Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I Have a Question - Why Would Libby / Rove Wave the Agreement?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Ioo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 10:34 PM
Original message
I Have a Question - Why Would Libby / Rove Wave the Agreement?
I don't understand, if Rove did do it, and we all know he did. Why would Libby openly "wave" the "Agreement"?

Does he think that He can get Karl off, or that Fits will not really pull the trigger.

What do you guys think, I am a little confused with the bigger pic!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
readmylips Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 10:39 PM
Response to Original message
1. I think Judy M. agreed to take the knife....
I think she'll say, I made it all up. She's finished anyway. The criminals will get away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
longship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. What???? Made it all up?
Oh, that will go over very, very well with the grand jury. If she did that, she might as well just go ahead and check herself right back into that fed prison because that's exactly where she will end up. Federal perjury charges are on the way. 18-24 months in the slammer for her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoBushSpokenHere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 10:39 PM
Response to Original message
2. My thoughts
1. Pressure from Fitz
2. Other evidence found by Fitz
3. They decided with Roberts in, they can get by with more.
4. They struck a deal and she will name some innocent "little guy"
5. This is all a dream and sometime soon, someone is going to wake me up.
6. Delay was the reason she stayed quiet she no longer feels he is a threat.

No clue, really.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Garbo 2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 10:40 PM
Response to Original message
3. They both signed waivers of confidentiality long ago. They're used to
not just outright lying but skirting the truth. Conveniently failing memories or mental fuzziness. "Cannot recall what journalists told them about Plame." Maybe they didn't count on Fitz tracking down and getting testimony of journalists to check on the stories. Once in, kinda late to back out of testimony already given.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
raysr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Pardon?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
longship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Right, how in the hell is * gonna pardon himself.
He's up to his ass in this deal. Any attempt to pardon will trigger a Constitutional Crisis. He'd be toast faster than you can say, "We're not going to get into playing the blame game."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 11:26 PM
Response to Original message
7. Judy told him she was squealing, waiver or no
At that point, game theory would tell you to agree to the waiver, since it paints you in a better light, rather than having the story get out that you stonewalled the investigation and Judy blabbed anyway.

Think about it. It's making a virtue of necessity. All this is implicit in the ridiculous "reaffirm" language. Judy came to Libby with an offer he could not refuse: either waive, and have that as a minor benefit, or don't waive, and look like a stonewaller (and possibly open yourself up to an additional obstruction charge, depending on what Judy has to say about agreements of confidentiality), in addition to her testiminoy. What would YOU do in such circumstancesa. I think the answer is obvious. You'd waive. You have no other reasonable option. Judy wanted out, and was scared of additional charges, so she put the screws to Libby, and he took the only possible out, as damaging as that is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:03 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Perhaps that was why Bolton met with Judy?
He didn't visit for altruistic reasons I'm sure. I think Judy told him, either get that waiver or I'll spill without it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 02:01 AM
Response to Original message
9. Prison visits with Judy......
was probably to synchronize the lies. Now think they are on the page with the same lies to spill to the Grand Jury, so no need to spend more time in jail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ladylibertee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 02:06 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. I agree with you.I just do not think it will work.I don't care what they
say or do to get out of it.They are going down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crispini Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:26 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. Don't they monitor conversations in prison visits?
They do in detective novels anyway. :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:17 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Nahh.. that only applies to Liberals and Swarthy men
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lochloosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:22 AM
Response to Original message
13. I think Deals are being cut....
The handwriting is on the wall and people are covering their asses. IMO
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemsUnited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:26 AM
Response to Original message
14. She was never worried about Libby, was protecting other sources.
From a great E&P article. The important part is about her possibly winning the right not to implicate others (Bolton, Rove) in her testimony to Fitzgerald.

<snip>

She was released after she and her lawyers met at the jail with Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor in the case, to discuss her testimony, the Times revealed. As part of the agreement, one of Miller's attorneys, Robert Bennett, gave Fitzgerald edited versions of notes taken by Miller about her conversations with Libby, the Times said.

One lawyer involved in the case told the Washington Post today that Miller's attorneys reached an agreement with Fitzgerald that may confine prosecutors' questions to her chats with Libby. Under one scenario, Miller won the right to not implicate others she may have talked to about Plame.

It's even possible that it was Fitzgerald who ultimately "cracked," eager to produce indictments but with the grand jury session wrapping up without Miller's key testimony on Libby. Or, on the contrary, Miller might have finally blinked, fearing that the prosecutor would extend the life of the grand jury, leaving her behind bars for many more months.

It may become clear within a week whether Fitzgerald gets those indictments, or has negotiated any plea bargains.

<snip>

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001219261
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:39 AM
Response to Original message
15. Think they realize it is inevitable that it will come out
and that they are arrogant enough to believe that if they let it out they can "manage it" - mitigate damage and keep doing as they darn well please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 09:18 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC