another Bush appointee going to prison

[Truthmatters]

I dont think he could sue her lawyers without first proving it was a law suit designed to Harrass.

 

[jillian]

Point noted. I am no lawyer, but let’s assume that the case went the distance and Clinton won. Couldn’t he have sued Paula’s team along with Paula? I think that the organizations that represented Paula had lots of money.

No. Not unless he proved some intent to be frivolous. And even then, it's almost impossible to get legal fees and it might have taken 10 years of litigation and trials to get there.

I stand by what I said. The case should have, and was, made to go away. I'd have given him the same advice.

 

[Truthmatters]

Jones herself says she was used by the right.

 

[mattskramer]

Jones herself says she was used by the right.

Could Clinton have come up with more money from his loyal supporters, the DNC, liberal organizations, etc? Could he have made loans? I just find it hard to believe that Clinton, the president of the United States of America, could not come up with as much money to defend himself as pro-Paula-Jones legal team and supporters could come up with in going after Clinton. I still think that he could have some how, some way, managed to fight it and, when it was over, fight back and get some compensation from Paula and her team. Oh well – perhaps not. Perhaps all that this boils down to is that Bill Clinton lied to a grand jury. I think that a president should be thrown out of office for perjury.

 

[mattskramer]

Could Clinton have come up with more money from his loyal supporters, the DNC, liberal organizations, etc? Could he have made loans? I just find it hard to believe that Clinton, the president of the United States of America, could not come up with as much money to defend himself as pro-Paula-Jones legal team and supporters could come up with in going after Clinton. I still think that he could have some how, some way, managed to fight it and, when it was over, fight back and get some compensation from Paula and her team. Oh well – perhaps not. Perhaps all that this boils down to is that Bill Clinton lied to a grand jury. I think that a president should be thrown out of office for perjury.

This might deserve a new thread bout what do you think about the “loser pays” proposal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loser_pays

I think that it would discourage people from filing weak claims like Paula Jones supposedly did.

 

[Truthmatters]

I think I prefer to have it part of the negociation between the litigants.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Clinton chose to LIE under oath for the express purpose of preventing a Judge from discovering a pattern that would hurt him in the case he was involved in.

The claim it was "all about sex" is a blatant attempt to excuse his LIE. As a sitting President, in a matter of extreme pettiness, rather then tell the truth or claim he "forgot" he made a conscious decision to LIE, for the purpose of protecting his ass in a matter before a competent Court and Judge.

Now explain again why, if he couldn't be honest about this, we should believe anything he had to say about much more damaging charges in White water, Chinese influence , selling pardons, etc etc....

Explain why we should believe anything he had to say about just about anything, when he couldn't even tell the truth in a petty Court case?

 

[Truthmatters]

he lied , he paid for it in many ways.

I want the lies of this admin to be paid for.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

he lied , he paid for it in many ways.

I want the lies of this admin to be paid for.

Except you have no evidence of any LIES. Well other then " we all know a lie when we hear it round these parts"

 

[Care4all]

Clinton chose to LIE under oath for the express purpose of preventing a Judge from discovering a pattern that would hurt him in the case he was involved in.

The claim it was "all about sex" is a blatant attempt to excuse his LIE. As a sitting President, in a matter of extreme pettiness, rather then tell the truth or claim he "forgot" he made a conscious decision to LIE, for the purpose of protecting his ass in a matter before a competent Court and Judge.

Now explain again why, if he couldn't be honest about this, we should believe anything he had to say about much more damaging charges in White water, Chinese influence , selling pardons, etc etc....

Explain why we should believe anything he had to say about just about anything, when he couldn't even tell the truth in a petty Court case?

You can say the same thing about Scooter Libby too, I guess? That if he could not be honest about leaking Plame's position within the CIA then WHAT should we believe about anything he had said or done for the vice president the last 6 years? In a way, even worse with Scooter because scooter lied and perjured himself, and obstructed Justice on a "Criminal Law" case vs a "Civil Law" case, where Clinton perjured himself.

Let me clarify...BOTH were bad actions on both of their parts.

 

[Gunny]

You can say the same thing about Scooter Libby too, I guess? That if he could not be honest about leaking Plame's position within the CIA then WHAT should we believe about anything he had said or done for the vice president the last 6 years? In a way, even worse with Scooter because scooter lied and perjured himself, and obstructed Justice on a "Criminal Law" case vs a "Civil Law" case, where Clinton perjured himself.

Let me clarify...BOTH were bad actions on both of their parts.

Ummmm..... Libby wasn't convicted of leaking Plame's name, so your allegation that he was not honest about it is unsubstantiated.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You can say the same thing about Scooter Libby too, I guess? That if he could not be honest about leaking Plame's position within the CIA then WHAT should we believe about anything he had said or done for the vice president the last 6 years? In a way, even worse with Scooter because scooter lied and perjured himself, and obstructed Justice on a "Criminal Law" case vs a "Civil Law" case, where Clinton perjured himself.

Let me clarify...BOTH were bad actions on both of their parts.

As has been pointed out... There was no charge, much less conviction of Libby "outing" anyone. You have made htese statements before and when called on them always vanish for a couple days or stop posting.

Be so KIND as to provide one SHRED of evidence that Libby told anyone that Plume was a "Covert" agent. Provide one SHRED of evidence that Cheney ordered him to do it. And then explain why with what ever evidence you provide the Prosecutor failed to charge either man with the crime.

No one "outed" Plume. Once again, telling someone she worked for the CIA was not an act of "outing" her since the CIA readily admitted when called at the switch board that she WAS an employee of the CIA.

Thus your left proving what the prosecutor couldn't. There is no evidence Libby obstructed anything, since the entire premise was wrong. Plume was NOT "outed" It was easily obtained information that she worked for the CIA. The trial was a political trial with a prosecutor illegally "entrapping" someone over 2 years for the sole purpose of trying him on perjury charges. Obstruction is a laugh, HOW does one obstruct an investigation into something that NEVER happened? The Jurors were hoodwinked by a good lawyer in a case to save face. The Judge shares blame in this also for allowing the prosecutor to continually make a claim about something he wouldn't even charge the man with.

 

[Care4all]

As has been pointed out... There was no charge, much less conviction of Libby "outing" anyone. You have made htese statements before and when called on them always vanish for a couple days or stop posting.

Be so KIND as to provide one SHRED of evidence that Libby told anyone that Plume was a "Covert" agent. Provide one SHRED of evidence that Cheney ordered him to do it. And then explain why with what ever evidence you provide the Prosecutor failed to charge either man with the crime.

No one "outed" Plume. Once again, telling someone she worked for the CIA was not an act of "outing" her since the CIA readily admitted when called at the switch board that she WAS an employee of the CIA.

Thus your left proving what the prosecutor couldn't. There is no evidence Libby obstructed anything, since the entire premise was wrong. Plume was NOT "outed" It was easily obtained information that she worked for the CIA. The trial was a political trial with a prosecutor illegally "entrapping" someone over 2 years for the sole purpose of trying him on perjury charges. Obstruction is a laugh, HOW does one obstruct an investigation into something that NEVER happened? The Jurors were hoodwinked by a good lawyer in a case to save face. The Judge shares blame in this also for allowing the prosecutor to continually make a claim about something he wouldn't even charge the man with.

ret sgt, the only way you will know what i am talking about is if you read the TRANSCRIPT and all the evidence documents introduced in the trial case.

i have supplied you with this, as my source several times.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB215/index.htm

i can't read the transcripts for you, i would, if i could, but i can't?

If you read the transcript and view the pdf formatted evidence introduced in the trial, you would know what i am talking about sgt.

It's hard to keep debating you on this because you don't want to know the truth sgt.... you really don't seem to want to know?

If you did, you would have read the declassified notes of the Libby trial and the evidence introduced in to it already, instead of regurgitating the same old imo, right wing talking point mantra.

Take the time sgt, and go through the link provided, and related links of the evidence that was declassified.

This goes for Corky and gunny too!

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB215/index.htm

Care

 

[mattskramer]

he lied , he paid for it in many ways.

I want the lies of this admin to be paid for.

I agree. If anyone commits perjury, no matter what the lie concerned, no matter what the political party affiliation, he or she should be punished.

 

[mattskramer]

Ummmm..... Libby wasn't convicted of leaking Plame's name, so your allegation that he was not honest about it is unsubstantiated.

The bottom line: Did Libby ever lie to a jury or judge about anything at all?

If so, then he should be punished. Enough said.

 

[Care4all]

Ummmm..... Libby wasn't convicted of leaking Plame's name, so your allegation that he was not honest about it is unsubstantiated.

do you know what lies libby told to the fbi and the grand jury?

do you know the actual lies libby told, and the prosecutor proved to be lies, with his evidence introduced in the libby trial case?

without knowing this precise information, how can you make any sound judgement regarding this ...?

i rest my case.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB215/index.htm

care

 

[RetiredGySgt]

ret sgt, the only way you will know what i am talking about is if you read the TRANSCRIPT and all the evidence documents introduced in the trial case.

i have supplied you with this, as my source several times.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB215/index.htm

i can't read the transcripts for you, i would, if i could, but i can't?

If you read the transcript and view the pdf formatted evidence introduced in the trial, you would know what i am talking about sgt.

It's hard to keep debating you on this because you don't want to know the truth sgt.... you really don't seem to want to know?

If you did, you would have read the declassified notes of the Libby trial and the evidence introduced in to it already, instead of regurgitating the same old imo, right wing talking point mantra.

Take the time sgt, and go through the link provided, and related links of the evidence that was declassified.

This goes for Corky and gunny too!

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB215/index.htm

Care

I don't care what some slick lawyer managed to convince a Jury of. YOU made a claim, The claiming being that Libby SPECIFICALLY told several reporters that NOT only was Plume a CIA employee but that she was a COVERT asset. PROVE it.

You further have claimed that Cheney is a traitor and orchestrated the "outing". Again PROVIDE some proof. Libby's trial doesn't prove EITHER claims. Nothing in the transcripts provides any evidence of these claims, or are you now claiming the Prosecutor was an incompetent boob and failed to charge either man with the crimes you claim happened?

 

[T-Bor]

agreed. He lied he got busted..he gets punished..End of freaking story. And he lied for a reason..Not just because of bad memory like some people want to spin it.

The bottom line: Did Libby ever lie to a jury or judge about anything at all?

If so, then he should be punished. Enough said.

 

[CockySOB]

ret sgt, the only way you will know what i am talking about is if you read the TRANSCRIPT and all the evidence documents introduced in the trial case.

i have supplied you with this, as my source several times.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB215/index.htm

i can't read the transcripts for you, i would, if i could, but i can't?

If you read the transcript and view the pdf formatted evidence introduced in the trial, you would know what i am talking about sgt.

It's hard to keep debating you on this because you don't want to know the truth sgt.... you really don't seem to want to know?

If you did, you would have read the declassified notes of the Libby trial and the evidence introduced in to it already, instead of regurgitating the same old imo, right wing talking point mantra.

Take the time sgt, and go through the link provided, and related links of the evidence that was declassified.

This goes for Corky and gunny too!

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB215/index.htm

Care

1. It's Cocky, not Corky. Do I make plays on your moniker? No. Return the courtesy or be ready to receive what you dish out several times over.

2. For all your blather, you neglect the fact that there was no evidence presented at Libby's trial which indicates that Plame was covert under the law, nor that any violation of the Intelligence Identities Security Act was committed. As RGS said, your arguments got spanked like the proverbial red-headed stepchild and you ran for the hills. Now you're back with the same, tired rhetoric and NO legal facts to back up your assertion. Remember, Fitzgerald himself chose not to pursue the angle of "outing an intelligence agent" and kept reiterating that throughout the trial, including his closing arguments. It was only brought back up during the sentencing phase as an emotional argument to offset any defense arguments for leniency.

Let me put this in the context of Nifong's Folly. Prosecutor Nifong SAID the boys were guilty and that he had sufficient evidence to proceed. People took what he said as gospel WITHOUT taking the time to verify the evidence and have it tested in a COURT OF LAW. What you are doing is the SAME DAMNED THING! You're asserting that the government representative prosecuting the case doesn't HAVE to prove anything in court because what claims has to be true.

If you can't figure this out, you're hopeless. And if you can't be civil, you better don those asbestos undies.

 

[Care4all]

1. It's Cocky, not Corky. Do I make plays on your moniker? No. Return the courtesy or be ready to receive what you dish out several times over.

For Goodness sakes, calm down, your name mispelled was an accident and I did not make a "play" on it. GRRRRRRR......Grow up, or are you acting your age but trying to hang with the "big boys"? j/k u before u go off the handle again!

2. For all your blather, you neglect the fact that there was no evidence presented at Libby's trial which indicates that Plame was covert under the law, nor that any violation of the Intelligence Identities Security Act was committed. As RGS said, your arguments got spanked like the proverbial red-headed stepchild and you ran for the hills. Now you're back with the same, tired rhetoric and NO legal facts to back up your assertion. Remember, Fitzgerald himself chose not to pursue the angle of "outing an intelligence agent" and kept reiterating that throughout the trial, including his closing arguments. It was only brought back up during the sentencing phase as an emotional argument to offset any defense arguments for leniency.

Fact- Libby presented lies to the FBI investigators tasked by the Justice Dept to find out if Valerie Plame's classified undercover identity was leaked by white house members to the Press, and lied before the special investigator, and lied before the Grand Jury who were also tasked to find out who exposed valerie plame wilson's name and position within a highly classified dept. within the CIA AND why.

Fact- In order to get a conviction for the specific and blatent lies that Libby told, the prosecution had to prove they were lies.

Fact- The prosecution introduced Libby's lies and statements made under oath and PROVED in a court of Law, that the "song and a dance" Libby told regarding his involvement with leaking the name and position of Valerie Plame was an outright lie and perjury.

The Prosecution proved this by introducing evidence that SHOWED white house records that Libby and the vice president were talking about Plame and Wilson daily before and right up to the Novak outing of her, while Libby lied and said he had not talked about her at all basically.

Libby also lied and said that he first heard about plame from Tim Russert and that he had not mentioned her name to anyone in the press first..

Tim Russert testified that this was not true...

Judith Miller testified also that this was not true, that Libby gave her this scoop on Plame working in this dept that sent Wilson's husband ....nepotism....yahdeedah...yahdeedah... crap...

Also introduced was notes in the vp's script stating that he is not going to let "rove" or one white house member get administration cover while letting the other guy take the fall...(meaning Libby) and got ari fleicher or the other press secretary tell the media that both Libby and Rove are innocent. maybe it was Mcclean not fleicher but I think it was Ari Fleicher?

There is SO MUCH MORE than I can go in to or even remember.... and it is all in pdf format and slow as molasses to get in to with my dial up connection, this is why I am suggesting you and gunny and ret sgt go in to the link I provided and the other links on that link!

It is jaw dropping in my opinion and quite enlightening.

And I do not know why Fitzgerald did not continue the investigation, other than what he "said".... I can't help that....!

And yes I know that Libby was not "Charged" with outing classified information or an undercover agent, he was just charged with lying about it, and convicted for lying about it.

Fitzgerald was not tasked to find out if Plame was undervcover, but tasked to find out who exposed Plame's cover. (though I would presume he had to confirm that she was undercover only under classified conditions) It is my understanding that all of this is classified Discovery that we will not ever see, done by the FBI Investigators, before the grand jury, I would presume, on Plame's covert-ness? Fitzgerald stated that the FBI Investigators had determined that her status was Classified undercover, classmates/friends /family and the such did not know she worked for the CIA, had traveled overseas classified undercover 7-10 times recently and that the CIA was actively trying to keep her status classified. Granted this was just in his opening statement to the jury, but you would think that Libby's side would have objected to such, but THEY DID NOT?

FACT-Even if Plame was not Covert covered by the law for the protection of foreign agents, she still was classified undercover and it was a secret, MARKED SECRET right next to her name on the classified document that first identified her involvement with Wilson, which Cheney and Libby and Rove and Armitage and Fleicher and Andrew Card all got to see, I believe this was proven or shown in the trial also

If Libby had been charged with exposing Plame to the Press, I would imagine that his lawyers would have the right to "challenge" her classified status under some sort of classified scenario, not something that we would get to see, but I honestly do not know if this is actually true and a normal procedure or even option?

Care