Latest Libby Filings...strategy's clearer, could spell trouble for Fitzboy

Samarkand · Apr 13, 2006

The feeble, pathetic ass covering of Karl Keller.

Karl K said:

Once again, YOU, moonbat in chief, do NOT understand distinctions.

I said the motion was compelling. I never say, anywhere, that is going to be granted, or that Libby is going to win.

Let me go on record here. Libby COULD lose. This motion. His trial. He COULD get thrown into the slammer.

Then again, this whole thing could just fizzle out totally.

Of course, in your delusional view of the world, you only THINK that I predict he is going to win, or that I think that is what is going to happen.

I studiously avoid making predicitions.

But I give up hope that you, and the fellow great unwashed moonbatdom, will ever understand this.

But hey, you're smart. Yep. You've got a steel trap mind.
Click to expand...

Here's how it works.

Karl 'The Giant Brain' Keller posts a screed wherein he posits some theory designed to prove everything about Chimpy and his minions is absolutely pristine while insulting the supposed enemies of Chimpy. The screed meanders on and on, for many words and paragraphs, with large amounts of copying and pasting (which take up the heavy lifting of thinking in said theory), saying the same thing over and over again, insulting everyone who doesn't agree, over and over again.

Then, just before the end of said screed there's the usual one or two sentence qualifier wherein he declares that "Of course, none of this may happen." This conveniently covers him of ever having to go on the record so when his screed is shown to be bullshit, he can point to two sentence qualifier.

This isn't posting, it isn't writing, it isn't argument, it isn't discourse; what it is is feeble, pathetic ass covering. And a pathological desire to be always right while excoriating those who don't agree.

"I'm saying you're all moonbats, unless of course you're not, in which case I'm right either way."

(Apologies for the image of Karl trying feebly to cover his ass, btw.)

Karl K · Apr 13, 2006

John Galt said:

Whatever happens with this thread, remember the [R] rule. Don't quote Karl, as about 2/3 of the people have him on their ignore lists. Thanks in advance.

(I assume one or more of you who's replied to him has already been called stupid, but would prefer not to find out).
Click to expand...

Speaking of stupid, how's that analogy comparing Bush to Nixon. Any word on that?

Karl K · Apr 13, 2006

obie said:

First of all, I'm not quoting K-Bat, I'm quoting Libby's lawyers. Because I bothered to read the damn thing over lunch.
... and right there, the defense explains why Fitzpatrick hasn't turned over all of the documents that the lawyers are requesting.

By asking for Wilson's trip information and the NIE, Libby's lawyers are trying to defend him against charges that haven't been made against him. The charges are simple: Libby lied and intentionally misled the grand jury in its investigation of a possibly illegal disclosure of a CIA agent. Whether that investigation resulted in any charges against anyone is irrelevant to the charges brought forth against Libby -- you can't walk into any grand jury anywhere under oath and intentionally mislead them. Period.

Here's a parallel: let's say there is a murder, and a witness takes the stand for the defense and just makes things up on the stand, saying he saw things that Notall evidence indicates is a total lie. And the prosecution can prove it's a lie. Then let's say other evidence emerges that exonerates the murder defendent, and he walks free. Does the result of the murder case mean the lying defense witness didn't perjure himself? And does the biography of, say, the murder victim's mother provide anything other than backstory?

Which leads us to the big question -- why would Libby's lawyers want those documents? How are they relevant to defending him against perjury & obstruction? You'd have to spin a massive backstory in order to get any relationship between Wilson's trip to Niger and Libby telling GJ something that was a flat-out lie. And maybe that's what the defense wants to do -- but if they do, watch out because it's likely not in the White House's best interest.

K-Bat started this by saying that the "strategy" of the defense is "clearer". I can't see that at all. Either they're grasping at straws, or they're trying to cut a deal, because on Libby's perjury trial alone, pretty much everything they are asking for is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Cut a deal? You gotta be joking.

Look, I know it's hard for you guys, but it's very simple, really. Even you can understand it.

Fitzgerald contends that Libby lied because he was afraid to lose his job for leaking Plame's name. That is...ahem...a MOTIVE. You've heard of the concept of a "motive" haven't you.

In case you missed this in school, a motive is the reason you commit a crime.

But if the motive isn't there, because everybody KNEW about Val Gal, what, then, has prompted the crime? WHAT??

Oh, by the way, did you EVER listen to the Fitzboy's press conference? Throught the entire soliloquy by Fitz, the moonbat meme of "Bushco outed super-secret CIA agent Val Gal" was a subtext--heck, he was hitting us over the head with it like a 2 by 4. Perjury and OOJ were simply convenient wedges to address the REAL issue -- that, you know, Libby lied because, well, he was afraid of being found out that he outed an undercover agent.

But if he had no reason to be afraid, because here status WASN'T at all covert, what is this whole brouhaha about?

It's about fcuking nothing at all. NADA ZIP. ZILCH.

"And YOU," say the jurors for this trial will ask of Fitzboy, "YOU want US to throw a guy in the slammer over something that, in the end, is NOTHING? Is that what you want us to do?"

Yep. Nothing. In other word's what between the ears of many on this board.

Samarkand · Apr 13, 2006

Karl K said:

But if the motive isn't there, because everybody KNEW about Val Gal, what, then, has prompted the crime? WHAT??
Click to expand...

Do you have a single shred of anything to show that ANYBODY, let alone everybody, knew of Valerie Plame's identity BEFORE Joe Wilson's op-ed? If so link it here; if not STFU........

Karl K · Apr 13, 2006

Samarkand said:

Do you have a single shred of anything to show that ANYBODY, let alone everybody, knew of Valerie Plame's identity BEFORE Joe Wilson's op-ed? If so link it here; if not STFU........
Click to expand...

Here ya go.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110007488

Read this, and then YOU STFU because you have nothing of interest to say in this matter, or anything else.

It seems that at least two journalists knew that Plame worked for the CIA long before the kerfuffle that bears her name was a gleam in the eye of Angry Leftists. From the New York Sun, July 6, 2005:

Among the letters submitted by [Time's Matt] Cooper [to the judge considering whether to compel his testimony] was one from a former Time White House correspondent, Hugh Sidey. "In this case it seems to me the protection of a source transcends the other considerations,which do not seem to threaten national security," he wrote.

Mr. Sidey said in an interview that the identity of the CIA operative, Ms. Plame, was widely known--well before Mr. Cooper talked to his sources. "You know this game as well as I do," Mr. Sidey said. "That name was knocking around in the sub rosa world we live in for a long time."

And this is an exchange between host Alan Murray and guest Andrea Mitchell on CNBC's now-defunct "Capital Report," Oct. 3, 2003 (transcript not available publicly online):

Murray: Do we have any idea how widely known it was in Washington that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?

Mitchell: It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us began to pick up on that. But frankly I wasn't aware of her actual role at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role involving weapons of mass destruction, not until Bob Novak wrote it.

In fact, Novak did not report that she was covert; Fitzgerald did not allege it; and the factual assertions Joe Wilson makes in his own book, if accurate, prove that she was not. It's further evidence that this "scandal" is about nothing . . .
Click to expand...

Claymore · Apr 13, 2006

Karl K said:

Cut a deal? You gotta be joking.

Look, I know it's hard for you guys, but it's very simple, really. Even you can understand it.

Fitzgerald contends that Libby lied because he was afraid to lose his job for leaking Plame's name. That is...ahem...a MOTIVE. You've heard of the concept of a "motive" haven't you.

In case you missed this in school, a motive is the reason you commit a crime.

But if the motive isn't there, because everybody KNEW about Val Gal, what, then, has prompted the crime? WHAT??

Oh, by the way, did you EVER listen to the Fitzboy's press conference? Throught the entire soliloquy by Fitz, the moonbat meme of "Bushco outed super-secret CIA agent Val Gal" was a subtext--heck, he was hitting us over the head with it like a 2 by 4. Perjury and OOJ were simply convenient wedges to address the REAL issue -- that, you know, Libby lied because, well, he was afraid of being found out that he outed an undercover agent.

But if he had no reason to be afraid, because here status WASN'T at all covert, what is this whole brouhaha about?

It's about fcuking nothing at all. NADA ZIP. ZILCH.

"And YOU," say the jurors for this trial will ask of Fitzboy, "YOU want US to throw a guy in the slammer over something that, in the end, is NOTHING? Is that what you want us to do?"

Yep. Nothing. In other word's what between the ears of many on this board.
Click to expand...

The Talking Point That Wouldn't Die.

yossarian · Apr 13, 2006

Karl K said:

Fitzgerald contends that Libby lied because he was afraid to lose his job for leaking Plame's name. That is...ahem...a MOTIVE. You've heard of the concept of a "motive" haven't you.

In case you missed this in school, a motive is the reason you commit a crime.

But if the motive isn't there, because everybody KNEW about Val Gal, what, then, has prompted the crime? WHAT??
Click to expand...

Fitzgerald's speculations as to motive notwithstanding......you do realize that motive is not an element that has to be proven to secure a perjury conviction, right? Sure, sometimes it helps a prosecutor in convincing a jury but it's not an element.

Samarkand · Apr 13, 2006

Karl K said:

Here ya go.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110007488

Read this, and then YOU STFU because you have nothing of interest to say in this matter, or anything else.
Click to expand...

No Karl, your usual bullshit. As ever and as always.

All you have done is reference two journalists who were wise after the event. Joe Wilson's op-ed was published on Sunday, July 6, 2003. Find me a single reference to Valerie Plame Wilson BEFORE that date. Not AFTER. BEFORE. Your wonderful little link is dated Tuesday, November 1, 2005. That's 18 months after.

As I asked, show or find me a single reference to Valerie Plame Wilson's covert position before Sunday, July 6, 2003. And I don't want some journalist(s) who were oh-so-wise 18 months later.

Link please or STFU........

superdave · Apr 13, 2006

Karl K said:

Look, I know it's hard for you guys, but it's very simple, really.
Click to expand...

Is it hard, or simple? Please explain.

Fitzgerald contends that Libby lied because he was afraid to lose his job for leaking Plame's name.
Click to expand...

Sure about that, Kemosabe?

You're apparently unaware of the latest Murray Waas. Or Fitzboy's own filings.

But if he had no reason to be afraid, because here status WASN'T at all covert, what is this whole brouhaha about?
Click to expand...

You still on this? Shouldn't you be out proving Saddam was behind 9/11 or something.

Yep. Nothing. In other word's what between the ears of many on this board.
Click to expand...

I know you are but what am I.

nicephoras · Apr 13, 2006

Crimes don't need to have a motive. Crimes are easier to prove if they have motive. There's no necessity for a motive in manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide. If Scooter lied, what his motive was for lying might be relevant to a larger investigation. Its not to the lying. Perjury is perjury, obstruction is obstruction.
P.S. Only $500 an hour? Where did Scotter find such losers?

Dan Loney · Apr 13, 2006

Samarkand said:

Link please or STFU........
Click to expand...

Maybe we should ask whichever blog he's cutting and pasting all this from.

obie · Apr 13, 2006

Hey, K-Bat: the presence of a motive is not a requirement to convict.

chaski · Apr 13, 2006

Karl K said:

I said the motion was compelling. .
Click to expand...

It had better be compelling; its a motion to compel discovery.

chaski · Apr 13, 2006

obie said:

Which leads us to the big question -- why would Libby's lawyers want those documents? How are they relevant to defending him against perjury & obstruction? You'd have to spin a massive backstory in order to get any relationship between Wilson's trip to Niger and Libby telling GJ something that was a flat-out lie. And maybe that's what the defense wants to do -- but if they do, watch out because it's likely not in the White House's best interest.

K-Bat started this by saying that the "strategy" of the defense is "clearer". I can't see that at all. Either they're grasping at straws, or they're trying to cut a deal, because on Libby's perjury trial alone, pretty much everything they are asking for is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

The strategy of the defense is graymail.

nicephoras · Apr 13, 2006

chaski said:

It had better be compelling; its a motion to compel discovery.
Click to expand...

ROTFLMFAO.

Ah, lawyer humor.

Karl K · Apr 14, 2006

nicephoras said:

Crimes don't need to have a motive. Crimes are easier to prove if they have motive. There's no necessity for a motive in manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide. If Scooter lied, what his motive was for lying might be relevant to a larger investigation. Its not to the lying. Perjury is perjury, obstruction is obstruction.
Click to expand...

Crimes don't need a motive?

Even if you lie because you simply just feel like it at the time, THAT'S your motive.

You think a man of Scooter's education and sophistication lies because, well, it just strikes his fancy to do so at the time?

Yeah, right.

Karl K · Apr 14, 2006

Claymore said:

The Talking Point That Wouldn't Die.
Click to expand...

The talking point that's blatantly obvious to anybody with half a brain.

And, perhaps, the talking point that will get Scooter off.

NOTE: This is NOT a predicition. Just a possibility.

Samarkand · Apr 14, 2006

So that's how it works then? Attack those who don't agree with you and then mealy-mouthedly cover your ass by declaring that what you say may not happen. Weasel.

Chicago1871 · Apr 14, 2006

Karl K said:

Crimes don't need a motive?
Click to expand...

If I'm reclessly driving a car and I hit and kill someone I've just committed manslaughter and that's a crime. However, there was no motive behind the crime.

Chicago1871 · Apr 14, 2006

Karl K said:

NOTE: This is NOT a predicition. Just a possibility.
Click to expand...

I see you've realized that your predictions tend to fail miserably and you don't want to jinx this case, huh?

Karl K · Apr 14, 2006

Samarkand said:

No Karl, your usual bullshit. As ever and as always.

All you have done is reference two journalists who were wise after the event. Joe Wilson's op-ed was published on Sunday, July 6, 2003. Find me a single reference to Valerie Plame Wilson BEFORE that date. Not AFTER. BEFORE. Your wonderful little link is dated Tuesday, November 1, 2005. That's 18 months after.

As I asked, show or find me a single reference to Valerie Plame Wilson's covert position before Sunday, July 6, 2003. And I don't want some journalist(s) who were oh-so-wise 18 months later.

Link please or STFU........
Click to expand...

Oh, stick a sock in it. Of all the moonbats on the board, you're winning the race as the dumbest.

Sidey and Mitchell were talking about Plame's identity as a CIA employee as common knowledge. The knew about it BEFORE Novak published the article, which started this whole brouhaha. THAT'S the only timing that matters, but you're too dumb to understand that.

Simple as that.

By the way, why do you think Libby's lawyers want access to all the CIA documents, the DOJ's referral, and want to subpoena all these reporters?

Why, you twit, it is to SHOW that her status was not at all covert.

It continues to astonish me how all of you simply cannot grasp these absolutely simple concepts.

superdave · Apr 14, 2006

Karl K said:

You think a man of Scooter's education and sophistication lies because, well, it just strikes his fancy to do so at the time?
Click to expand...

Um, dude, he's a Republican!

HerthaBerwyn · Apr 14, 2006

What if the motive was purely obedience to his hierarchy?
Maybe he was just being a Good German.

In the end do you think he will go to his doom blessing Capitan Vere?

Chicago1871 · Apr 14, 2006

Karl K said:

By the way, why do you think Libby's lawyers want access to all the CIA documents, the DOJ's referral, and want to subpoena all these reporters?
Click to expand...

Because David Copperfield wouldn't reveal the secrets to his tricks and they need something to divert attention from the facts?

Samarkand · Apr 14, 2006

Karl K said:

Oh, stick a sock in it. Of all the moonbats on the board, you're winning the race as the dumbest.

Sidey and Mitchell were talking about Plame's identity as a CIA employee as common knowledge. The knew about it BEFORE Novak published the article, which started this whole brouhaha. THAT'S the only timing that matters, but you're too dumb to understand that.

Simple as that.

By the way, why do you think Libby's lawyers want access to all the CIA documents, the DOJ's referral, and want to subpoena all these reporters?

Why, you twit, it is to SHOW that her status was not at all covert.

It continues to astonish me how all of you simply cannot grasp these absolutely simple concepts.
Click to expand...

So this is an admission from you that you have nothing that references Valerie Plame Wilson's covert status from before Sunday, July 6, 2003 then? I mean you keep telling us that EVERYONE knew of said status, yet you are completely, absolutely and totally incapable of finding a single reference to her status prior to that date. Well, that's just about as much as I expected.

Now, I don't suppose there's any chance that you'd complete the second part of the request and STFU?