Full Version: Scooter Libby Sentenced
QUOTE(Hunter Rose @ Jun 14 2007, 07:08 PM) 
Well, I see that you are the sort who will dismiss the Ten Comandments as partisan simply because they are posted on a 'left-wing' site. Sad you did not take the time to consider the authors of the letter from which the excerpt is derived. Those who drafted the letter, and Fitzgerald and Judge Walton who determined that the IIPA applied are relatively independent of political patronage.
Oh really? Those who drafted the letter are "independent" of political patronage? Is that why they are all over the place on left-wing websites? Heck one of them (Ray Close) even has an E-Mail address at CounterPunch. Now there's a non-partisan source for you.
I suppose we could go through the others' resumes and books they've written, but let's get the real claim that's important here......
QUOTE
Nice try Aquilla, but wishing she wasn't covert when outed won't make it so. She was covert, it was not known outside of the intelligence community that she was, and the revelation of her employment, according to the opinion of the judge, not an attorney, was a violation of the IIPA.
The "opinion of the judge"? He didn't know. He said as much when he addressed the jury. From The American Thinker, not a source I claim as you do as "non-partisan", but nonetheless the judge said in open court he didn't know what Plame's status was.....
QUOTE
Judge Reggie Walton to the trial jury:
Walton announced that not only did the jurors not know Mrs. Wilson's status but that he didn't know it, either. "I don't know, based on what has been presented to me in this case, what her status was," Walton said. "It's totally irrelevant to this case." Just so there was no mistake, on January 31 Walton said it again: "I to this day don't know what her actual status was." (From an article by Byron York, NR, 02/05/2007) [emphasis added]
Walton announced that not only did the jurors not know Mrs. Wilson's status but that he didn't know it, either. "I don't know, based on what has been presented to me in this case, what her status was," Walton said. "It's totally irrelevant to this case." Just so there was no mistake, on January 31 Walton said it again: "I to this day don't know what her actual status was." (From an article by Byron York, NR, 02/05/2007) [emphasis added]
That's a pretty definitive statement. Do you dispute it? He didn't know. Fitzgerald never brought any charges concerning IIPA agasinst anyone and that was the purpose of the investigation in the first place. He knew who leaked the name and he knew it wasn't Libby. He also knew it wasn't a violation of IIPA or he'd have brought charges for that. Nobody has ever been charged with the original "crime" because there was no original "crime". Only a political witch-hunt. Now, if a bunch of former CIA agents, each with their own agenda - that of disagreeing with Bush's policies, think Valerie Plame was "covert", that's up to them. Doesn't carry any weight though under the IIPA statute. Under that law, clearly she wasn't.
QUOTE
Next you might try to stop the sun from rising.
Since you're new here, I'll cut you some slack on that one. I'd strongly advise you not try it again.
Aquilla
QUOTE
The column's date is important because the law against unmasking the identities of U.S. spies says a "covert agent" must have been on an overseas assignment "within the last five years." The assignment also must be long-term, not a short trip or temporary post, two experts on the law say. Wilson's book makes numerous references to the couple's life in Washington over the six years up to July 2003.
We are getting off topic here, but let's examine the issue of guilt on this.
Yes, let's look at the fingers again:
QUOTE
Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion.
MSNBC article
The time frame still fits, at least, that's the time frame given by my reputable news link. Citing previous missions of hers in the late 90's and going from there is a red herring if there ever was one. It doesn't matter where she was in regards to covert action. That is irrelevant as she could've been used for future operations, not to mention that outing her like that made her a target and potentially risked the lives of others. That kind of thing is not standard operation, though I guess agents can be hung out to dry if their spouses make politically damaging claims. What happened to her was wrong and someone should've been prosecuted. However, that was not Libby's crime as his lack of honesty in the whole debacle prevented Fitzgerald from getting his man. Had he been more honest about it, the truth about the matter would've been uncovered.
QUOTE
So, where's the crime? Other than of course working for Cheney which we all know is a crime. We know this because the left-wing wacko blogs that get quoted here as "sources" tell us to. 
We know this because the left-wing wacko blogs that get quoted here as "sources" tell us to. Libby's crime was obstruction of justice and perjury, it was found that there were grounds to have a trial on those charges and he was found guilty. That is the crime in all of this, though we won't know of further criminal conduct due to his muddying of the waters.
Count one:
QUOTE
b. LIBBY did not advise Matthew Cooper, on or about July 12, 2003, that LIBBY had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise him that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true; rather, LIBBY confirmed to Cooper, without qualification, that LIBBY had heard that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA; and
c. LIBBY did not advise Judith Miller, on or about July 12, 2003, that LIBBY had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise her that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true;
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1503.
c. LIBBY did not advise Judith Miller, on or about July 12, 2003, that LIBBY had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise her that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true;
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1503.
Count two:
QUOTE
a. Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and
b. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA; In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2).
b. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA; In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2).
Count three:
QUOTE
defendant herein, did knowingly and willfully make a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement and representation in a matter within the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, an agency within the executive branch of the United States, in that the defendant, in response to questions posed to him by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, stated that:
During a conversation with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine on July 12, 2003, LIBBY told Cooper that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, but LIBBY did not know if this was true.
3. As defendant LIBBY well knew when he made it, this statement was false in that:
LIBBY did not advise Cooper on or about July 12, 2003 that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise him that LIBBY did not know whether this was true; rather, LIBBY confirmed for Cooper, without qualification, that LIBBY had heard that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA;
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2).
During a conversation with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine on July 12, 2003, LIBBY told Cooper that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, but LIBBY did not know if this was true.
3. As defendant LIBBY well knew when he made it, this statement was false in that:
LIBBY did not advise Cooper on or about July 12, 2003 that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise him that LIBBY did not know whether this was true; rather, LIBBY confirmed for Cooper, without qualification, that LIBBY had heard that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA;
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2).
Count four:
QUOTE
3. In truth and fact, as LIBBY well knew when he gave this testimony, it was false in that:
a. Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and
b. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA;
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.
a. Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and
b. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA;
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.
Count five:
QUOTE
3. In truth and fact, as LIBBY well knew when he gave this testimony, it was false in that LIBBY did not advise Matthew Cooper or other reporters that LIBBY had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise Cooper or other reporters that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true;
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.
What is there to suggest that Libby was innocent? Judith Miller contradicted his assertion of who knew what when. Ari Fleischer contradicted him. Chris Matthews also contradicted Libby in his testimony. Matthew Cooper also contradicted Libby. The defense had nothing to go on and that was why they faile so miserably.
QUOTE
Instead, over the next 10 days, jurors heard the methodical drone of the prosecution's effort to portray Libby as a liar. No fewer than four officials testified that they had told Libby who Plame was, and two reporters testified that Libby later confirmed her identity in one way or another. Fitzgerald followed those witnesses with a numbing eight hours of Libby, on tape, denying or not recalling any of those conversations.
But that was all mere prelude to the case's pivotal witness, NBC's Tim Russert. Despite Libby's claim that he first learned about Valerie Plame from Russert, the host of NBC's Meet the Press told jurors that he never spoke with Libby about her. During cross-examination, Wells attacked the journalist's memory, but other than a few nicks and cuts, he was unable to inflict much damage. Collins confirmed today the importance of Russert's testimony. "The primary thing that convinced us on most of the counts was the conversation, the alleged conversation, with Russert," the juror said, explaining that Libby was told about Plame's identity "at least nine times" before he spoke with Russert.
But that was all mere prelude to the case's pivotal witness, NBC's Tim Russert. Despite Libby's claim that he first learned about Valerie Plame from Russert, the host of NBC's Meet the Press told jurors that he never spoke with Libby about her. During cross-examination, Wells attacked the journalist's memory, but other than a few nicks and cuts, he was unable to inflict much damage. Collins confirmed today the importance of Russert's testimony. "The primary thing that convinced us on most of the counts was the conversation, the alleged conversation, with Russert," the juror said, explaining that Libby was told about Plame's identity "at least nine times" before he spoke with Russert.
Why Libby's defense failed.
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Jun 14 2007, 11:34 AM)
So, according to the people that actually wrote the law, there was no crime here. Now, I don't know how one can "obstruct justice" when there's no crime for "justice" to address in the first place, but obviously Fitzgerald had to get someone for something.
You know, it's distressing to me how so many people here are screaming at the top of their lungs about "denial of justice" to terrorists who want to kill a bunch of people are dancing in the streets because they "got Libby" without any crime being committed in the first place. Oh no, this isn't a political thing at all.
Aquilla
the myth that
You know, it's distressing to me how so many people here are screaming at the top of their lungs about "denial of justice" to terrorists who want to kill a bunch of people are dancing in the streets because they "got Libby" without any crime being committed in the first place. Oh no, this isn't a political thing at all.
Aquilla
the myth that
Aw shucks Aquilla it was just a couple of days ago I was impressed reading a post in another thread where you were tangling with multiple posters with an open mind and heart in a compelling manner. But here on this thread I don't get your defense of Libby. It seems downright Clintonian.
Not that the right's tactics of attack and disinform bave become predictable, but back in march, Media Matters predicted successfully several of the methods that would be used to debunk Fitzgerald and the case against Libby.
Media Matters proactive debunking
Are you really arguing that no crime was committed during this investigation? Or are you saying that because it may be true that violations of a specific statute were not originally violated (oddly the White House didn't use a Gonzalez style memo to say that there was no basis for appointing a special prosecutor in this case. It would very likely have worked) that impeding this investigation is therefore legal? Did Libby even mount that defense?
MEdia Matters on this:
QUOTE
(the myth that) No underlying crime was committed. Since a federal grand jury indicted Libby in October 2005, numerous media figures have stated that the nature of the charges against him prove that special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's investigation of the CIA leak case found that no underlying crime had been committed. But this assertion ignores Fitzgerald's explanation that Libby's obstructions prevented him -- and the grand jury -- from determining whether the alleged leak violated federal law.
Another myth they predicted was that Libby was a little sidewater fish in this stream and that he got sucked into the investigation because someone had to be got.
again MEdia Matters:the myth that Libby was not responsible for the leak of Plame's identity.
QUOTE
Some in the media have suggested that because Libby did not discuss former CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity with Novak -- the first journalist to report she worked at the CIA -- he is not technically responsible for the leak. But such claims ignore the fact that Libby discussed Plame's CIA employment with then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller on several occasions prior to the publication of Novak's column naming Plame as a CIA operative.
And on the myth that outing Plame in no way harmed national security. . . This one seems hard to argue at all. If the CIA had been using Plame and she had contact with people in the field her outing could easily put covert operatives and sources of intelligence at risk out in the world. So indirectly by placing these people at unnecessary risk, national security interests were harmed. To then point out that those after Libby and his cohorts on this was political, it seems quite hypocritical to ignore the obvious political reasons for which this outing was done. It was to lash out at Wilson for discrediting the Bush Administration take on WMD threat assessment on the lead up to the Iraq War. And it also seems to have been effectively documented that Libby was active in this issue.
last MM snippet
There is no evidence that the Plame leak compromised national security.
QUOTE
Some media figures critical of the CIA leak case have attempted to downplay its significance by claiming that no evidence exists that the public disclosure of Plame's identity compromised national security. In fact, news reports have indicated that the CIA believed the damage caused by the leak "was serious enough to warrant an investigation" and that the subsequent disclosure of Plame's CIA front company likely put other agents' work at risk. Further, Fitzgerald stated that Plame's identity had been protected by the CIA "not just for the officer, but for the nation's security." And in their recently published book, Hubris, Corn and Newsweek investigative correspondent Michael Isikoff reported that, at the time of the leak, Plame was the chief of operations for the CIA's Joint Task Force on Iraq, which "mount[ed] espionage operations to gather information on the WMD programs Iraq might have."
requote from Aquilla
QUOTE
You know, it's distressing to me how so many people here are screaming at the top of their lungs about "denial of justice" to terrorists who want to kill a bunch of people are dancing in the streets because they "got Libby" without any crime being committed in the first place. Oh no, this isn't a political thing at all.
I don't see how you can be soft on justice for terrorists and hard on justice for Libby. Although he clearly does not seem to be the only one involved in this, it seems that the CIA was harmed in this investigation. That when the federal government investigates things our citizens and especially our public officials should assist and not impede that investigation. Libby lied during an investigation. That investigation was about the possible improper disclosure of classified information.
Expecting that Libby be held accountable for his actions that have been proven in a court of law is not a miscarriage of justice. "Soft on justice for terrorists" Well I think the suspected terrorists should be given there day in court as human beings. But we have too often miscarried justice on these individuals by using them to harvest information and we have been told to accept the fact that they are all terrorists. "without any crime being committed in the first place" no I think the crimes have been well documented. People smarter than Libby may have made him their fall guy, but that doesn't make him innocent, just like being scooped up by the government and being put in Gitmo or renditioned to a secret prison doesn't automatically make you guilty.
I don;t see how one can condone the indefinite detainment of human beings by our government without offering basic human due process rights on the grounds that valuable intelligence can be gained but not fret about harming the intelligence gathering capabilities of the CIA and the act of covering that up with deliberate deception.
1. Is the sentence fair?
No he should get more, but to see him get some jail time is at least a good enough punishment to bad the others that actually had a role in this crime are not going to be punished also.
2. Should he be pardoned?
Ummm how can I say this HELL NO
.
3. Did the relevation that Valerie Plame was indeed a covert operative when she was outed change your opinion(s) surrounding this case?
No because I believed she was covert from the start and knew several people in the White House were doing it as payback to the Wilson's. It is really funny seeing different Republican's on the different news cast calling this a travesty and now calling for a pardon saying that Patrick Fitzgerald never should have been allowed to do this because [insert what ever reason they can come up with]. Then you have the different Republican Presidential candidiates falling over each other pushing for a pardon faster at the debates. And last but not least to come here to find some true core Republican believers that this administration to this day can not do anything wrong and hasn't done anything wrong doesn't surprise me.
Just with the example from Aquilla using a 2 year old article to back up your case is a little lazy, especially if you would have read one of the last filings in the case from Patrick Fitzgerald which was a declassified employment history summary of Valerie Plame.
Unclassified Summary of Valerie Wilson's CIA Employment & Cover History
Which states
Plame was ‘covert’ agent at time of name leak Newly released unclassified document details CIA employment
No he should get more, but to see him get some jail time is at least a good enough punishment to bad the others that actually had a role in this crime are not going to be punished also.
2. Should he be pardoned?
Ummm how can I say this HELL NO
.3. Did the relevation that Valerie Plame was indeed a covert operative when she was outed change your opinion(s) surrounding this case?
No because I believed she was covert from the start and knew several people in the White House were doing it as payback to the Wilson's. It is really funny seeing different Republican's on the different news cast calling this a travesty and now calling for a pardon saying that Patrick Fitzgerald never should have been allowed to do this because [insert what ever reason they can come up with]. Then you have the different Republican Presidential candidiates falling over each other pushing for a pardon faster at the debates. And last but not least to come here to find some true core Republican believers that this administration to this day can not do anything wrong and hasn't done anything wrong doesn't surprise me.
Just with the example from Aquilla using a 2 year old article to back up your case is a little lazy, especially if you would have read one of the last filings in the case from Patrick Fitzgerald which was a declassified employment history summary of Valerie Plame.
Unclassified Summary of Valerie Wilson's CIA Employment & Cover History
Which states
QUOTE
On 1 January 2002, Valerie Wilson was working for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) as an operations officer in the Directorate of Operations (DO). She was assigned to the Counterproliferations Division (CPD) at CIA Headquarters, where she served as the chief of a CPD component with responsibility for weapon proliferation issues related to Iraq.
While assigned to CPD, Ms. Wilson engaged in temporary duty (TDY) travel overseas on official business. She traveled at least seven times to more than ten countries. When traveling overseas, Ms. Wilson always traveled under cover identity--sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias--but always using cover--whether official or non-official cover (NOC)-- with no ostensible relationship to the CIA.
At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure in the media of Ms. Wilson's employment relationship with the CIA on 14 July 2003, Ms. Wilson was a cover CIA employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States.
snippet
As a result of the leak and subsequent media reporting of Ms. Wilson's relationship with the CIA, in December 2003 the CIA lifted Ms. Wilson's cover effective 14 December 2003, and then in February 2004 the CIA rolled back her cover effective 14 July 2003, the of the leak.
While assigned to CPD, Ms. Wilson engaged in temporary duty (TDY) travel overseas on official business. She traveled at least seven times to more than ten countries. When traveling overseas, Ms. Wilson always traveled under cover identity--sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias--but always using cover--whether official or non-official cover (NOC)-- with no ostensible relationship to the CIA.
At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure in the media of Ms. Wilson's employment relationship with the CIA on 14 July 2003, Ms. Wilson was a cover CIA employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States.
snippet
As a result of the leak and subsequent media reporting of Ms. Wilson's relationship with the CIA, in December 2003 the CIA lifted Ms. Wilson's cover effective 14 December 2003, and then in February 2004 the CIA rolled back her cover effective 14 July 2003, the of the leak.
Plame was ‘covert’ agent at time of name leak Newly released unclassified document details CIA employment
should he be pardoned?
my first answer is no. I don't like the way we have evolved in the use of pardons just as I don;t like the evolution of the politicization of the US attorneys office. But a pardon of Libby would be no worse than many of the pardons made at the end of the previous two presidencies.
I will not be squawking about how horribly wrong it is. But such a pardon doesn't pass my smell test. Ideally the pardon would be used to address miscarriages of justice, not as a political perk to be used for persoal reasons.
my first answer is no. I don't like the way we have evolved in the use of pardons just as I don;t like the evolution of the politicization of the US attorneys office. But a pardon of Libby would be no worse than many of the pardons made at the end of the previous two presidencies.
I will not be squawking about how horribly wrong it is. But such a pardon doesn't pass my smell test. Ideally the pardon would be used to address miscarriages of justice, not as a political perk to be used for persoal reasons.
Just so I am clear....
Fitzgerald has proved no crime, proved no victim BUT has found that Libby is guilty of lying about a non crime with no victim.
I don't even like Libby but I dislike a elephant hunt even more. He knew Novak and Armitage were the actual leakers but because he couldn't get a decent case on them he went looking for something. When he failed at that he went after Libby. Do you suppose he goes to lunch with Nifong?
This is like the the legal/philosophical question:
If a man charged with the murder of his wife lies about having an affair during her murder trial but it turns out the wife is alive and well should he be charged with perjury?
Fitzgerald has proved no crime, proved no victim BUT has found that Libby is guilty of lying about a non crime with no victim.
I don't even like Libby but I dislike a elephant hunt even more. He knew Novak and Armitage were the actual leakers but because he couldn't get a decent case on them he went looking for something. When he failed at that he went after Libby. Do you suppose he goes to lunch with Nifong?
This is like the the legal/philosophical question:
If a man charged with the murder of his wife lies about having an affair during her murder trial but it turns out the wife is alive and well should he be charged with perjury?
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Jun 15 2007, 07:30 AM)
Just so I am clear....
Fitzgerald has proved no crime, proved no victim BUT has found that Libby is guilty of lying about a non crime with no victim.
Fitzgerald has proved no crime, proved no victim BUT has found that Libby is guilty of lying about a non crime with no victim.
Here's the better question, BA. If the administration committed no crime, victimized no one, did no damage to national security, and had nothing to cover up, why did a senior administration official lie to Federal agents, a special prosecutor, and a Grand Jury?
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate)
This is like the the legal/philosophical question:
If a man charged with the murder of his wife lies about having an affair during her murder trial but it turns out the wife is alive and well should he be charged with perjury?
If a man charged with the murder of his wife lies about having an affair during her murder trial but it turns out the wife is alive and well should he be charged with perjury?
Well, isn't that just about exactly what they impeached Clinton over? The Monica Lewinsky affair was not germain in any way to the Paula Jones accusations, and it certainly had nothing to do with TravelGate, WhiteWater, and/or anything else that Starr and Company were investigating. Yet Clinton was charged with perjury, for lying about the affair to a grand jury.
Funny how that's a major crime when the Dems do it, but it's nothing at all to be concerned with when it's a Rep under the gun....
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Jun 14 2007, 04:10 PM)
Why Scooter? Why not Armitage? Why not Novak?
Cause he's been convicted and cause he's a civil servant and swore an oath. And cause he's the tip of the iceberg. I suspect if we just threatened to "march him out into the street" a whole bunch of rats will come rolling off Bu-Chen Co's boat and then, maybe we'll get to the Captain.
Lots of stuff to go through here. We are even entertained with Media Matters pre-emptory strawmen arguments. Lots of things to go through unless we cut to the chase. Let's use a favorite term that people use in the beltway and ask the question "Who knew what and when did they know it?" in relation to the "leaking" of Valerie Plame's name to Robert Novak. A good timeline on this whole affair can be found here.
Let's pick it up at the Novak column in July of 2003 which is what allegedly started all this stuff. I don't think this is true, I think Joe Wilson's big mouth and need for relevance actually started it, but that's the subject for another thread. So, back to Novak's column. That's July of 2003. People start talking about it. Later on that fall Novak writes another column and it dawns on Richard Armitage that by golly, he was the source for the July article! Oh my, oh my, what to do? His actions are detailed here.
Oct 2003 Armitage calls Colin Powell and tells him about it. "Fesses up" so to speak and so what do they do? Well, according to the cited article they do this........
Now, keep in mind, this is on the first day of Oct 2003 and by the next day the Justice Department knew who had leaked the information to Novak. It could have ended right there I suppose, but no. Instead we end up with a special prosecutor, Peter Fitzgerald. being appointed to "investigate the case". That's just great. Let's investigate something we already know because you see, Fitzgerald isn't appointed until December 2003! December 30 to be exact, here is the official letter from the Justice Department to Fitzgerald. What's wrong with this picture?
Well, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out, but even if it did that's ok since I am a rocket scientist by profession. By the time Fitzgerald was appointed to investigate the Plame leak, the Justice Department already knew the identity of the leaker! Fitzgerald knew that before anyone even talked to Libby and to make the claim that Armitage wasn't prosecuted for a violation of the IIPA law because of "Libby's obstruction" is completely ludicrious.
So, why wasn't Armitage prosecuted? One can only speculate, but I would suspect it was because he hadn't committed any crime under federal law. And, he didn't work for Dick Cheney, didn't really even like Dick Cheney. So, here's Fitzgerald getting ready for his New Years Eve Party, fresh with a letter from the Justice Department authorizing him to investigate a "crime" that never happened. He's all dressed up with no place to go! So, what's he to do?
I know! Let's get Cheney or Rove! So, Fitzgerald faced with the prospect of investigating a crime that never happened decides to go on a fishing expedition and at least "catch" someone for something and he ends up with Libby on his hook. Libby is good, he works for Cheney and that's a crime by itself to many. So Fitzgerald figures he'll get someone and the hell with the details, the left-wing spin machines like "Media Matters" will take care of those and cover his six.
Heck, makes a good episode of "Shark"!
Aquilla
Let's pick it up at the Novak column in July of 2003 which is what allegedly started all this stuff. I don't think this is true, I think Joe Wilson's big mouth and need for relevance actually started it, but that's the subject for another thread. So, back to Novak's column. That's July of 2003. People start talking about it. Later on that fall Novak writes another column and it dawns on Richard Armitage that by golly, he was the source for the July article! Oh my, oh my, what to do? His actions are detailed here.
Oct 2003 Armitage calls Colin Powell and tells him about it. "Fesses up" so to speak and so what do they do? Well, according to the cited article they do this........
QUOTE
Armitage's admission led to a flurry of anxious phone calls and meetings that day at the State Department. (Days earlier, the Justice Department had launched a criminal investigation into the Plame leak after the CIA informed officials there that she was an undercover officer.) Within hours, William Howard Taft IV, the State Department's legal adviser, notified a senior Justice official that Armitage had information relevant to the case. The next day, a team of FBI agents and Justice prosecutors investigating the leak questioned the deputy secretary. Armitage acknowledged that he had passed along to Novak information contained in a classified State Department memo: that Wilson's wife worked on weapons-of-mass-destruction issues at the CIA. (The memo made no reference to her undercover status.)
Now, keep in mind, this is on the first day of Oct 2003 and by the next day the Justice Department knew who had leaked the information to Novak. It could have ended right there I suppose, but no. Instead we end up with a special prosecutor, Peter Fitzgerald. being appointed to "investigate the case". That's just great. Let's investigate something we already know because you see, Fitzgerald isn't appointed until December 2003! December 30 to be exact, here is the official letter from the Justice Department to Fitzgerald. What's wrong with this picture?
Well, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out, but even if it did that's ok since I am a rocket scientist by profession. By the time Fitzgerald was appointed to investigate the Plame leak, the Justice Department already knew the identity of the leaker! Fitzgerald knew that before anyone even talked to Libby and to make the claim that Armitage wasn't prosecuted for a violation of the IIPA law because of "Libby's obstruction" is completely ludicrious.
So, why wasn't Armitage prosecuted? One can only speculate, but I would suspect it was because he hadn't committed any crime under federal law. And, he didn't work for Dick Cheney, didn't really even like Dick Cheney. So, here's Fitzgerald getting ready for his New Years Eve Party, fresh with a letter from the Justice Department authorizing him to investigate a "crime" that never happened. He's all dressed up with no place to go! So, what's he to do?
I know! Let's get Cheney or Rove! So, Fitzgerald faced with the prospect of investigating a crime that never happened decides to go on a fishing expedition and at least "catch" someone for something and he ends up with Libby on his hook. Libby is good, he works for Cheney and that's a crime by itself to many. So Fitzgerald figures he'll get someone and the hell with the details, the left-wing spin machines like "Media Matters" will take care of those and cover his six.Heck, makes a good episode of "Shark"!
Aquilla
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Jun 15 2007, 11:13 AM)
Libby is good, he works for Cheney and that's a crime by itself to many.
Aquilla
Aquilla
I am confused about this comment. I do not know of any reasonable person who thinks it is a crime to work for Cheney, nor have I ever read such a thing anywhere before.
Can you explain this for me?
Aquilla, you keep claiming a witch hunt here. And I guess in a way you are right. The Vice President's office was targeted in this investigation. The way investigations work is that actors that commited questionable act are investigated and their motives are assessed. If their motive was essentially following orders than the people who gave the orders are looked into.
Here it seems fairly obvious to most who have looked into the matter that the vice president's office went after Wilson for political reasons. A special prosecutor was appointed to look into this and investigate possible crimes including violations, but not exclusive to violations of the IIPA. a link to a clarification of fitzgerald's commission from the justice department
While on a direct path in investigating this matter, Fitzgerald met with an obstruction of justice and pursued charges against Libby for it.
Everything else is just white noise of the type I often encounter in my profession when a high schooler has trouble owning up to an infraction and accepting his punishment. (But other people did it too or worse)
The witch hunt in this case was launched and defined by the justice department.
Debunking Media Matters as a spin machine for the left is a tired tactic. Did this particular article seem to not use good journalistic standards and did it fail to back up its arguemtns with abundant documentation. Do you see any falsehoods in the article?
Here it seems fairly obvious to most who have looked into the matter that the vice president's office went after Wilson for political reasons. A special prosecutor was appointed to look into this and investigate possible crimes including violations, but not exclusive to violations of the IIPA. a link to a clarification of fitzgerald's commission from the justice department
While on a direct path in investigating this matter, Fitzgerald met with an obstruction of justice and pursued charges against Libby for it.
Everything else is just white noise of the type I often encounter in my profession when a high schooler has trouble owning up to an infraction and accepting his punishment. (But other people did it too or worse)
The witch hunt in this case was launched and defined by the justice department.
Debunking Media Matters as a spin machine for the left is a tired tactic. Did this particular article seem to not use good journalistic standards and did it fail to back up its arguemtns with abundant documentation. Do you see any falsehoods in the article?
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Jun 15 2007, 08:30 AM)
Just so I am clear....
Fitzgerald has proved no crime, proved no victim BUT has found that Libby is guilty of lying about a non crime with no victim.
Fitzgerald has proved no crime, proved no victim BUT has found that Libby is guilty of lying about a non crime with no victim.
If he proved no crime, then why did a jury of Libby's peers find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? He lied and obstructed justice. Your response here is quite lazy, BaphometsAdvocate, given that a number of people have proven quite convincingly that a crime was in fact committed. Yet you make no effort to refute any of their evidence. Aquilla at least makes an effort, albeit a failed one.
QUOTE
I don't even like Libby but I dislike a elephant hunt even more. He knew Novak and Armitage were the actual leakers but because he couldn't get a decent case on them he went looking for something.
And you know this how exactly? Certainly not from Fitzgerald.
QUOTE
If a man charged with the murder of his wife lies about having an affair during her murder trial but it turns out the wife is alive and well should he be charged with perjury?
Under the letter of the law, yes. He committed perjury, regardless of the outcome of the trial. Whether someone chooses to prosecute it is another story. Unfortunately your analogy has a fatal flaw in it. A crime may have happened (someone may have knowingly outed a covert CIA agent), but we cannot know this because the defendant lied under oath and obstructed justice.
QUOTE
Here it seems fairly obvious to most who have looked into the matter that the vice president's office went after Wilson for political reasons.
I agree that Libby should pay the price for lying. What i9 find amusing is that it is clear that Valerie and he hubby were “going after Bush” for political reasons – and this is ok??? Apparently so.
The real problem I have with this is both sides do it and waste out money sniping at each other. You can be sure the other side will enjoy putting the shoe on the other foot – at our expense.
QUOTE(Aquilla)
So, why wasn't Armitage prosecuted? One can only speculate, but I would suspect it was because he hadn't committed any crime under federal law.
You're exactly right, we can only speculate. Could it be that Armitage didn't know that Plame was covert? That would exonerate him right there.
QUOTE
So, Fitzgerald faced with the prospect of investigating a crime that never happened decides to go on a fishing expedition and at least "catch" someone for something and he ends up with Libby on his hook. Libby is good, he works for Cheney and that's a crime by itself to many. So Fitzgerald figures he'll get someone and the hell with the details, the left-wing spin machines like "Media Matters" will take care of those and cover his six.
You seem to attribute Fitzgerald being this big left wing partisan rogue prosecutor when in reality he was appointed by Bush in 2001. I mean, look at this guy's biography. Doesn't exactly strike me as an elephant hunter.
QUOTE(Doclotus @ Jun 15 2007, 03:35 PM)
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Jun 15 2007, 08:30 AM)
Just so I am clear....
Fitzgerald has proved no crime, proved no victim BUT has found that Libby is guilty of lying about a non crime with no victim.
Fitzgerald has proved no crime, proved no victim BUT has found that Libby is guilty of lying about a non crime with no victim.
If he proved no crime, then why did a jury of Libby's peers find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? He lied and obstructed justice. Your response here is quite lazy, BaphometsAdvocate, given that a number of people have proven quite convincingly that a crime was in fact committed. Yet you make no effort to refute any of their evidence. Aquilla at least makes an effort, albeit a failed one.
Speaking of lazy.... Pot, this is kettle. **Seeing BoF on the bottom of this as a viewer reminded me that I sometimes have to put on Maximum Verbosity.
So if you look at my original quote you'll see that I already mentioned that Fitzgerald found Libby guilty of lying - perjury technically speaking. What he didn't find was the crime he was charged with finding. Sound familiar? Now when I say "Sound Familiar?" I am referencing Bill Clinton's run in with a grand jury. And by run in I mean to evoke your memories of a stained blue dress. Decorum and the Rules force me to be vague here but I'll assume you remember what that was all about.
QUOTE
QUOTE
I don't even like Libby but I dislike a elephant hunt even more. He knew Novak and Armitage were the actual leakers but because he couldn't get a decent case on them he went looking for something.
And you know this how exactly? Certainly not from Fitzgerald.
Then Fitzgerald has reading comprehension issues. He knew who did the actual outing.
And lest anyone think I am worried this is some Left Wing Cabal move I don't. I don't think this has any particular political motives. I think this is a so-so Prosecutor who thought he had something in his sights.
Merry Fitzmas, indeed.
QUOTE(Doclotus @ Jun 15 2007, 12:35 PM)
[Under the letter of the law, yes. He committed perjury, regardless of the outcome of the trial. Whether someone chooses to prosecute it is another story. Unfortunately your analogy has a fatal flaw in it. A crime may have happened (someone may have knowingly outed a covert CIA agent), but we cannot know this because the defendant lied under oath and obstructed justice.
Did he?
Let's move to your next post Doc and look at what you said there.....
QUOTE
You're exactly right, we can only speculate. Could it be that Armitage didn't know that Plame was covert? That would exonerate him right there.
Bingo! No crime under the IIPA statute. And, as my timeline cited earlier shows this was known months before Fitzgerald was even commissioned as a special prosecutor. So, if there was no crime here, then someone please explain to me how Libby "obstructed justice" or committed "perjury". Perjury has some pretty specific requirements under the law. You can reada about them here. Quoting from that source......
QUOTE
It is important that the false statement be material to the case at hand—that it Could affect the outcome of the case. It is not considered perjury, for example, to lie about your age, unless your age is a key factor in proving the case.
Ok, this is key to the problem I have with the entire Libby case. How can someone be accused of making a false statement material to the case at hand when there was no case at hand? Fitzgerald's claim that Libby somehow prevented him from prosecuting the actual leaker is bogus. Fitzgerald already knew who the leaker was and he determined that he couldn't prosecute that case under the IIPA statute. Libby had nothing to do with that at all. So, what was the "material case at hand"? How did Libby's statements "affect the outcome" of a case that never existed in the first place? Can anyone 'splain that to me?
Aquilla
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Jun 15 2007, 04:13 PM)
So if you look at my original quote you'll see that I already mentioned that Fitzgerald found Libby guilty of lying - perjury technically speaking.
Obstructing justice in a national security investigation, technically speaking. Or is that not a serious matter to you?
QUOTE
What he didn't find was the crime he was charged with finding.
And Fitzgerald specifically said one of the reasons he couldn't find it was obstruction and lying by Libby. Hence why he's headed to prison for 2+ years. I'm not going to belabor this because you obviously don't care if someone lies to investigators & obstructs justice in a matter regarding national security.
QUOTE
Then Fitzgerald has reading comprehension issues. He knew who did the actual outing.
Two of the outers, yes. As I've already stated with Aquilla we don't know why charges weren't made against them. And we also don't know if higher charges were going to be leveled against Libby (though apparently Fitz considered espionage charges) because he lied. Also bear in mind that this investigation hasn't closed. Cheney's office still has some questions to answer.
QUOTE
I think this is a so-so Prosecutor who thought he had something in his sights.
His resume says otherwise.
edit: adding a reply to Aquilla to avoid double posting.
QUOTE
Ok, this is key to the problem I have with the entire Libby case. How can someone be accused of making a false statement material to the case at hand when there was no case at hand? Fitzgerald's claim that Libby somehow prevented him from prosecuting the actual leaker is bogus. Fitzgerald already knew who the leaker was and he determined that he couldn't prosecute that case under the IIPA statute. Libby had nothing to do with that at all. So, what was the "material case at hand"? How did Libby's statements "affect the outcome" of a case that never existed in the first place? Can anyone 'splain that to me?
I won't deny that these are fair questions, Aquilla. Some of them have better potential answers than others. There is still a lot to be revealed in the process from Cheney's office (of which Libby played a major role, obviously). If there really was nothing here, I think Fitzgerald would have wrapped up by now. I might get to more of this later but right now its yabba dabba do time and I'm heading out
Cheers,
Doc
QUOTE(Doclotus @ Jun 15 2007, 05:01 PM)
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Jun 15 2007, 04:13 PM)
So if you look at my original quote you'll see that I already mentioned that Fitzgerald found Libby guilty of lying - perjury technically speaking.
Obstructing justice in a national security investigation, technically speaking. Or is that not a serious matter to you?
Spare me the Won't anyone think of the children moment OK? I don't believe for a second you give a shaven rat's glass about National Security.
Bottom line there isn't a person in this entire conversation who has clue what we're talking about. None of us even know for sure if Plame was outed. It seems pretty unlikely she was because if she were Armitage and Novak would have been the targets to begin with. Their intent not-withstanding. But even that's unknown!
What we can be sure of is that Libby got stupid and caught. The real question is should there ever have even been an investigation in the first place?
QUOTE(Doclotus @ Jun 15 2007, 02:01 PM)
I won't deny that these are fair questions, Aquilla. Some of them have better potential answers than others. There is still a lot to be revealed in the process from Cheney's office (of which Libby played a major role, obviously). If there really was nothing here, I think Fitzgerald would have wrapped up by now. I might get to more of this later but right now its yabba dabba do time and I'm heading out
Cheers,
Doc
Cheers,
Doc
Cheers, Doc! Hoist a Thompson for me.
Ok, while Doc is out having a Fred moment (Flintstone, not Thompson I'm afraid) there has been some new information that has come to my attention that I find interesting, if not downright intriguing around this entire Libby thing. I wonder if there is some sort of a previous history between Patrick Fitzgerald and Scooter Libby.
I wonder..... Could that possibly offer an explanation of the aggressive prosecution waged by Fitzgerald against Libby? Could that explain why Fitzgerald continued his "investigation" into the Plame "leak" even though he already knew who told Robert Novak about Valerie Plame (Wilson)? These are valid questions when considering the option of pardoning Libby, so I'm still on topic here to the central questions posed for debate. Let's see.......Was there a prior connection between Fitzgerald and Libby? Did they ever face off against each other in a criminal proceeding?
Believe it or not, the answer to this question is yes. And, it gets kind of weird from there. Most of us identify Patrick Fitzgerald (those who can actually identify him at all) as a federal prosecutor from Illinois, but his roots are in Brooklyn and indeed at one time he was a federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York. One of the cases he prosecuted in that role was the Marc Rich case for tax-evasion. For those here who don't remember, Marc Rich was one of the people that President Clinton pardoned before he left office and there were a number of questions about that pardon. Turns out Rich's former wife, Denise, was a big contributor to Clinton. Oh well, but this gets really interesting now..... Guess who represented and defended Marc Rich in the federal prosecution? None other than Scooter Libby!
Here is the link. From that website we get the following......QUOTE
As it happens, Messrs. Fitzgerald and Libby had crossed legal paths before. Before he joined the Bush Administration, Mr. Libby had, for a number of years in the 1980s and 1990s, been a lawyer for Marc Rich. Mr. Rich is the oil trader and financier who fled to Switzerland in 1983, just ahead of his indictment for tax-evasion by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Bill Clinton pardoned Mr. Rich in 2001, and so the feds never did get their man. The pardon so infuriated Justice lawyers who had worked on the case that the Southern District promptly launched an investigation into whether the pardon had been "proper." One former prosecutor we spoke to described the Rich case as "the single most rancorous case in the history of the Southern District."
And, it gets better.......
QUOTE
Two of the prosecutors who worked on the Rich case over the years were none other than Mr. Fitzgerald and James Comey, who while Deputy Attorney General appointed Mr. Fitzgerald to investigate the Plame leak. Mr. Fitzgerald worked in the Southern District for five years starting in 1988, at the same time that Mr. Libby was developing a legal theory of Mr. Rich's innocence in a bid to get the charges dropped. The prosecutors never did accept the argument, but Leonard Garment, who brought Mr. Libby onto the case in 1985, says that he believes Mr. Libby's legal work helped set the stage for Mr. Rich's eventual pardon.
Now, I'm not really into the old conspiracy thing other than being a card-carrying member and chief BBQ'er of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, but I do find the above to be "interesting". It does kind of make one wonder about what Fitzgerald's motivation was once he knew he didn't have a case against the real leaker.
Aquilla
QUOTE
Bottom line there isn't a person in this entire conversation who has clue what we're talking about.
That didn't stop you from easily dismissing the idea that he broke the law, did it? And I don't agree at all with your characterization about what I (or others) know about the subject. While I fully admit to lacking the whole story, that certainly still allows for some discussion surrounding the original questions, doesn't it? The fact is, he was found guilty of lying and obstructing justice by a jury of his peers, not just Patrick Fitzgerald.
QUOTE
None of us even know for sure if Plame was outed. It seems pretty unlikely she was because if she were Armitage and Novak would have been the targets to begin with. Their intent not-withstanding. But even that's unknown!
We know for a fact that she was covert prior to Novak's article. The DCI testified as such.
QUOTE(Doclotus @ Jun 15 2007, 04:21 PM)
QUOTE
Bottom line there isn't a person in this entire conversation who has clue what we're talking about.
That didn't stop you from easily dismissing the idea that he broke the law, did it? And I don't agree at all with your characterization about what I (or others) know about the subject. While I fully admit to lacking the whole story, that certainly still allows for some discussion surrounding the original questions, doesn't it? The fact is, he was found guilty of lying and obstructing justice by a jury of his peers, not just Patrick Fitzgerald.
QUOTE
None of us even know for sure if Plame was outed. It seems pretty unlikely she was because if she were Armitage and Novak would have been the targets to begin with. Their intent not-withstanding. But even that's unknown!
We know for a fact that she was covert prior to Novak's article. The DCI testified as such.
I must have missed the provision in the IIPA statute that a person is covert if the DCI says so. Could you point that part out to me, Doc? And, even if she was, then why wasn't Libby charged with that crime? Why hasn't ANYONE been charged with that crime?
Aquilla
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Jun 15 2007, 07:47 PM)
I must have missed the provision in the IIPA statute that a person is covert if the DCI says so. Could you point that part out to me, Doc? And, even if she was, then why wasn't Libby charged with that crime? Why hasn't ANYONE been charged with that crime?
Aquilla
Aquilla
You knew the answer to that before you asked it, because you said as much in a previous post. It isn't just that she's covert, the crime has to be that the person "knew" they were covert.
And it wasn't just the head of the CIA that testified as such (whom I would like to think might be authoritative on the matter), I can't recall the post earlier but I thought someone had some fairly detailed information regarding that.
A distinction that may be getting missed here, and I'll fully admit that this is speculative, is perhaps Plame was indeed covert at the time of the outing, but not covert to the degree the IIPA required for the crime to be committed? I haven't really seen any analysis to this degree, other than the USA Today article Aquilla cited, but it sounds as though its possible that she was still doing covert work in 2003 (and was thus a covert agent or NOC) but failed to meet the residency requirements for it to be a letter of the law crime under the IIPA. Admittedly you won't get that level of nuance from the MSM, but that thought popped into my head while I was writing so I thought I would share.
QUOTE
Spare me the Won't anyone think of the children moment OK? I don't believe for a second you give a shaven rat's glass about National Security.
If the Clinton administration had done this, I doubt it would be so downplayed as it is here. There is no debate that she was a covert agent, that issue has never been in question.
QUOTE
None of us even know for sure if Plame was outed.
So it was merely coincidental that the spouse, a covert one at that, was outed by an administration that was embarrassed at how their reasoning regarding Niger fell like a deck of cards? There was a concerted effort on the part of the White House. They actively searched for who this person was and held meetings about it.
QUOTE
It seems pretty unlikely she was because if she were Armitage and Novak would have been the targets to begin with. Their intent not-withstanding. But even that's unknown!
The only problem with this is that Libby discussed Plame with Judith Miller BEFORE Novak even got in on it.
QUOTE
While Libby did not divulge Plame's identity to Novak, prosecutors have alleged that Libby did discuss Plame's CIA employment with Miller on three occasions prior to the publication of Novak's column.
Hume false statement article on Plame
QUOTE
The real question is should there ever have even been an investigation in the first place?
So investigating who "outs" an agent is not something that should be done? It's okay if administration officials blab about who is under cover to media types at will? That's acceptable?
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Jun 15 2007, 11:10 PM)
If the Clinton administration had done this, I doubt it would be so downplayed as it is here. There is no debate that she was a covert agent, that issue has never been in question.
The issue of whether or not Valerie Plame(Wilson) was a covert agent under the IIPA statute definition most certainly is in question. Since we are discussing a criminal prosecution of Libby, the definition of "covert" under the law is most certainly relevant.
QUOTE
So it was merely coincidental that the spouse, a covert one at that, was outed by an administration that was embarrassed at how their reasoning regarding Niger fell like a deck of cards? There was a concerted effort on the part of the White House. They actively searched for who this person was and held meetings about it.
Oh geez. More Media Matters garbage. You know it's interesting how people get ripped around here for quoting Fox News (or is that Faux News) and yet when someone posts Media Matters as a "credible source", that's ok. The Media Matters "article" in tihs case references Patrick Fitzgerald's allegations as though they were truth. If indeed they were truth, then one wonders shy Fitzgerald never brought any kind of conspiracy charges against Cheney or Rove.
QUOTE
The only problem with this is that Libby discussed Plame with Judith Miller BEFORE Novak even got in on it.
The problem with this argument is that the investigation was launched as a result of Novak's report, not Judith Miller's since he named Plame and Miller didn't. The person responsible for the leak was known to Fitzgerald and the Justice Department before he even began his investigation.
QUOTE
While Libby did not divulge Plame's identity to Novak, prosecutors have alleged that Libby did discuss Plame's CIA employment with Miller on three occasions prior to the publication of Novak's column.
Then why wasn't he charged with a violation of the IIPA if as you allege earlier, she was "covert"?
QUOTE
So investigating who "outs" an agent is not something that should be done? It's okay if administration officials blab about who is under cover to media types at will? That's acceptable?
The person who "outed" Plame was known to the investigation on day one. It was Armitage and he fessed up to doing it in Oct 2003. Fitzgerald wasn't even appointed until December 2003. Appointed I might add by his old buddy in the Justice Department from their prosecution days in the Southern District of New York where Libby was their opposing counsel in the Marc Rich case. Payback perhaps? Is that acceptable?
Aquilla
QUOTE
The issue of whether or not Valerie Plame(Wilson) was a covert agent under the IIPA statute definition most certainly is in question. Since we are discussing a criminal prosecution of Libby, the definition of "covert" under the law is most certainly relevant.
Well, she was and that's the consensus on it.
And yes, she is covered under IIPA, no matter how arcane the argument against it:
QUOTE
On another note, this probably means I was wrong about the reason Fitzgerald didn't try to prosecute anyone for leaking Plame's name. (Libby was tried only for perjury, not for outing a covert agent.) I figured it was because Plame had been working inside the U.S. for six years at the time of the leak, and one of the technical elements of "covert" under the IIPA Act is that the agent has "within the last five years served outside the United States."
But obviously she had been working under cover outside the U.S. quite extensively during the previous five years, which means that Plame almost certainly qualified as "covert" under the specific definitions outlined in IIPA. Nonetheless, for some reason Fitzgerald decided not to bring outing charges against anyone. This suggests that Mark Kleiman has been right all along: Fitzgerald's decision had nothing to do with technical aspects of IIPA, but rather with its scienter requirements. That is, the leakers had to know that leaking Plame's name could be damaging, and Fitzgerald didn't think he had the evidence to make that case. That might have been especially true since the leaks seem to have been authorized at very high levels, something the leakers could have used in their defense at trial.
But obviously she had been working under cover outside the U.S. quite extensively during the previous five years, which means that Plame almost certainly qualified as "covert" under the specific definitions outlined in IIPA. Nonetheless, for some reason Fitzgerald decided not to bring outing charges against anyone. This suggests that Mark Kleiman has been right all along: Fitzgerald's decision had nothing to do with technical aspects of IIPA, but rather with its scienter requirements. That is, the leakers had to know that leaking Plame's name could be damaging, and Fitzgerald didn't think he had the evidence to make that case. That might have been especially true since the leaks seem to have been authorized at very high levels, something the leakers could have used in their defense at trial.
Yep, she's covered
QUOTE
Oh geez. More Media Matters garbage. You know it's interesting how people get ripped around here for quoting Fox News (or is that Faux News) and yet when someone posts Media Matters as a "credible source", that's ok. The Media Matters "article" in tihs case references Patrick Fitzgerald's allegations as though they were truth. If indeed they were truth, then one wonders shy Fitzgerald never brought any kind of conspiracy charges against Cheney or Rove.
Well, meetings did occur regarding hitting back on their house of cards argument falling to pieces.
QUOTE
Cheney, in a conversation with Libby in early July 2003, was said to describe Wilson's CIA-sponsored trip to Niger the previous year -- in which the envoy found no support for charges that Iraq tried to buy uranium there -- as "a junket set up by Mr. Wilson's wife," CIA case officer Valerie Plame.
article
Interestingly enough, 23 administration officials were involved to some extent on this. A brief mentioning of the wife that was purely accidental?, must be one heck of a coincidence.
On top of that, Libby fingered higher level officials as ordering the leaks. That is interesting as the details of the meetings that Rove and Libby held contradicts White House statements about Rove having nothing to do with it.
QUOTE
The person who "outed" Plame was known to the investigation on day one. It was Armitage and he fessed up to doing it in Oct 2003. Fitzgerald wasn't even appointed until December 2003.
The Armitage matter doesn't tie it all up.
QUOTE
Just because Armitage did this on his own, earlier, doesn't mean that there wasn't a White House conspiracy to 'out' Valerie [Plame] Wilson. We don't think it affects the case," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the group pressing the lawsuit
WaPo article
QUOTE
Appointed I might add by his old buddy in the Justice Department from their prosecution days in the Southern District of New York where Libby was their opposing counsel in the Marc Rich case. Payback perhaps? Is that acceptable?
Yep, a partisan hack who was nominated by Bush and confirmed, a man who led a case against the administration of Mayor Daley. Quite the partisan libber there.
Please note two posts have been removed from this topic. One contained an inflammatory, personal attack and the other was a response to the inflammatory post. Stay civil or we will issue strikes.
TOPICS:
1. Is the sentence fair?
2. Should he be pardoned?
3. Did the relevation that Valerie Plame was indeed a covert operative when she was outed change your opinion(s) surrounding this case?
TOPICS:
1. Is the sentence fair?
2. Should he be pardoned?
3. Did the relevation that Valerie Plame was indeed a covert operative when she was outed change your opinion(s) surrounding this case?
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Jun 16 2007, 12:18 AM)
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Jun 15 2007, 11:10 PM)
If the Clinton administration had done this, I doubt it would be so downplayed as it is here. There is no debate that she was a covert agent, that issue has never been in question.
The issue of whether or not Valerie Plame(Wilson) was a covert agent under the IIPA statute definition most certainly is in question. Since we are discussing a criminal prosecution of Libby, the definition of "covert" under the law is most certainly relevant.
QUOTE
So it was merely coincidental that the spouse, a covert one at that, was outed by an administration that was embarrassed at how their reasoning regarding Niger fell like a deck of cards? There was a concerted effort on the part of the White House. They actively searched for who this person was and held meetings about it.
Oh geez. More Media Matters garbage. You know it's interesting how people get ripped around here for quoting Fox News (or is that Faux News) and yet when someone posts Media Matters as a "credible source", that's ok. The Media Matters "article" in tihs case references Patrick Fitzgerald's allegations as though they were truth. If indeed they were truth, then one wonders shy Fitzgerald never brought any kind of conspiracy charges against Cheney or Rove.
QUOTE
The only problem with this is that Libby discussed Plame with Judith Miller BEFORE Novak even got in on it.
The problem with this argument is that the investigation was launched as a result of Novak's report, not Judith Miller's since he named Plame and Miller didn't. The person responsible for the leak was known to Fitzgerald and the Justice Department before he even began his investigation.
QUOTE
While Libby did not divulge Plame's identity to Novak, prosecutors have alleged that Libby did discuss Plame's CIA employment with Miller on three occasions prior to the publication of Novak's column.
Then why wasn't he charged with a violation of the IIPA if as you allege earlier, she was "covert"?
QUOTE
So investigating who "outs" an agent is not something that should be done? It's okay if administration officials blab about who is under cover to media types at will? That's acceptable?
The person who "outed" Plame was known to the investigation on day one. It was Armitage and he fessed up to doing it in Oct 2003. Fitzgerald wasn't even appointed until December 2003. Appointed I might add by his old buddy in the Justice Department from their prosecution days in the Southern District of New York where Libby was their opposing counsel in the Marc Rich case. Payback perhaps? Is that acceptable?
Aquilla
Okay-for consistancies sake in your argument- since there was no crime being commited regarding white water, or in the Paula Jones case- Bill Clinton didn't break any laws by "lying" about a BJ- did he? How do you conform your situational ethics to this one again?
1. Is the sentence fair?
Yes. I think Fitzgerald was gunning for Cheney. It seems common for prosecutors to squeeze underlings to get to the real villain. As Fitzgerald said, Libby “kicked sand in the umpire’s face.” Fitzgerald squeezed the tube at the bottom, but because of Libby, no toothpaste came out the top. Unfortunate.
2. Should he be pardoned?
No and I think Libby should start his sentence soon. If an appeals court allows him to stay out pending appeal, then that’s part of due process. I accept that. I do not see a pardon as part and parcel of due process. I almost wish this were a state crime, which would void Bush’s pardoning power. Ain't it nice that Tom DeLay's indictment is in a Texas court.
Yes. I think Fitzgerald was gunning for Cheney. It seems common for prosecutors to squeeze underlings to get to the real villain. As Fitzgerald said, Libby “kicked sand in the umpire’s face.” Fitzgerald squeezed the tube at the bottom, but because of Libby, no toothpaste came out the top. Unfortunate.
2. Should he be pardoned?
No and I think Libby should start his sentence soon. If an appeals court allows him to stay out pending appeal, then that’s part of due process. I accept that. I do not see a pardon as part and parcel of due process. I almost wish this were a state crime, which would void Bush’s pardoning power. Ain't it nice that Tom DeLay's indictment is in a Texas court.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Jun 16 2007, 01:06 PM)
Okay-for consistancies sake in your argument- since there was no crime being commited regarding white water, or in the Paula Jones case- Bill Clinton didn't break any laws by "lying" about a BJ- did he? How do you conform your situational ethics to this one again?
Clinton's false testimony in the deposition for the Paula Jones lawsuit was material to an on-going legal case before the court - the Paula Jones civil action against him for sexual harrassment. That case was before the court and the "Monica question" was relevant ie. material to the case at hand. It demonstrated a pattern of behavior on the part of Bill Clinton, the kind of behavior that Paula Jobes alleged he conducted against her.
With Libby, there was no case at hand, criminal or civil. And, to this day the only criminal case brought has been the one against Libby although there is now a civil case filed by the Wilsons and CREW (another unbiased souce from Nebraska), but that wasn't in existance at the time. All there was was an investigation that already knew the answers to the questions and still no charges had been filed.
And to BoF.........
QUOTE
No and I think Libby should start his sentence soon. If an appeals court allows him to stay out pending appeal, then that’s part of due process. I accept that. I do not see a pardon as part and parcel of due process. I almost wish this were a state crime, which would void Bush’s pardoning power. Ain't it nice that Tom DeLay's indictment is in a Texas court.
What's the latest scoop on DeLay anyway? Trial date set or anything like that? I haven't heard much about that lately.
Aquilla
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Jun 16 2007, 09:50 PM)
And to BoF.........
What's the latest scoop on DeLay anyway? Trial date set or anything like that? I haven't heard much about that lately.
Aquilla
QUOTE
No and I think Libby should start his sentence soon. If an appeals court allows him to stay out pending appeal, then that’s part of due process. I accept that. I do not see a pardon as part and parcel of due process. I almost wish this were a state crime, which would void Bush’s pardoning power. Ain't it nice that Tom DeLay's indictment is in a Texas court.
What's the latest scoop on DeLay anyway? Trial date set or anything like that? I haven't heard much about that lately.
Aquilla
The last thing I can find, and indeed remember, is that a conspiracy charge against DeLay was dismissed, but a more serious charge remained. This was in December, 2005 - eighteen months ago. Whether DeLay's lawyers or the DA is stalling, I don't know, but I'll try to find out through some Austin sources.
QUOTE
A Texas judge upheld a felony indictment yesterday of former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) on charges of money laundering in connection with the Texas election in 2002, while dismissing a separate DeLay indictment for allegedly conspiring with aides to violate the state's election law that year.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5120500426.html
Apparently, the case is still open.
QUOTE(BoF @ Jun 16 2007, 08:58 PM)
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Jun 16 2007, 09:50 PM)
And to BoF.........
What's the latest scoop on DeLay anyway? Trial date set or anything like that? I haven't heard much about that lately.
Aquilla
QUOTE
No and I think Libby should start his sentence soon. If an appeals court allows him to stay out pending appeal, then that’s part of due process. I accept that. I do not see a pardon as part and parcel of due process. I almost wish this were a state crime, which would void Bush’s pardoning power. Ain't it nice that Tom DeLay's indictment is in a Texas court.
What's the latest scoop on DeLay anyway? Trial date set or anything like that? I haven't heard much about that lately.
Aquilla
The last thing I can find, and indeed remember, is that a conspiracy charge against DeLay was dismissed, but a more serious charge remained. This was in December, 2005 - eighteen months ago. Whether DeLay's lawyers or the DA is stalling, I don't know, but I'll try to find out through some Austin sources.
QUOTE
A Texas judge upheld a felony indictment yesterday of former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) on charges of money laundering in connection with the Texas election in 2002, while dismissing a separate DeLay indictment for allegedly conspiring with aides to violate the state's election law that year.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5120500426.html
Apparently, the case is still open.
That is pretty strange. Normally I would have expected DeLay's attorneys to exert his right to a speedy trial and force the prosecution to put up or shut up. Maybe the judge mis-read a pleading submitted by his lawyers and thought they were asking for a delay in the proceedings...... (Couldn't resist that one, and I'm here all week) 
Aquilla
QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Jun 6 2007, 06:27 PM)
Questions for debate:
1. Is the sentence fair?
2. Should he be pardoned?
1. Is the sentence fair?
2. Should he be pardoned?
1. Define what's "fair." I prefer to describe the sentence as "satisfactory."
2. No. But he will be sometime after the 2008 elections and before Bush leaves office. If you think there's ANY way Dubya is going to let one of Dick Cheney's boys stew in lockdown, you are on dope or dog food.
Personally, I'm in favor of sending Scooter Libby to Guantanamo or Abu Gharib.
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Jun 14 2007, 10:41 PM)
QUOTE(Hunter Rose @ Jun 14 2007, 07:08 PM)
Well, I see that you are the sort who will dismiss the Ten Comandments as partisan simply because they are posted on a 'left-wing' site. Sad you did not take the time to consider the authors of the letter from which the excerpt is derived. Those who drafted the letter, and Fitzgerald and Judge Walton who determined that the IIPA applied are relatively independent of political patronage.
Oh really? Those who drafted the letter are "independent" of political patronage? Is that why they are all over the place on left-wing websites? Heck one of them (Ray Close) even has an E-Mail address at CounterPunch. Now there's a non-partisan source for you.
I suppose we could go through the others' resumes and books they've written, but let's get the real claim that's important here......
One more time... the content of the letter is not an opinion when they state that Fitzgerald and Judge Walton determined that she was covered under the IIPA. If you believe they are lying, say so.
QUOTE
Nice try Aquilla, but wishing she wasn't covert when outed won't make it so. She was covert, it was not known outside of the intelligence community that she was, and the revelation of her employment, according to the opinion of the judge, not an attorney, was a violation of the IIPA.
QUOTE
The "opinion of the judge"? He didn't know. He said as much when he addressed the jury. From The American Thinker, not a source I claim as you do as "non-partisan", but nonetheless the judge said in open court he didn't know what Plame's status was.....
Judge Reggie Walton to the trial jury:
Walton announced that not only did the jurors not know Mrs. Wilson's status but that he didn't know it, either. "I don't know, based on what has been presented to me in this case, what her status was," Walton said. "It's totally irrelevant to this case." Just so there was no mistake, on January 31 Walton said it again: "I to this day don't know what her actual status was." (From an article by Byron York, NR, 02/05/2007) [emphasis added]
Judge Reggie Walton to the trial jury:
Walton announced that not only did the jurors not know Mrs. Wilson's status but that he didn't know it, either. "I don't know, based on what has been presented to me in this case, what her status was," Walton said. "It's totally irrelevant to this case." Just so there was no mistake, on January 31 Walton said it again: "I to this day don't know what her actual status was." (From an article by Byron York, NR, 02/05/2007) [emphasis added]
And yet her covert status was confirmed;
QUOTE
During House hearings today, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) announced that CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden recently told Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) that there was no doubt Victoria Plame Wilson was covert. Cummings — relaying what Waxman had told him — said that Gen. Hayden expressed clearly and directly, “Ms. Wilson was covert.”
Cummings also asked Wilson to respond to the specific claim, made by Victoria Toensing and others, that Plame had lost her covert status because she “had not been stationed abroad within five years.” Cummings asked, “During the past five years, Ms. Plame, from today, did you conduct secret missions overseas?” She answered, “Yes I did, congressman.”
Cummings also asked Wilson to respond to the specific claim, made by Victoria Toensing and others, that Plame had lost her covert status because she “had not been stationed abroad within five years.” Cummings asked, “During the past five years, Ms. Plame, from today, did you conduct secret missions overseas?” She answered, “Yes I did, congressman.”
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/16/hayden-cia-plame-covert
And for good measure;
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0703/16/cnr.02.html
And the official filing in the Libby case;
http://news.lp.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/plam...102805ind3.html
So if you think that CIA Director Gen Michael Hayden, Rep. Henry Waxman, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, Rep. Elijah Cummings, and Valerie Plame-Wilson were ALL lying, again... just say so.
Victoria Toensing erroneously stated that Ms. Plame was not covered under the IIPA because she had not served overseas. Toensing NEVER had the proper security clearance to authoritatively make such a statement. She was just plain dead wrong.
QUOTE
That's a pretty definitive statement. Do you dispute it? He didn't know. Fitzgerald never brought any charges concerning IIPA agasinst anyone and that was the purpose of the investigation in the first place. He knew who leaked the name and he knew it wasn't Libby. He also knew it wasn't a violation of IIPA or he'd have brought charges for that. Nobody has ever been charged with the original "crime" because there was no original "crime". Only a political witch-hunt. Now, if a bunch of former CIA agents, each with their own agenda - that of disagreeing with Bush's policies, think Valerie Plame was "covert", that's up to them. Doesn't carry any weight though under the IIPA statute. Under that law, clearly she wasn't.
Again with the balderdash. Fitzgerald couldn't bring charges under the IIPA because of Libby's obstruction of his investigation.
Fact - Valerie plame was 'covert' at the time of her outing as established by the CIA Director and others.
Fact - Valerie plame was covered under the IIPA at the time of her outing as established by her having served overseas within the scope of the law.
Fact - A crime was most certainly committed when her cover was blown.
QUOTE
Next you might try to stop the sun from rising.
QUOTE
Since you're new here, I'll cut you some slack on that one. I'd strongly advise you not try it again.
Aquilla
Aquilla
Sorry for that... As an intelligent person I'm sure you are aware that the rising of the sun is merely an effect of the rotation of the Earth. What I should have said was;
"You might as well try to stop the Earth from spinning."
Something of an update:
Link
The card has been played.
QUOTE(BBC)
US President George W Bush has intervened to prevent Lewis Libby, a convicted former vice-presidential aide, from serving a prison term.
President Bush described as "excessive" the 30-month prison sentence Libby was facing for having obstructed an inquiry into the leaking of a CIA agent's name.
Though no longer required to go to jail, Libby is still due to serve a period of probation and pay a fine.
President Bush described as "excessive" the 30-month prison sentence Libby was facing for having obstructed an inquiry into the leaking of a CIA agent's name.
Though no longer required to go to jail, Libby is still due to serve a period of probation and pay a fine.
Link
The card has been played.
There truly is no penalty for wrongdoing with this bunch. It should be forever dubbed the Teflon Administration.
Gotta love the smug look on the bahstige's face: MSNBC
Gotta love the smug look on the bahstige's face: MSNBC
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Jul 2 2007, 06:12 PM)
There truly is no penalty for wrongdoing with this bunch. It should be forever dubbed the Teflon Administration.
Gotta love the smug look on the bahstige's face: MSNBC
Gotta love the smug look on the bahstige's face: MSNBC
Actually, this may be a good thing. Perhaps Bush will put his poll numbes in the single digits and destroy what's left of the Republican Party for a decade or so.
What has just been done leaves me speechless.
Does anyone get held accountable for anything in this administration?
Does anyone get held accountable for anything in this administration?
QUOTE(BoF @ Jul 2 2007, 05:28 PM)
Actually, this may be a good thing. Perhaps Bush will put his poll numbers in the single digits and destroy what's left of the Republican Party for a decade or so.
Do you honestly think those who still support this administration are capable of changing their minds? Those capable of independent thought have already done so, those who still support him will support him no matter what.
QUOTE(Grendel72 @ Jul 2 2007, 07:33 PM)
QUOTE(BoF @ Jul 2 2007, 05:28 PM)
Actually, this may be a good thing. Perhaps Bush will put his poll numbers in the single digits and destroy what's left of the Republican Party for a decade or so.
Do you honestly think those who still support this administration are capable of changing their minds? Those capable of independent thought have already done so, those who still support him will support him no matter what.No, Grendel, I don't, but I think this may well make it more difficult for a Republican to win in 2008. The base alone can't elect a president. Bush has provided a hole big enough to drive a truck through. The only question is if someone will drive the truck through that hole.
I think most of us knew this was a possibility, so now that it has happened, why not make the most of it?
The fact that Bush did this right before a holiday and by written statement rather than in person, shows for all the world to see, if they didn't before, that Bush is coward in addition to the liar we've long known he is. Whether any of the 25 to 30 percent of those who haven't seen it yet will now is another question.
So far, I haven't seen any of our Republicans members defend this decision, though I have no doubt some will.
BTW: Fred Thompson may be the first to slip on the banana peel and land firmly on his butt over this.
Edited to add after Nebraska posted:
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Jul 2 2007, 08:34 PM)
Wasn't this the president who said if anyone was in any way involved that he would see them punished according to law?
This is confirmation that Bush is a bald-faced liar. The coward bit I explained above.
QUOTE(BecomingHuman @ Jul 2 2007, 07:17 PM)
What has just been done leaves me speechless.
Does anyone get held accountable for anything in this administration?
Does anyone get held accountable for anything in this administration?
Wasn't this the president who said if anyone was in any way involved that he would see them punished according to law?
I've started a new thread to discuss a few things that may be arising from the commutation decision here.
QUOTE(BoF)
The fact that Bush did this right before a holiday and by written statement rather than in person shows for all the world to see, if they didn't before, that Bush is coward in addition to the liar we've lonmg known he is. Whehether any of the 25 to 30 percent of those who haven't seen it yet will now is another question.
You'd certainly think they'd see, but if his followers are anything like him, they're like Adam on Mythbusters...they reject our reality and substitute their own. I read this today (before the Libby decision) and could only shake my head in amazement.
QUOTE
President Bush is holding private meetings "over sodas and sparkling water" in which he asks trusted advisers -- "Why does the rest of the world seem to hate America? Or is it just me they hate?"
<snip>
He still acts as if he were master of the universe, even if the rest of Washington no longer sees him that way.
<snip>
The reality has been daunting by any account. No modern president has experienced such a sustained rejection by the American public. Bush's approval rating slipped below 50 percent in Washington Post-ABC News polls in January 2005 and has not topped that level in the 30 months since. The last president mired under 50 percent so long was Harry S. Truman. Even Richard M. Nixon did not fall below 50 percent until April 1973, 16 months before he resigned. WaPo (registration req'd)
<snip>
He still acts as if he were master of the universe, even if the rest of Washington no longer sees him that way.
<snip>
The reality has been daunting by any account. No modern president has experienced such a sustained rejection by the American public. Bush's approval rating slipped below 50 percent in Washington Post-ABC News polls in January 2005 and has not topped that level in the 30 months since. The last president mired under 50 percent so long was Harry S. Truman. Even Richard M. Nixon did not fall below 50 percent until April 1973, 16 months before he resigned. WaPo (registration req'd)
Boo - frickin - hoo. Mr. Pretzeldent, they don't like you, they really, really don't like you. They don't hate America, they hate what you've done to her. This blurb just shows how utterly and completely clueless he is - and content to be so.
QUOTE(BoF @ Jul 2 2007, 07:24 PM)
No, Grendel, I don't, but I think this may well make it more difficult for a Republican to win in 2008.
Edited to remove inflammatory comment It may be all the Republican party has left, but it's clearly enough.
Right choice by President Bush. I know those over on the left are out for blood anyway they can get it, but it's about time Bush stood up to them and stopped playing nicey-nice. Scooter Libby's trial and conviction was a miscarriage of justice and now that wrong has at least been partially righted. So, to those of you on the left and that is most of the posters here, all I can say is "Deal with it". Here, have a Scooter Shooter. Aquilla
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Jul 2 2007, 08:57 PM)
Right choice by President Bush. I know those over on the left are out for blood anyway they can get it, but it's about time Bush stood up to them and stopped playing nicey-nice. Scooter Libby's trial and conviction was a miscarriage of justice and now that wrong has at least been partially righted. So, to those of you on the left and that is most of the posters here, all I can say is "Deal with it". Here, have a Scooter Shooter. Aquilla
Way to go Aquilla, I wondered who would be the first Republican to applaud this mockery of justice and "hoist" one for the Scooter.
I think you are setting yourself up for a double potion of crow. Try not to eat anything on election night that might spoil your appeite.
CLOSED.
This topic has devolved to unconstructive one-liners and the questions are moot. Thanks to everyone who did participate constructively.
This topic has devolved to unconstructive one-liners and the questions are moot. Thanks to everyone who did participate constructively.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.