I didn't put words in anyone's mouth. Did you happen to notice the question marks at the end?

I'm asking him if that's what he believes.

So it's all a lie? The court documents with the statements about Cheney from Libby are fake?

What court documents? As of "right" now all they have are documents filled by the special prosecutor. None of which have been proved. And funny the only MSM carrying this is CBS and Yahoo. Noticeably absent are the likes of CNN, ABC, MSNBC, etc.

Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said in documents filed last month that he plans to introduce evidence that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's former chief of staff, disclosed to reporters the contents of a classified National Intelligence Estimate in the summer of 2003.

See "no" proof". I hope that eventually they can prove it's a lie and they slap the pee out of Fitzgerald for slander. According to Libby's lawyers he has never said anything of the sort. From CNN:

Attorneys for Libby say Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has repeatedly refused to turn over documents to which they are entitled. "This motion concerns the defense's request for production of documents and information regarding three important issues in this case: what did the press know prior to July 14, 2003 about whether Valerie Plame Wilson worked at the CIA, from whom did they learn it, and with whom did they discuss it," his lawyers argued in court papers.

Kind of funny, ain't it?

What court documents?

These court documents Link

If you read it, it's pretty clear that Fitzgerald has testimony from Libby that states that Libby was authorized by his superiors to disclose contents of the NIE.

So again I ask you, do you really think that a highly esteemed Federal Prosecutor like Fitzgerald would introduce lie about what he has in writing and intends to show in court?

And funny the only MSM carrying this is CBS and Yahoo. Noticeably absent are the likes of CNN, ABC, MSNBC, etc.

Sorry to break it to you, but CBS and Yahoo are not the only ones carrying it. That tell you something?

CNN Link

ABC Link

MSNBC Link

Fox NewsLink

AP Link

I'm sure I could find more for you want if you want...just let me know.

According to Libby's lawyers he has never said anything of the sort. From CNN:Attorneys for Libby say Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has repeatedly refused to turn over documents to which they are entitled. "This motion concerns the defense's request for production of documents and information regarding three important issues in this case: what did the press know prior to July 14, 2003 about whether Valerie Plame Wilson worked at the CIA, from whom did they learn it, and with whom did they discuss it," his lawyers argued in court papers.

That stuff you quoted doesn't say anything about Libby's lawyers denying it. Do you have another link that says that?

According to Libby's lawyers he has never said anything of the sort. From CNN:Attorneys for Libby say Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has repeatedly refused to turn over documents to which they are entitled. "This motion concerns the defense's request for production of documents and information regarding three important issues in this case: what did the press know prior to July 14, 2003 about whether Valerie Plame Wilson worked at the CIA, from whom did they learn it, and with whom did they discuss it," his lawyers argued in court papers. That stuff you quoted doesn't say anything about Libby's lawyers denying it. Do you have another link that says that?

No, what I quoted shows that Mr. Fitzgerald is NOT playing by the required rules of evidence by "not" turning over copies of the "alleged" documents (it's called non-disclosure). And in doing so is shooting his case in the foot. And while I'm thinking about it. "If" this all were true (and I do stress "if".) Then what reason would Libby have to lie to the FBI and a grand jury about the leaking of classified info? All he would have had to do was implicate the VP and Libby would have been scot free.

Fitzgerald declined both requests. "A formal assessment has not been done of the damage caused by the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee, and thus we possess no such document," he wrote in a January 9, 2006, response. In any event, Fitzgerald argued, "we would not view an assessment of the damaged caused by the disclosure as relevant to the issue of whether or not Mr. Libby intentionally lied when he made the statements and gave the grand jury testimony that the grand jury alleged was false." On the question of Wilson's status, Fitzgerald wrote, "We have neither sought, much less obtained, 'all documents, regardless of when created, relating to whether Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee, or any aspect of that status, was classified at any time between May 6, 2003 and July 14, 2003.'" Although Fitzgerald said that "if we locate" such documents, he might turn them over, he argued that he has no responsibility to do so, because they are not relevant to the perjury and obstruction of justice prosecution.

Out of Fitzgerald's own mouth it comes. They do "not" have the required proof. At this point he's shooting off his foot. He is "not" allowed to make such a decision. That has to be done by a judge.

As far as Libby denying it I'm still working on it. I can't remember where I saw it. Damnable CRS.

No, what I quoted shows that Mr. Fitzgerald is NOT playing by the required rules of evidence by "not" turning over copies of the "alleged" documents (it's called non-disclosure).

If you read through the papers, you'll see they state they have never actually has posession of the documents in question. Non-disclosure wouldn't seem to apply to something that there's no evidence it even exists. Also, as he stated, they are irrelevent to the actual charges, so again, non-disclosure doesn't apply. It doesn't seem like Libby's lawyers have proof thet have them either, so I really doubt that Fitzgerald is "shooting himself in the foot". Say you what like about Fitzgerald, but there's nothing in his past that indicates he's a dummy.

If you read through the papers, you'll see they state they have never actually has posession of the documents in question

I guess you didn't "read" my entire post. I quote.....

Fitzgerald declined both requests. "A formal assessment has not been done of the damage caused by the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee, and thus we possess no such document," he wrote in a January 9, 2006, response. In any event, Fitzgerald argued, "we would not view an assessment of the damaged caused by the disclosure as relevant to the issue of whether or not Mr. Libby intentionally lied when he made the statements and gave the grand jury testimony that the grand jury alleged was false." On the question of Wilson's status, Fitzgerald wrote, "We have neither sought, much less obtained, 'all documents, regardless of when created, relating to whether Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee, or any aspect of that status, was classified at any time between May 6, 2003 and July 14, 2003.'" Although Fitzgerald said that "if we locate" such documents, he might turn them over, he argued that he has no responsibility to do so, because they are not relevant to the perjury and obstruction of justice prosecution.

Now wipe the egg off your face. It looks disgusting.

Say you what like about Fitzgerald, but there's nothing in his past that indicates he's a dummy.

Fitzgerald is a "jerk" and he's on a witch hunt. He's pissed because he couldn't get Libby on the original charge.

I guess you didn't "read" my entire post. I quote..... Fitzgerald declined both requests. "A formal assessment has not been done of the damage caused by the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee, and thus we possess no such document," he wrote in a January 9, 2006, response. In any event, Fitzgerald argued, "we would not view an assessment of the damaged caused by the disclosure as relevant to the issue of whether or not Mr. Libby intentionally lied when he made the statements and gave the grand jury testimony that the grand jury alleged was false." On the question of Wilson's status, Fitzgerald wrote, "We have neither sought, much less obtained, 'all documents, regardless of when created, relating to whether Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee, or any aspect of that status, was classified at any time between May 6, 2003 and July 14, 2003.'" Although Fitzgerald said that "if we locate" such documents, he might turn them over, he argued that he has no responsibility to do so, because they are not relevant to the perjury and obstruction of justice prosecution. Now wipe the egg off your face. It looks disgusting.

What are you talking about?? You highlighted the part where Fitzgerald says he "posesses no such document" and "We have never sought, much less obtained,"...

You are arguing against yourself. You said earlier Fitzgerald "is NOT playing by the required rules of evidence by "not" turning over copies of the "alleged" documents (it's called non-disclosure)"

So I ask again...how is he supposed to turn over something he hasn't even tried to get, and has never had?

Do you even read this tuff you post before you hit Submit? If so, why do you keep proving yourself wrong? I'm honestly having a hard time following what your argument is here.

Fitzgerald is a "jerk" based on.....what?

Did you find that link to Libby's people denying implicating Cheney yet?

Fitzgerald is a "jerk" based on.....what?

Again, but this time try comprehending what your reading...

Fitzgerald is a "jerk" and he's on a witch hunt. He's just pissed because he couldn't get Libby on the original charge.

Since this "is" my blog, for something like this I don't need to base it on anything but "my opinion".
And "you" stated...

If you read through the papers, you'll see they state they have never actually has posession of the documents in question.

Thus making an assumption that I had not read "through the papers". To which I pointed out that your "asumption" was wrong and that I "had" read them. What I high-lighted in reply #21 was the same dang thing I had high-lighted in reply #19, that is "if" you had been paying attention.

Since this "is" my blog, for something like this I don't need to base it on anything but "my opinion". And "you" stated...

I just asked what you're basing that on. It's not as if I got all huffy and said "PROVE IT" like many are fond of doing around here. I'm just curious about what he's done to make you think he's a jerk.

Thus making an assumption that I had not read "through the papers". To which I pointed out that your "asumption" was wrong and that I "had" read them. What I high-lighted in reply #21 was the same dang thing I had high-lighted in reply #19, that is "if" you had been paying attention.

If you read them, then why do you persist on saying Fitzgerald is guilty of non-disclosure? How can he turn over something he doesn't have?

If you read them, then why do you persist on saying Fitzgerald is guilty of non-disclosure? How can he turn over something he doesn't have?

"Where" do you get that I persist in saying it? I said it "one time", and only once.

I just asked what you're basing that on. It's not as if I got all huffy and said "PROVE IT" like many are fond of doing around here. I'm just curious about what he's done to make you think he's a jerk.

Again "if" you were paying attention I gave you my reasons, not once but twice. Let's make it 3 times, shall we?

Fitzgerald is a "jerk" and he's on a witch hunt. He's just pissed because he couldn't get Libby on the original charge.

And before you ask, what he's doing to Libby is a witch hunt. They started on one charge and when they "realized" they couldn't make it stick ( after a lot of legal wrangling) they changed gears and indicted him on something else entirely by saying he lied to the FBI during questioning. Mark my words this too shall pass.

They started on one charge and when they "realized" they couldn't make it stick ( after a lot of legal wrangling) they changed gears and indicted him on something else entirely by saying he lied to the FBI during questioning. Mark my words this too shall pass.

Yes, I'm very familiar with how that process works, as is Clinton. But remember what the popular refain was back then? Lying to a grand jury and obstruction of justice are very serious crimes.

This will pass? In what sense? Are you saying Libby won't convicted or that we'll forget about it by next year when the trial starts?

They started on one charge and when they "realized" they couldn't make it stick ( after a lot of legal wrangling) they changed gears and indicted him on something else entirely by saying he lied to the FBI during questioning. Mark my words this too shall pass. Yes, I'm very familiar with how that process works, as is Clinton. But remember what the popular refain was back then? Lying to a grand jury and obstruction of justice are very serious crimes. This will pass? In what sense? Are you saying Libby won't convicted or that we'll forget about it by next year when the trial starts?

Libby won't be convicted of anything. Like I said this is nothing more than a trumped up witch hunt.

butitsnotalwaysthatway

butitsnotalwaysthatway

butitsnotalwaysthatway