Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 68
  1. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
       #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I wouldn't claim that 60 minutes has zero credibility by running that one story.
    I agree that one story does not mean zero credibility, but it is a a biased TV magazine. That one story shows how fast they are to report without verification of information. It is a business (just like Wal-Mart) and the sensational story sells. If they can throw in someone who used to work there and get them to talk about secret spy agency stuff we will listen.
  2. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
       #42  
    Something that I have not seen anyone say much about is does a reporter have any moral or patriotic duty to consider the impact of a story before it is reported? If an individual is guilty for telling a reporter that someone is CIA and that reporter repeats the information are they implicated at all?
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Sometimes you have to look past it...(not like he is the only one that does it). There seems to be a very important story here.
    I agree. I don't doubt that there maybe valuable or maybe even viable info in the post....but I just had to laugh at the slap-in-the-face-you-are-stupid-I-am-superior approach that more often than not puts the info he posts into question.

    With work over the years, I often have to participate in debates and negotiations over minor and very major issues and deals between clients, CEOs, etc... As a result, I love this quote:
    The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
    - -- Joseph Joubert
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Something that I have not seen anyone say much about is does a reporter have any moral or patriotic duty to consider the impact of a story before it is reported? If an individual is guilty for telling a reporter that someone is CIA and that reporter repeats the information are they implicated at all?

    That question is obviously best addressed to Robert Novak -- the long time neo-con Dark Lord.

    Reporters under law have no special protection -- and no special obligations -- beyond that of any other US citizen.

    That Novak chose to expose a CIA spy in furtherance of the Rove/Libby/cheney/junior conspiracy through publishing that information, was not a crime.

    Had Novak instead secretly sold this info directly to the Iranians, there most probably would have been a crime.

    But most respected MSM journalists do informally operate within a code where they take care in exposing CIA agents.

    Senior government officials with the HIGHEST of security credentials operate under entirely different rules -- they are clearly under law required to not release that information.

    On one of the Sunday talking head shows someone said that Libby -- a lawyer -- knowingly commtted perjury and obstruction of justice by flagrantly lying that he got Plames name etc. from reporters. He did this because had he told the truth (which was that he recieved the info from the CIA and other classified sources), it would have amounted to a confession of violating that otherwise difficult to enforce secrecy statute.

    Does anyone doubt that junior will pardon him ??
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  5. #45  
    Originally Posted By: BARYE at Today 12:39 AM

    "I hope you are all proud being lead by them"


    That was an extremely powerful 60 Min. piece last night. It really opened my eyes to the SERIOUS damage that was leveled by Plame's outing.

    I can just imagine the the reaction from the neocon jackals if this treasonous leak were to have come from a Democratic administration. They thought a hummer was bad.
    Visor-->Visor Phone-->Treo 180-->Treo 270-->Treo 600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700P-->Treo 755P-->Centro-->Pre+-->Pre 2
  6. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
       #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by pdxtreo
    Originally Posted By: BARYE at Today 12:39 AM

    "I hope you are all proud being lead by them"


    That was an extremely powerful 60 Min. piece last night. It really opened my eyes to the SERIOUS damage that was leveled by Plame's outing.

    I can just imagine the the reaction from the neocon jackals if this treasonous leak were to have come from a Democratic administration. They thought a hummer was bad.
    You mean if someone say, had taken secret information and stuffed down their pants.

    Come on folks it is 60 minutes, a tv magazine. They want to sell advertisment time. Do you really think if the situation is as bad as they portray it would take 2 years of investigating.
  7. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
       #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    That question is obviously best addressed to Robert Novak -- the long time neo-con Dark Lord.

    Reporters under law have no special protection -- and no special obligations -- beyond that of any other US citizen.

    That Novak chose to expose a CIA spy in furtherance of the Rove/Libby/cheney/junior conspiracy through publishing that information, was not a crime.

    Had Novak instead secretly sold this info directly to the Iranians, there most probably would have been a crime.

    But most respected MSM journalists do informally operate within a code where they take care in exposing CIA agents.

    Senior government officials with the HIGHEST of security credentials operate under entirely different rules -- they are clearly under law required to not release that information.

    On one of the Sunday talking head shows someone said that Libby -- a lawyer -- knowingly commtted perjury and obstruction of justice by flagrantly lying that he got Plames name etc. from reporters. He did this because had he told the truth (which was that he recieved the info from the CIA and other classified sources), it would have amounted to a confession of violating that otherwise difficult to enforce secrecy statute.

    Does anyone doubt that junior will pardon him ??
    Probably not a crime, but I hear a lot of talk about the danger the CIA agents are in because of the leak. Would you not agree that IF an official leaked the identity and then a reporter added additional information they gained (through legal means but with the aid of reporter credentials) such as the name of the company used as a cover, they have compounded the issue?
  8. #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    That Novak chose to expose a CIA spy in furtherance of the Rove/Libby/cheney/junior conspiracy through publishing that information, was not a crime.

    Had Novak instead secretly sold this info directly to the Iranians, there most probably would have been a crime.

    But most respected MSM journalists do informally operate within a code where they take care in exposing CIA agents.

    Senior government officials with the HIGHEST of security credentials operate under entirely different rules -- they are clearly under law required to not release that information.
    To the best of my knowledge I agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    On one of the Sunday talking head shows someone said that Libby -- a lawyer -- knowingly commtted perjury and obstruction of justice by flagrantly lying that he got Plames name etc. from reporters. He did this because had he told the truth (which was that he recieved the info from the CIA and other classified sources), it would have amounted to a confession of violating that otherwise difficult to enforce secrecy statute.
    The guilt and/or conviction of the crime is yet to be finalized...but stereotypically speaking, it seems more often than not, politicians get themselves into more trouble than the original accusation would have warrented if proven true by trying to cover it up.....no matter if they did it or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    Does anyone doubt that junior will pardon him ??
    We already covered this several posts bacK:
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    What's the big deal, didn't Clinton already set the precedent (with his midnight pardons for Willful transmission of defense information....and unauthorized possession and retention of defense information....and 2 counts of False declarations before grand jury...and Conspiracy to make false statements...and Conspiracy to defraud the United States....and Knowingly making under oath a false declaration regarding a material fact before a grand jury ....along with 20 pardons for cocaine & drug dealing, 2 counts of Armed bank robbery, Embezzlement, counterfeiting, Income tax evasion, Securities fraud, perjury, money launders, Mail fraud, "Conspiracy to corruptly solicit and accept money in return for influencing the official acts of a federal district court judge", Failure to report the transportation of currency in excess of $10,000 into the United States, Medicaid fraud, Racketeering conspiracy, aiding and abetting, Bank fraud, Illegal corporate campaign contributions, Forgery of U.S. Treasury checks, and Odometer rollback)?

    For a full accounting of all of Clinton's pardons: http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pardonchartlst.htm
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    In fact, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if that plays out to become a reality. Right or wrong, it is a card that can be played during the last hand of the game.
    Barye...So if it is a bad thing if Bush gives a Midnight pardon....was it bad or okay for Clinton to do the exact same thing 153 times over?
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 10/31/2005 at 02:57 PM.
  9. #49  
    The Fitzgerald investigation has found no wrongdoing with respect to the leak of Plame's name. Period.

    CBS running heavily biased "reporting" doesn't change that.

    Throwing out loaded terms like conspiracy, spy and treason doesn't change that.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  10. #50  
    Originally Posted By: phurth at Today 11:38 AM

    "The Fitzgerald investigation has found no wrongdoing with respect to the leak of Plame's name. Period.

    CBS running heavily biased "reporting" doesn't change that.

    Throwing out loaded terms like conspiracy, spy and treason doesn't change that."


    I wasn't aware that Fitz had closed his investigation. Also, I thought the throwing out of loaded terms was a right-wing thing?!?!
    Visor-->Visor Phone-->Treo 180-->Treo 270-->Treo 600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700P-->Treo 755P-->Centro-->Pre+-->Pre 2
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by pdxtreo
    I wasn't aware that Fitz had closed his investigation.
    Didn't say he did. I said he has found nothing. He's devoted an entire grand jury term to looking - nothing. From reading BARYE and that dreck from 60 Minutes one would think it would be open-and-shut. Guess not.
    Also, I thought the throwing out of loaded terms was a right-wing thing?!?!
    Riiight.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  12. #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Didn't say he did. I said he has found nothing. He's devoted an entire grand jury term to looking - nothing. From reading BARYE and that dreck from 60 Minutes one would think it would be open-and-shut. Guess not.Riiight.
    But this seems to cut the other way (or maybe it's just me. )

    If it has taken Fitzgerald two years and still he has nothing, then WHY would Libby allegedly perjure himself and face criminal consequences . Rationally it doesnt make much sense to risk going to prison if Fitzgerald had nothing.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    But this seems to cut the other way (or maybe it's just me. )

    If it has taken Fitzgerald two years and still he has nothing, then WHY would Libby allegedly perjure himself and face criminal consequences . Rationally it doesnt make much sense to risk going to prison if Fitzgerald had nothing.
    I addressed this earlier here. Perjury before a grand jury is stupid *especially* if you have something to hide - you don't have the same rights you would in a criminal trial.

    Perhaps he got tripped up in detailed questioning. Remember he can't have a lawyer in the grand jury room with him. Over the course of two year's worth of testimony it's not surprising to encounter inconsistencies in his testimony.

    I'm not saying that's the case or not - just that it is a plausible alternative explanation. Plausible enough to most likely allow him to beat these charges. Perjury is very difficult to prove.

    At any rate, there are no allegations that anything illegal was done in passing Plame's name along. The media clearly takes the side that claims Plame was a super-secret spy whose husband was some sort of heroic whistle-blower on a war effort he believed to be fraudulent. This is not an unbiased view of the events in question. It is also not a view supported by the facts of the case. If it were, I'd have expected something more than technical perjury and obstruction charges.

    Others are of course free to believe whatever fantasies and conspiracies they wish.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  14. #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    I addressed this earlier here. Perjury before a grand jury is stupid *especially* if you have something to hide - you don't have the same rights you would in a criminal trial.
    In your post though, you just said you didn't know why he would have lied "...its beyond me". (which is what I am asking.)

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Perhaps he got tripped up in detailed questioning. Remember he can't have a lawyer in the grand jury room with him. Over the course of two year's worth of testimony it's not surprising to encounter inconsistencies in his testimony.
    You make it sound like Libby has been questioned for two years You aren't saying that though, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    I'm not saying that's the case or not - just that it is a plausible alternative explanation. Plausible enough to most likely allow him to beat these charges. Perjury is very difficult to prove.
    You may be right. However I don't think he is facing just perjury charges. Regardless, we can speculate all we want, but most likely no one on this board knows what evidence that Fitzgerald has collected. To claim that after two years that he has nothing seems to be baseless. (unless you have info that you aren't sharing )

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    At any rate, there are no allegations that anything illegal was done in passing Plame's name along. The media clearly takes the side that claims Plame was a super-secret spy whose husband was some sort of heroic whistle-blower on a war effort he believed to be fraudulent. This is not an unbiased view of the events in question. It is also not a view supported by the facts of the case.
    Do we even have the facts of the case? Most of us only have what the MSM has posted.

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    If it were, I'd have expected something more than technical perjury and obstruction charges.
    I think it has already been posted that this appears to be just the beginning...not the end.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  15. #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    In your post though, you just said you didn't know why he would have lied "...its beyond me". (which is what I am asking.)
    Lying would make no sense to me. Because gj testimony is secret and can't be used at trial he'd have little motive to lie in that venue. That's why I think it's plausible that he committed "technical" violations (perjury, obstruction). Let me also make clear I'm not blindly supporting Libby, who I don't think I ever heard of prior to about two weeks ago. If he did mislead the grand jury or the FBI, he should be punished for it.
    You make it sound like Libby has been questioned for two years You aren't saying that though, right?
    No, obviously not. At various times over the course of two years.
    You may be right. However I don't think he is facing just perjury charges. Regardless, we can speculate all we want, but most likely no one on this board knows what evidence that Fitzgerald has collected. To claim that after two years that he has nothing seems to be baseless. (unless you have info that you aren't sharing )
    Fitzgerald's opportunity to issue indictments ended on Friday. It no longer matters what evidence he's gathered - unless he chooses to empanel a new gj - and then he'll have to have each and every second of prior testimony re-read to them - he'll be starting from scratch in a very real sense. If he does not empanel a new gj, this thing is over.
    Do we even have the facts of the case? Most of us only have what the MSM has posted.
    Agreed - and as I've said, I feel the MSM has very little credibility on this.
    I think it has already been posted that this appears to be just the beginning...not the end.
    I disagree - unless we see a new grand jury.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  16. #56  
    Yeah,
    But why was this investigation necessary if there was nocrime committed.It shoudl have been stopped after 1wk.Rather Mr Fitzerald wasted our money and years to tell us there are no charges as far as original crime was committed.
  17. #57  
    Mmmm,,,, cause he couldn't waste money investigating Slick Willy ?
  18. #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtreosexual
    Yeah,
    But why was this investigation necessary if there was nocrime committed.It shoudl have been stopped after 1wk.Rather Mr Fitzerald wasted our money and years to tell us there are no charges as far as original crime was committed.
    If this were really true, then why has the White House played Mr. Fitzgerald up? It seems that if he truly was on a fishing expedition that the White House would have cast him in a much different light. Rather it seems that all I read from them about Fitzgerald is that he has done a 'fine' job.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  19. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Lying would make no sense to me. Because gj testimony is secret and can't be used at trial he'd have little motive to lie in that venue. That's why I think it's plausible that he committed "technical" violations (perjury, obstruction).
    When you say 'technical' do you mean 'unintentional'?
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  20. #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Fitzgerald's opportunity to issue indictments ended on Friday. It no longer matters what evidence he's gathered - unless he chooses to empanel a new gj - and then he'll have to have each and every second of prior testimony re-read to them - he'll be starting from scratch in a very real sense. If he does not empanel a new gj, this thing is over.

    empaneling a new Grand Jury is not required. -- it is my understanding that Fitzgerald could, if a judge approved, get an existing sitting Grand Jury to hear his evidence and vote for an indictments.

    Presumably since the investigative phase of this process has already been completed by the original GJ, there would be relatively little required now by that second existing GJ.

    And as any half eaten ham sandwich will confess, any prosecutor can get any Grand Jury to indict anything for anything.


    Over the course of two year's worth of testimony it's not surprising to encounter inconsistencies in his testimony.
    Read the timeline of Libby's activities and conversations (its been published in many articles and shown on the news). Libby went to great lengths to construct his fictional explanation for his alibi.

    It was as provably false as was junior's claim's that Sadamm was behind 9/11.

    Perhaps he got tripped up in detailed questioning. Remember he can't have a lawyer in the grand jury room with him.
    Libby had with in the Grand Jury room a lawyer -- an ivy leaque educated, exceptionally organized, and highly respected lawyer -- himself.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions