Modified Rapture

Locked
Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Modified Rapture

Post by Corlyss_D » Tue Dec 06, 2005 2:39 pm

I want to see the guy politically hanged by his contitutency, not persecuted on trumped up charges that don't even pass the laff test.

Judge keeps DeLay felony charges
Ralph Blumenthal and Carl Hulse, New York Times
December 6, 2005


HOUSTON -- A Texas judge dismissed one charge against Rep. Tom DeLay on Monday but let stand two more serious charges, all but dooming the former House majority leader's hopes of regaining the office when Congress resumes in January.

Judge Pat Priest voided charges against the Texas Republican and two codefendants of conspiracy to violate the state election code by making an illegal corporate contribution. He left standing charges against them of money laundering and conspiracy to launder money.

The decision moves DeLay and Republican fundraisers John Colyandro and James Ellis a big step closer to facing trial, perhaps as soon as January, on felony charges punishable by prison terms and fines.

They involve $190,000 that the state says was collected from corporate donors in 2002 and, in violation of Texas election and money laundering laws, routed through Republican political action committees to seven Republicans running for the Texas House. Priest ruled that the conspiracy provisions of the state election code did not take effect until a year after the charged violations.

DeLay's office in Washington released a statement that put a positive spin on the ruling and once again attacked the prosecutor who bought the charges, Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle in Austin.

"The court's decision to dismiss a portion of Ronnie Earle's manufactured and flawed case against Mr. DeLay underscores just how baseless and politically motivated the charges were," the statement said. Along with DeLay's earlier success in disqualifying a previous judge accused of Democratic political partisanship, the statement said that the ruling "represents yet another legal victory" and that DeLay was "encouraged by the swift progress of the legal proceedings" and looked forward to his eventual exoneration.

Earle declined to comment on the ruling, saying it was under study. The state has 15 days to appeal for reinstatement of the dismissed election law charges. DeLay cannot appeal until after a trial, Priest said.

A defense lawyer involved in the case conceded that the ruling could be read as a substantial victory for the prosecution. But Dick DeGuerin, DeLay's chief lawyer, insisted, "we won more than they did," contending that the remaining charges would be "impossible to prove."

If all the charges had been dismissed, DeLay, 58, who has represented a suburban Houston district since 1985, had a clear path to return to his leadership post in Congress. But the split decision eliminated that possibility and significantly complicated his effort to retain a leadership role.

"There are likely to be leadership elections in January," said Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.

Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri, the Republican whip, is serving temporarily as majority leader since DeLay resigned after his indictment.

The House returns today and is expected to meet for about two weeks before adjourning until late January.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright 2005 Star Tribune. All rights reserved
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Werner
CMG's Elder Statesman
Posts: 4223
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:23 pm
Location: Irvington, NY

Post by Werner » Tue Dec 06, 2005 4:21 pm

Corlyss, I agree - but getting rid of him any way poassible bears keeping him in office.
Werner Isler

Classicus Maximus
Posts: 64
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:28 pm

Re: Modified Rapture

Post by Classicus Maximus » Tue Dec 06, 2005 4:40 pm

I want to see the guy politically hanged by his contitutency, not persecuted on trumped up charges that don't even pass the laff test.
The key to the money laudering charge is not laughed away.
Note bolded paragraphs:
===================================
DeLay's Corporate Fundraising Investigated
Money Was Directed to Texas GOP to Help State Redistricting Effort

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 12, 2004; Page A01

In May 2001, Enron's top lobbyists in Washington advised the company chairman that then-House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) was pressing for a $100,000 contribution to his political action committee, in addition to the $250,000 the company had already pledged to the Republican Party that year.

DeLay requested that the new donation come from "a combination of corporate and personal money from Enron's executives," with the understanding that it would be partly spent on "the redistricting effort in Texas," said the e-mail to Kenneth L. Lay from lobbyists Rick Shapiro and Linda Robertson.

The e-mail, which surfaced in a subsequent federal probe of Houston-based Enron, is one of at least a dozen documents obtained by The Washington Post that show DeLay and his associates directed money from corporations and Washington lobbyists to Republican campaign coffers in Texas in 2001 and 2002 as part of a plan to redraw the state's congressional districts.

DeLay's fundraising efforts helped produce a stunning political success. Republicans took control of the Texas House for the first time in 130 years, Texas congressional districts were redrawn to send more Republican lawmakers to Washington, and DeLay -- now the House majority leader -- is more likely to retain his powerful post after the November election, according to political experts.

But DeLay and his colleagues also face serious legal challenges: Texas law bars corporate financing of state legislature campaigns, and a Texas criminal prosecutor is in the 20th month of digging through records of the fundraising, looking at possible violations of at least three statutes. A parallel lawsuit, also in the midst of discovery, is seeking $1.5 million in damages from DeLay's aides and one of his political action committees -- Texans for a Republican Majority (TRMPAC) -- on behalf of four defeated Democratic lawmakers.

DeLay has not been named as a target of the investigation. The prosecutor has said he is focused on the activities of political action committees linked to DeLay and the redistricting effort. But officials in the prosecutor's office say anyone involved in raising, collecting or spending the corporate money, who also knew of its intended use in Texas elections, is vulnerable.

Documents unearthed in the probe make clear that DeLay was central to creating and overseeing the fundraising. What the prosecutors are still assessing is who knew about the day-to-day operations of TRMPAC and how its money was used to benefit Texas House candidates.

Several weeks ago, DeLay hired two criminal defense attorneys to represent him in the probe. He previously created a fund for corporate donors to help him pay legal bills related to allegations of improper fundraising, and is now considering extending its reach to include the fees for these attorneys.

DeLay declined to comment for this article. Stuart Roy, his spokesman, said: "DeLay is doing everything moral, legal and ethical to increase the Republican majority and advance conservative ideas. He raised legal campaign money for effective political activity and that makes his critics enraged. Unfortunately, some Democrats are making an attempt to criminalize politics."

Cristen D. Feldman, the Texas lawyer who filed the suit, said in response, "I guess DeLay and his team forgot they were from Texas . . . [where] the prohibition against clandestine corporate cash is 100 years old."

Many corporate donors were explicitly told in TRMPAC letters that their donations were not "disclosable" in public records. But documents from several unrelated investigations offer an exceptional glimpse of how corporate money was able to influence state politics -- and also of DeLay's bold use of his network of corporate supporters to advance his agenda.

By investing as much as $2.5 million in corporate money in the 2002 election, TRMPAC and another group, the Texas Association of Business, were able to help elect 26 new Republican candidates to the Texas House. The new Republican majority then redrew the congressional district boundaries and, as a result, five Democrats are likely to lose in the Nov. 2 election, according to political experts.

This case "is only one piece of a much larger picture," said Ronnie Earle, the Travis County district attorney running the investigation. "And the larger picture is a blueprint of what is happening in the country, namely a saturation of the political process by large corporate interests with large amounts of money."

Earle, an elected Democrat who oversees the state's Public Integrity Unit, previously prosecuted four elected Republicans and 12 Democrats for corruption or election law violations. So far, he has issued about 100 subpoenas in this case, most of them secret.

Texas is one of 18 states that bar political contributions from corporations for election purposes. But the law has an exception for expenses incurred by political action committees. At issue in Earle's probe, and the lawsuit, is whether the law permits corporations to finance only routine administrative expenses, such as rent, as an official of the Texas Ethics Commission contends, or whether the law permits corporations to finance virtually any activity besides direct contributions to candidates, as TRMPAC's lawyer contends.

The Texas statutes involved -- barring the acceptance of prohibited contributions, the donation of corporate money for improper purposes and the expenditure of money for unauthorized uses -- have been invoked in only a few previous cases. Violations are punishable by as many as 10 years in prison.
Requests to Enron

DeLay's effort to build a Republican majority in the state legislature by channeling large campaign donations to Texas from lobbyists and corporations with interests before Congress dates at least from the 2000 election.

In an e-mail dated July 24 of that year, Enron Executive Vice President Steven J. Kean advised colleagues that DeLay had sent notes to company executives "about designating portions of their contributions for use in Texas."

Three days later, Enron sent a check for $50,000 to the Republican National State Elections Committee (RNSEC) in Washington, and three top executives sent checks totaling $25,000. Around the same time, RNSEC transferred $1.2 million to the Texas Republican Party, which in turn donated $1.3 million to 20 legislative candidates that year, according to federal and state records.

Public records do not track the final destination of the Enron contribution. But Republican National Committee spokeswoman Christine Iverson said any corporate money sent to Texas by RNSEC was spent only for allowable purposes.

In 2001, DeLay assisted Enron in its efforts to secure deregulation legislation. Houston business lobbyist Anne Culver also sent executives at Enron and other energy firms an e-mail in March of that year stating that "Mr. DeLay is interested in what he and the other congressmen may be able to due [sic] legislatively to assist in addressing some of the issues we have" with new pollution-control rules.

DeLay's daughter, Dani Ferro, played a role in arranging access for corporations that gave money to DeLay's project and earned fees for planning fundraising events. On Oct. 10, 2001, Ferro called Enron's Washington-based lobbyists to remind them of an upcoming fundraising event in Florida. "As part of platinum sponsorship, we have the opportunity to have a dinner with Congressman DeLay either here or in Houston," said an e-mail from lobbyist Carolyn Cooney to colleague Linda Robertson. "Dani wants to know" when to schedule it, Cooney added.

Roy, the DeLay spokesman, said there was nothing unusual about DeLay's contacts with Enron, a major local employer that had not yet become notorious for accounting fraud.

Ferro, who has not been named as a target in the investigation but has turned over documents to the grand jury, declined to be quoted for this article.
For a Republican Majority

The efforts to collect money from Enron represented a small part of DeLay's overall campaign to build a GOP majority in the Texas House. DeLay conceived of TRMPAC as a way to counter Democratic spending and pour new money from corporations and their executives into the redistricting effort.

TRMPAC's startup expenses in 2001 were covered by $50,000 in corporate money from DeLay's principal political action committee, Americans for a Republican Majority (ARMPAC). A second payment of $25,000 was made in late 2002. TRMPAC then raised $525,000 in corporate money on its own, and spent less than $70,000 on its director's salary; the rest went mostly toward fundraising, receptions, polls, candidate evaluations, voter identification and private investigations of key Democratic candidates, according to files obtained by The Post.

TRMPAC's director was John Colyandro, a veteran of White House political adviser Karl Rove's direct-mail firm; one of its decision-makers was Jim Ellis, who runs DeLay's ARMPAC; and its chief corporate fundraiser was the same person who performed that function for ARMPAC. As it turned out, ARMPAC donated money to 15 of the same Republican candidates in Texas, sending along cover letters printed on TRMPAC stationery, lawyers said. No allegations of wrongdoing have been made about the ARMPAC donations.

DeLay chaired the TRMPAC advisory board, wrote his own cover letter for its fundraising brochure and received copies of memos that described Texas candidates being considered for TRMPAC funding. He also traveled to Texas to appear at fundraisers and meet with donors, flying at least once on a plane provided by a private company reimbursed by TRMPAC.

TRMPAC never incurred much in the way of expenses such as rent, utilities and supplies -- of the sort that the Ethics Commission says corporations are allowed to finance. "For all functional purposes," Colyandro said in his court deposition, it was run from the home office of its treasurer. Colyandro did not remember leasing any office space or paying a utility bill.

Colyandro set up a multi-tiered membership program for corporate donors: $100,000 bought a "private dinner" with board members such as DeLay, and $50,000 guaranteed a "special dinner" including two other contributors. But even smaller sums brought access: Jack Dillard, a Philip Morris official, sent $10,000 to TRMPAC in July 22, 2002, and in a letter expressed thanks "for the invitation to meet Congressman DeLay in Austin next week."

Some corporations were careful to specify that their contributions were solely meant to defray legally permissible administrative expenses. TRMPAC solicitations being investigated did not mention the restrictions. For example, DeLay was the featured "special guest" at a fundraising luncheon for TRMPAC at the Houston Petroleum Club, where donors were asked to contribute $15,000 to be considered a co-chair and $25,000 to be listed as an underwriter.

"Corporate checks are acceptable," the invitation stated, according to a copy obtained by The Post.

TRMPAC's appeals worked. More than $254,000, out of a total of $600,000, was collected from 14 corporations between the middle of May and early September in 2002. Only two were headquartered in Texas -- a beer distributor and a builder of prisons; the others were mostly firms with regulatory or policy interests in both Washington and Texas.

For example, Westar Energy, which in 2002 sought a federal tax break, gave $25,000 to win "a seat at the table" during congressional deliberations about the provision, even though it had no business in Texas, according to an internal company e-mail that surfaced in a criminal probe. Its executives joined DeLay -- and top officials from other TRMPAC contributors -- at a golf resort in Puerto Rico owned by a TRMPAC contributor that year. DeLay supported the tax break Westar wanted.

Two other internal documents point to heavy involvement by DeLay in TRMPAC's activities. State Rep. Dianne White Delisi, a TRMPAC board member, told oilman T. Boone Pickens in a letter before the 2002 election that "House Majority Whip Tom DeLay agreed to help us and has been an ardent advocate for us by raising money, making phone calls, serving as a special guest at events, and providing assistance with leading strategists," according to a copy. Pickens's company subsequently donated $5,000, and Pickens sent a personal check for $50,000.

A TRMPAC fundraiser also told members of its "finance" board around the same period that DeLay would participate in a conference call "to update everyone on TRMPAC's efforts to date and to discuss our strategy." Roy said DeLay appears to have participated in the call, adding that Delisi's letter accurately summarized DeLay's overall involvement.
RNC Involvement

Besides spending the corporate money it collected to benefit targeted candidates in 2002 -- through polls, fundraising events, voter identification efforts and investigations of Democratic opponents -- TRMPAC also sent corporate money to the Republican Party in Washington, starting a chain of events under review by prosecutors.

It worked like this: On Sept. 10, TRMPAC's director told its accountant that "a blank soft-dollar check" made out to the Republican National State Elections Committee should be sent overnight to Ellis, the ARMPAC director, at his headquarters in Washington, according to a copy of the director's e-mail. "Soft dollars" was a reference to corporate money. Ellis inscribed $190,000 on the check.

The national committee, in turn, sent the same total amount in seven checks ranging from $20,000 to $40,000 to Texas House candidates on Oct. 4, 2002, completing a transfer that Earle and others believe may have been intended to hide the corporate origins of the money and circumvent the law.

The RNSEC contributions were highly unusual. In no other instance did RNSEC spend more than $2,000 on a state legislative candidate in September, October or November; virtually all of its money went instead to Republican governors and attorneys general.


Earle is scrutinizing the Oct. 4 contributions and trying to determine who was involved in "the decision-making process," according to a copy of one of his subpoenas.

Iverson, the RNC spokeswoman, said the Oct. 4 donations were drawn from a non-corporate account, altogether different from the corporate-related account into which the TRMPAC check was deposited. The fact that the total incoming and outgoing amounts were identical was simply "coincidence," she said. She declined to make available documents she said would support the claim, citing the pending lawsuit.

Terry Scarborough, a lawyer for TRMPAC, similarly said he considers the transaction legal.

Jonathan D. Pauerstein, a lawyer for Ellis, who signed the TRMPAC check, said he also considers the transaction legal and noted that matching dollar exchanges of this kind between state organizations and federal parties are common among Democrats as well as Republicans. If they constituted improper laundering, "lots of Democrats and Republicans around the U.S. would have soap on their hands," he said.
Help From Friends

TRMPAC played a central, but not unique, role in DeLay's project, which included other political organizations and was assisted in the end by a key Texas lawmaker.

The nonprofit Texas Association of Business spent $1.9 million in corporate money in 2001 and 2002 to send 4 million letters to voters in many of the same districts where TRMPAC's efforts were concentrated. The group is now a target in the investigation, but its lawyer, Andy Taylor, said it is not subject to the same laws as TRMPAC and did nothing illegal.

The Texas lawmaker who played a critical role in the project was state Rep. Tom Craddick (R), a DeLay ally who was running for House speaker in 2002. On Oct. 21 of that year, TRMPAC sent checks for 14 Republican House candidates to Craddick's office; his office then mailed the checks. The grand jury is now looking into whether this or other actions taken in connection with the speaker's race amounted to using "money or things of value" to influence the outcome of the speaker's election, a violation of state law.

Craddick's lawyer, Roy Minton, said that "there is absolutely nothing illegal" about any actions Craddick took in connection with the race.

In all, 17 House members who received money from TRMPAC were elected. Craddick was elected speaker in a secret ballot, and in May 2003, as the redistricting plan came to the Texas House floor, he ordered state police to help track down Democratic lawmakers trying to boycott the vote. The effort was closely coordinated with DeLay, whose chief political aide Julie Ann Sullivan telephoned the Federal Aviation Administration to find a plane used by some of the Democrats.

The House approved the redistricting plan on Oct. 12, 2003. TRMPAC never reported the bulk of its corporate spending to the Texas Ethics Commission; it was reported only to the Internal Revenue Service, a discrepancy first noticed by a nonprofit advocacy group called Texans for Public Justice. Scarborough, the TRMPAC lawyer, said he believes reporting of this spending in Texas was not required by law.

But Karen Lundquist, the Ethics Commission's nonpartisan executive director, said all expenditures derived from corporate money -- whether for administrative purposes or not -- should have been reported. She also said the rules governing spending by political action committees are clear: Corporate money cannot be used for politically related expenses, such as fundraising and vote drives.

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Re: Modified Rapture

Post by Corlyss_D » Tue Dec 06, 2005 9:02 pm

Classicus Maximus wrote:
I want to see the guy politically hanged by his contitutency, not persecuted on trumped up charges that don't even pass the laff test.
The key to the money laudering charge is not laughed away.
Yes they are. First the prosecutor doesn't even get the dates of the offenses right. Then he stampeeds a new grand jury into the case and hustles up a corrected indictment. This case is going nowhere. It's the moral equivalent of Fitzgerald's feckless indictment against Libby: desperation moves designed to prove there was fire after all that money was spent.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Classicus Maximus
Posts: 64
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:28 pm

Post by Classicus Maximus » Tue Dec 06, 2005 10:45 pm

This case is going nowhere. It's the moral equivalent of Fitzgerald's feckless indictment against Libby:
Oh I get it.
If you lie under oath, then it is okay.
If you obstruct justice using the full power of the White House to do it, then that is okay.
What a damn load of crap that is.

Look at the DoJ report on the Texas redistricting and tell me who is being feckless.

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:46 am

Classicus Maximus wrote:
This case is going nowhere. It's the moral equivalent of Fitzgerald's feckless indictment against Libby:
Oh I get it.
If you lie under oath, then it is okay.
If you obstruct justice using the full power of the White House to do it, then that is okay.
What a damn load of crap that is.
Well, let's see if Fitzgerald can prove the charges. I say he can't. You might try reading something besides the WaPo and NYT to see how weak the respective cases truly are. You can believe what you want, but the facts don't support your theories.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Classicus Maximus
Posts: 64
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:28 pm

Post by Classicus Maximus » Wed Dec 07, 2005 9:04 am

You might try reading something besides the WaPo and NYT to see how weak the respective cases truly are.
I've read the indictment.
I've read how many times Libby lied under oath - according to Fitzgerald and to reporters (Cooper, Russert - Russert may even have his conversation on tape) who have contradicted Libby.

What do you suggest I read to see how weak the case is?

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:52 am

Classicus Maximus wrote:
You might try reading something besides the WaPo and NYT to see how weak the respective cases truly are.
I've read the indictment.
I've read how many times Libby lied under oath - according to Fitzgerald and to reporters (Cooper, Russert - Russert may even have his conversation on tape) who have contradicted Libby.

What do you suggest I read to see how weak the case is?
Indictments themselves are always the most damning collections of verbs. Read some legal and historical analyses, say by Stuart Taylor or Stephen Hayes. If I can think of others, I'll mention them. Others have asked obvious questions, like how come Judith Miller can have contradictory testimony and suffers from a faulty memory, while Libby has a faulty memory and gets indicted. Or have Joe Wilson and Plame herself been put under oath to testify? (Answer: no. Question: why not?) If the earliest record of non-classified discussion of Plame as a CIA agent was by Woodward, why isn't he being charged? Why is anyone being charged when there was no underlying crime? If Andrea Mitchell of NBC can claim in 2003 that it was common knowledge that Plame was a CIA agent, why is Libby being charged at all? Fitzgerald hasn't satisfactorily addressed any of these questions. I predict that unless Fitzgerald gets a jury solely consisting of welfare recipients and civil service workers, Libby will not be convicted of anything. So where does he go to get his reputation back?
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Classicus Maximus
Posts: 64
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:28 pm

Post by Classicus Maximus » Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:36 pm

Read some legal and historical analyses, say by Stuart Taylor or Stephen Hayes.
Why is it that you and Pizza always refer me to hired guns.
Taylor and Hayes are totally partisan.
Should I start referring you to articles in The Nation?

Read analysis of real non-partisan analysts.
They have wondered why Libby made so many statements that were contradicitory to reporters testimony.
Others have asked obvious questions, like how come Judith Miller can have contradictory testimony and suffers from a faulty memory, while Libby has a faulty memory and gets indicted.
Yes - Judith Miller has been less than forthcoming.
Does that make Libby less culpable?
Or have Joe Wilson and Plame herself been put under oath to testify? (Answer: no. Question: why not?)
Hello - They didn't leak classifed information nor did they receive the leak.
If the earliest record of non-classified discussion of Plame as a CIA agent was by Woodward, why isn't he being charged?
It appears that Woodward was leaked to first which is why Fitz called him to testify.
What should he be charged with?
Why is anyone being charged when there was no underlying crime? If Andrea Mitchell of NBC can claim in 2003 that it was common knowledge that Plame was a CIA agent, why is Libby being charged at all?
That is a LIE -
Her ruminating on it was reprehensible but then again how do you explain someone who doesn't recuse herself from economic discussions.
BUT find somewhere in the press where someone has proved that.
In fact reporters who scoured Plame's neighborhood & circle of friends wrote that not one person knew she worked for CIA.
So where does he go to get his reputation back?
You mean he has a reputation after WHIG, no WMD, no 9/11 connection?

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:58 am

Classicus Maximus wrote:Why is it that you and Pizza always refer me to hired guns.
Because we'd like you to be better informed than you oviously are?
Taylor and Hayes are totally partisan.
Being conservatives don't make them partisans. However, being conservatives who know what they are talking about does make them worth reading.
Read analysis of real non-partisan analysts.
You mean like Katrina van der Heuvel?
They have wondered why Libby made so many statements that were contradicitory to reporters testimony.
Why are the reporters's statements the baseline truth? Which leads me back to my question about Miller.

Yes - Judith Miller has been less than forthcoming.
Does that make Libby less culpable?
No, Max, the question is, does it make Libby culpable at all?
Or have Joe Wilson and Plame herself been put under oath to testify? (Answer: no. Question: why not?)
Hello - They didn't leak classifed information nor did they receive the leak.
Hello yourself! If Joe Wilson was blabbing it all over town to anyone and everyone he met in "the right" cocktail parties, and if it was classified enough to get Libby in trouble for revealing it (but remember he wasn't charged with that), then Wilson was most certainly revealing classified information. THAT'S THE POINT OF PUTTING THEM UNDER OATH. At least one person has come forward and stated that Wilson told him about his wife's status. In return for that statement, Wilson's attorney threatened the man with a slander suit unless he retracted the statement. In otherwords, Wilson has lost control of his own narrative of who knew when. Good luck with trying to maintain the artful fiction of the poor little victims.
If the earliest record of non-classified discussion of Plame as a CIA agent was by Woodward, why isn't he being charged?
That is a LIE -
How convenient! She undermines the propaganda, so she lied. Oh, I forgot. Only the WH and Republicans lie. My bad!
Her ruminating on it was reprehensible
But Libby's poor memory is prosecutable! Keep it up. Your argument is just more reason why special prosecutors should not be allowed to bring revenge charges against bystanders when they can't make the underlying case.
In fact reporters who scoured Plame's neighborhood & circle of friends wrote that not one person knew she worked for CIA.
What that does that prove other than they didn't the same bang out of telling their neighbors that they got out of telling the social circles in Washington to which they aspired? You can't prove they didn't tell anybody because they didn't tell some people.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

operafan
Posts: 527
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 10:18 am
Location: San francisco

Post by operafan » Fri Dec 09, 2005 3:22 am

Corlyss_D wrote:
They have wondered why Libby made so many statements that were contradicitory to reporters testimony.
Why are the reporters's statements the baseline truth? Which leads me back to my question about Miller.
Yes - Judith Miller has been less than forthcoming.
Does that make Libby less culpable?
No, Max, the question is, does it make Libby culpable at all?
Libby is culpable because he is charged with lying to the FBI before Ashcroft recused himself, when they all thought this would be an in house investigation. When Ashcroft recused himself, the Special Prosecutor was appointed and the ball game changed. Miller is a different animal from the rest of the reporters because not only was she close to Chalabi who could have given up Plame, she was close to Bolton (then at State and worried about weapons of bioterror, she may have gotten Plame's name from him), she was close to Bush/Cheney/Libby, she was embedded with the U.S. Army in Iraq during Shock and Awe, she wrote a book on bioterror called 'Germ' and might have known about Valerie Plame being in the CIA from that angle (and may have outed her to Libby and/or Rove). Getting to the bottom of that must have been a test of patience.
Or have Joe Wilson and Plame herself been put under oath to testify? (Answer: no. Question: why not?)
Hello - They didn't leak classifed information nor did they receive the leak.
Corlyss_D wrote: Hello yourself! If Joe Wilson was blabbing it all over town to anyone and everyone he met in "the right" cocktail parties, and if it was classified enough to get Libby in trouble for revealing it (but remember he wasn't charged with that), then Wilson was most certainly revealing classified information. THAT'S THE POINT OF PUTTING THEM UNDER OATH. At least one person has come forward and stated that Wilson told him about his wife's status. In return for that statement, Wilson's attorney threatened the man with a slander suit unless he retracted the statement. In otherwords, Wilson has lost control of his own narrative of who knew when. Good luck with trying to maintain the artful fiction of the poor little victims.
Libby wasn't charged with revealing the info because he lied so much to the FBI and the grand jury that Fitzgerald couldn't tell where the truth started and the lies ended, except in perjury(that is where the 'thowing sand in the umpire's eyes' came from). No point in putting Wilson under oath about cocktail party gossip - getting it printed in a national publication is the crime, telling Chris Mathews that 'Wilson's wife is fair game', outing a NOC (blowing up $250,000 to $500,000 in training), blowing the cover of the front company (one CIA agent has died undercover since Plame was outed, who is to know if that death is not blowback from outing) and outing a CIA agent for political gain is telling the CIA recruits exactly how valuable they are. The law against outing a CIA agent it is vague and hard to prosecute (only been done once) but still, on the books.
Corlyss_D wrote:
If the earliest record of non-classified discussion of Plame as a CIA agent was by Woodward, why isn't he being charged?
That is a LIE -
How convenient! She undermines the propaganda, so she lied. Oh, I forgot. Only the WH and Republicans lie. My bad!

Woodward came forward after the first grand jury expired and before the second one had been impaneled. What he actually said to the grand jury, as opposed to public spin, is anyone's guess - in July Woodward said Fitzgerald was a junkyard dog however in November Fitzgerald was revered. Why didn't Woodward come forward earlier? No idea.
Corlyss_D wrote:
Her ruminating on it was reprehensible
But Libby's poor memory is prosecutable! Keep it up. Your argument is just more reason why special prosecutors should not be allowed to bring revenge charges against bystanders when they can't make the underlying case.
[/quote]
No, Libby is charged with lying, it is Rove's memory that is 'bad' reguarding the emails that Rove should have turned in, in the first round of questioning, that Vivak Novak reminded Luskin (Rove's lawyer)about, which Rove turned in on the last day of the last grandjury (and if you can follow that, congradulations). Fitzgerald is not prosecuting reporters for the leak because of the 7 of them that were leaked to, 1 printed the info. The crime under investigation is the outing, not the knowledge or the thought process behind to print or not to print.
Corlyss_D wrote:
In fact reporters who scoured Plame's neighborhood & circle of friends wrote that not one person knew she worked for CIA.
What that does that prove other than they didn't the same bang out of telling their neighbors that they got out of telling the social circles in Washington to which they aspired? You can't prove they didn't tell anybody because they didn't tell some people.
Gossip is not what this case is about. What Joe Wilson said after Novak outed Plame is not what this case is about. The CIA asked for an investigation into who outed their agent. Ashcroft recused himself from the investigation. Fitzgerald seems to be following his authorization letters to a T. Fitzgerald has sucessfully prosecuted the 1993 WTC bombers, and Conrad Black (the latter is one reason indictments are slow in coming). There are 8 pages of Libby's indictment that were withheld from the public. 6 are supposedly going to be made public soon. The last 2 pages are the subject of much speculation.
'She wants to go with him, but her mama don't allow none of that.'

Elementary school child at an opera outreach performance of "Là ci darem la mano!" Don Giovanni - Mozart.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests