H. W. Bush

We don't torture.
--George W. Bush
New Maybe we heard / read different set of comments.
There was no KNOWN qualifier in what I heard.
And the provability of the lie (vs remembering incorrectly) would be if he was the 1st, since if he wasn't then a repoter COULD have told him.
New What were you listening to?
There was no KNOWN qualifier in what I heard.
I doubt it was Fitzgerald's news conference. I may have been any of a number of pre$$titutes spinning away.

Got [link|http://mediamatters.org/items/200511170011|link]?
-----------------------------------------
No new taxes.
--George H. W. Bush

We don't torture.
--George W. Bush
New NPR
Heard both the Fitzgerald comment plus the right wing pre$$titutes spinning away.

No link.

I'd have to work my ass off to isolate it.
Was listening around 4:30 yesterday afternoon, which means I'd have to deal with the online audio. No thanks.
New But its very much about the timing of conversations
and very much "reasonable" doubt can be cast on this if it turns out his first testimony was accurate...because (iirc) that is the basis of the charges.

Might not get him all the way off...but could seriously damage the SP's case.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Basis of the charges
From my reading of the [link|http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf|indictment] , it doesn't appear to matter if someone else spoke to a pre$$titute first. None of the charges are actually concerned with that aspect of timing. If you can find something in the charges that I'm missing, I'd appreciate it if you could point it out.

I do see that I was wrong about one thing though, two of the charges are indeed specifically about lying to the FBI (two counts of making false statement). Those charges aren't affected in any way by Woodward's "bombshell" as they don't mention anything about who was first to speak. They are about "what Libby said" to investigaters about his conversations with reporters.
-----------------------------------------
No new taxes.
--George H. W. Bush

We don't torture.
--George W. Bush
     Fitzgerald calls new grand jury - (JayMehaffey) - (7)
         Actually, it might allow Libby to walk. - (broomberg) - (6)
             Not quite - (Silverlock) - (5)
                 Maybe we heard / read different set of comments. - (broomberg) - (2)
                     What were you listening to? - (Silverlock) - (1)
                         NPR - (broomberg)
                 But its very much about the timing of conversations - (bepatient) - (1)
                     Basis of the charges - (Silverlock)

A metric buttload of LRPDs.
41 ms