Libby's guilty verdict: Media myths and falsehoods to watch for
March 06, 2007 12:55 pm ET
On March 6, a federal jury found former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby guilty on charges of perjury, obstruction of justice, and lying to federal investigators. In the wake of this decision, conservatives and other media figures can be expected to revive and advance numerous myths and falsehoods regarding the CIA leak case that have circulated throughout the media since Libby's indictment in October 2005.
In anticipation of this misinformation, Media Matters for America has listed those baseless and false claims likely to surface in the coming days and weeks:
- 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.
- There was no concerted White House effort to smear Wilson. In his October 2005 press conference announcing Libby's indictment, Fitzgerald alleged that, in 2003, "multiple people in the White House" engaged in a "concerted action" to "discredit, punish, or seek revenge against" former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. In August 2006, it came to light that then-deputy secretary of State Richard Armitage was the original source for syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak's July 14, 2003, column exposing CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity. Numerous conservative media figures subsequently claimed that this revelation disproved the notion of a "concerted" White House effort to smear Wilson. But to the contrary, David Corn -- Washington editor of The Nation and co-author of Hubris (Crown, 2006) the book that revealed Armitage's role in the leak -- noted on his Nation weblog that Armitage "abetted a White House campaign under way to undermine Wilson" and that whether he deliberately leaked Plame's identity, "the public role is without question: senior White House aides wanted to use Valerie Wilson's CIA employment against her husband."
- Libby was not responsible for the leak of Plame's identity. 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.
-
Libby merely "left out some facts." Some media outlets -- such as The Washington Post -- have suggested that FBI agent Deborah Bond testified at the trial that Libby simply "left out some facts" when he was interviewed by her in 2003. Specifically, the Post asserted that Bond said Libby "did not acknowledge disclosing the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame to reporters." In fact, Bond testified that Libby actually denied having leaked Plame's identity or having had any knowledge of her -- this despite the fact that two reporters had already testified that he leaked Plame's identity to them.
- Libby's leak was an effort to set the record straight. Critics of the CIA leak case have repeatedly claimed that the indictment stems from an effort by Libby and Vice President Dick Cheney to rebut a purportedly inaccurate attack on the administration by Wilson. According to these critics, Wilson falsely accused Cheney of having sent him to Niger to investigate reports that Iraq had attempted to purchase yellowcake uranium from the African country. In fact, Wilson, in his July 6, 2003, New York Times op-ed, did not say he was sent by Cheney. Rather, Wilson wrote that it was "agency officials" from the CIA who "asked if I would travel to Niger" and "check out" a "particular intelligence report" that "Cheney's office had questions about," so that CIA officials "could provide a response to the vice president's office."
- There is no evidence that the Plame leak compromised national security. 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."
- Fitzgerald is a partisan prosecutor. Over the course of the CIA leak investigation and the Libby trial, conservative media figures have attempted to cast Fitzgerald as a "prosecutor run amok" who is engaging in "the criminalization of politics." But Fitzgerald's background and prosecutorial record undermine the suggestion that his pursuit of Libby was politically motivated. Indeed, Fitzgerald is a Bush administration political appointee who, as U.S. attorney, has investigated high-level public officials from both parties, including former Illinois Gov. George Ryan (R), Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley (D), and Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D).
- Fitzgerald exceeded his mandate in investigating violations beyond the IIPA. The administration's defenders also have accused Fitzgerald of exceeding his original mandate. Media figures have repeatedly asserted or implied that Fitzgerald was appointed to investigate possible violations of the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA), which prohibits the knowing disclosure of the identity of a covert intelligence officer. In fact, his mandate was far broader. The Department of Justice granted Fitzgerald "plenary" authority to investigate the "alleged unauthorized disclosure" of Plame's identity.
- Plame's employment with the CIA was widely known. This falsehood has taken at least two forms -- that Plame's employment with the CIA was known in the Washington cocktail party circuit and that her neighbors knew that she worked for the CIA. In fact, Fitzgerald stated in the indictment of Libby that Plame's employment was classified and "was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community," a finding he reiterated at a post-verdict press conference. Moreover, as Media Matters noted, contrary to The Washington Times' assertion that "numerous neighbors were aware that she worked for the agency," none of the neighbors cited in The Times' own news reports or in other reports said that they knew before reading the Novak column that Plame worked at the CIA. Her acquaintances told reporters that they believed she worked as a private "consultant."
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
This brings to mind the closing sequence of All the President's Men...
kind of what i began thinking today. i have not been one who has been calling for impeachment of bush or cheney, mainly because there was only some, but not overwhelming, support for it. and you know the republicans would just use it to accuse the democrats of treason in a time of war. but we need hearings in the house, where impeachment must come from, to at least explore the possibillity and go from there. fitzgerald was unequivocal today. plame's identity was classified. and the jury foreman's words were direct, cheney and rove were in it all the way.
Hopefully, Libby will turn on someone, hopefully Cheney, in order to not get it that bad in the sentencing phase.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
What? Pardon me?
Anybody wonder why his team decided not to call Chinny-chin-chin?
Tommy's right. Oh, we knew that. He's wrong, too...MMFA has simply restated what it has been reporting all along about the conservative misinformation that has already arisen, to permit people who want to know about that information to recognize the repitition if (hah, when) it resurfaces beginning already, no doubt.
Bottom Line
Libby is not the real criminal in that administration. it is War Criminal Cheney.
They're all criminals. It's called gangsterism. It's the cornerstone of every fascist government.
So, now it's not just monitoring conservative misinformation, but predicting it as well? Better update that "about us" page.
The flying monkeys are so predictable that it's really not that much of a stretch. You know they'll lie about this, because that's what they do! That's ALL they do!
Thomas, you are now back to Hyde mode. You can be sure that what Media Matters predicted will be said by at least some conservative media figures in the coming hours and days. Those things are also misinformation that had been uttered earlier by conservative misleaders.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
You have a good point. MMFA should expand a little as to the basis for which they believe this misinformation will be trotted out again or simply provide this list as a synopsis of the past use of misinformation on this issue.
"the basis for which they believe this misinformation will be trotted out again"
The media's consistant behaviour of distorting reality for the last three years is basis for this story, IMHO. Unless there is some reason to believe they've suddenly changed?
Nope, nothing has changed, Pat Buchanan was just on MSNBC repeating some of the falsehoods concerning Joe Wilson. Pat's tone was predictably critical of Libby but he still managed to get the facts wrong about what Joe Wilson wrote in his NY Times op-ed.
"The media's consistant behaviour of distorting reality for the last three years is basis for this story, IMHO. Unless there is some reason to believe they've suddenly changed?" --soros
I agree. I just wish something to that effect would have been in the story to address Tommy's valid point.
Tommy, in the extremely unlikely event that the media would cover this in a professional manner, MMFA decided to do a preemptive strike to guarantee this topic appeared on the site. Just in case.
You mean simply to illicit deragatory comments about somebody who is universally disliked on the left? Say it isn't so.
Tommy - this (now perpetual) baiting you do re MMFA and their purported 'illiciting of hateful remarks' by its viewers... is getting bit old. Come on. Guaranteed the rightwing pundits are already hard at work tearing down these convictions. You don't really have to be MMFA's hall-monitor do you? Maybe you do.
Media Matters has been fairly consistent over the time I've watched the site...
Sounds more like MMFA is doing a Primer of Left-wing talking points to counter Right-wing talking points.
I personally hope Libby sings like a canary and nails Cheney. The real criminal.
Jeter, I believe you are right - Cheney is the big dog in all this.....but he will most likely resign due to ill health soon anyway - and he'll be history.
And will never have to take responsibility for any of his actions, decisions or choices.
The sad part is how much "personal responsibility" has become an RNC talking point, yet these folks seem to do everything possible to avoid any real responsablity.
I disagree. MMFA is clearly addressing and correcting misinformation with facts. To equate the two as merely "talking points" is not really fair.
I regard it more as an inoculation of sorts. Introducing a taste of the bad arguments in defense of Libby (pathogens/antigens) so that facts (antibodies) may set you straight.
Tommy, The predicted misinformation has already begun. Joe Scarbourough just went on a basless rant on Tucker's show. It even seemed to take Tucker's breath away.
Libby should have made a deal like that against Cheney or someone else in the beginning, but he didn't, probably because he was afraid of the consequences from the Cheney cabal, and even the Bush cabal as well, because this involves George Bush as well, it goes ALL the way to the top, make no mistake about it.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
Say again? Pardon me?
What? You don't think it does...? This stinks to high heaven, and given Bush's track record with the truth, I'd hedge my bets that he is as guilty as Libby and all the others...
Um... what did Bush lie about? The decision to go to war was based on erroneous information that the majority of those involved bought off on.
If I give you directions to someplace in town and I tell you to take a left at Main Street, but when you get there you find a construction detour that sends you to the right... did I lie to you? No. I provided what I thought was accurate information. Bush did the same thing. I don't think he has the mental capacity to mastermind a plot of deception to sell the public on war.
PSSSST...!! Cannonfodder- may I interest you in some DOWNING STREET MEMO?!?! How about a side of 'IRAQ IS LOOKING FOR URANIUM?!' or a fine dish of 'I DON'T SPEND MUCH TIME LOOKING FOR BIN LADEN?!?!' with just a dash of 'WE CAN'T GO INTO PAKISTAN TO LOOK FOR BIN LADEN WITHOUT THEIR POSITION?!'... get a grip, my man, Bush's cosmetic bills are going through the roof because his nose keeps getting longer...
eerrrr.. without their PERMISSION!!
There is evidence the administration knew some of the information was unreliable and in some cases false. This war was marketed to us by the administration by the John Rendon Group. You should read up on it. Somebody in the administration knew this was going on. I am not entirely convinced Bush knew, but there are definitely traitors in the administration who should pay.
Very true open...it defeats the purpose of "intelligence" if you are going to cherry pick it. If Wilson came back and said "there is a definite connection between Iraq and Niger's uranium", then of COURSE Bush and Cheney would have trumpeted it as "proof" (as they did with any other favorable intelligence). And they did as expected with unfavorable intelligence, they tried to discredit it. Any time you use intelligence for an "end" that you have already decided, it's not intelligence gathering, it's called cherry picking.
exactly, the downing street memo, the opinion of the head of british intelligence. he went to washington months before the war, he found the decision to go to war had been made, but the evidence for wmd was thin, so "the facts were being fixed around the policy".
Bush knew it was all lies. They all did. They still do. The gangs' all in on it. I'm sure you even know it was all lies. All those dead American boys for lies. All so some guys in expensive suits can get richer. Mafia-ocracy.
What has Bush lied about? How about virtually everthing but his name? he has variously lied about his previous positions on policies (claiming he got dems and republicans together to pass a bill he actually vetoed) who benifitted from his tax cuts, the reason we invaded Iraq (he said we gave Saddam a chance to let in the inspectors and when they didnt we had to invade) About the reasons to invade before hand ( he said "When the inspectors were in Iraq, when they were finally denied access, an IAEA report came out saying Iraq was six months from a {nuclear} weapon.) No such report existed, that is NOT a mistake of intelligence that is NOT an error that is an outright lie, he pulled an IAEA report directly out of his ass. It was a LIE to send 12 reports to Congress saying the aluminum tubes could ONLY be used for gas centrifuges without mentioning that they had been studied by OUR scientists that are GC experts who UNANIMOUSLY said it was unlikely they would be used that way at ALL and were much more likely to be used for rocket bodies, three of them ridiculing the very idea they would be used for GCs. Bush is a liar, he lies like most people breathe, there is no reasonable argument he is not an outright liar, he lied about whether he had been arrested after 1968, I could go on and on BOOKS have been written about Bushes near constant lying.
Of course, you're right. Pardons all around...coming soon!
Wait, you think that Libby or Cheney did this on their own accord...
BAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHHA...wow that's f*cking hilarious.
Olivelawyers is right. Libby didn't need to cut any deals. He has a big fat presidential pardon awaiting him in the not too distant future.
Fantastic article. Summed it all up nicely.
I did notice a typo in the first paragraph:
"conservatives and others(sic) media figures"
Correction noted. Thanks for listening.
Praise the Lord!
Guilty? There is a God after all... ;>)
Enjoy the ride as long as it lasts, until the Bush Pardon Pen gets to working. There is still too much stuff under the rug for Bushenney not to follow through on their vow to not throw us this guy just to save Rove.
Absolutely... there is no way this adminstration is going to let this go farther and the truth come out. Still and all... it's a big black mark on this administration that shined some light on Cheney's machinations. The historical record is growing and years from now White House insiders will write books. History will not judge this administration well.
Fox News has already used five of these talking points.
So, basically, we can't trust either the Judicial or Legislative branches of government... or the mainstream media, rither. We can only trust the Bush administration and FOX News... and both of them are proven liars. Crazy paradigm...
Only 5? That proves they are "fair and balanced".
Randy
MMFA predicting the poor behaviour of its detractors and right-wing apologists/liars?? Say it isn't so... ;-)
Which, of course, cheeses off Tommy, because MMFA had it right ... despite Tommy's attempts to dis MMFA ...
The underlying points are simple. You can ignore all of the other red herrings out there.
1) A special prosecutor was asked to determine if a law had been broken.
2) In the process of his investigation, he determined that Libby's intentional lies had a detrimental effect on his investigation.
3) A jury has heard evidence from the prosecutor and the defense attorney and has agreed that Libby broke the law at least four times.
That's the crux of the case. Everything else about who sent whom, or who knew what, or who leaked what to whom is irrelevant to this trial. He lied, he was indicted, and he was convicted. Now he gets sentenced.
Another Libby talking point...
I'm waiting for FOX to present the argument that because Libby was acquitted on one (1) count of lying to the FBI that the government must not have proven its case very well, so the guilty verdicts on all the other charges are somehow tainted.
And here's the Washington Post at it . Just paged over there to catch Froomkin and found this in the "news" article on the way:
Libby Found Guilty in CIA Leak Case
By Amy Goldstein and Carol D. LeonnigWashington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, March 6, 2007; 12:52 PM
From page 2:
"It also portrayed Cheney as more intimately involved in orchestrating the campaign to disparage Wilson than was previously known. Cheney was motivated in part by Wilson's erroneous allegation that the CIA had undertaken the mission to Africa solely at the vice president's request."
There's that erroneous allegatoin of an "errorneous allegation", so that's inserting a lie right there. Plus it gives a sympathetic motive for Cheney's attack, rather than the criminal one brought out so well during this trial.
<>From page 1:
At the very end, just before the next page buttons:
<> "Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, was sent by the CIA on a mission to Niger in 2002 to assess reports that Iraq had sought to buy nuclear materials there. He concluded the reports were false. In early July, 2003, Wilson published a rebuke of the White House, accusing the administration of distorting his findings to exaggerate the danger posed by Iraq and justify the war to the American people."Is the State of the Union address quote next on page 2? Nope:
"Prosecutors contended that Libby tracked down and told reporters about Plame's CIA job as part of an administration strategy to discredit her husband by insinuating that the agency had dispatched Wilson to Niger because of nepotism."
What a biased statement of opinion! Again leaves out the crucial facts: President Bush had just directly contradicted Wilson's report in his State of the Union address, and the press was giving Bush a free pass on this.
I'm so very grateful for Media Matters and have to include Firedoglake as well We would be forever stuck in the last six years if we only the mainstream media to make this administration accountable.
Lexia
You seem to have some discrepancies.
Why did Iraq have to seek uranium? It already had some. They had several TONS of the stuff at the Taiwatha radioactives storage site in Iraq. Never ONCE was the actual Iraqi stockpile of uranium and other radioactive material even mentioned in the run up to this war. You'd think they would have at least mentioned that Iraq actually had uranium, don't you think?
The site was heavily monitored by the IAEA, who inspected it vigorously, even after the UNSCOM monitors were removed. IAEA would have told the world it wasn't for weapons. They couldn't scare the sheep with it. So they NEVER mentioned it. The CIA had to have known about it. Those IAEA reports would have been gone over with a fine-toothed comb at Langley. Never once. Ever. Never mentioned.
When US troops invaded Iraq, Iraq's uranium was IGNORED. The site was left to looters for three weeks since the US had "liberated" the area. The IAEA had to BEG for the US to send troops to guard the uranium. Really sounds like we were into guarding the potential WMD materials from terrorists, eh? Left unguarded for three WEEKS!!! Anyone could have walked off with enough low grade uranium to ruin a city. We didn't even secure the site on invasion. It wasn't even on the military agenda.
They grabbed them oil sites though. The only ministry in Baghdad that was guarded upon the capture of Iraq was the Oil Ministry, which would NOT be related to weapons production. Defense Ministry, Agriculture Ministry, Education Ministry...all those that would have programs or research into possible bio and chem weapons were left to be looted by the locals, no intelligence to be secured or gathered.
They were just so into searching for any weapons, weren't they? Military depots were left unsecured and unguarded, looted by local militias, not guarded and searched by US troops. Where do you keep weapons? Military depots. If you want to find weapons, you have to search them. We didn't even put a guard on them. But we got that Oil Ministry. We got troops in there and made sure noone looted that.
The State Dept had drawn up plans months in advance to sell off Iraq's national companies and redraw it's business laws to let us take over economically. The military ignored the weapons and went straight for the oil. Hardly the behaviour of men out to protect us from the potential arming of terrorists with nasty weapons.
This is the actual intel coordinated, collated, corroborated, and above all, analyzed. And the main factor, the actual behaviour of the invader, his obvious focii of priority and policy in his operational planning, says it wasn't about WMD at all. I think you's been conned.
Thats right because there are FOUR countries in Africa that have uranium and he investigated only ONE of them. There is no evidence that they tried to get uranium from NIGER. They COULDNT get uranium from Niger, which doesnt control their uranium industry, in fact they couldnt get uranium to Iraq if they TRIED. Gabon could, as could South Africa or Namibia, in fact here is what Wilson said about exactly this
The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them. He replied that perhaps the president was speaking about one of the other three African countries that produce uranium: Gabon, South Africa or Namibia. At the time, I accepted the explanation.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm
A reprint of his NYTimes editorial
Which one would cover people saying that the jury convicted him because they were expected to do so?
Which one would cover him not really being guilty and it being a simple case of he said/she said since everyone forgot details?
Just curious. Thanks.
How could it possibly be covered that he wasnt guilty? He was convicted by 12 people, they would have to have convincing evidence he wasnt guilty and I dont believe any exists. All you have is complete speculation I guess any periodical covering he isnt guilty would have to be the Amazing mindreader wingnut times
Hey MMFA forgot to mention the single charge acquittal that will most certainly be a focus for Faux Noise. "Libby Acquitted of Charge of Lying to FBI Investigators".
The "mainstream" media will fall all over themselves to cover that news in a "more sophisticated" manner, having every second Right-wing apologist and his brother analyzing how Fitz "failed" in that charge and why the jury did not believe the evidence presented against Libby there.
The National Review is already calling for a pardon...
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDk4ZWM0N2RiZWZkZjE4NzFmMWEyYzM4ODYzMTQ3Mzc=
and the article says NOTHING about what he was convicted of... they say it was Libby's 'imperfect memory, not willful deception' that was the problem- apparently the NR is an accredited mind reading organization...
The National Review probably already had a piece prepared for a guilty verdict against Libby. Similarly, publications like the Weekly Standard and websites like Newsmax probably already had pieces prepared, and FOX NEWS CHANNEL probably already sent out the memos with the talking points for memorization the second the closing arguments were done. They probably came from John Moody himself, or maybe they even came from Jabba the Hut himself this time, since the case is so big.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
Here's the real question. If Puddinhead George reaches the end of his term without being impeached or indicted, can he issue a blanket retro-active pardon for himself, Cheney and all the other criminals in his administration?
He is the decider, Nerzog. As long as he isn''t obstructed by any of those "activist judges" or "partisan prosecutors".
Funny how the Republicans changed their tune on Special Prosecutors--much different from the Fiske-Starr-Ray era.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
Anyone here remember the troll that used to post here back in the old days--he/she went under the name "Libby"
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
for what it's worth i remember "her". i also remember a good christian mom named shannon who one day informed everyone on the left that they "had their nuts caught in a sling". "she" disappeared after i asked what kind of language was that for a mother. maybe it gets hard to keep your troll identities under proper order.
Those points posted pretty much sums up what is going to be said for the next few days by conservative "patriots".
I am not too surprised at the verdict since, from what I got from the trial, it seemed very obvious Libby lied.
Can someone explain to me the first point in MMFA's preemptive counter to not yet identified media misinformation?
If it is now decided Libby lied to Fitzgerald, Fitz must have known the opposite of the lie, (i.e., the truth) and proved it in court. If that is the case, and Fitzerald proved Libby lied, why did not Fitzgerald use that same proof to continue his investigation?
Correct me if I am wrong, (as I don't follow it too closely,) but it seems to me that neither Fitzgerald nor MMFA have yet provided any proof that Libby's lies actually prove any underlying crime.
Did you READ this article? In case you missed it, HERE'S THE VERY FIRST BULLET ITEM:
I would give the same analogy Fitzgerald gave when he charged Libby in 2003. If Libby was a baseball player, he threw sand on umpire's eyes (FBI, Fitzgerald). Basically he obstructed umpires view. Due to this reason umpire could not determines whether the pitcher threw a fastball intentionally or unintentionally.
I hope you got this time - after more than two years.
I understand the analogy. However it still doesn't answer my question. (nor does repeating the MMFA point.)
If Fitzgerald proved Libby is lying then he must know the truth right? If not, how could he prove Libby lied? What would you compare it against?
If Fitzgerald knows the truth, why doesn't he use that truth to prove the underlying crime?
After all, there has been enough time since then for the umpire to clean the sand out of his eyes. So now Libby has been ejected from the game and banned from baseball. Fitzgerald's analogy doesn't answer the point that the game continued.
The obvious reason is that this Libby episode is simply a rear-guard manuever to get something out of all this time and energy and money spent on a special prosecutor and a political witch hunt.
"If Fitzgerald proved Libby is lying then he must know the truth right? If not, how could he prove Libby lied? What would you compare it against?
If Fitzgerald knows the truth, why doesn't he use that truth to prove the underlying crime?"--AA
Your error is that you are equating the specific truth about what Libby lied/obstructed about with the general truth about whether an underlying crime was committed.
When Fitzy was gathering testimony to try to ascertain the facts, he found that Libby was demonstratably untruthful about at least one fact. That fact may not necessarily have anything to do with the entire truth, but once someone has been found to be untruthful and obstructing, it is difficult to the accept entirety of Libby's information as valid. I would imagine entire pieces of the puzzle were invalidated because of Libby's general unreliability. It is hard to build a case without some of the large pieces of the puzzle.
If Fitzgerald proved Libby is lying then he must know the truth right? If not, how could he prove Libby lied? What would you compare it against?
+++++++++++++++
Lie: Libby told investigtors that Tim Ressert told him about Valerie Plame.
Truth: Tim and Libby never had any discussion regarding Valerie Plame. He learned about Valerie Plame from Cheney.
What part do you not understand? Lie part or truth part?
The obvious reason is that this Libby episode is simply a rear-guard manuever to get something out of all this time and energy and money spent on a special prosecutor and a political witch hunt.
++++++++++++++++++++
After verdict Fitzgerald told that our justice system is based on truth. If someone starts lying to FBI and grand jury under oath, then whole justice system is going to break down. That is what unacceptable for a prosecutor like Fitzgerald.
He also said. "It's sad that we had a situation where a high-level official person who worked in the office of the vice president obstructed justice and lied under oath. We wish that it had not happened, but it did."
Wich part do you disagree? Which part is "witch-hunt"? Could you elaborate?
Secondly, if this is trivial matter, why did Libby lie? There got to be something serious, right? Did you ever ask this question yourself?
MMFA's argument makes zero sense whatsoever. The charged and convicted Libby with perjury and obstruction of justice. Obviously Fitzgerald felt he could not charge Rove or Cheney with perjury or obstruction of justice.
Libby's conviction removes all obstacles to prosecute Cheney and Rove or Armitage for leaking of a covert agent. Remember that Fitzgerald said before the trial that he was keeping the investigation open. Now he got the conviction and there is nothing to stop him from moving on -- nothing except he cannot prove the case.
MMFA's inept argument holds no water and is embarrassingly stupid.
Your argument holds no water and is embarassingly stupid, leathe. You are arguing that because he is not going after Cheney in this, Libby isn't guilty. But
a: We might be wrong and it WAS only Libby (but I assure you it wasn't).
b: He might take his time in going after the VICE PRESIDENT, which is kind of a big deal-because if he does and looses, his career is dead-this is Cheney we're talking about. If I were China, wanting to Invade Tibet, i would think a week before doing it. If I were going to invade Russia, India, or even western supported Taiwan, I would spend 1 year+ making plans and ensuring that I had as many strategies, plan Bs, and fallbacks as possible. Comprendre?
c. MMFA was arguing that the Media would defend Libby. This is already happening as we speak. What problem do you see.
Please do not use circular logic or sidestep me- I don't have patience for that. (If he does that, someone else prove him wrong, okay?) :-)
Did I say "leathe"? I meant "leather", sorry...
Hey, Kaleun, You know what would be a great addition to MMFA ? Sort of a "sidebar" thread,where the thick as a brick or pretending- to -be thick cons could go off onto another thread, and the more patient posters, or those who had the time at that moment, could go off and explain what was just written in the item, or explained clearly by another poster.
Between spit-shield and AnutterAmerican, half of this thread is people playing special ed. teacher to the "Ah don' git it!" gang.I just got dragged into it with a different zombie.
Then again, if nobody took the time to repeat the same points for them, maybe they'd be forced to read and think for themselves.
If enough of them go for it, the GOP would suffer some serious losses.
I'M WITH THE RIGHTWINGERS ON THIS ONE.
Yes, Libby's lies obstructed the investigation into the outing of Valarie Plame. YES, Plame's CIA connection was "classified" prior to her being outed. YES, outing a covert/undercover agent of the CIA is a crime ... under certain circumstances. YES, such an outing destroys the effectiveness of CIA activities, and there are measurable repercussions.
So, now that Fitzgerald has his FIRST conviction, he has cleared the deck for returning to his PRIMARY job, that of indicting for the crime of exposing classified information. WHY IS HE NOT SAYING HE WILL DO THIS?
At the least, I feel Fitzgerald owes the nation his explanation as to WHY he does not intend to follow through. WAS outing Plame NOT a crime? Why NOT? What specifics in existing statutes made Valarie Plame "fair game" (as Karl Rove stated)?
The entire issue is far from settled, and Fitzgerald should explain in detail why he feels he can go no farther (he said in his post-trial press conference that he could now "go home" and resume his previous life).
I, for one, need his answers. Can it be that leaking classified information is now OK? Exposing covert operatives of the CIA is perfectly legal? Destroying the career of a person specifically tracking WMDs is acceptable (for purely political reasons), and breaks no laws? These things simply CAN NOT BE.
I agree 100%.
I could care less about perjury or obstruction of justice when we are talking about frying bigger fish . We should be hanging someone over this leak, not slapping wrists. Last time I checked, treason was a pretty big deal.
Actually, Tex, too:
Until the obstructed evidence is PRODUCED, via Libby's testimony, the link is not merely too weak to convict, it is too weak even to indict (don't believe that this is a case of "could indict a ham sandwich" - this is the Big Stage, a matter of national importance with intense media coverage certain to oppose such indictment and conviction). Now, if Libby were unconvinced of the impending pardon, we might in fact see Cheney/Rove in the dock(s). A glorious day 'twould be, though unimaginably unlikely.
This is one issue of breaking the law from this administration. Warrantless wiretapping (broke the FISA law), and I would consider signging statements to be equivelant of wiping your ass w/ the constitution.
*Sigh*
I thought I'd settled that . Going after bigger fish has the potential of political suicide. Even if he CAN do it, it'd take some guts, wouldn't it? Would you go after Cheney? Perhaps. But I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't.
We can get them for war crimes, though. Should be an easy case, just replay the last five years for the jury. They didn't have video tape at Nuremburg.
ps. I wonder if MMFA had this article pre-written?
;-)
Maybe. It came up pretty fast. I read the news here first.
All I know is that Scooter is a FELON..am I right or wrong? A jury convicted him. Why are the CONS up in arms about the Constitution working? He is a criminal no matter what spin either side throws in the mix. Who's next? Any other liars out there....When will Pres. Bush DECIDE who should stay or who should go? His said he would fire them. Guess he is ready to be the DECIDER, it is being the FINDER that is his problem.
Once again, GUILTY...get over it.
You missed another BASIC LIE! A moron ion the Snata Fe Reporter's mment page is claiming it was a "VICTIMLESS CRIME!."
Act 1: Cheney gets Libby and others to out a CIA officer.
Act 2: Libby is tried and convicted of perjury in the cover up.
Act 3: Libby begins long appeal process.
Act 4: Bush pardons Libby on 12/31/08
Act 5: Libby begins high $ speaking tour for GOP
Act 6: Libby gets talk show on Fox news
Write it down. We've only seen the first 2 acts.
This whole thing is a ridiculous smokescreen that will lead to a pardon on Christmas Eve 2008.
But, JK, you forgot the original canard: Plame sent Wilson on a boondoggle! Niger in the winter time is so sweet! -- Even though it is one of the poorest countries in the world. As if this were true, how would that impeach Wilson's credibility? His story was right. The CIA sent him there to double check the debunked forgeries and Cheney probably got that report.
Cheney needed to get rid of Plame and her network because they had a chance of debunking Cheney about the war's rationale, and they had the chance to prevent the US from planting fake WMD in Iraq or Iran or wherever. Plame wasn't your typical CYA bureacrat, being married to American Hero Wilson meant that they were a fearless team not worried about her pension. Plus, Wilson was in Bush1's administration, staring Saddam down, freeing our prisoners, and added to bonus for W to burn him.
As JK mentioned this campaign not just outed Valerie Plame-Wilson, destroying her counter-WMD network and threating its operatives and informants across the middle east and africa, but why? The Bush-Cheney Junta is at war with the DoD and the CIA.They are worse than fascists. They are kleptocrats --- thieves using the government to get rich from higher energy prices, higher consumption of military materiel, and privatized healthcare and nursing homes that Exxon-Mobil, Carlyle and Halliburton profit from. At least fascists made the trains run on time and respected their nation's soldiers.
This stuff is impeachable and indictable.
We need to get rid of the presidential pardon, strengthen congressional oversight and prosecutions, bring back the Independent Counsel, and have the President elected by Congress. At least kings have to worry about the future and their kids'. With term limits these Repugs just go hog -wild stealing and doing whatever deals and abuses they want, and then it is old news.
Iran seems to be next. It is the same crew left over from the Iran-Contra days. Seymour Hersch wrote a great piece about it in the New Yorker recently. I link to it in my blog [link to enzotitolo.blogspot.com<]
just saw scaraborugh on ( my bow tie is choking me carlson) and he
was mad at all the other people involved in tghe case.I get the feel-
ing he feels that everybody but Libby lied. The diatribe will continue
on his show along with ( talk with my hands Buchannan)
"Libby was not responsible for the leak of Plame's identity."
This is absolutely true--the leaker was revealed to be Richard Armitage at the State Department. Let's ignore facts when they're not on our side shall we, Media Matters?
Peas are not vegetables.
This is true. It has already been proven that carrots are vegetables.
You mean it is impossible for there to be more than one leak, EVER? Your argument is ludicrous it would be like a bank robber saying he couldnt possibly have robbed the bank since it had been robbed the week before
That argument is a total non sequitur. A "leaker" is by its very definition the one who first revealed the identity or made the confidential information non-confidential. Once it's out in the public realm, there can be no more "leakers."
And yes it WAS in the public realm due to Armitage's leakage--he revealed it to Bob Woodward, let's not forget--not some highly placed government official. The bank robber/vegetable analogy is a response lacking all logic.
Depends what you would consider the "public realm". Bob Woodward never discussed Plame until much later in any article that would have been known by the public. Anyone peddling/pushing the information to journalists before the story was published (in this case by Novak) would seem to be leakers using your definition.
InterestingObfuscator,
The applicable statute does not provide for exemption based on what is in the "public realm" - however you're defining it. The applicable statute prohibits the knowing disclosure of classified information from a person of sufficient clearance to a person of insufficient clearance for the information. It applies INTERNALLY to agencies like the CIA and institutions like the White House as well, and those two do not operate in the public realm.
There could have been a violation of that statute alone in Dick Cheney's passing of information to a WH STAFFER without sufficient clearance - no reporters involved.
Additionally, Armitage's leak to Woodward does not place the knowledge as being possessed by Tim Russert or Matthew Cooper. They wouldn't necessarily have any knowledge of conversations between Armitage and Woodward. All of these leaks went on prior to the publication of Novak's article. The leakers don't get a pass on the statute - which doesn't address "realms" - by being simultaneous in conduct or based on whose reporter finally published it first.
None of this misreading of the applicable statute nor endless excuse making, however, addresses the fact that Libby was not convicted on any charge related to leaking classified information. Libby was convicted on perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators.
How does your misunderstanding of the classified info governance statute change that?
Thanks, Noah Webster.
You're welcome.
Scooter Libby found guilty on four counts; decides to cut a deal?
Recent clues point to Abbott and Costello as original architects of Plame Leak.
Grand Jury testimony of Scooter Libby, former Chief of Staff of the United States (COSTUS) for the Vice President, leaked by Rove-ing reporter (humor).
It is posted at: <A HREF="[link to libbyknowswholeakedfirst.blogspot.com] Knows who Leaked First</a>
Bobbing and weaving, a tangled web we do. Book him, Danno.
Please keep my identity a secret. Double super Secret.
Middle-aged, Middle-of-the-road, Mid-Westerner
We can only hope that Fitz doesn't fizzle.
I think Mr. Fitzgerald's motto should be: <b>"If you do a white collar crime then you will serve blue collar time."</b> Look where he lodged Judith Miller. A few months in a blue collar jail and she was ready to sing. Unfortunately, she says she forgot the words
<b>The Times the Post & the New Republic They Should Be A-Changin</b>
Bloggers Request:
Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'.
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the Times & Post should be a-changin'.
Good Bye Sulzberger, Keller, Miller, and Woodward!
Fitzgerald's response:
Come politician's, journalists
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
<b>For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled</b>
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'.
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the Sentencing, its a-comin'.--Bob DylanPerhaps for Rove?
You forgot one common right wing / media falsehood: Joe Wilson is a liar because he claimed that VP Cheney asked him to go to Niger. Joe Wilson has never claimed that, therefore accusing him as a liar is unjustified.
What Joe Wilson said (in brief) instead was that VP Cheney asked the CIA to send "someone" to Niger, and then his wife recommended him.
I challenge any righ wing hack to present a quote (with reference), audio clip, or video clip where Wilson makes that claim.
@ jaredg6935
Fascists are a lot worse than Bush, trust me. I know it's hard to imagine, but they are.
You have a point there. But at least fascists are earnest and idealistic, even if their ideals kill.
Bush' ideals are thievery and not just stealing for a little while, but rigging the game for decades. Fascists tend to burn out quickly, too, although Hitler killed 12 million Europeans in death camps, and how many more millions killed by his conquests?
On the other hand, in six years how many have died via Bush? Over 100,000 dead Iraqis were accounted for a year or two ago by Doctors without Borders, I believe, using advanced statistical sampling taken at great risk.
Southern Lebanon is destroyed, carpeted with cluster bombs, many unexploded still. Fertile farmland fallow.
How many Americans maimed? Is it 20,000? Going on 4,000 dead.
Afghanistan bombed, but the terrorists are allowed to leave the rear. Now it is reported that we are funding Al Q'aida allies. And where is that missing $12 billion in Iraq going? And our debt going from about $4 Trillion to almost $8 Trillion! More than the combined debt for over 200 years... while cutting taxes for the wealthy.
Meanwhile, what is it? 18,000 children dying of hunger a day? And our military budget is greater than the rest of the world's combined? But many of us, including wounded soldiers, can't get adequate health care. But Bush is all about supporting the troops while Rumsfeld tells them to go to war with the army they already have, without body armor or reinforced vehicles, or anti-IED technology that is available. But if you question any of this, you are treasonous...
Fascists are terrible, but I'm still not convinced that Bush2 is going to step down in 2009... I think he'll concoct something to declare martial law / emergency. Certainly between bombing Iran and funding Al Q'aida again, there will be plenty of action to go around providing fodder to declare emergencies, suspending elections, maybe quarantining us, using that as an excuse to shut the Internet down and close off areas...
Remember when Giuliani wanted to extend his term even though his term-limit was up? He said the 9/11/01 plane attacks made it necessary (the same excuse for lots of stuff). That was four planes and 3,000 people.
Tommy Franks speculated that elections could be suspended in an emergency -- even though we held elections during the civil war!
And what is the deal with the military taking over America with a new command? And how the military is now in charge of public health emergencies, instead of the CDC?
I'll relax when/if this junta leaves office, but I'll be paying the bills for their profits and fat accounts for the rest of my life, and as my social security and medicaid is robbed even though I was taxed for them. And we'll be paying with a hobbled economy -- the 1970s sucked and the early 1980s were austere due to the Vietnam War. And the early 1990s' recession paid for the S&L scam.
i guess the argument here is a philosophical one, and I may be touchy because I'm German. But in 1945, my (future) home was a Geographic location. The only reason we have anything today is the Cold War.
But maybe they aren't all that different from fascists... And you made an interesting point. What if they do declare martial law-it seems unrealistic and overblown, but then, doesn't it always? I probably wouldn't be surprised. If it happens, I promise to join your rebellion. :-)
I would like to add this one to your media watch list of right wing spin used to defend Libby: The verdict was wrong because it was based solely on "he said..she said" charges/evidence. A leading proponent of this spin is Joe Scarborough...but he may be backing off now. By labeling the evidence that way, he was attempting to undermine the overall importance and weight of the evidence and/or marginalize it to a domestic dispute. But the truth is that often in a criminal trial the weight and sufficiency of testimony is enough to convict people. And in this case it would have been very difficult to obtain certain "other" evidence to convict because it would have been withheld because the government would have fought its release based on national security. If Libby wasn't guilty or was only acting at the behest of others, than it would have been encumbent upon him to testify to this or for those involved to come forth to aid his defense. It wasn't Fizgerald's fault nor the jury's fault that no one was able to hear exculpatory evidence.
The "he said..she said" argument does not carry weight in this case, because it is not "he said..she said", it's libby said and about 7 or 8 other people said something else.
Only the kool-aid drinkers can be oblivious to this not so subtle point.
He should be in a jail cell along with bush ,rove,and cheny .No pardons either.
What's happened.
bush&co. got four things done and are looking to get the fifth.
bush&co ordered the documents to be forged. Who else? Why? Who gains?
Only one entity gains - the ones looking to go to war.
One of the most overlooked aspects of this affair is who ordered the documents to be forged? Follow that chain and watch where it goes.
But no one's even asking.
Next, bush&co got to use the false information when needed and has yet to suffer any penalty for lying us into a war.
Third & forth, Brewster& Jennings and Plame were put out of play - leaving fifth - Iran.
We stop the fifth, we go back to the first , we get them all!
you've all heard of "The Seven Deadly Sins?" Well here are the seven Libby Lies that seem to have been agreed upon, thanks for putting this together, it is a handy guide to future framing of this entire debate, the neocon spinmeisters are rotating at an historic fever pitch.
Here in Portland, Oregon our local paper (The Oregonian) has a local-yokel right-winger by the name of David Reinhard. He used almost all of these "arguments" in his op-ed this morning (Thursday 3/8): bullets #1-3, 5-6, 8. Amazing.