Six Conservative Guys

Six Conservative Guys - Proudly Serving the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Since 2003

We'll gladly reply to or publish your response. E-mail Six Conservative Guys

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?
Friday, October 28, 2005
A not so Merry Fitzmas?

Fitzgerald seems like he has a pretty good case against Libby on lying to the grand jury. It seems likely that one of the sources was, in fact, contrary testimony from people like Rove and Ari Fleisher.

It is telling that there is no indictment for the actual leak. I guess he found no evidence of treason, eh? Fitzgerald stated that Plame's position at the agency should not have been revealed, but his decision to not indict on the most important issue of the investigation indicates that it is unclear whether Libby knew of that status (or perhaps, that her status was sufficiently unclear to make a conviction unlikely). As I have said before, I thought an indictment on the leak was unlikely and the thing most likely to be a problem is people covering up what, in the end, turns out to be a non-crime (at least in Fitzgerald's prosocutorial judgement).

I think it is a mistake for anyone to defend Libby on the legal jeopardy he faces. He did the wrong thing by lying and, the right thing by resigning.

The most interesting part of this is the Tim Russert angle. Why would Libby lie that Russert gave him this information? After being caught in about six lies, the Prosocutor has to give the benefit of the doubt to Russert. It just seems like an odd thing for Libby to lie about. I don't want to speculate about it, but falsely implicating Russert seems like an unlikely move for a political professional who has, undoubtedly learned the lesson that you don't anger people who buy ink (or tv time) by the barrel. Was Russert the only reporter who would fit Libby's false timeline? Clearly Libby knew the information prior to his conversation with Russert, but upon learning that Russert knew about it, perhaps he took that as a green light to hit the phones? If so, why would Russert lie? I can't make sense of this either way. Given that Russert is a Bills' fan, you have to take that into consideration. If it was a Sunday, he may have been drinking.

Say whatever you want, but the fact remains that I'll be having a party tonight and you won't - though I'm sure some of you will be drinking.

As far as it being "only" for perjury and obstruction of justice - i love it - "only". Thats all it is "just lying." No biggie. Merely lying under oath to try to derail an investigation into blowing the cover of a CIA agent.

Hey and the practical result - "only" the resignation of Cheney's right hand man. No biggie - its not like he's a famous name - that would make it serious. Last time a sitting whitehouse official was indicted was "only" 130 years ago.

I'm smiling. No actually, I'm laughing.

This is only the tip of the wedge that is going to be hammered into the Bush White house every day for the next three years. Every. Single. Day.

Libby lied to frustrate an investigation. After his "friends" have abandoned him, and he is looking at some hard prison time, Libby's Aspens will start to turn also, just like Judy Miller's. Their roots are connected you know. And he will turn in whoever *he* needs to. Will it be Rove? Or Cheney? Who knows. It will be someone. And when we investigate the smear against Plame and Wilson we will have to investigate why they smeared them - and we will have to revisit the whole lie about nigerian yellow cake. Who was behind those lies? Perle? Wolfowitz? Frum? Cheney? Bush? It will be someone.

Meanwhile we will keep shutting other republicans down. Delay got *another* indictment today. And they have his little campaign finanace underlings under a and indictment vice also. They will turn him in like Judy turned in Scooter. The creaky wheels of justice are turning against Frist also.

Santorum looks like he might lose his seat. Robert Byrd looks like he will run basically unopposed. Corzine is pulling ahead. Chaffee is falling behind. 2006 midterms are looking like the perfect storm. I'll be donating money to my favorite races across the nation.

A lot hinges on the 2006 congressional midterm elections. If the dems get a majority they will be able to convene all kinds of fancy congressional hearings into all the lies and chincanery. The knives will be out. And we will put Bush's head on our trophy wall right next to Nixon's.

Have a nice day ;)

1. You are an idiot, or acting like one anyway. Next time, read what I write instead of writing first. At no point in my post did I crow about it "only" being lying and obstruction of justice. In fact, the only time I use the word "only" in the post is when I refer to Tim Russert. Learn to use quotations correctly. The fact is, I AGREE that lying to a grand jury is a significant crime. The fact that you can read my post (or my others) and not understand that is the basis for my concluding that you are acting like an idiot.

2. I have been consistent that lying under oath is a serious offense. Have you been similarly consistent?

3. You can delude yourself into thinking that Libby was the center of presidential power. You don't really believe that. If Libby had, instead, left to join a lobbying firm would ANYBODY say that this is a horrible loss for the administration. Not a single person would make that argument. That is isn't to say this whole thing hasn't been harmful to the adminstration on the public relations front. That's true. But that's short term.

4. Something tells me your party isn't quite what you had hoped it would be. I don't ordinarily drink, but between forcing the conservatives forcing the Meirs withdrawal and the disappointing Fitzmas you are having -- what, only pajamas? -- I'll have at least one tonight.

5. You need to look up the definition of "smear." It was Wilson, through his lies, that led to his wife's name being brought up in the first place. If Wilson hadn't lied and said the Vice President's office sent him to Niger, then the Vice President's office wouldn't have been answering reporters questions about whether or not that was indeed the case. As the Senate panel has concluded - - Wilson did not tell the truth. His wife recommended him for the position, not Cheney's office. Wilson also lied when he said that his visit contradicted the President's claims in the state of the union. Again, check out the senate report -- Wilson's findings confirmed that Saadam's agents sought uranium, though there was no evidence that they had, in fact, obtained it. That may be why the President used the word "sought" in his state of the union address and not "acquired." If anyone was smeared, it was the Bush administration.

6. Good luck in the midterms... I'm sure nothing will change between now and 2006. Plus, you have that brilliant team of Pelosi and Reid leading the way. If they aren't historically important figures, I don't know who is.

7. On a final note, I was thinking the other day that Roberts-- and perhaps Janice Rogers Brown?-- will, in all likelihood, still be on the bench when I retire 30 or so years from now. That's the kind of thing that puts a smile on my face. Every. Single. Day.
1. It sounded to me like you and LSC were construing it as some kind of victory that the indictment was only for lying and not for outing a CIA agent. My point is the result is the same: Libby has resigned. But more importantly he has everything to gain by turning in the whole Plame story. Fun times ahead.

2. ok sure we agree. so?

3. Let me make another delicious analogy: Libby is just the first splinter popping off the gate at the whitehouse as the battering ram hits it. There will be more...

4. Oh you're wrong there. I don't care about about Valerie Plame ( though it *is* a crime and I do hope the culprit does go to jail ), so much as wanting to see a long painful, drawn out and paralysing investigation into the white house. We're now looking at a continuing investigation and a public trial with white house witnesses. Thank you St. Fitz! I got exactly the Fitzmas gift I was hoping for!

5. I no longer argue you with koolaid drinkers about facts. You won't listen to them. If you are interested in what happened I suggest you go read what happened instead of relying on hannity and o'reilly. I am content now with making fun of you.

6. If we lose in 2006 I will mourn for America. It will mean two more years of crippling damage. But somehow i'm feeling very hopeful.

7. I'm quite happy with Republican justices like Souter the way I was with O'connor. Roberts looks like another one of those. And that puts a smile on my face... every single day.

He needs to turn someone in for a crime So, what is the 'crime'??

Please tell me what fun, exciting, and "delicious" charges you expect to be investigated?

No taunts, no jibes, no delectable edible analogies - just tell me the crime.

Until then - keep the Champagne on ice.
Scooter is on his own now. He should have taken the 5th. Or, you could look at it as throwing himself on a grenade, either way, he REALLY is on his own now. An indictment (spelling?) does not mean your guilty of anything, but it sure can stop a career in the public sector, with that said, prepare for the republicans to run away as fast as the elks that escaped the lion, although i don't know if elks live in Africa, but I digress.
One post by MMark or is it Braveheart (I get confused sometimes) without telling us which horrible 'crimes' are yet to come....

*He can't take the 5th because that only protects against incrimination - since the question did not relate to a criminal act - he can not invoke the 5th.
(Soon I'll get to bill you for saying stuff like that - enjoy the freebee)
I think the best answer though would have been, "To the best of my recollection - I can not recall the events on that day in question." - man this guy had a really bad attorney.

Note - this is kind of the Anti-Watergate. Every Admin. witness sang loudly except for Libbey - Rove even uncovered a meeting Fitzgerald didn't know about. For some reason, Libbey's lawyer's specialty is IP Law - not criminal defense and I think that hurt him a lot. The lesson of this indictment is - In DC - if you want a real friend - get a good criminal defense lawyer.

I think its important to note that he could have charged conspiracy - meaning that more than one person participated in this 'crime' and then use unindicted co-conspirators. (Fitzgerald has actually done this several times before)
I appreciate lsc calling me a liberal, so to convince him i'm is what i would have done. Lied under oath. I mean, you do it once and God doesn't strike you down, why not try it again.
Post a Comment