The cover up was successful

[HomerJS]

Scooter Libby in multiple appearances to the grand jury lied about his source of Valerie Plames identity. His own personal notes confirmed he got the information from Dick Cheney. People have asked how could Libby be so stupid? He wasn't and the answer was provided in a statement from the prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.

Fitzgerald stated in his press conference he wished "people" had provided honest testimony to the grand jury back when the sopenas were issued in Aug 04. He said we would have been at this point in Oct 04 instead of Oct 05.

Now what was close to the date of Oct 04? That's right the Presidential Election. Libby realized if this info came out when it should have it was too close to the election. He began the coverup by lying to the grand jury, thereby stalling this until after the election. To add to the coverup he claimed to get the information from reporters. He knew the prosecutor would have to question them and the reporters would not want to reveal their source, again stalling the investegation.

Boy these guys are really good.

 

[Genx87]

Way too go Sherloc

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Way too go Sherloc

don't listen to the troll, your conclusion is a logical one but we still don't know all the facts.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: HomerJS
Scooter Libby in multiple appearances to the grand jury lied about his source of Valerie Plames identity. His own personal notes confirmed he got the information from Dick Cheney. People have asked how could Libby be so stupid? He wasn't and the answer was provided in a statement from the prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.

Fitzgerald stated in his press conference he wished "people" had provided honest testimony to the grand jury back when the sopenas were issued in Aug 04. He said we would have been at this point in Oct 04 instead of Oct 05.

Now what was close to the date of Oct 04? That's right the Presidential Election. Libby realized if this info came out when it should have it was too close to the election. He began the coverup by lying to the grand jury, thereby stalling this until after the election. To add to the coverup he claimed to get the information from reporters. He knew the prosecutor would have to question them and the reporters would not want to reveal their source, again stalling the investegation.

Boy these guys are really good.

Congratulations, another conspiracy theory. I think you ought to consider contacting the producers of The West Wing and see about writing a few scripts.

There's not been a credible answer yet for why Libby would perjure himself to a grand jury and then turn over notes (willfully) that contradict his testimony and put him right in the hands of the Prosecutor. Doesn't make sense.

The Cheney conspiracy theories make no sense, either. There's been no accusation nor any evidence, ever, to support the ridiculous notion that Cheney committed a crime.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne

Originally posted by: Genx87
Way too go Sherloc

don't listen to the troll, your conclusion is a logical one but we still don't know all the facts.

If you dont know all the fact and come to a conclusion, how logical is your thought process?

 

[InfectedMushroom]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne

Originally posted by: Genx87
Way too go Sherloc

don't listen to the troll, your conclusion is a logical one but we still don't know all the facts.

If you dont know all the fact and come to a conclusion, how logical is your thought process?

Your statement very Genx87 is very false from a purely logical point of view. Wether he had or did not have all the facts, it does not affect how logical or illogical his thought process was. It does however affect his conclusion, which could be right or it could be wrong.

Don't post sh1t like that unless you think it through, or you sounds even dumber than you are.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: InfectedMushroom

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne

Originally posted by: Genx87
Way too go Sherloc

don't listen to the troll, your conclusion is a logical one but we still don't know all the facts.

If you dont know all the fact and come to a conclusion, how logical is your thought process?

Your statement very Genx87 is very false from a purely logical point of view. Wether he had or did not have all the facts, it does not affect how logical or illogical his thought process was. It does however affect his conclusion, which could be right or it could be wrong.

Don't post sh1t like that unless you think it through, or you sounds even dumber than you are.

It was meant as a rhetorical question

But thanks for taking time out of your busy day to answer it for him.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne

Originally posted by: Genx87
Way too go Sherloc

don't listen to the troll, your conclusion is a logical one but we still don't know all the facts.

If you dont know all the fact and come to a conclusion, how logical is your thought process?

Heh, ironic.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: HomerJS
Scooter Libby in multiple appearances to the grand jury lied about his source of Valerie Plames identity. His own personal notes confirmed he got the information from Dick Cheney. People have asked how could Libby be so stupid? He wasn't and the answer was provided in a statement from the prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.

Fitzgerald stated in his press conference he wished "people" had provided honest testimony to the grand jury back when the sopenas were issued in Aug 04. He said we would have been at this point in Oct 04 instead of Oct 05.

Now what was close to the date of Oct 04? That's right the Presidential Election. Libby realized if this info came out when it should have it was too close to the election. He began the coverup by lying to the grand jury, thereby stalling this until after the election. To add to the coverup he claimed to get the information from reporters. He knew the prosecutor would have to question them and the reporters would not want to reveal their source, again stalling the investegation.

Boy these guys are really good.

They sure know how to take one for the team!

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: EatSpam
They sure know how to take one for the team!

Nah, I believe the McDougal's hold that dubious honor :laugh:

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: EatSpam
They sure know how to take one for the team!

Nah, I believe the McDougal's hold that dubious honor :laugh:

Once again, almost like clockwork, Pabster envokes Clinton.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: EatSpam
They sure know how to take one for the team!

Nah, I believe the McDougal's hold that dubious honor :laugh:

Once again, almost like clockwork, Pabster envokes Clinton.

yes there are a few things we can expect from Pabster. First rule, always blame Clinton. Second rule, always put a billion smiley faces at the end of every sentence.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Once again, almost like clockwork, Pabster envokes Clinton.

Are you thinking of "invoke"?

And no, I don't see the word Clinton in this thread...until you.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
yes there are a few things we can expect from Pabster. First rule, always blame Clinton. Second rule, always put a billion smiley faces at the end of every sentence.

The things we can expect from you are...wait, you've provided a glaring example.

 

[Fern]

About the OP's theory.

Kinda of interesting. However, I've heard that he was both interviewed (FBI) & testified (Grand Jury) several times always repeating the same story. Seems to me a savy Washington attorney could have accomplished the objective postulated yet possibily exonerated himself as well. Just tell the "false story" before the election, then have "sudden clarity of recollection" in testimony after the election.

Course, I'm guessing that the latter occurances of false testimony etc occured after the election. But, if all his multiple occurances of false testimony occured before the election they wouldn't have waited another full year to bring an indictment.

I'm thinking they took his testimony early, then followed up with the reporters which prolly took quite a bit of time. Then, upon finding his story not seeming true, called him back in again to confirm his original testimony. At this point he could have "remembered accurately, thus avoiding election "problems" and indictment. Instead, he inexplicably stuck with the original story?

Fern

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
yes there are a few things we can expect from Pabster. First rule, always blame Clinton. Second rule, always put a billion smiley faces at the end of every sentence.

The things we can expect from you are...wait, you've provided a glaring example.

Just ignore them. You're giving them fuel by responding.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Once again, almost like clockwork, Pabster envokes Clinton.

Are you thinking of "invoke"?

And no, I don't see the word Clinton in this thread...until you.

You know Pabby....typos/misspellings are a whole lot less embarassing than just about everything you have ever posted.

Oh, for the record, please explain who McDougal took one for? If it wasn't Clinton, as you claim to not be bringing up AGAIN, there must be someone else. I expect to see proof of whatever BS you try to throw at the wall here also.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne

Originally posted by: Genx87
Way too go Sherloc

don't listen to the troll, your conclusion is a logical one but we still don't know all the facts.

If you dont know all the fact and come to a conclusion, how logical is your thought process?

Ask George W. Bush re: Iraq.

 

[zephyrprime]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Once again, almost like clockwork, Pabster envokes Clinton.

Are you thinking of "invoke"?

And no, I don't see the word Clinton in this thread...until you.

You know Pabby....typos/misspellings are a whole lot less embarassing than just about everything you have ever posted.

Oh, for the record, please explain who McDougal took one for? If it wasn't Clinton, as you claim to not be bringing up AGAIN, there must be someone else. I expect to see proof of whatever BS you try to throw at the wall here also.

Actually, I think "evoke" is the correct word.

 

[her209]

You forgot to add the part where Libby will be pardoned by the President that he helped get re-elected.

 

[CellarDoor]

Mediamatters.org did a story about this as well, to a slight different tune.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200511020005

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
yes there are a few things we can expect from Pabster. First rule, always blame Clinton. Second rule, always put a billion smiley faces at the end of every sentence.

ohh, this could be fun, 3rd rule, calling anyone who brings up US history anti-American. 4th rules, say that the media is helping the people who want to KILL YOU@! (look out their behind you!)

 

[XMan]

I believe Fitzgerald was referring to Judith Miller as that was around the time she was refusing to testify, and eventually was sent to jail.