In article , says...
jps wrote:

Skipper says...
bb wrote:

Obstruction for What?
Libby is charged with lying about a crime that wasn't committed.

Last I checked a bj wasn't a crime.

Many prostitutes wish it were so.

That's right Snippy. Clearly, you've never had sex you haven't had to
pay for.

Last I heard Monica didn't charge, unlike your wife.

Clearly? Now if that's an example of a Dem's cognitive skills, it's no
wonder they're so screwed.

You wouldn't recognize a cognitive skill if it slapped you upside your
shriveled cranium.

You're a backwoods borg, born of hayseed.

jps

Harry Krause wrote:

Skipper wrote:
NOYB wrote:

A policy dispute indeed! One that culminated into treason committed by
bureaucrats in State and the CIA who worked in concert to destabilize a
President.

And that is the way it is...treason by the Wilsons. They have done great
damage to America.

Treason, eh? You'd think one of the Bushsh*t administration's many
prosecutors would be seeking indictments.

You'da thunk someone with an advanced degree in English would be able to
express themselves without cursing. One wonders if that was a
prevarication also.

--
Skipper

Harry Krause wrote:

Skipper wrote:
bb wrote:

Obstruction for What?
Libby is charged with lying about a crime that wasn't committed.

Last I checked a bj wasn't a crime.

Many prostitutes wish it were so.

Especially after one of your visits, eh?

Particularly when one is up for The Challenge.

--
Skipper

Harry Krause wrote:

Libby is a really smart guy. If he lied, it was to cover up for his
former boss, Dicqueless Cheney.

You present as a very frustrated person, Krause. Did you short your
Halliburton stock?

--
Skipper

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article et,
says...

Obstruction for What?
Libby is charged with lying about a crime that wasn't committed.

Then why lie?

I don't think the facts will bear out that he lied. His testimony may not
square with the testimony of a few news reporters (Russert, Cooper, etc0
but that doesn't mean that his testimony is false.

Finding out who lied is what the trial is about. Someone obviously isn't
telling the truth...and it very well could be Russert and Cooper. (As a side
note, Bush must be absolutely delighted that someone in his staff is getting
raked over the coals as a result of speaking with the media. Bush hates
leaks, and he can use this Libby incident as an example to warn other admin
officials to shut up)


So your next question is: why not charge Russert and Cooper? Because it's
impractical at this point to charge two people whose stories match rather
than one single entity whose story doesn't match the other two. Did you
read the indictment?

Here are the important excerpts:

According to Libby:

"Russert asked LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife worked for

the CIA, and told LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and

At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was surprised to hear that

Wilson's wife worked for the CIA;"



According to Russert:

"Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife

worked for the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew

it"



(so why are we supposed to believe Libby over Russert? This is where
perjury charge came from)



Libby then repeated the same statement to the FBI that he made to the grand
jury:



During a conversation with Tim Russert of NBC News on July 10 or 11, 2003,

Russert asked LIBBY if LIBBY was aware that Wilson's wife worked for the
CIA.

LIBBY responded to Russert that he did not know that, and Russert replied
that all

the reporters knew it. LIBBY was surprised by this statement because, while

speaking with Russert, LIBBY did not recall that he previously had learned
about

Wilson's wife's employment from the Vice President.



(this is where the obstruction of justice charge came from. Notice that it
uses the same Russert/Libby dispute about where the Plame info came
from...and Libby stands by his story)



Two days later, Libby spoke with Cooper. Once again, Libby stated

that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson's wife

worked for the CIA, but LIBBY did not know if this was true. Or if he did,

he states that he didn't confirm the story for Cooper.



Cooper's testimony is :



"LIBBY confirmed for Cooper, without qualification, that

LIBBY had heard that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA"

(So is Libby telling the truth or Cooper?)

Even if Libby and Russert knew about Plame before they each spoke (which
Libby disputes), Libby refused to confirm for Russert that he knew for sure
that Plame was a CIA agent:

" I didn't want him (Russert) to take anything I was saying as in

any way confirming what he said, because at that point in time I did not
recall that

I had ever known, and I thought this is something that he was telling me
that I was

first learning. And so I said, no, I don't know that because I want to be
very careful

not to confirm it for him, so that he didn't take my statement as
confirmation for him.



Mr. Russert said to me, did you know that Ambassador Wilson's wife, or his
wife, works at the CIA? And I said, no, I don't know that. And then he said,
yeah - yes, all the reporters know it. And I said,

again, I don't know that. I just wanted to be clear that I wasn't confirming
anything

for him on this."

Harry Krause wrote:

Try to find something you know and entertain us with that, eh?

Certainly. Let's talk lobsta boats.

--
Skipper

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
says...

"bb" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 16:08:24 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


Obstruction for What?
Libby is charged with lying about a crime that wasn't committed.

Last I checked a bj wasn't a crime.

Precisely. So what were your thoughts about Clinton's impeachment? And
how
do they jive with your eagerness to see Libby burn for a non-crime?

Oh for ****'s sake Toothy!

Clinton lied about an embarrassing bj.

Libby lied about the outing of a CIA agent.

Libby is *accused* of lying. It hasn't been proven that Libby lied. It
easily could be Russert lying. Perhaps he heard Plame's name from people in
the CIA (perhaps Wilson or Plame!) who were seeking to use the press to
destabilize the Bush administration? Being the loyal liberal Democrat that
he is, he went right to the VP's office to let the CIA-led set-up begin.

That's the type of scenario that Jim Hoagland from the Washington Post
presented when he wrote:

"The hidden management of the criminal justice process AND THE NEWS MEDIA
practiced by spooks in Wilson-Rove-Libbygate is nothing short of brilliant.

So you (Bush) were right to fear the agency. Where else do you think the
one-page
crime report that triggered the investigation and then the pressure-building
leaks disclosing its existence came from?""

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...202277_pf.html

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
says...

"bb" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 16:08:24 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


Obstruction for What?
Libby is charged with lying about a crime that wasn't committed.

Last I checked a bj wasn't a crime.

Precisely. So what were your thoughts about Clinton's impeachment?
And
how
do they jive with your eagerness to see Libby burn for a non-crime?

Oh for ****'s sake Toothy!

Clinton lied about an embarrassing bj.

Libby lied about the outing of a CIA agent.

Libby is *accused* of lying. It hasn't been proven that Libby lied. It
easily could be Russert lying. Perhaps he heard Plame's name from people
in
the CIA (perhaps Wilson or Plame!) who were seeking to use the press to
destabilize the Bush administration? Being the loyal liberal Democrat
that
he is, he went right to the VP's office to let the CIA-led set-up begin.

That's the type of scenario that Jim Hoagland from the Washington Post
presented when he wrote:

"The hidden management of the criminal justice process AND THE NEWS MEDIA
practiced by spooks in Wilson-Rove-Libbygate is nothing short of
brilliant.

So you (Bush) were right to fear the agency. Where else do you think the
one-page
crime report that triggered the investigation and then the
pressure-building
leaks disclosing its existence came from?""


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2/AR2005110202
277_pf.html



And there was no "outing" of a CIA agent either.

In article et,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
says...

"bb" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 16:08:24 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


Obstruction for What?
Libby is charged with lying about a crime that wasn't committed.

Last I checked a bj wasn't a crime.

Precisely. So what were your thoughts about Clinton's impeachment? And
how
do they jive with your eagerness to see Libby burn for a non-crime?

Oh for ****'s sake Toothy!

Clinton lied about an embarrassing bj.

Libby lied about the outing of a CIA agent.

Libby is *accused* of lying.

So, if there was no crime or misuse of power, why did Libby testify the
way he did?

Why would Libby say something that directly contradicts his own notes?

Perjury isn't something that's taken lightly by federal prosecutors.

Would you tell a different story than what you know is in your own notes
about the details being investigated?

If you'd like to wait until after he's gone to trial to find out whether
he did lie, so be it but don't bitch about the outcome beforehand.

If he's accused and not-guilty he'll get off. If he's convicted or plea
bargains then we'll know he lied and I'll once again ask the question,

Why would he lie?

jps

In article ,
says...

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
says...

"bb" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 16:08:24 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


Obstruction for What?
Libby is charged with lying about a crime that wasn't committed.

Last I checked a bj wasn't a crime.

Precisely. So what were your thoughts about Clinton's impeachment?
And
how
do they jive with your eagerness to see Libby burn for a non-crime?

Oh for ****'s sake Toothy!

Clinton lied about an embarrassing bj.

Libby lied about the outing of a CIA agent.

Libby is *accused* of lying. It hasn't been proven that Libby lied. It
easily could be Russert lying. Perhaps he heard Plame's name from people
in
the CIA (perhaps Wilson or Plame!) who were seeking to use the press to
destabilize the Bush administration? Being the loyal liberal Democrat
that
he is, he went right to the VP's office to let the CIA-led set-up begin.

That's the type of scenario that Jim Hoagland from the Washington Post
presented when he wrote:

"The hidden management of the criminal justice process AND THE NEWS MEDIA
practiced by spooks in Wilson-Rove-Libbygate is nothing short of
brilliant.

So you (Bush) were right to fear the agency. Where else do you think the
one-page
crime report that triggered the investigation and then the
pressure-building
leaks disclosing its existence came from?""


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2/AR2005110202
277_pf.html



And there was no "outing" of a CIA agent either.

You, again, prove what an uninformed pea brain you are.

Valerie Plame was working in a company that was purposefully set up to
provide cover for a handful of CIA agents. Her specialty was WMDs.

Not only was her cover blown but the cover of all her associates in that
company were blown. The outing ruined several people's careers.

That's treasonous.

Libby, Rove and Cheney should be keel hauled somewhere around where the
Republicans were going to build the bridge to nowhere. During December.

jps