See other Editorial Articles
Title: Novak Finally Gets It
Source:
The American Thinker
URL Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog ... /03/novak_finally_gets_it.html
Published: Mar 22, 2007
Author: Douglas Hanson
Post Date: 2007-03-22 17:34:24 by BeAChooser
Keywords: None
Views: 490
Comments: 27
Novak Finally Gets It Douglas Hanson Belatedly, Robert Novak sees the key deception in the so-called outing of Valerie Plame and the phony Libby prosecution for perjury. Novak tells us that former House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Peter Hoekstra had tried to confirm Plame's covert status from the CIA but that he "got only double talk from Langley." Now that the Dems are running the show, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman Rep. Henry Waxman apparently has the power to get the CIA to officially weigh-in on the matter when neither Hoekstra nor the judge in the Libby trial were able to do so. In his opening statement, Waxman asserted that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert CIA operative when her identity was revealed, and that this was cleared by CIA Director, Gen. Michael Hayden. Flashback to May of last year during the Libby trial, and it was clear that Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald was unable or unwilling to comply with the request of Libby's defense team and Judge Walton to provide evidence that Plame was covert, or to show the effect her "outing" had on national security. Byron York in The Hill wrote that Judge Walton then asked Fitzgerald, >> 'Does the government intend to introduce any evidence that would relate to either damage or potential damage that the alleged revelations by Mr. Libby caused, or do you intend to introduce any evidence related to Ms. Wilson's status and whether it was classified or she was in a covert status or anything of that nature?'[emphasis added] The answer was, in so many words, no, the government didn't intend to introduce any "tangible" evidence to confirm either assertion because it couldn't. The only reason this farce of a trial continued beyond this point was because it was one of many political warfare campaigns against the President and Vice-President over the Iraq War. As Novak says, Waxman is many things, but he is not a political neophyte who would deliberately and publicly twist the meaning of these statements cleared by Hayden. Yet, later in a conference with Hoekstra, Hayden, >> ... still did not answer whether Plame was covert under the terms of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. So now we have the Director of the CIA himself playing fast and loose with critical information relevant to a criminal case while the agency scrambles to regain its credibility in protecting the the American people. This is what happens when only two Republicans show up at the hearings with one of them fawning over the blonde "spy." If this is our loyal opposition to the majority, we are in deep trouble.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: BeAChooser (#0)
An American jury disagreed about it being phony.
like gathering stones?
If you look carefully at my lips, you'll realize that I'm actually saying something else. I'm not actually telling you about the several ways I'm gradually murdering Joan. - Tom Frost
************ http://freedomeden.blogspot.com/2007/03/denis-collins-one-of-libbys-peers.html Wednesday, March 07, 2007 Denis Collins: One of Libby's Peers? There's a lot that's disturbing about Scooter Libby's trial and the verdict. One buffoon that stands out among the buffoons is juror Denis Collins. I get the feeling that he's a Joe Wilson wannabe. Collins exhibits that same slime factor. Special Prosectuor and egomaniac Patrick Fitzgerald was handed a gift when political hack Collins landed in the jury pool. Collins wasn't satisfied with convicting Scooter Libby. Sure, he was pleased that he had the opportunity to ruin his life; but he wanted more. Just like Joe Wilson and his extrovert spy wife Valerie Plame, and just like out of control Patrick Fitzgerald, and like the others with a political axe to grind such as Tim Russert, Collins wanted a bigger fish than Libby. He wanted to bring down the Bush administration. You could see how Collins relished his moment in the spotlight, his magical fifteen minutes of fame that he probably had been fantasizing about when he should have been listening to testimony and considering the facts of the case. From The Washington Post: Collins is an ex-Washington Post reporter! That's as bad as Rosie O'Donnell sitting on a jury for a case against Donald Trump. How did Fitzgerald get so lucky? Landing on that jury had to be a dream come true for Collins, too. There's no way that justice could be done with someone like him on the jury. Impossible. This Collins guy doesn't sound like an unbiased juror. He sounds like a Democrat operative. Where's Rove? Obviously, Collins was disappointed that he had but one Bush administration official to condemn for his lib cohorts. This was a political witch hunt, pure and simple. I'd like Collins to put his memory to the test. Does he have perfect recollection? I wonder if Collins was willing to cut Bill Clinton any slack when it came to remembering? I don't remember - 71 Sometimes it's hard to remember. If a lib can't recall, it's no big deal. A conservative isn't granted the same leeway. Yeah, right. BS. I'm sure Libby's attorneys did their best to weed out the Bush-haters, but that's virtually impossible in overwhelmingly lib D.C. Moreover, one could conclude that being "highly educated" really means that the jurors were indoctrinated in lib think, and brainwashed by lib professors at lib universities. Good grief. Oh, the drama! What strain these courageous jurors had been under as they served their country! What sacrifice! Maybe some jurors shed tears because they weren't comfortable with the verdict. Perhaps some had been strong-armed by hacks like Collins. Clearly, the members of the jury with an anti-War, anti-Bush political agenda won. The problem is the trial wasn't about Bush. It wasn't about the war. It was about Scooter Libby's memory. Collins and Fitzgerald, Joe Wilson, and libs from sea to shining sea are celebrating their victory. They shouldn't. They shouldn't be proud of torturing Libby and his family because they wanted to do at least some damage to the administration or speak out against the war. The fact that Collins made such politically charged statements reveals that justice wasn't blind in this case. It was political. *************
LOL, the American Thinker, funded by a Bush poker buddy, supports Libby. Wow, breaking news indeed.
Prove anything about Collins in that article is wrong.
20-20 myopia. Whaddaya gonna do??
ss . . ssanibsurdansinuoashin - Geo. W. Bush
The Clinton did it, too, defense. OY!
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
And Fitzgerald answered NO, the question we are dealing with here is whether Libby lied to the Grand Jury or not - and this isn't relevant to that question. And the wingnuts began to huff and puff and say "look over there, Plame flunked algebra in 6th grade" and "Clinton did it too". And the jury said "The evidence proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Libby is guilty". And the kook wingnuts went "Whiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnneeeeeeeeeee". ROLTFLOL!! Kook!!! Why do you insult us with this childish spin?
.
It's all they've got.
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Yes Mr. Kook Conspiracy buff, it's all just an evil conspiracy. Just like the evil conspiracy that keeps Bush from saving his Presidency citing all your kook WMD conspiracy theories, or all your kook Al Qaeda link conpspiracy theories, or your kook Ron Brown conspiracy theories. Seems to me that if any of your SHIT had a shred of merit, Bush and Cheney would be saving their asses by screaming it from the roof tops right now. Surly you have a kook conspiracy theory to explain why they are not doing this. Why don't you explain the conspiracy to us. Kook!! ROTFLOL!!
.
Mr. Kook, it's too bad Libby lied to the grand jury and queered Fitzgerald's investigation. Otherwise we might have Rove roasting on spit right now. Then you really would really have something to whine about. Oh well, looks like Dems will have him soon enough. Your wingnut victimhood looks safe. ROTFLOL!! As an aside, why arn't you posting from Iraq? I know you won't answer that question. You can't. I am just putting it out so I can hammer you with it later.
.
Mr. Kook: let me ask you again. Why are you not posting from Iraq? You obviously support Bush's war and the army is desperate for men. They are taking people up to the age of 52. Older if you have special skills. Are you one of the piss yellow Republicans? Like Bush? Like Rush? Like Cheney? like Perl? Like Wolfie? Like Hannity? Like the rest of your cowardly but war mongering idols? May I call you Mr. Cowardly-Kook for here on out? How about if we just call you C.K. for short? ROTFLOL!!!
.
Hey C.K., I have an idea!!! If your Ron Brown KoOkery has a shred of merit, and if it is anything but PURE SHIT, then Bush can have Clinton arrested and tried for murder. There is no statute of limitations problem here and this would blow the US Attorney Obstruction of Justice matter right off the front page. Surely you have a nutty conspiracy theory for why Bush doesn't save himself this way. Why don't you tell it to us? We need a good laugh. ROTFLOL!!!
.
Mr. Kook, are you of the opinion that if Bill Clinton jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge, then Bush should be able to flap his arms and fly off the bridge too? (This is a test to see if you are a garden variety kook or a raging kook - be careful how you answer.) __ Yes, Clinton is a sort of saint that paves the way for others to follow. If Clinton did it, we can walk the holy ground too. __ No, Republicans can do anything they want at any time and we just use Clinton for an excuse when the rubes try to call us on it.
.
As opposed to ignorant conspiracy nutters like yourself who obediently spew regurgitated NewsMax pap and wallow in delicious wingnut victimhood?
.
__ Yes, Clinton is a sort of saint that paves the way for others to follow. If Clinton did it, we can walk the holy ground too. __ No, Republicans can do anything they want at any time and we just use Clinton for an excuse when the rubes try to call us on it. . hahahahahahaha!!!!
You've been spending too much time reading ten year old NewsMax articles. Clinton isn't President anymore. A new guy name George Bush was elected back in 2000. Well, he wasn't really elected, but he managed to seize power back then. Bush has been in the office ever since. Go to google and type in "George Bush". This should catch you up on the story.
.
Mr. Kook, this is PURE SHIT and you damn well know it. The reason the government didn't introduce "tangible" evidence of the wingnut attempts at distration was because they were not relevant to the question at trial, i.e., did Libby lie to the Grand Jury or not. Perjury was the crime and this was the issue at trial. And perjury is a serious crime. Just ask Newt Gingrich or Tony Snow. They have written some fine pieces on perjury and the rule of law. What Clinton did back in 1972 wasn't relevant to this trial. The route Plame drove to work wasn't relevant to this trial. This was just crap NewsMax tossed out to fool gullible and easily manipulated goobers such as yourself. And the reason this trial continued as it did was not because of some dark conspiracy, as you stupidly allege above, but because Libby lied to the Grand Jury - and this was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Deal with it. If you don't respect our American system, if you hate our American system as much as your post above seems to indicate, then you should move ot North Korea or Iran. Your type of propaganda rules there.
.
Libby lied to protect the other scum suckers. And as the Republican Prosecutor Fitzgerald said, this act was akin to throwing sand in the eyes of the umpire. And the other scum suckers got away because Libby tossed his sand and took the risk of the fall. And Libby got caught for doing what he did. Hence, Libby is now going to prison. Perjury is a serious crime. And what Libby did was a deliberate act. If Libby was unsure of the events, he could have simply answered "I don't know" or "I don't recall". Libby, as an experienced Washington insider was damn well aware of this. And he knew his ass was on the line in the Grand Jury room. And Libby knew the consequences of his act when he chose to deliberately lie to the Grand Jury. Libby should now accept the consequences of his act like a man and stop whining. You should stop whining as well. You faux wingnut victimhood is revolting.
.
Thank you. I was hoping someone would reply like you did. It's so "4um".
you are very distinguished BAC. Here is yet another distinction that ... has given you. You are the only one who says it is harmless to eat depletetd uranium dust. you are the only one that is bozo'd by half the people here. you inspire a lot of replies from people despite all those bozo lists. You are an inspiring guy, very distinguished too.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Yes, and when a wingnut like you is called on his SHIT, he can do little but toss out weak and silly insults - as you just did above. Given that you can't defend the SHIT you spew, maybe you should re-evaluate your position. By the way, why doesn't Bush take your KoOk WMD SHIT and save his Presidency with it? I would love to hear the kooky conspiracy theory that you use to rationalize this. Occums razor says what you spew is just SHIT and that Bush would be instantly crucified if he touched it, but I am sure that you have a complex and nutty conspiracy theory that resolves the cognitive dissonance for you - all wingnuts do. Let's hear it KoOk!!! ROTFLOL!!!!
.
Now don't lose it ...
Mr. Kook, why don't you whine about your bozo count for us. The last few times you did this it was hilarious. We love your pathetic wingnut victimhood. And while you are at it, tell us how Ghandi would react to one of the highest Bozo counts in the history of the site. You do channel Ghandi don't you?
.
When you are caught dead bang in your spin, your only weapon is to try to change the subject or go personal. We see that. But that's a common tactic with the poor gullible souls who breathlessly believe every word NewsMax feeds them - such as yourself.
.
I didn't bite. Try to change the subject with something else. And while you are thinking, give us your kook conspiracy theory on why Bush doesn't save his Presidency with you nutball WMD SHIT.
.
Why don't you come back with ten pages of spam that fails to address the original question and is loaded with lots fo vile wingnut personal attacks? Doesn't that work for you sometimes?
.
the phony Libby prosecution for perjury
#2. To: BeAChooser (#0)
A time to build up, a time to break down A time to dance, a time to mourn A time to cast away stones A time to gather stones together
#3. To: Ada, ALL (#1)
An American jury disagreed about it being phony.
"I'm a political hack, a foaming at the mouth lib."
REUTERS/Jason Reed (UNITED STATES) The jurors who huddled around two pushed-together conference tables for 10 days, meticulously filling 34 pages of facts from the trial on a large flip chart, believed that Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff had been "pilloried" for a CIA leak that other top White House aides had committed along with him, according to one member of the panel.
Still, the juror said yesterday, the jury concluded that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby had lied to FBI agents and a federal grand jury that investigated the leak. Sifting through mounds of evidence convinced the panel that Libby's memory of conversations with colleagues and journalists was not as faulty as the defense contended.
"We're not saying that we didn't think Mr. Libby was guilty of the things we found him guilty of," said the juror, Denis Collins. "But it seemed like he was . . . the fall guy."
Collins, an author and ex-Washington Post reporter, was the only one of the seven women and four men on the jury to provide an inside glimpse into the method and thought process that the panel used to find Cheney's former top aide guilty of four felony counts.
Collins's detailed description of the jury's deliberations, in public comments and interviews yesterday, suggests that Libby's attorneys made headway with one of the themes they emphasized throughout the case: that the defendant, as lead defense attorney Theodore V. Wells Jr. described it, was made a scapegoat by the White House to protect other presidential aides who were complicit in disclosing Plame's identity to reporters.
During the jury's days of methodical deliberations, "it was said a number of times, 'What are we doing with this guy here?' " Collins told reporters on the steps outside the federal courthouse. "Where's Rove, where's -- you know, where are these other guys?" Collins said, referring to Karl Rove, Bush's top political adviser, and Richard L. Armitage, a former deputy chief of staff who testimony showed had been the first person to leak Plame's name.
Moreover, Collins said, jurors believed that Libby had been carrying out a directive by his immediate boss, Cheney, to "go out and talk to reporters" to tarnish Wilson's reputation. But Collins said jurors stopped short of discussing whether the vice president specifically urged Libby to tell journalists about Plame's CIA job.
Nevertheless, the jury, by Collins's telling, was more strongly persuaded by the prosecution's central contention: It was implausible that Libby could have forgotten his role in finding out and telling reporters about Plame when he met with federal investigators. In particular, Collins said, jurors were struck by the juxtaposition of testimony from former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer and eight hours of audiotapes they heard of Libby's grand jury testimony.
Collins told reporters on the steps outside the federal courthouse. "Where's Rove, where's -- you know, where are these other guys?" Collins said, referring to Karl Rove, Bush's top political adviser, and Richard L. Armitage, a former deputy chief of staff who testimony showed had been the first person to leak Plame's name.
A prosecution witness, Fleischer testified that Libby had told him "hush hush" about Plame over lunch on July 8, 2003 -- a Tuesday. In his grand jury testimony from March 2004, Libby said that Tim Russert, Washington bureau chief of NBC News, told him about Plame during a conversation two or three days later, and that Libby had the impression he was learning about her for the first time. "It was just very hard not to believe how he could remember it on a Tuesday and then forget it on a Thursday," Collins said.
He said jurors thought it was especially implausible that Libby forgot when and how he learned about Plame, given that he repeated that information to other people. "If I tell it to someone else, it's even more unlikely that I would forget it," Collins said.
FROM THE WASHINGTON TIMES: In the portions of President Clinton's Jan. 17 deposition that have been made public in the Paula Jones case, his memory failed him 267 times. This is a list of his answers and how many times he gave each one.
I don't know - 62
I'm not sure - 17
I have no idea - 10
I don't believe so - 9
I don't recall - 8
I don't think so - 8
I don't have any specific recollection - 6
I have no recollection - 4
Not to my knowledge - 4
I just don't remember - 4
I don't believe - 4
I have no specific recollection - 3
I might have - 3
I don't have any recollection of that - 2 I don't have a specific memory - 2
I don't have any memory of that - 2
I just can't say - 2
I have no direct knowledge of that - 2
I don't have any idea - 2
Not that I recall - 2
I don't believe I did - 2
I can't remember - 2
I can't say - 2
I do not remember doing so - 2
Not that I remember - 2
I'm not aware - 1
I honestly don't know - 1
I don't believe that I did - 1
I'm fairly sure - 1
I have no other recollection - 1
I'm not positive - 1
I certainly don't think so - 1
I don't really remember - 1
I would have no way of remembering that - 1
That's what I believe happened - 1
To my knowledge, no - 1
To the best of my knowledge - 1
To the best of my memory - 1
I honestly don't recall - 1
I honestly don't remember - 1
That's all I know - 1
I don't have an independent recollection of that - 1
I don't actually have an independent memory of that - 1
As far as I know - 1
I don't believe I ever did that - 1
That's all I know about that - 1
I'm just not sure - 1
Nothing that I remember - 1
I simply don't know - 1
I would have no idea - 1
I don't know anything about that - 1
I don't have any direct knowledge of that - 1
I just don't know - 1
I really don't know - 1
I can't deny that, I just -- I have no memory of that at all - 1
The 11 jurors who convicted Libby on all but one count were, in several respects, atypical of the District's population. In a city that is heavily Democratic and where attention to politics runs high, the jurors were a largely apolitical group. Under careful questioning during jury selection, Libby's attorneys weeded out members of the large initial jury panel who said they held strong negative views of the Bush administration -- and even ones who said they followed news and politics closely.
In a city that is majority African American, all but two members of the jury -- both women -- were white. In addition, the jury was highly educated, including three members with PhDs.
According to Collins, the tenor of deliberations was cool. Sitting in armchairs around the conference tables, with an adjacent office for phone calls to home and work, he said: "We were in a cocoon." To begin, the jury members used the large Post-it pages they had procured from the court to detail each witness's testimony, motivation to tell the truth, believability and state of mind.
"We took about a week just to get all these little building blocks there . . . We reached no decision quickly."
"In the end," Collins said, "what we came up with was that Mr. Libby either was told by or told to people about Mrs. Wilson at least nine times."
After reaching the verdict on the last charge at 11:15 yesterday morning, Collins said the jurors displayed little emotion. But after they filed out of the courtroom slightly more than an hour later, their verdict rendered, several wept as they walked through a corridor toward Walton's chambers for a final meeting with the judge.
Collins said he interpreted the tears as the release of pent-up tension from the long, celebrated trial. "It was not," he said, because jurors were thinking, " 'Oh, we're sorry to see Libby convicted.' "
#4. To: BeAChooser (#0)
#5. To: JohnGalt, ALL (#4)
#6. To: JohnGalt (#4)
#7. To: BeAChooser (#3)
I wonder if Collins was willing to cut Bill Clinton any slack when it came to remembering?
#8. To: BeAChooser (#0)
'Does the government intend to introduce any evidence that would relate to either damage or potential damage that the alleged revelations by Mr. Libby caused, or do you intend to introduce any evidence related to Ms. Wilson's status and whether it was classified or she was in a covert status or anything of that nature?'
#9. To: ... (#8)
And the wingnuts began to huff and puff and say "look over there
#10. To: BeAChooser (#3)
(Edited)
I'm sure Libby's attorneys did their best to weed out the Bush-haters, but that's virtually impossible in overwhelmingly lib D.C.
#11. To: BeAChooser (#3)
#12. To: BeAChooser (#3)
#13. To: BeAChooser (#5)
#14. To: BeAChooser (#3)
(Edited)
... the portions of President Clinton's Jan. 17 deposition
#15. To: BeAChooser (#3)
(Edited)
Moreover, one could conclude that being "highly educated" really means that the jurors were indoctrinated in lib think, and brainwashed by lib professors at lib universities.
#16. To: ... (#14)
Mr. Kook, are you of the opinion that if Bill Clinton jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge, then Bush should be able to flap his arms and fly off the bridge too? (This is a test to see if you are a garden variety kook or a raging kook - be careful how you answer.)
#17. To: BeAChooser (#3)
... portions of President Clinton's Jan. 17 deposition
#18. To: BeAChooser (#0)
(Edited)
The answer was, in so many words, no, the government didn't intend to introduce any "tangible" evidence to confirm either assertion because it couldn't. The only reason this farce of a trial continued beyond this point was because it was one of many political warfare campaigns against the President and Vice-President over the Iraq War.
#19. To: BeAChooser (#0)
(Edited)
#20. To: ..., ALL (#19)
#21. To: BeAChooser (#20)
May I call you Mr. Cowardly-Kook for here on out? How about if we just call you C.K. for short?
#22. To: BeAChooser (#20)
Thank you. I was hoping someone would reply like you did. It's so "4um".
#23. To: ..., ALL (#22)
#24. To: BeAChooser (#20)
#25. To: BeAChooser (#23)
Now don't lose it ...
#26. To: BeAChooser (#23)
Now don't lose it ...
#27. To: BeAChooser (#23)
Now don't lose it ...
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest