another Bush appointee going to prison

You didnt read it did you?

Son, I know what you posted - the "declassified summary of the employment of Valerie Plame-Wilson."

And you still haven't come to the realization that no matter how much you kick and scream, your little opinion does NOT constitute a legal fact. The substantive crime Fitzgerald was investigating clearly did NOT occur, and the only thing he was left with was a couple of process crimes against Libby which he properly followed up on.

My heart bleeds for you, nugget. :eusa_boohoo:
 
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....

But do you really BELIEVE that Libby's Lawyers would NOT REFUTE the evidence Fitzgerald introduced in his trial if IT WERE NOT TRUE AND REFUTABLE?

That is quite naive!

Care
 
But do you really BELIEVE that Libby's Lawyers would NOT REFUTE the evidence Fitzgerald introduced in his trial if IT WERE NOT TRUE AND REFUTABLE?

That is quite naive!

Care

Gee, you mean the "unclassified summary" which was NEVER introduced at trial? It was presented during the sentencing phase! This is not when new evidence gets admitted in.

Frankly you both need to go back and re-read both Fitzgerald's sentencing memorandum AND Judge Wilson's sentence ruling again. Both indicate that Libby was not tried on anything other than the indictments issued via grand jury. That "summary" is NOT evidence presented in court and as such was never tested under the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Try again.
 
Some will do anything to believe lies.

I just cant believe that this guy refuses to realize the CIA, the court system,the grand Jury and all the documentation so that he can continue to believe his parties talking points?

Good point about Libbys lawyers not challenging the Facts surrounding the case Care.
 
Gee, you mean the "unclassified summary" which was NEVER introduced at trial? It was presented during the sentencing phase! This is not when new evidence gets admitted in.

Frankly you both need to go back and re-read both Fitzgerald's sentencing memorandum AND Judge Wilson's sentence ruling again. Both indicate that Libby was not tried on anything other than the indictments issued via grand jury. That "summary" is NOT evidence presented in court and as such was never tested under the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Try again.


You dont seem to understand what "unclassified summary" means do you?

It means the CIA allowed this fact to be presented and unclassified enough info to PROVE she was covert.'

It says in the exibit that they weighted the need for this to be prosicuted and chose to do it because the need was so strong.

Next time READ the whole thing without your blinders on.
 
Gee, you mean the "unclassified summary" which was NEVER introduced at trial? It was presented during the sentencing phase! This is not when new evidence gets admitted in.

Frankly you both need to go back and re-read both Fitzgerald's sentencing memorandum AND Judge Wilson's sentence ruling again. Both indicate that Libby was not tried on anything other than the indictments issued via grand jury. That "summary" is NOT evidence presented in court and as such was never tested under the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Try again.

I never said he was charged legally for it or tried in a court of law for it. You and only you are trying to make that an issue. :eusa_think:

Care
 
Some will do anything to believe lies.

I just cant believe that this guy refuses to realize the CIA, the court system,the grand Jury and all the documentation so that he can continue to believe his parties talking points?

Good point about Libbys lawyers not challenging the Facts surrounding the case Care.

Right. When you pull your head out of her arse, be sure to take some really deep breaths and try to resuscitate some of your dying brain cells.

The evidence supports the opinion that she was covert as the CIA considers the word. However that evidence has not been tested in court to determine if she was covert per the US Codes.

The only people here who are party-ass-kissers are you two. You're both so desperate to try to condemn the GWB administration you're willing to abdicate the rule of law in favor of the rule of opinion - but only when that opinion mirrors your masters' opinions.

And that exhibit you ninny, was for the sentencing recommendation which was presented AFTER trial and was not constrained by the Federal Rules of Evidence.
 
Yes it was!

No one challenged the evidence my friend which means it passed muster.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top