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

yossarian · Apr 14, 2006

Karl K said:

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.
Click to expand...

As I stated earlier in this thread, motive is not an element of perjury. In other words, if defense counsel files an appeal of a criminal conviction for perjury and the appeal is based on insufficiency of the evidence (ie., Jackson v. Virginia), arguing that the prosecution failed to show motive......that appeal is dismissed as meritless.

Again, as I also stated, in many cases, a prosecutor would like to be able to show a motive but it's not necessary as a legal element of the case.

NSlander · Apr 14, 2006

yossarian said:

As I stated earlier in this thread, motive is not an element of perjury. In other words, if defense counsel files an appeal of a criminal conviction for perjury and the appeal is based on insufficiency of the evidence (ie., Jackson v. Virginia), arguing that the prosecution failed to show motive......that appeal is dismissed as meritless.

Again, as I also stated, in many cases, a prosecutor would like to be able to show a motive but it's not necessary as a legal element of the case.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should consider petitioning the moderators to be appointed Karl's guardian ad litem.

Job had NOTHING on you.

yossarian · Apr 15, 2006

NSlander said:

Perhaps you should consider petitioning the moderators to be appointed Karl's guardian ad litem.

Job had NOTHING on you.
Click to expand...

Ehhh, I don't know....I've never tried one of those Segway's.

Oh, you mean Job, not Gob......

Chris M. · Apr 17, 2006

yossarian said:

As I stated earlier in this thread, motive is not an element of perjury. In other words, if defense counsel files an appeal of a criminal conviction for perjury and the appeal is based on insufficiency of the evidence (ie., Jackson v. Virginia), arguing that the prosecution failed to show motive......that appeal is dismissed as meritless.

Again, as I also stated, in many cases, a prosecutor would like to be able to show a motive but it's not necessary as a legal element of the case.
Click to expand...

I don't do criminal, but I don't think "motive" is an element of any crime. Intent is another matter, but clearly Karl's legal analysis was shaped by his mastery of "Clue."

yossarian · Apr 17, 2006

Chris M. said:

I don't do criminal, but I don't think "motive" is an element of any crime. Intent is another matter, but clearly Karl's legal analysis was shaped by his mastery of "Clue."
Click to expand...

It's not.....but I know how Karl likes nuance and specificity so I was limiting my comments to perjury.

Metrogo · Apr 17, 2006

Karl K said:

Ah, yes, motive. You can't have a crime without a motive. But, gee, if there's no motive, how can there be a crime?
Click to expand...

Sure you can. Statutory rape, negligent homicide. What are you talking about?

Stogey23 · Apr 17, 2006

We have 24 hours in a day.

Why you people spend any bit of that typing responses to Kark Keller will continue to amaze me.

Dan Loney · Apr 17, 2006

superdave said:

Um, dude, he's a Republican!
Click to expand...

In fairness, so is Fitzgerald.

HerthaBerwyn · Apr 17, 2006

Speaking of Fitzgerald his flag is flying high today with the all counts conviction of Republican scumbag ex-Illinois waste of chad George Ryan.
Fitz defeated scumbag ex-Illinois Governor Jim Thompson and fellating minion pro-se scumbag tobacco lawyer Dan Webb in putting Ryan in the stripey hole.

Now, on to his next triumph, in Washington. Then, back home for the main event, the destruction of the Cook County Democratic Party (Which is merely a cabal with the downstate scumbag Republicans)

Good job Fitz!!! Have at them!!!

heybeerman · Apr 26, 2006

Rove testifying again

So the Fat Pig of Neo Cons is testifying to Fitz for the fifth time. Anyone think that him stepping down from poilicy is a cover? Maybe it's getting hot in the trough, time for them to start easing him out? Or maybe it's just what they say it is. Maybe I just am blinded by "my hatred for Buscho".

Among other things the prosecutor is investigating why Rove originally failed to disclose to prosecutors that he had talked to Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper about the CIA status of Plame.
Click to expand...

Fitzgerald has told Rove's legal team recently that he has not made any decision on whether to charge the presidential aide and Rove hasn't received a target notification that would indicate he is likely to be indicted, the people said.

His grand jury appearance comes a week after Rove, the architect of Bush's election victories, gave up his policy duties at the White House as part of an administration remake to return him to a fulltime focus on politics.
Click to expand...

Revolt · Apr 26, 2006

Waiting for the latest Karl missive (courtesy of WSJ opinion pages) spouting off about how mean old Fitzmas is falsely accusing of poor Scooter of all sorts of nasty things.

Dan Loney · Apr 26, 2006

Revolt said:

Waiting for the latest Karl missive (courtesy of WSJ opinion pages) spouting off about how mean old Fitzmas is falsely accusing of poor Scooter of all sorts of nasty things.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the Wall Street Journal hates the idea of anyone being falsely accused of anything.

Sincerely,
Hillary Clinton
Murderer of Vince Foster

Karl K · Apr 27, 2006

Revolt said:

Waiting for the latest Karl missive (courtesy of WSJ opinion pages) spouting off about how mean old Fitzmas is falsely accusing of poor Scooter of all sorts of nasty things.
Click to expand...

Tsk Tsk tsk tsk tsk.

I read the Wall St. Journal

You read Juan Cole, thinking his web site is the place to go to know what's going on in Iraq, even though (a) he's never been there and (b) his Arabic apparently is quite weak.

There you have it. I get on my knees every day and thank God I am not you.

Karl K · Apr 27, 2006

yossarian said:

As I stated earlier in this thread, motive is not an element of perjury. In other words, if defense counsel files an appeal of a criminal conviction for perjury and the appeal is based on insufficiency of the evidence (ie., Jackson v. Virginia), arguing that the prosecution failed to show motive......that appeal is dismissed as meritless.

Again, as I also stated, in many cases, a prosecutor would like to be able to show a motive but it's not necessary as a legal element of the case.
Click to expand...

Look, you're obviously a good lawyer and a smart guy, but in the end some things are very very simple.

Again, I say it again, a man of Scooter's sophistication isn't going to lie just for the helluva it.

He's got to have a REASON. If there's no reason, then what?

Revolt · Apr 27, 2006

Karl K said:

Tsk Tsk tsk tsk tsk.

I read the Wall St. Journal

You read Juan Cole, thinking his web site is the place to go to know what's going on in Iraq, even though (a) he's never been there and (b) his Arabic apparently is quite weak.

There you have it. I get on my knees every day and thank God I am not you.
Click to expand...

Karl, guess what? I read the WSJ, too. Except for the opinion pages - which are on a par with the NY Post - It is one of the three or four best NEWS papers in America.

And let us both give thanks that you are not me, and vice versa.

Claymore · Apr 27, 2006

Karl K said:

Look, you're obviously a good lawyer and a smart guy, but in the end some things are very very simple.

Again, I say it again, a man of Scooter's sophistication isn't going to lie just for the helluva it.

He's got to have a REASON. If there's no reason, then what?
Click to expand...

Yossarian cites a specific case, SuperGenius knows better. What a surprise.

heybeerman · Apr 27, 2006

Karl K said:

Look, you're obviously a good lawyer and a smart guy, but in the end some things are very very simple.

Again, I say it again, a man of Scooter's sophistication isn't going to lie just for the helluva it.

He's got to have a REASON. If there's no reason, then what?
Click to expand...

3 entries found for obfuscation.
ob·fus·cate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bf-skt, b-fskt)
tr.v. ob·fus·cat·ed, ob·fus·cat·ing, ob·fus·cates
To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand: “A great effort was made... to obscure or obfuscate the truth” (Robert Conquest).
To render indistinct or dim; darken: The fog obfuscated the shore.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Latin obfuscre, obfusct-, to darken : ob-, over; see ob- + fuscre, to darken (from fuscus, dark).]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
obfus·cation n.
ob·fusca·tory (b-fsk-tôr, -tr, b-) adj.

Rove called again to testify on leak

The grand jury appearance comes a week after the presidential adviser was relieved of his policy responsibilities at the White House to focus full-time on electoral politics. That change in Rove's portfolio helped inoculate the White House against Rove's latest appearance before the grand jury. If Rove is indicted and forced to resign, the White House can say that his substantive policy responsibilities have already been effectively transferred.
Click to expand...

bojendyk · Apr 27, 2006

Karl K said:

You read Juan Cole, thinking his web site is the place to go to know what's going on in Iraq, even though (a) he's never been there and (b) his Arabic apparently is quite weak.
Click to expand...

I don't know whether Cole has been to Iraq (at least during the war), but he apparently speaks Arabic quite well--in fact, he knows three different dialects of it. He lived in the middle east for several years. The accusation that he doesn't speak it well was because, during an interview on some Arab television station, he switched to English because he couldn't make clear the nuance of a particular academic argument in Arabic.

The WSJ is fantastic, of course, with the qualification that the op/ed page is for sucks. The news section of the WSJ is to the editorial section as Sleater Kinney is to, say, Steely Dan.

Karl K · Apr 27, 2006

Re: Rove testifying again

heybeerman said:

So the Fat Pig of Neo Cons is testifying to Fitz for the fifth time. Anyone think that him stepping down from poilicy is a cover? Maybe it's getting hot in the trough, time for them to start easing him out? Or maybe it's just what they say it is. Maybe I just am blinded by "my hatred for Buscho".
Click to expand...

Hmmm...are we making a prediction here?

Though if you are predicting that you are blinded by Bush Derangement Syndrome, far be it from me to contest that.

Basically, all Fitzboy did was in this re-call of Rove was to re-focus on the Cooper conversation. This was the conversation that Rove later admitted happened.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,193207,00.html

"Karl Rove appeared today before the grand jury investigating the disclosure of a CIA agent's identity. He testified voluntarily and unconditionally at the request of the Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to explore a matter raised since Mr Rove's last appearance in October 2005," Rove attorney Bob Luskin said in a statement.

"In connection with this appearance, the special counsel has advised Mr. Rove that he is not a target of the investigation. Mr. Fitzgerald has affirmed that he has made no decision concerning charges," Luskin said.
Click to expand...

chaski · Apr 27, 2006

Rove is taking Libby's "why would I lie" defense one step further.

In his fifth appearance before the grand jury, Rove spent considerable time arguing that it would have been foolish for him to knowingly mislead investigators about his role in the disclosure of the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame to the media, the source said.

Rove testified, in essence, that "it would have been a suicide mission" to "deliberately lie" about his conversation with Cooper because he knew beforehand that it eventually would be revealed, the source said.
Click to expand...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/26/AR2006042600849.html?sub=AR

heybeerman · Apr 27, 2006

Re: Rove testifying again

Karl K said:

Hmmm...are we making a prediction here?

Though if you are predicting that you are blinded by Bush Derangement Syndrome, far be it from me to contest that.

Basically, all Fitzboy did was in this re-call of Rove was to re-focus on the Cooper conversation. This was the conversation that Rove later admitted happened.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,193207,00.html
Click to expand...

Karl, I am absolutely delighted that you replied in a civil way.

I don't know what is gonna happen, but ploy #1, the argument that Fitz had too much power has failed. Judge Won't Dismiss Case Against Libby . The damage against Libby has already been substantial, he stepped down. I'm content to follow it and see where it ends. Its obviously quite serious and yes my palms are getting sweaty that Rove may be next. You don't get called in 5 times for nothing. Certainly he may skate, but I'm hoping Fitz takes him out shortly, before the mid terms.

Fitzgerald Will Seek New White House Indictments

It may seem as though it's been moving along at a snail's pace, but the second part of the federal investigation into the leak of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson is nearly complete, with attorneys and government officials who have remained close to the probe saying that a grand jury will likely return an indictment against one or two senior Bush administration officials.
Click to expand...

aha! And who could it be?????

In lengthy interviews over the weekend and on Monday, they said that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has started to prepare the paperwork to present to the grand jury seeking an indictment against White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove or National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley.
Click to expand...

And for what???

Although the situation remains fluid, it's possible, these sources said, that Fitzgerald may seek to indict both Rove and Hadley, charging them with perjury, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy related to their roles in the leak of Plame Wilson's identity and their effort to cover up their involvement following a Justice Department investigation.
Click to expand...

I think I am right in speculating that the White House is distancing themselves from Rove, but aren't cutting the embilical cord just yet.

Time will tell. According to the Scoop, we'll know just in time for Memorial Day weekend.... think I'll roast a pig.

Dan Loney · Apr 27, 2006

Re: Rove testifying again

Karl K said:

foxnews.com
Click to expand...

Naturally.

EDIT - hey, guess what, Fitzboy isn't in trouble after all!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060427/ap_on_go_ot/cia_leak_2

heybeerman · Apr 27, 2006

Re: Rove testifying again

oooh, I must be having a wet dream.

Target Letter Drives Rove Back to Grand Jury

Karl Rove's appearance before a grand jury in the CIA leak case Wednesday comes on the heels of a "target letter" sent to his attorney recently by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, signaling that the Deputy White House Chief of Staff may face imminent indictment, sources that are knowledgeable about the probe said Wednesday
Click to expand...

People close to the case said that Fitzgerald has presented additional evidence to the grand jury in the past week that shows Rove lied to federal investigators and a grand jury eight out of the nine times he was asked about his knowledge of the leak since October 2003.

Should Wednesday's court appearance by Rove provide the grand jury with answers to lingering questions, Rove may not be charged with obstruction of justice, but will likely be indicted for perjury and lying to investigators, sources close to the case said.
Click to expand...

Claymore · Apr 27, 2006

Re: Rove testifying again

heybeerman said:

oooh, I must be having a wet dream.

Target Letter Drives Rove Back to Grand Jury
Click to expand...

Yup, Rove is toast.

heybeerman · Apr 27, 2006

Re: Rove testifying again

Claymore said:

Yup, Rove is toast.
Click to expand...

He'll throw himself on the grenade and Bush will pardon him. However, this could scuttle the mid terms for the REEPS and that would be a just delightful.

Tradesports

GOP Control of the Senate 79.1 bid 79.4 offer
GOP Control of the House 55 bid 56 offer

2008 Pres.
Dems 48.8 X 49.1
Reps 48.2 X 49.4