Speaking to the press after their groundbreaking verdict finding top Bush offical Scooter Libby guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice, jurors wondered why Libby was the only Bush official charged.


"There was a tremendous amount of sympathy for Mr. Libby on the jury. It was said a number of times, 'What are we doing with this guy here? Where's Rove? Where are these other guys?'" Collins said. "I'm not saying we didn't think Mr. Libby was guilty of the things we found him guilty of. It seemed like he was, as Mr. Wells put it, he was the fall guy."


http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic.../703070410/1022

The jurors were apparently amazed, as many Americans are, that Vice President Cheney apparently carried out a smear campaign from his office in order to prevent public debate of the now discredited claims the Bush administration used to get the US into the war in Iraq.


The jurors had all the facts and they think Rove and other Bush officials should be in the docket facing charges.


1. Should the AG office begin a criminal investigation against Rove, Cheney or other Bush officials involved in Plamegate?

2. Should Congress investigate these apparent high crimes and misdemeanors to see if an impeachable offense took place?

1. Should the AG office begin a criminal investigation against Rove, Cheney or other Bush officials involved in Plamegate?

Most certainly! But unlikely! Why? Cuz we (or system) is allowing lowest level fall guy sacrifices to be the "establish justice" response to wider spread crimes of office holders. There are many other examples, such as LT Cayley in Vietnam, where those who know, know the guilt was actually very high, and very wide, yet we allowed it to end with that "one sacrificial goat"! (No aspersions cast upon Cayley intended)

2. Should Congress investigate these apparent high crimes and misdemeanors to see if an impeachable offense took place?

Most certainly! However, I'd like to see some more fixes tried, such as:

1. Let the jurors of any trial have the formal power to convene a Grand Jury on any and all "other's" they find worthy of such, e.g. Rove, Cheney, Bush, etc., during their deliberations, as a formal part of their formal "determinations". And, the gov't. must then respond ASAP! (I think the jurors have the power anyway, cuz: All powers not....are reserved for the States and the people!)

2. There is too much focus on only impeachment for office holder guilt-fixing. I say they can be arrested, tried, and convicted without being impeached. They are still citizens! They are still under the law of the land, just like us taxpayers and draftee candidates! And the Commandeer in Chief is under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and its demands for courts martial too.

3. There should be a cessation of this "rule of law" phrase, and what I see as it's associated practices, which comes out of thin air, e.g. the Yale Law Review, as merely opinions, and has the bad practice of ignoring the Constitution, not being consistent, and doing what I hear referred to as "clausal law" wherein cases are decided on parts (a few clauses) of the law and not all the law and nothing but the law.

4. Making the "not arresting" of "fellow office holders or fellow govt. employees/bosses" for illegalities a crime itself. After all, most, are there to to protect and defend the Constitution in some sense, and such arresting is doing just that. The juried courts will finish the job. My favorite "example test case" would be those not arresting the Commander in Chief for any of his "not keeping to his protect and defend the Constitution" duty, supposedly because of "their duty" to obey their commander-in-chief. I think we should have had some action here on Article 51 of UN Charter, Geneva Converntion, Nurenburg(sap?) rule, secret courts and trials, non habeas corpus, etc., etc. There is guilt for omission as well as for commission, yet we let the former be ignored.

5. There is no way for the House to be impeached for illegalities, like "not impeaching" when it should, except to jointly impeach itself. This is a blank spot needing filling! (It's not any better than the fox and the chicken coop now!)

6. I admittedly stray from the topic on this one, but mea culpa, I think juries are the interpreters of the Constitution and of the laws. Cuz: Once again, "All powers not....are reserved for the States and the people." And, the Supreme Court, the present supreme claimant, is not given that power. Furthermore, there are demands for jury only trial decisions that are being decided by other means at present.

OK, blow me away folks! Best regards to all though!---Lek

As we speak, Waxman has declared he will open an investigation of Traitorgate. And Valery Plame will testify!

I think it's per se impeachable for a government official to be running a dirty tricks campaign out of the VP's office using taxpayer money and government staffers. The Libby case has established Libby was tasked with doing just that. The next step is up.

It seems as if A juror is saying this.

Every now and again you see this "hope" sprout up. 2000s election would be overturned. 2002s, 2004s. AWOL, WMDs, Downing Street, Impeachment, Merry Fitzmas.

The case is dead. Fitzgerald knows it's dead. Dead like King Tut. No amount of talking about it is going to bring him back to life.

Work on something useful. This is going nowhere. Cheney's not going to get any charges pressed. We all know it. No one committed a crime. If anyone is Armitage is. Give it a rest.

1. Should the AG office begin a criminal investigation against Rove, Cheney or other Bush officials involved in Plamegate?

Well, we basically have treason here- we have a group of folks "outing" agents as they feel politically expediant- ya, of course they should be investigated- at LEAST has harshly as Bill- don't ya think? I believe a couple hundred million dollars is a drop in the bucket compared to what we spend daily in Iraq- I think it is a good idea to hire a couple hundred ex-police officers with a hunger for bringing these guys down, and a few hundred lawyers to make the charges stick.

We aren't talking about lying about a BJ here- we are talking divulging state secrets for political gains- high treason.

2. Should Congress investigate these apparent high crimes and misdemeanors to see if an impeachable offense took place?

Absolutely- but, I don't think they have the will- after all- look at what happened to Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingstone, etc after the Clinton persecution- however- we ARE talking treason here- we must make that very clear- and Rove, Cheney and Libby SHOULD be awaiting the hangman's noose- NOT walking free.

Au contraire. Wheels are turning.

March 8, 2007

The Honorable Patrick J. Fitzgerald
Special Counsel
Office of Special Counsel
Bond Federal Building
1400 New York Avenue NW
Ninth Floor
Washington, DC 20530

Dear Mr. Fitzgerald:

I commend you on your professional and thorough investigation into the disclosure of Valerie Plame Wilson's identity as a covert CIA agent. It is apparent that you followed the facts where they led and served the interests of justice and the American people.

By necessity, your investigation had a narrow legal focus: Were any federal criminal statutes violated by White House officials? Your investigation, however, has raised broader questions of national significance. I am writing to invite you to meet to discuss how the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which is the principal oversight committee in the U.S. House of Representatives, can become informed of your views about these broader issues.

The identity of undercover CIA operatives is supposed to be one of the most closely guarded national security secrets. There are a host of administrative requirements designed to safeguard this type of information from disclosure. Yet the trial proceedings raise questions about whether senior White House officials, including the Vice President and Senior Advisor to the President Karl Rove, complied with the requirements governing the handling of classified information. They also raise questions about whether the White House took appropriate remedial action following the leak and whether the existing requirements are sufficient to protect against future leaks. Your perspective on these matters is important.

After the verdict was announced yesterday, one juror expressed the view that former Chief of Staff to the Vice President Lewis "Scooter" Libby was only a "fall guy." This juror's views encapsulated questions that many in Congress and the public have about whether the ultimate responsibility for the outing of Ms. Wilson rests with more senior officials in the White House. This is another area where you have a unique perspective.

I recognize that as a federal prosecutor, you are constrained by the rules of grand jury secrecy. But you undoubtedly recognize that Congress has a responsibility to examine the policy and accountability questions that your investigation has raised. As a result of your investigation, you have a singular understanding of the facts and their implications that bear directly on the issues before Congress.

I respectfully request that you meet with me and the Committee's Ranking Member, Tom Davis, to discuss the possibility of testifying before the Committee and other means by which you can inform the Committee about your views and the insights you obtained during the course of your investigation.

I look forward to the opportunity to speak with you.

Sincerely,

Henry A. Waxman
Chairman

cc: Tom Davis
Ranking Minority Member

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_ja...ks_fitzgera.htm

OK you hang on to this. You need it more than I do.

Little issue. THERE'S NO QUESTION WHO "Leaked" HER NAME. THERE'S NO QUESTION SHE WASN'T UNDERCOVER.

So Mr Waxman can turn wheels all day long. He's not going anywhere.

that would be saying the entire case or crime really was confined purely to the actions of Libby.

Now I don’t know either way, but I hold my doubt as to either way also, so I don’t see where an investigation could hurt. I mean if the Cheney or other buchco members have committed nothing wrong it will come to light as reality, which would actually be useful for them as to put down the fires of rebellion going on in America today.

Out of everyone pushing for the war in Iraq, I think Cheney and rumsfeld were the prime movers overall. The idea that evidence being put forward for a war was false or not good enough might have been a prime reason as to why Libby did what he did, but it should be known to the full extent in all actuality who was in on it, simply because its a tremendous danger to national security to have politicians in general doing such. It basically allows for a politician, D, or R, to manipulate the CIA, or for that matter any intelligence agency, though like bushco, your own intelligence agency could be created, therefore reducing the need to use the CIA, or any other intelligence agency, but that’s off topic. Personally though, as a patriotic American, I would feel a bit scared if we don’t go to full extent to make sure our politicians are doing the right things at all times, its right up there with supporting the troops.

To bad for scooter…

What the Hell does that have to do with this case? Nothing. If you want to indict Cheney and Rumsfeld for going to war with Iraq this IS NOT your case! This case was supposed to be about WHO leaked the information that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent. We know who did that. Oh and by the way she wasn't undercover and hadn't been for over 5 years NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED. None.

You might as well help OJ find the real murderers... of JFK.

BA- there most certainly was a crime here- in fact, the lackey just got convicted on 4 of 5 accounts, and prosecuters were willing to take great personal risk to go up against the Rovian machine- just because you keep repeating the talking points about her not being an outed spy just doesn't make it so-

bottom line

no dispute

1) The GW regime outed a spy for personal politics- that is treason.

No there is definitely a dispute.

And if you're so God damned worried about treason throw Armitage in jail and set his hanging for a Wednesday. Be careful what you wish for though.

1. Should the AG office begin a criminal investigation against Rove, Cheney or other Bush officials involved in Plamegate?
No. This is not supported by the facts. In fact one juror interviewed yesterday said the comment most often heard during deliberation is “why are we doing this”. Not guilty of the original crime - this was a fall back witch hunt.

2. Should Congress investigate these apparent high crimes and misdemeanors to see if an impeachable offense took place?
NO and if we want to look for “high crimes” and people who got away with them lets look at Mr. Sandy Burger.

The facts are that the dude is guilty- and he certainly got marching orders from someone above him- it is uber-stupid to even contemplate that this guy did this on his own.

Sandy Burger didn't out an agent- Rove and company did.

Typical moral relativity of the right- outrage over Sandy Burger- however- you give Rove and co a "pass" over literal treasonous behavior.

Hey I just want to make sure that our fine upstanding politicians would not do anything so corrupt as to reveal intelligence agents identities as a way to blackmail them into conformance is all, or simply some act of revenge.

(Off topic) Pot here....seen the kettle lately? BOTH sides do this. It is hysterical when I see someone on this board talk about how the OTHER side won't hold their own accountable...only guys from the opposing party. No offense CR, but you are prime exhibit "A" here.

(On Topic) CR....how do you explain the prosecution being able to convict Libby yet won't even attempt to go after others? Maybe.....because their isn't any evidence to take such a case to trial? Do you have any real tangible evidence of wrongdoing? No, didn't think so. Just more partisan sniping.

Never mind...nothing to see here....Move along....

Focus, focus.

There is a question about whether the Vice President ran a dirty tricks operation out his office using taxpayer money and government staff.

And if he did, that's an impeachable offence. That's why the juror was flummoxed about why Rove and Cheney weren't in the docket in orange jumpsuits.




Pssst: Clinton isn't in office; Bush is. And Rove and Cheney are his men. And if they ran a dirty tricks operation, a la the Nixon plumbers, that's impeachable. The jury sure was amazed that Rove and Cheney weren't in the docket. There's a wisdom in juries that conservative talking heads just can't stand.

Legal cases dong always involved everyone at once. I mean I know what you are getting at, but I would just like to add that legal cases don’t always involved all the people that did or have participated at once. Who knows, Libby might plea bargain or something on an appeal, or more evidence can come to light. Simply put no body every really put the spurs to some people, which I think is a mistake but hey.

I am sure that if such was an issue, that did not pertain to the right, and more so pertained to the democrats, that this board would probably light up with wanting to somehow through Clinton in jail. That aside I don’t even have the democrat tag but obviously to question that other politicians may have been involved from the right gains you such a status.

The republican motto "All that we say and do is right" or at least it should be with such attitudes.

Have you seen how many attorneys have been getting fired lately? Seriously? I mean- the attorney that investigated Abramoff has been demoted- the list is long and so obvious- even a conservative should be able to see it-

GW has done a great job (really, the only thing they have done well) of attacking each and every person that has left thier regime in disgust- and fire those in the justice department that investigate thier friends-

why? How about career suicide? How about retaliation?

It would be an EXTREMELY tough nut to crack, simply because they intimidate the witnesses and players- it is like we pretty much have the Gambino crime syndicate running the country- corrupt, inefficient and bumbling in everything but breaking knees and fleecing the dough-

how many Generals were replaced when they, in the mildest of terms- told GW his plans weren't working?

I mean- the pattern is VERY obvious here.

You better have more than even a "slam dunk"- because of the moral relativity of republicans, they have no guts, unlike Republicans during the Nixon era- to clean up thier own garbage- pure and simple.