Fitzgerald needs to call Sen. Roberts to testify how he found Wilson lied

[blm]

about his Niger claim against Bush in his Senate Intel Report.

I'd like to see Roberts testify UNDER OATH to how he came to his conclusions about Wilson.

Any way we can get action on this? Seems all the press is using this to make a case against Wilson, himself. Yet, who has testified UNDER OATH that Wilson's version of events were false?

It is obvious that Rove PLANTED these conclusions last year through Sen. Roberts' report. This is what they are using to make the case that it is WILSON who is in the wrong, not Rove.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_report_of_pre-war_intelligence_on_Iraq

[madrchsod]

1. i`m sure there are people

in fitz`s office that has done this. the power of the judicial branch against the presidency...interesting times we live in....

[blm]

2. I never heard that Roberts' was called to testify. I think he SHOULD do so

before the right win spin becomes entrenched.

[EC]

3. not pertinent to the case....

And his addendum to the Commissions report doesn't debunk the facts of Wilson's report...he is saying that Wilson never saw the document (which is beside the fact, that the content was false) and that his wife sent him on the job, which also doesn't negate the facts - the Democrats on the Commission would not allow it into the final report (even though they allowed other stuff they didn't like because they were true, this was not)that is why Roberts and the other Repuges on the Commission had to add it as an UNOFFICIAL addendum.


This is what the Repuges do (and this is also a working method of Sociologists) they will harp on something that has nothing to do with the case, and will not be brought into question officially by anyone in the official capacities.

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. They are making their case in the press. Typical RWers

[EC]

5. Yep, and THEY KNOW that if this goes to court

and they try to bring any of this up, there would be objections, because motive has nothing to do with the case...and the whole Roberts addendum is UNPROVEN, not backed up, that is why it wasn't included in the OFFICIAL Commission Report...

[blm]

6. GOPers want to publicly claim Wilson lied, then they should TESTIFY

in court how they KNOW he lied. Especially, since Wilson is one of the key witnesses in the Plame case.

It really is relevant once a Senate report goes public.

[EC]

10. Ha, it's a Repuge mantra

don't testify and don't let them put you under oath...

[blm]

7. It IS pertinent since it was obviously ADDED to effect this case and the

public discussion of this case.

[EC]

8. To the Fitzgerald it is not of any relevance

and since this will eventually go before a grand hearing and trial (I'm guessing there will be indictments) it's of no importance legally...spinwise, it's unproven.

We'll have to disagree on this, because to me it means nothing but spin, and that's what I'll tell any RWer that spews these talking points...


Randi is talking about this now...

on edit: Fitzgerald won't let this throw him off, he's tenacious and will get indictments out of this

[blm]

11. I know it's just spin but using a senate report to FURTHER their spin

should not be lost in this, either. Are Senators under oath when they issue these "official" reports?

[blm]

12. Also: Just found this article WHY it's important to what's happening.....

Posted in Editorials:



The Big Lie About Valerie Plame
By Larry Johnson
From: TPMCafe Special Guests
Jul 13, 2005 -- 12:47:20 AM EST

The misinformation being spread in the media about the Plame affair is alarming and damaging to the longterm security interests of the United States. Republicans' talking points are trying to savage Joe Wilson and, by implication, his wife, Valerie Plame as liars. That is the truly big lie.

For starters, Valerie Plame was an undercover operations officer until outed in the press by Robert Novak. Novak's column was not an isolated attack. It was in fact part of a coordinated, orchestrated smear that we now know includes at least Karl Rove.

Valerie Plame was a classmate of mine from the day she started with the CIA. I entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985. All of my classmates were undercover--in other words, we told our family and friends that we were working for other overt U.S. Government agencies. We had official cover. That means we had a black passport--i.e., a diplomatic passport. If we were caught overseas engaged in espionage activity the black passport was a get out of jail free card.

~snip~

the article continues at:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/13/04720/9340

Larry Johnson is a retired CIA officer who was a classmate of Valerie Plame's when both entered the CIA in the mid-1980s....Josh Marshall

[EC]

14. Oh yeah, this I will agree to,

but as far as the legal case against leakers, it's moot..

On edit: I think we can make a better case about their treasonous behavior after the indictments...then we can point to all their spin and throw it back in their faces...and get rid of allot of them in the 2006 elections, then we can go for impeachment...

[blm]

16. Pretty much the way I see it. This exposes their cravenness as a party.

they'll ramp up the faux gay marriage boogeyman for 2006 to counter the truth about them.

[EC]

13. Actually, it is not a Senate Report

it is an Unofficial Addendum to the 9/11 Commission Report... it is all unproven information, so it wasn't allowed to be put into the official report, so he and the rest of the Repuges on the Commission added it as a notation at the end of the report...

As far as the Senate being under oath, no, but anything said on the Senate floor becomes a matter of record...

[blm]

15. This sez it's an additional view to Intel Report from Roberts, Hatch, Bond

This is CLEARLY set up by the WH to effect the Plame case:


From the intro to the report linked in OP.



Senators Roberts, Hatch, and Bond



In the first "additional view" attached to the report, Chairmain Pat Roberts (R-KS), joined by Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Christopher Bond (R-MO), presents two conclusions that Democratic members of the Committee were unwilling to include in the report, even though, according to Roberts, "there was no dispute with the underlying facts." Those two conclusions related to the actions of Joseph Wilson, the former ambassador who was sent to Niger in 2002 to investigate allegations that the Iraqi government was attempting to purchase "yellowcake" uranium, presumably as part of an attempt to revive Iraq's nuclear weapons program. The two conclusions were that the plan to send Wilson to investigate the Niger allegation was suggested by Wilson's wife, a CIA employee, and that in his later public statements criticizing the Bush administration, Wilson included information he had learned from press accounts, misrepresenting it as firsthand knowledge.



This additional view also discusses the question of pressure on analysts, and recommends caution in implementing reforms in the intelligence community.

[EC]

17. You are right, but it will only affect the view to other Repuges

that are uninformed..won't affect the end result of any hearings, since everything in the addendum is personal opinions and not proven fact...And you are correct that it is a Senate 9/11 Report which I believe was put together for recommendations for changes from the Commission report - which means it's partision..

Here's more: http://politus.blogspot.com/2004/11/911-commission-report.html


http://www.mikehersh.com/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_Report.shtml

[blm]

9. bump

.