another Bush appointee going to prison

[Care4all]

ok, gotta go for a bit... be back later to respond to any posts directed at me!

 

[CockySOB]

Their does not need to be some fucking court case to determine her a covert agent.

This is utter fantasy on your part.

There are guidlines to what makes an agent covert.

The CIA has provided the information to the nessesary court representatives LIKE THE JUDGE!

The CIA holds the documentation of her covert status, they have shown the court the nessesary documentation and they have continued with the case accepting the documentation.

What you want is to pretend a judge isnt good enough which is utter bullshit!

Can I refer to you as Mike Nifong then? I mean if the prosecutor makes a determination why do we even need the judicial system at all, eh?

Oh, and Judge Walton did NOT address the issue of Plame's status in court. Despite your protestations to the contrary, Judge Walton in his ruling said that he had no idea if she was covert or not. But I guess that'd require you actually READING his ruling and not just parroting the talkingpoints from the BDS crowd.

 

[CockySOB]

He would NOT have been charged with such if the VP really did declassify the document before Libby and especially Rove and Armitage, leaked the supposedly classified information about valerie's employment.... Libby and Rove and Armitage and Fleicher would be cleared and the burden of proof would be on the VP as to whether he declassified the document, legally, by following the proper protocols.

care

No, the burden of proof is still on the prosecution and those of you which have switched to "persecution-mode." You claim she was covert, yet no one was charged with ANY substantive crime. Libby was charged with a process crime, and will justifiably go to jail for it in the near future. But if you want to make allegations that Plame was covert in any legal sense, well... the burdern's on you and the other BDS-crowd.

 

[CockySOB]

Don't know much about the secret prisons where torture must occur and how they got "outed"?

Are you saying that someone in the administration "outed" this classified information? If so, who? And if so, was an investigation in to such done?

What precisely are you trying to compare this situation, with Plame's situation?

Just search for "secret CIA prisons" either here on on Google. The news media reported on this a while back, yet since it wasn't tied to any member of the administration, the issue got switched fairly quickly away from the disclosure of classified information to "see how bad our CIA is to operate these torture houses all over the world." It's moral relativism. Here was have a case of REAL classified information being leaked and instead of outrage, the left takes up the cause of the leakers.

 

[CockySOB]

ok, gotta go for a bit... be back later to respond to any posts directed at me!

No prob. I think I'm going fishing for a bit. Then I gotta hit the local hardware store to get materials for remodelling the kitchen - cabinetry first, then the counter tops. I'll have to hold off on the appliances until next year I think.

Enjoy the day!

 

[Truthmatters]

Can I refer to you as Mike Nifong then? I mean if the prosecutor makes a determination why do we even need the judicial system at all, eh?

Oh, and Judge Walton did NOT address the issue of Plame's status in court. Despite your protestations to the contrary, Judge Walton in his ruling said that he had no idea if she was covert or not. But I guess that'd require you actually READING his ruling and not just parroting the talkingpoints from the BDS crowd.

grand Jury two words you might want to think about

 

[uscitizen]

I guess Bush appointed the wrong judge ? Some demoncrat must have made him do it.

 

[Truthmatters]

There would have been no grand jury conviened to look into a crime if there was no proof her status was covert.

I just dont get what the right wing talking points has to gain here other than confusing their own to think there was no crime?

How can anyone buy such tripe?

 

[CockySOB]

grand Jury two words you might want to think about

Really? In some cases grand jury testimony is admissible in court, while in others it is not.

In the case of Libby, his testimony was admissible as his legally verified statements which went directly to the heart of the perjury and making false statements charges.

But none of the testimony at the grand jury was admitted towards a finding of fact as to Plame's status as such was NOT being decided.

So why don't you go think a little more and try to figure out how you want to use those two words to try to make whatever point you were trying to make.

 

[CockySOB]

There would have been no grand jury conviened to look into a crime if there was no proof her status was covert.

I just dont get what the right wing talking points has to gain here other than confusing their own to think there was no crime?

How can anyone buy such tripe?

Dumbshit. The grand jury was convened to determine if there was sufficient evidence to support presenting the case to a petit pury in court. In a grand jury, the prosecutor gets to present a compelling argument which the grand jury gets to determine as either sufficient or insufficient to validate sending the case before the petit jury. The grand jury is NOT a valid court of law since the defendants are not allowed to present any testimony of their own.

Do yourself a favor and get an education before coming back and blathering some more. All you're doing is showing your own ignorance.

 

[Truthmatters]

And they will not conviene a grand jury if there was no crime to "possibly" break!

 

[Truthmatters]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340.htmlFITZGERALD:
this is a transcirpt of Fitzgerald himself
"The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well- known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security.

Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003.

But Mr. Novak was not the first reporter to be told that Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, Ambassador Wilson's wife Valerie, worked at the CIA. Several other reporters were told.

In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson. "



Note the word fact from the guy and realise it was not and is still not in question.

 

[Truthmatters]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340.html

 

[CockySOB]

And they will not conviene a grand jury if there was no crime to "possibly" break!

You really need to learn how to phrase your statements. The prosecutor will request a grand jury be convened if he believes that he might have enough evidence of a crime to go to (petit) trial. The fact that he convenes a grand jury does NOT mean that such a crime has already been determined to have happened.

Moreover, since the mid 1930's, the overwhelming majority of convened grand juries have returned indictments supporting the prosecution's arguments. The few which have not supported the prosecutor's argument and have determined that there is no probable cause to indict the defendants are known as "runaway grand juries." This statistical finding has fueled the idea that the grand jury system is (for the most part) a rubber-stamp for the prosecution to bring charges.

Also worth noting is that in our Federal system, any prosecutor bringing Federal criminal charges must present his case first to a convened grand jury for indictment of the accused, and the if indictments are hadned down from the grand jury, the petit jury will be convened to determine the legal findinggs of the case.

What you seem to disregard is that simply convening a grand jury does NOT mean that a crime has been committed, only that the prosecutor believes he has probable cause supporting an indictment.

 

[CockySOB]

Note the word fact from the guy and realise it was not and is still not in question.

And because the person's opinion matches your own, you're more than willing to take his opined "fact" as gospel, aren't you. Opinion is not fact until processed in a court of law, specifically when a question of criminal action is at hand.

 

[Care4all]

Patrick Fitzgerald is NOT Mike Nifong.

There have been no charges against Patrick Fitzgerald for any wrong doing.

Stop disparaging him for no reason other than political hackery Cocky....YOU do a disservice to our justice system imo, by doing that without merit or cause.

Care

 

[Annie]

You really need to learn how to phrase your statements. The prosecutor will request a grand jury be convened if he believes that he might have enough evidence of a crime to go to (petit) trial. The fact that he convenes a grand jury does NOT mean that such a crime has already been determined to have happened.

Moreover, since the mid 1930's, the overwhelming majority of convened grand juries have returned indictments supporting the prosecution's arguments. The few which have not supported the prosecutor's argument and have determined that there is no probable cause to indict the defendants are known as "runaway grand juries." This statistical finding has fueled the idea that the grand jury system is (for the most part) a rubber-stamp for the prosecution to bring charges.

Also worth noting is that in our Federal system, any prosecutor bringing Federal criminal charges must present his case first to a convened grand jury for indictment of the accused, and the if indictments are hadned down from the grand jury, the petit jury will be convened to determine the legal findinggs of the case.

What you seem to disregard is that simply convening a grand jury does NOT mean that a crime has been committed, only that the prosecutor believes he has probable cause supporting an indictment.

Too true and there's the proverbial 'ham sandwich' factor:

http://www.constitution.org/jury/jury.htm

Jury Reform

When the United States was founded, the jury system was made a part of its system of government. This was done for one main reason: because the Founders did not trust judges, prosecutors, investigators, and other officials to administer justice. The jury is the ultimate safeguard of our constitutional rights, and never before in our history have those rights been in greater danger.

There are two kinds of juries: trial and grand. In a jury trial, the jury is the real judge. The "judge" who presides over the trial is really the president of the court. His proper job is only to control procedure.

There are two kinds of trial: criminal and civil. In a civil trial, the jury decides based on a preponderance of evidence, and a unanimous vote is not required. In a criminal trial, the jury has the duty to acquit the accused unless the prosecution proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and it takes the vote of all twelve jurors to convict. Once acquitted, the accused may not be retried for the same offense.

A grand jury does not decide guilt. It investigates the facts in a case and recommends a course of action. The most common issue put to a grand jury is to decide if there is sufficient evidence in a case to prosecute the accused. The finding that there is sufficient evidence is called an indictment, and there is a constitutional requirement that persons accused of serious crimes must be indicted by a grand jury before they may be prosecuted in a trial. This is to protect innocent persons from being prosecuted by corrupt, abusive, incompetent, or overzealous prosecutors. However, a grand jury can investigate any issue. They have the power to decide what issues to investigate, the power to subpoena witnesses to testify before them, and to make any finding or recommendation that they think their investigation merits. Such a finding and recommendation is called a presentment.

But most grand juries today don't do their duty the way the Founders intended they should. They too often serve as rubber stamps for prosecutors, who often joke that they can "indict a ham sandwich".

 

[Truthmatters]

http://tinyurl.com/2csl6t


this is exbit A of the court documents you fool!

Now for once in your life accept FACTS!

 

[CockySOB]

Patrick Fitzgerald is NOT Mike Nifong.

There have been no charges against Patrick Fitzgerald for any wrong doing.

Stop disparaging him for no reason other than political hackery Cocky....YOU do a disservice to our justice system imo, by doing that without merit or cause.

Care

I'm not disparaging Fitzgerald at all, dufus! I'm pointing out that just because a prosecutor makes a statement and claims it is "obvious" or "fact" does NOT necessarily make it so.

I happen to like Fitzgerald and think that he performed his duties pretty well. I know of some questions regarding the Constitutionality of his appointment and the authority he exercised while performing the investigation, but I doubt that they have much of any chance of succeeding.

What is at issue is that you and TruthMatters keep insisting that Fitzgerald's statement constitute some legal fact and they do not and for good reason: there's ALWAYS the possibility that a prosecutor might overstep his authority and the law while conducting his investigation and prosecution. Nifong has become the poster-child for that possibility.

I'm not the hack here, sugar. Are you forgetting that I have no problem with Libby doing time for perjury and making false statements? I support his doing time for what has become a legal fact of committing perjury and making false statements. I'm not convinced that he obstructed justice, but currently it is a legal fact that he did obstruct justice. I just happen to believe that the obstruction charge will get overturned on appeal (refer to prior posts for more info on this).

 

[CockySOB]

http://tinyurl.com/2csl6t


this is exbit A of the court documents you fool!

Now for once in your life accept FACTS!

And again, this was introduced as evidence from the prosecution. It does NOT constitute and binding legal fact. If you want to get right down to it, apparently the grand jury did not believe that Plame was covert per the law or Libby would have been indicted for violating one of the laws regarding illegal dissemination of classified information, including the IIPA. What should this tell you, numbskull? That the grand jury didn't believe she was covert under the law any more than I do!

You're a broken record without any substance. The next time someone offers you a crack pipe, you really, REALLY ought to pass on it....