Actually, it might allow Libby to walk.

Post #234,985 by broomberg 11/18/05 8:04:42 PM Reply	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.
Post #235,018 by Silverlock 11/18/05 11:50:39 PM Reply	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
Post #235,071 by broomberg 11/19/05 8:22:48 AM Reply	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.
Post #235,078 by Silverlock 11/19/05 9:55:17 AM Reply	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$$titutes spinning away. Got [link\|http://mediamatters.org/items/200511170011\|link]? ----------------------------------------- No new taxes. --George H. W. Bush We don't torture. --George W. Bush
Post #235,101 by broomberg 11/19/05 11:01:10 AM Reply	NPR Heard both the Fitzgerald comment plus the right wing pre$$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.
Post #235,081 by bepatient 11/19/05 10:12:09 AM Reply	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]
Post #235,121 by Silverlock 11/19/05 12:30:02 PM Reply	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

Welcome to IWETHEY!