Thursday, February 01, 2007

The Libby trial

These two videos tell you what you need to know.





Also see this story on the testimony of Agent Bond, Deborah Bond:
Vice President Cheney had also said that she worked in "CP" or counter-proliferation at the agency. How did Cheney know this? From someone at the CIA -- possibly director George Tenet, but Libby wasn't sure.
Okay. Why not ask Tenet?

Bottom line: Cheney's at the center of this thing. I feel certain that Cheney had Libby reveal Valerie's identity, and that the administration wants Libby to fall on his sword.

When Cheney testifies, he will lie under oath. We know this. He will lie despite the advice not to lie which his lawyers will surely give. He will lie despite all the prompting and preparation he will receive before his appearance. He will lie despite the widespread expectation that he will lie.

He will lie for the same reason that Jack Nicholson's character told the truth in A Few Good Men: He is what he is. Power has made him arrogant, and he will say and do what he damn well pleases. And Cheney has made it clear that he prefers to spew the same old horseshit, even if other Republicans scoff.

So the question becomes: What will Fitzgerald do when Cheney lies?

What will we do? What can we do?

Let us also ponder the outrageous affair of the NIE estimate, in which Vice President Cheney, informed by his lawyers that the President can declassify whatever he wishes, took it upon himself to declassify the thing without telling GWB. Obviously, this is one Veep who considers the President an impediment to the efficient running of his government.

As I said: Arrogance. And I'm getting the sense that some within the Republican party have had a bellyfull of Cheney's attitude. Which means that they will support impeachment proceedings -- if and when Cheney lies on the stand.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

joe, we have information that tells us how it is cheney might know plame's role at the agency.

i'll be posting on this in a few days. cannot - repeat, canNOT - believe i am so otherwise occupied in the midst of this watershed trial!!! thanks for keeping readers so up to date.

Anonymous said...

If Fitz can get the convictions of Libby, he can then approach Libby with the threat of ALSO indicting him for outing Plame. Fitz has very deliberately not accused anyone of the outing; he holds the threat in reserve. There's little doubt in my mind that Fitz intends to offer Libby the choice: give up your boss as the mastermind behind the crime, or be yourself charged also with the outing, and go to prison for the rest of your life.

Fitz is after Cheney. And you are so right, Cheney will start lying the moment he is sworn in. And why not?--he's been getting away with baldfaced lies for over six decades. It's simple reflex.

Anonymous said...

"What will we do? What can we do?"

Nothing to both questions, but it is pleasant to dream, eh?

Anonymous said...

As Fitz described back when, Libby threw sand in the eyes of the investigation. He is sure to remove a lot of that sand during this trial. And I'm guessing he'll proceed from there with his original goal. One step at a time.

I am SO looking forward to Cheney on the stand. If and when he lies, Fitz will catch it and hopefully let him dig a hole big enough that he can't get out. I don't think the red herrings and arrogance will work as well with Fitz as they do Bush and the general public.

Miss P.

Anonymous said...

Joseph,

check this out:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/by-what-definition-is-gav_b_40201.html

"By What Definition is Gavin Newsom's Sex Life 'Breaking News'?"

The very powerful mainstream media is using the SF Mayor Gavin Newsom's "affair" with a married woman from over a year ago as tool to divert the public's attention from the Libby trial and the new revelations regarding the FBI agent's new testimony and others that implicates Cheney.

The story behind the story is why didn't this story break a year ago? it's old news and the affair didn't last more than a few months. Why now?

there is very little press coverage of the Libby trial anywhere on the front pages of the SF Chronicle the past few days except for the damn story about Gavin Newsom's "affair".

I found out about this when I opened up an internet explorer browser that defaults to the default microsoft www.msn.com website and was shocked to see a small thumbnail picture of GavinNewsom on this website because I have never ever seen his face on their website.

so the powers that be in the media are really whooping it up over Gavin's "affair" to distract the public's attention. This is classic Karl Rove media manipulation.

see the SF Chronicle's article that has taken up nearly the ENTIRE FRONT PAGE today and have given several pages to this very minor story.

‘I HAVE LET THE PEOPLE DOWN’
DAMAGE CONTROL: Newsom pledges he'll work hard to restore 'trust and confidence'

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/02/02/MNGHNNTN2N1.DTL

Anonymous said...

It will be interesting to watch as the testimony of Cheney nears, just how hot things get in Iran. Does anybody else think they just might start a conflagration to take the attention off the trial???

fallinglady

Anonymous said...

Why shouldn't Libby take the fall for Cheney et al? The president is sure to pardon him when he leaves office. Libby can't be that afraid of less than two years confinement. Perhaps he will even be allowed conjugal visits with ol'“Aspen roots” Miller. Next question. If Bush is impeached, will that take away his pardoning powers? I think it will. Yet another reason to impeach...

BOB