Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (740465)	9/19/2013 1:01:35 PM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Recommended By Brumar89 Respond to of 1572939

McAucliffe left his wife in the delivery room to go to a fund raising event. One more vote was more important than the birth of his child. what a terrible human being and you want him to be gov of a state. that says a lot about you ted

To: tejek who wrote (740465)

9/19/2013 1:04:47 PM

From: Brumar89

1 Recommendation

Recommended By
FJB

Respond to of 1572939

Fitzgate: Former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald guilty of “obstruction of justice” and lying to the court.

Former Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald withheld exculpatory evidence from Lewis “Scooter” Libby, former Vice President Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff, during Libby’s 2007 trial, which was part of Fitzgerald’s highly publicized investigation into the outing of former covert CIA agent Valerie Plame, according to sworn testimony in an unrelated 2009 case.

The breach of Libby’s due process rights occurred in the courtroom of U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton, who is now Chief Judge of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court.

Walton sentenced Libby to 30 months in federal prison after he was found guilty of two counts of perjury, one count of obstruction of justice, and one count of making false statements to the FBI during the investigation.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s “Brady Rule,” named for its 1963 decision in Brady v. Maryland, requires prosecutors to disclose all favorable material evidence that could be used to defend or even exonerate a defendant.

But Fitzgerald failed to divulge to either Libby or his defense attorneys that the Department of Justice (DOJ) already had in its possession material evidence that Plame’s covert identity had been revealed back in 2001 - by Fitzgerald’s key witness against Libby.

Former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, who was given Top Secret clearance to translate FBI wiretaps executed by field agents, some going back to 1998, was deposed in Jean Schmidt v. David Krikorian, an obscure 2009 Ohio Elections Commission case.

Under oath, Edmonds stated in her 2009 deposition that, in the summer of 2001, then Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman was recorded by the FBI informing “a certain Turkish diplomatic entitywho was also an independent operative of a company called Brewster Jennings…to be warned that Brewster Jennings was a government front….and for those Turkish individuals to be told to stay away from Brewster Jennings.” At the time, Plame was working undercover at Brewster Jennings.

[ Brewster Jennings & Associates was a front company set up in 1994 by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) as a cover for its officers. The most famous is Valerie Plame, .... wikipedia ]

In outing the CIA front company, Grossman outed Plame’s CIA covert operational status two years before the DOJ opened, on September 26, 2003, a criminal investigation into the potential unauthorized disclosure of Plame’s CIA employment status, and over five years before jury selection began, on January 16, 2007, in the trial of Scooter Libby.

In the Ohio deposition, Edmonds also testified that she translated FBI tapes in which the unnamed Turkish diplomat who had received Grossman’s warning then “contacted the Pakistani military attachéand discussed with the person who was there about this fact and also told them, warned them to stay away from Brewster Jennings.”

In a phone interview Edmonds said she personally informed DOJ Inspector General Glenn A. Fine, during a two-and-a-half-hour recorded interview conducted at the Justice Department before Libby’s 2005 indictment, that the “CIA disassembled the company after doing an assessment estimate” of the damage Grossman’s disclosure cost its counterintelligence operation.

Also, a FBI agent “personally went to Patrick Fitzgerald and told him he needed to get the documents that established that Brewster Jennings had been outed long ago to defense and prosecution attorneys.”

Edmonds said, “There was no Brewster Jennings – it didn’t exist after January of 2002.” She added, “They (DOJ) knew it was outed, and they knew who did it,” at least a year before syndicated columnist Robert Novak first mentioned Plame in his July 14, 2003 column.

The simple fact is, that by withholding this evidence:Former U.S Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald is guilty of obstruction of justice and lying to the court.

When a “Special Counsel" is appointed to investigate "Fitzgate," will the range of special powers be granted to that person that recently-sworn-in F.B.I. Director James B. Comey once granted to Fitzgerald in Plamegate?

illinoispaytoplay.com

To: tejek who wrote (740465)	9/19/2013 1:09:16 PM
From: longnshort	2 Recommendations Recommended By FJB joseffy Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572939

with another child McAuliffe picked up his new born and wife from the hospital, drove to a fund raiser and left his CRYING wife and new born in the car while he went into the fund raiser. and he bragged about this in his book, like he was special to do this. Fukk his wife and kid one more vote was more important and you want this sub human to be gov of a state, says a lot about you

To: tejek who wrote (740465)	9/19/2013 1:46:44 PM
From: TideGlider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572939

I didn't speak of Virginia. "And speaking of Virginia"

To: tejek who wrote (740465)	9/19/2013 2:09:48 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1572939

What ‘The Big Lebowski’ tells us about the debt ceiling Two numbers on the debt ceiling stand out in the new Washington Post-ABC News poll. The first is 43 – the percentage of Americans who want Congress to “not raise the debt limit and let the government default on paying its bills and obligations.” The second is 73 — the percentage of people who believe defaulting on bills and obligations would do “serious harm” to the U.S. economy. Makes no sense right? How could more than 40 percent of Americans support an action that a vast majority of the country believes would do us serious economic harm? The answer lies with Bunny Lebowski, a character from the genius Coen brothers film “The Big Lebowski.” Speaking of a man named Uli swimming in a pool, Bunny says: “Uli doesn’t care about anything. He’s a nihilist.” The reality — at least from the Post-ABC poll — is that there is a nihilistic streak running through a portion of the American populace. Crunch the numbers and you find that almost six in 10 people (59 percent) who say they don’t want to raise the debt limit also believe not doing so will cause serious problems for the American economy. The “nihilists,” so to speak, account for 26 percent of all Americans, and half of them lean toward the Republican Party. The thinking of that group likely goes something like this: Not raising the debt ceiling is a bad thing for the economy. But, the only way to fix the debt and spending problems the United States faces is to force just such a large-scale crisis in hopes that it shocks the American political system into changing its ways. (We could draw a comparison here to how the League of Shadows believes the only way to remake Gotham is to destroy it first, but that would be WAY too nerdy. Right? Right?) This is, of course, a more appealing view in theory than in practice. As we saw when the United States last butted up against the debt ceiling in the summer of 2011, the consequences in global economic markets are unpredictable and potentially harsh. And while the nihilist crowd believes that refusing to raise the debt ceiling would create short-term pain for long-term gain, there’s no telling how long or deep the reverberations might be. If anything close to the sort of dire consequences predicted by many economists were to come to pass, Congress would almost certainly react by raising the debt ceiling in hopes of plugging the economic dike before it sprang any more leaks. If that came to pass, congressional Republicans would take a potentially catastrophic hit to their brand among virtually every corner of the electorate. The GOP base would be furious that the party rolled over under pressure, while Democrats would fume about Republicans playing politics, and independents would wonder if the party had the country’s best interests at heart. Another plausible explanation for the perplexing numbers is that concern over federal spending rivals the vague and abstract fear of breaching the debt ceiling. The issue is by no means Civics 101: More than half the public said the debt limit issue was hard to understand in a 2011 Pew Research Center poll. And during that year’s debt-limit debate, a Post-Pew Research poll found upwards of seven in 10 people concerned that raising the debt limit would lead to higher government spending and a bigger national debt — just as many as were concerned about hurting the economy. The fact that a not insubstantial number of Americans support doing something they believe will cause major problems for the country’s economy is a telling reminder of how complicated the politics of fiscal issues have become. Distrust of government runs deep, and the desire to erase it all and start again is a very real sentiment at large in the country.