Originally Posted by PressCoverage

the players (AP):

Prosecution

Robert Grenier: A veteran CIA official, he was head of the office that helped plan the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Defense lawyers believe Grenier - or former Deputy CIA Director John McLaughlin - is the unidentified officer who, prosecutors say, told Libby on June 11, 2003, that the wife of war critic Joseph Wilson worked for the CIA.

Marc Grossman: A former under secretary of state, Grossman allegedly told Libby on June 12, 2003, that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and had helped arrange his fact-finding trip to the African nation of Niger. Wilson traveled there to check out reports that then-Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had tried to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger to make a nuclear weapon. Defense lawyers have called Grossman "a critical witness for the government."

Craig Schmall: A CIA employee, Schmall is believed to be the briefer with whom Libby discussed Wilson and Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame. The discussion was outlined in the indictment charging Libby, but Schmall was not named in the document.

Judith Miller: A former New York Times reporter, Miller interviewed Libby three times in 2003 - June 23, July 8 and July 12. Prosecutors say Libby told Miller that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. Miller fought efforts to have her testify before a grand jury investigating the leak, but yielded after serving 85 days in jail.

Ari Fleischer: The former White House press secretary is expected to be an important witness. Prosecutors say Libby told him on July 7, 2003, that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and that it was not widely known.

David Addington: The former counsel to the vice president, Addington now is Cheney's chief of staff, Libby's old job. Prosecutors say Libby asked Addington on July 8, 2003, what documents the CIA would have if an employee's spouse was sent oversees. The Libby indictment refers to Addington, but prosecutors last year indicated that Fleischer would be their only White House witness.

Cathie Martin: A public affairs assistant to the vice president, Martin told Libby around July 8, 2003, that she learned from another government official that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. Like Addington, Martin is referred to in the indictment but may not be called as a witness.

Bill Harlow: The CIA spokesman is believed to be the government official who told Martin that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.

Tim Russert: The Washington bureau chief for NBC News will be an important witness because Libby says Russert was the one who first informed him, on July 10, 2003, that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Prosecutors say Libby already knew that and it did not come up in the Russert conversation.

Matthew Cooper: A Time magazine reporter, Cooper interviewed Libby on July 12, 2003. During that interview, prosecutors say, Libby confirmed that he had heard Wilson's wife was involved in sending him to Niger.

Defense

Libby: He plans to testify. He wants to tell jurors he did not lie to FBI agents or a grand jury about his conversations with reporters. He is expected to say he was focused on national security issues and simply forgot details of less important matters such as Wilson and his wife.

Cheney: He could testify that Wilson and his wife were not major concerns for him, thus bolstering Libby's memory defense.

Colin Powell: Defense lawyers have said they may call the former secretary of state to discuss a September 2003 meeting at the White House in which he reportedly said everyone knew Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.

Reporters: Defense lawyers plan to call as many as seven reporters to testify about their conversations with Libby. The reporters have not been identified.

Richard Armitage: The former deputy secretary of state was the original source of the leak. He could bolster the idea that discussing Plame was not illegal, so Libby would have had no reason to lie to investigators. But Armitage's testimony could be limited by U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton. The judge wants to avoid bogging the trial down on who was responsible for leaking Plame's identity.

Bob Woodward: An assistant managing editor at The Washington Post, Woodward tape-recorded a June 13, 2003, interview with Armitage in which Plame was identified as a CIA agent. The tape is likely to be entered into evidence. Woodward could testify that Plame's identity was disclosed as an aside, not as something of extreme importance.

Stephen Hadley: President Bush's national security adviser could be called to testify about the Bush administration's effort to rebut Wilson's criticism of prewar intelligence on Iraq.

George Tenet: Prosecutors have said they do not plan to call the former CIA director. Defense lawyers could call him to discuss the agency's response to the Wilson matter.

Karl Rove: Prosecutors have said they do not plan to call the president's top political adviser to testify. Defense lawyers could call Rove to talk about the hectic pace at the White House during the early days of the Iraq war. But Rove comes with baggage: He was a subject of the leak investigation and provided varying versions of his discussions with reporters about Plame.

Robert Novak: The syndicated columnist was the first reporter to disclose Plame's CIA job. Defense lawyers could call Novak to testify that Libby was not one of his sources, but it is unclear how much of that testimony the judge would allow.

Originally Posted by Harry Boy

What are they going to do about Sandy Burglar & the guy that puts money in his freezer with his Fried Chicken?

What was Sandy the crook stealing, what was he trying to "cover up" for Billy Blue Dress?

Has the other crook got any more money in his freezer?

Originally Posted by Fogbuster

Bingo, Bingo, BINGO !!! When the pot starts calling the kettle black it's time for the equal-opportunity scrubbers to appear, and they will, guaranteed.

I still cannot believe that a Clinton-appointed "National Security Advisor", one step from a Cabinet-level post, would have the gall *and* stupidity to try to steal documents from a national archive and believe he could get away with it !!!

Well, Bill confessed that he did his Monica thing "because he could" get away with it, so I guess it rubbed off onto his assistants. But, whoa, that is yet another egregious affront to the nation and the Constitution.

If Libby pays so will Sandy Burglar and the Congressman with 80 grand in his freezer. Keeping his ill-gotten gains on ice, literally.

Originally Posted by PressCoverage

Wasn't it displayed that Berger was already punished for his "crime?" And yet you're still going on about it, deflecting away from the thread topic, because there's nothing you can offer in defense of this vindictive administration which waged war on the 'Civilian' Intelligence Agency... Fortunately for neocon lovers everywhere, Cheney won, and the CIA is now an empty agency run by neocon placaters and military men.

Originally Posted by Fogbuster

Sandy Burglar got virtually no punishment for stealing documents from the national archives -- he actually stuffed papers into his socks, up his sleaves, and under his arms. The guy was a street con man elevated by Clinton because Clinton was too busy looking at Monica's and every other woman's rear end to see what was best for the country. Clinton idolized JFK and when Clinton found out about Marilyn Monroe going over to the White House to be with JFK, he just had to go one "better": Monica on her knees in the Oval Office. Sandy Burglar was not far from Bill Clinton in terms of moral compunction: he had none.

Originally Posted by PressCoverage

So after being exposed for ridiculous Clinton deflection in a thread about Tricky Dick's main henchman, you just keep at it.... unabashed over how lame your argument continues to appear, and undeterred despite the fact that you have nothing to offer in defense of Scooter Libby...

Originally Posted by Pujo

It's a useless discussion with Fogbuster. The last time I brought up the Supreme Court his answer was that there is a "higher power" than the Supreme Court. Apparantly, according to Fogbuster's "higher power", Republicans are worthy of being forgiven, while Democrats aren't punished harshly enough.

Originally Posted by Pujo

It's a useless discussion with Fogbuster. The last time I brought up the Supreme Court his answer was that there is a "higher power" than the Supreme Court. Apparantly, according to Fogbuster's "higher power", Republicans are worthy of being forgiven, while Democrats aren't punished harshly enough.

Originally Posted by Fogbuster

Never said that. If you'd bother to read what I post (and ask me if there is something you don't understand about my posts) you'd know I never said the Reps deserve one kind of justice and the Dems another. But it seems you don't want dialog; you want to dominate. Your put-down attitude, like Pressboy's, makes that all too clear. So it's fine with me if you don't want to pursue this. I'm not into pissing contests, even with my unfair advantage!!
//

Originally Posted by PressCoverage

So after being exposed for ridiculous Clinton deflection in a thread about Tricky Dick's main henchman, you just keep at it.... unabashed over how lame your argument continues to appear, and undeterred despite the fact that you have nothing to offer in defense of Scooter Libby...