NationStates Jolt Archive


Libby by name Libby by nature...

Rubiconic Crossings
29-01-2007, 22:00
Meet Bubba you idiot.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070129/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_trial



By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 31 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Former White House press secretary
Ari Fleischer testified Monday that then-colleague I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby told him over lunch that the wife of a prominent war critic worked at the
CIA.

Fleischer said the conversation happened July 7, 2003, days before Libby told investigators he was surprised to learn about the CIA operative from a reporter. That discrepancy is at the heart of Libby's perjury and obstruction trial.

Fleischer, who was the chief White House spokesman for the first 2 1/2 years of
President Bush's first term, said Monday that Libby invited him to lunch to discuss Fleischer's planned departure from the White House. He said it was the first time he and Libby had eaten lunch together.

They talked about Fleischer's career plans and their shared interest in the Miami Dolphins football team, Fleischer testified. He can't remember who brought it up but he said the conversation then turned to the growing controversy over former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who accused the White House of ignoring prewar intelligence on
Iraq.

"Ambassador Wilson was sent by his wife," Fleischer recalled Libby saying. "His wife works for the CIA."

Fleischer said Libby also used the woman's name,
Valerie Plame, and told him it was "hush hush."

"My sense is that Mr. Libby was telling me this was kind of newsy," Fleischer said.

Fleischer said he again heard about Plame four days later aboard Air Force One from White House communications director Dan Bartlett. Bartlett was reading documents and began "venting" that reporters kept repeating Wilson's claim that Vice President
Dick Cheney sent Wilson on a fact-finding trip to Niger.

"His wife sent him," Fleischer recalled Bartlett saying. "She works at the CIA."

Fleischer said he relayed that information to reporters from Time magazine and NBC. A reporter from Newsweek magazine was also there but may have walked away, he said. The reporters paid no attention to the comment, he testified.

"I never in my wildest dreams thought this information was classified," Fleischer testified.

Fleischer testified under an immunity deal with prosecutors and arrived in court with his attorneys. He said he sought the deal after reading an article about the investigation.

"I thought, 'Oh my God. Did I somehow play a role in outing a CIA operative?' " Fleischer said.

Libby's attorneys plan to argue during cross-examination that the immunity deal makes Fleischer's testimony less credible.

Prosecutor Peter Zeidenberg sought to head off that argument early in Fleischer's testimony by having him describe his deal.

"I cannot be prosecuted for what I did with the information I was provided," Fleischer said. "The immunity provides no protection for perjury."

Libby says he was surprised to learn from NBC News reporter Tim Russert that Plame worked at the CIA. Anything he later told reporters about Plame was simply a repetition of what he learned from Russert, Libby said.

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's first witnesses were government employees who testified that they told Libby about Plame days before the Russert conversation. Fleischer is a key witness because, as Fitzgerald said in his opening statement: "You can't learn something on Thursday that you're giving out on Monday."

Nobody was ever charged with leaking Plame's identity. Libby is the only person charged in the case.
Farnhamia
29-01-2007, 22:03
Meet Bubba you idiot.

There are no Bubbas in the Club Fed facility Scooter will be going to. From what I heard late last week and over the weekend, he won't bepassing GO or collecting his $200 dollars anytime soon.
Rubiconic Crossings
29-01-2007, 22:05
There are no Bubbas in the Club Fed facility Scooter will be going to. From what I heard late last week and over the weekend, he won't bepassing GO or collecting his $200 dollars anytime soon.

yeah...I suspect you are right. Shame that.

So how long will he be banged up for?
Farnhamia
29-01-2007, 22:07
yeah...I suspect you are right. Shame that.

So how long will he be banged up for?

I don't know. He's up for lying to the FBI and lying to a Federal Grand Jury. I suppose if he gets the max it'll run to a few years, but I can't imagine he's going away for a very long time.
Myrmidonisia
29-01-2007, 22:09
yeah...I suspect you are right. Shame that.

So how long will he be banged up for?
Interestingly enough, he first must be found guilty. I don't think that will happen.
Rubiconic Crossings
29-01-2007, 22:11
I don't know. He's up for lying to the FBI and lying to a Federal Grand Jury. I suppose if he gets the max it'll run to a few years, but I can't imagine he's going away for a very long time.

hmmm but isn't there a thing about unmasking a 'live' CIA operative being treasonous?
Rubiconic Crossings
29-01-2007, 22:12
Interestingly enough, he first must be found guilty. I don't think that will happen.

True...but I would say that testimony seals it...wouldn't you?
Nodinia
29-01-2007, 22:15
hmmm but isn't there a thing about unmasking a 'live' CIA operative being treasonous?

To paraphrase the great Homer 'the law says a lot of things...'
Farnhamia
29-01-2007, 22:22
hmmm but isn't there a thing about unmasking a 'live' CIA operative being treasonous?

Yes, but that's not one of the charges against Libby. This trial came about because the Federal proecutor was investigating the unmasking and Libby lied to him. Allegedly.
Cannot think of a name
29-01-2007, 22:23
hmmm but isn't there a thing about unmasking a 'live' CIA operative being treasonous?

But that's not what he's being charged with, he's just being charged with lying about when he knew and who told him. It's that lying under oath thing that a certain party was all up in arms about a few years ago but are now not so much for some strange reason...
Rubiconic Crossings
29-01-2007, 22:26
But that's not what he's being charged with, he's just being charged with lying about when he knew and who told him. It's that lying under oath thing that a certain party was all up in arms about a few years ago but are now not so much for some strange reason...

Check...fair enough....

Still...a Libby is a....Libby :p
Nodinia
29-01-2007, 22:28
But that's not what he's being charged with, he's just being charged with lying about when he knew and who told him. It's that lying under oath thing that a certain party was all up in arms about a few years ago but are now not so much for some strange reason...

O that was s.e.x. and in the sacred oval office, no less. Thats serious stuff.
Farnhamia
29-01-2007, 22:43
O that was s.e.x. and in the sacred oval office, no less. Thats serious stuff.

Which we can't have under any circumstances! Though I have to say, I never cared for that rug ... :p
Nodinia
29-01-2007, 22:48
I just found it funny that various bible thumping protestants would talk about the vile Klin-ton smearing the "sacred trust" of the office of President...and then wax lyrical about George being the 'man for the hour', as if he was an American pope...
Myrmidonisia
29-01-2007, 22:50
True...but I would say that testimony seals it...wouldn't you?

To paraphrase Yogi Berra, "It's not over 'til it's over." I would have thought the OJ trial was a slam-dunk guilty verdict, based on what I saw and read.

There's a lot we're missing. In the quoted excerpt, we're looking at a snapshot of the trial. We haven't been charged by the judge about the points that make a conviction. We haven't seen the cross-examination. We haven't watched the prosecution witness. That's all part of a jury's job -- they have to determine who is reliable and what evidence can be discarded. We won't be party to those discussions, either.
Rubiconic Crossings
29-01-2007, 23:07
To paraphrase Yogi Berra, "It's not over 'til it's over." I would have thought the OJ trial was a slam-dunk guilty verdict, based on what I saw and read.

There's a lot we're missing. In the quoted excerpt, we're looking at a snapshot of the trial. We haven't been charged by the judge about the points that make a conviction. We haven't seen the cross-examination. We haven't watched the prosecution witness. That's all part of a jury's job -- they have to determine who is reliable and what evidence can be discarded. We won't be party to those discussions, either.

damn! I totally forgot about the OJ trial...shit.

All good points as well. Ah well. back to the drawing board...LOL