Ignoring Libby's early obstruction, Broder attacked Fitzgerald for "relentlessly" pursuing Libby
Calling the prosecution of former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby a "sideshow" in his June 10 column, The Washington Post's David Broder accused special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald of getting "caught up in the excitement of the case and pursu[ing] Libby relentlessly." But contrary to Broder's suggestion, the crimes for which Libby was ultimately convicted did not all occur in the course of Fitzgerald's "relentless" pursuit of him. Libby took one of the actions for which he was convicted even before Fitzgerald took over the case, during the Department of Justice's initial investigation. Further, Fitzgerald's investigation and subsequent indictment of Libby were not a "sideshow," but, rather, the direct result of Libby's alleged obstruction of the underlying investigation of the leak of former CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity. Moreover, in suggesting that Fitzgerald was overzealous in pursuing Libby, Broder compared Fitzgerald to "other special prosecutors before him," but the comparison, particularly when considered in the context of the best known independent counsels, Kenneth Starr, falls apart in at least one key respect.
In his column, Broder wrote that conservatives are "complain[ing]" that Libby's "conviction on felony counts of lying and obstruction of justice was a byproduct of a 'leak' investigation that itself was unnecessary." Broder agreed: "I think they have a point. This whole controversy is a sideshow. ... Like other special prosecutors before him, Fitzgerald got caught up in the excitement of the case and pursued Libby relentlessly, well beyond the time that was reasonable." Broder also stated, however, that "on the fundamental point" of Libby's culpability, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton and Fitzgerald "have it right. Libby let his loyalty to his boss and to the administration cloud his judgment -- and perhaps his memory -- in denying that he was part of the effort to discredit [Plame and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV]."
But far from being "a byproduct" and "a sideshow" of the CIA leak investigation, Libby's conviction resulted from his having lied in the initial stages of the investigation about matters material to the investigation. As documented in Libby's indictment, the Justice Department investigation into the leak of Plame's identity began on or about September 26, 2003. Libby was specifically charged with -- and convicted of -- making false statements during his October 14, 2003, and November 26, 2003, interviews with the FBI.
Indeed, Libby's lie was about a central issue in the case: when and from whom he first learned Plame's CIA identity. While Broder claimed that Libby was charged for "denying to the FBI and the grand jury that he had discussed the Wilson case with reporters," Libby, in fact, admitted in his FBI interviews and March 6, 2004, grand jury testimony that he had spoken to NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert on July 10 or 11, 2003, and that they talked about Wilson. However, the jury found that Libby falsely claimed that, during that conversation, Russert had told him about Plame's CIA employment, rather than the other way around. From Libby's indictment:
3. On or about October 14 and November 26, 2003, in the District of Columbia, I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY," 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 Tim Russert of NBC News on July 10 or 11, 2003, Russert asked LIBBY if LIBBY was aware that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. LIBBY responded to Russert that he did not know that, and Russert replied that all the reporters knew it. LIBBY was surprised by this statement because, while speaking with Russert, LIBBY did not recall that he previously had learned about Wilson's wife's employment from the Vice President.
4. As defendant LIBBY well knew when he made it, this statement was false in that when LIBBY spoke with Russert on or about July 10 or 11, 2003:
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.
The jury found that Libby in fact learned of Plame's CIA employment from several (all non-journalist) sources before July 10, 2003, as detailed in the indictment, including from Vice President Dick Cheney "in or about early June 2003" and from several people he had spoken to about it in the days before his conversation with Russert.
Broder further claimed that Libby "was convicted on the testimony of reporters from NBC, the New York Times and Time magazine -- a further provocation to conservatives." But Broder did not mention key witnesses against Libby: former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer and then-vice presidential assistant for public affairs Catherine Martin, who, along with several other government officials and journalists, said that Libby had either told them about, or learned from them, Plame's employment before his purported conversation with Russert, undermining Libby's claim of "surprise[]" at Russert's information. As a January 30 Post article reported: "Fleischer testified that his lunch with Libby ... took place on July 7, 2003, before Libby spoke with Russert." At this lunch, the Post reported, Fleischer testified that "Libby had told him Wilson's wife held a position in the CIA's counterproliferation division, where most employees work in a covert capacity." On January 26, the Post reported that "Martin recalled giving Cheney and Libby information from CIA spokesman William Harlow that Wilson was the person sent to Niger 'and his wife works for the CIA.' " The article also noted that "Martin is the fourth witness from the administration to bolster the prosecution's claim that Libby had to be lying when he said he learned about Wilson's wife weeks later from NBC's Tim Russert."
Moreover, unlike "other special prosecutors," Fitzgerald did not seek -- and did not need to seek -- to expand his mandate beyond its original scope. By contrast, independent counsel Kenneth Starr requested that his mandate -- to cover the Whitewater matter -- be expanded to cover Clinton's alleged perjury in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. From Starr's September 9, 1998, report to the House of Representatives:
On January 12, 1998, this Office received information that Monica Lewinsky was attempting to influence the testimony of one of the witnesses in the Jones litigation, and that Ms. Lewinsky herself was prepared to provide false information under oath in that lawsuit. The OIC was also informed that Ms. Lewinsky had spoken to the President and the President's close friend Vernon Jordan about being subpoenaed to testify in the Jones suit, and that Vernon Jordan and others were helping her find a job. The allegations with respect to Mr. Jordan and the job search were similar to ones already under review in the ongoing Whitewater investigation.(9)
After gathering preliminary evidence to test the information's reliability, the OIC presented the evidence to Attorney General Janet Reno. Based on her review of the information, the Attorney General determined that a further investigation by the Independent Counsel was required.
In addition, a February 23 Washington Post graphic documented that Fitzgerald's investigation spent far less than almost all other independent counsels.
From Broder's June 10 Washington Post column:
Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald learned soon after taking the job that Richard Armitage, a high-ranking State Department official, and presidential assistant Karl Rove were the sources whom columnist Robert D. Novak used in identifying the role of CIA employee Valerie Plame Wilson in her husband's covert mission that ultimately challenged the Bush administration's rationale for war with Iraq.
Armitage made his admission immediately, and Rove -- who made repeated trips to the grand jury -- apparently told a version of his own story that persuaded Fitzgerald not to indict him.
Despite the absence of any underlying crime, Fitzgerald filed charges against Libby for denying to the FBI and the grand jury that he had discussed the Wilson case with reporters. Libby was convicted on the testimony of reporters from NBC, the New York Times and Time magazine -- a further provocation to conservatives.
I think they have a point. This whole controversy is a sideshow -- engineered partly by the publicity-seeking former ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife and heightened by the hunger in parts of Washington to "get" Rove for something or other.
Like other special prosecutors before him, Fitzgerald got caught up in the excitement of the case and pursued Libby relentlessly, well beyond the time that was reasonable.
For this particular column, I wonder which list of talking points Broder drew from.
His own or Rove's?
Where does Armitage fit in to all this?
As a patsy and a distraction to you.
The true leaker is a distraction?
First, you say that as if there can only be one leaker. Second, how does it affect commentary on Libby in any way?
this is broder at his sickening worst. he claims conservatives have a right to be angry because libby was convicted on the testimony of reporters from the n.y. times, nbc, and time. as if they decided to come in and lie just to convict good ol scooter. there is not one iota of evidence that any of them learned plame's status from anywhere but libby or rove. and you had judith miller of the n.y. times ready to go along with libby's request to hide his identity as a white house staffer by citing him as an anonymous "former hill staffer". and libby and rove should have had their security clearances lifted they day it was determined they had discussed plame's identity with reporters. the oath they signed said they were not to even confirm classified info unless they knew it was not classifed. broder also notes that rove was not indicted. of course, he was helped by the fact that a reporter gave a heads up to rove's lawyer on what fitzgerald was asking, and rove sort of "remembered" a few things he forgot to tell the grand jury. libby belongs in jail and broder is an apologist for a white house plan to discredit joe wilson at any cost, including the security of this country.
Unless Armitage told Libby to obstruct the investigation or lie under oath, not sure he fits anywhere.
The leaker that started it all does not fit?
No he doesnt. Since he convinced Fitz that his leak was inadvertant and he didnt LIE about it to a Grand Jury he doesnt fit into this thread in any way
So you admit that leaking Plame's name was not violating the law regarding covert agents?
You act like that is some kind of gotcha. The law is written in the way it is written. Not EVERY instance of such a leak is illegal. Thats why they do investigations. According to the way the law is written an inadvertant leak does NOT violate that specific statute. Still completely irrelevant to this thread about Libby.
The CIA thought it was a crime. The CIA wanted the investigation.
Irving "Scooter" Libby lied to a Federal grand jury.
Distract all you want, but you are providing cover to a convicted felon.
Irving "Scooter" Libby lied to a Federal grand jury.
Hmm...so did Bill Clinton, and I suspect no one on this site gives a damn.
He wasn't found guilty of lying to a grand jury.
Give up your claims to amazing mind reading powers. Him lying was a huge deal to me. It just didnt rise to the level of a crime
Again, when did Clinton become the standard of conservative morality.
Roger, I wanted him to be disbarred! He didn't do anything close to what Libby did, but I wanted him to have a punishment that fit the crime, yes.
Not true. Clinton was acquitted of the charge of perjury.
Is there a word for "lying by falsely accusing someone else of lying?"
roger's one word answer to every thing under the sun: clinton. he has no problem with the fact that the bush white house was discussing classified information with numerous reporters and the fact the revelation of that information, plame's status, did significant damage to this country's intelligence capability. i already know your answer, clinton clinton clinton.
You really must get over the fact that the Clintons are still actively engaged in politics, and that one of them may very well be the next president.
They'll continue to be discussed in forums like these for quite some time. If it were my fault that the two of them are untrustworthy, sleazy and classless, you'd have a point. It is not.
But at least Hillary's approval rating is higher than Reid's 19%.
Bush's numbers bite because people like me have almost given up on him. Reid (and Pelosi the dimwit) just can't get anything done, lol.
thanks, one note roger, for proving my point. the answer to every thing said is not clinton. it just makes you look silly.
Let me ask you this AA:
If a family member of mine turns up dead, but there is not enough evidence to bring murder charges because of someone who constantly lies to the police and clouds the investigation with his lies, is that person not guilty of a crime?
When you obstruct a criminal investigation, even if there is no charge later filed, you are breaking the law.
Maybe you didn't notice, but Scooter got convicted of obstruction of justice and perjury, not leaking.
What was Libby convicted of?
Four felony counts: obstruction of justice, giving false statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and committing perjury twice before the grand jury.
AS near as I can tell, Libby was convicted of a crime no one committed.
As near as you can tell, the sun orbits the earth.
That's why we haven't contacted you regarding our astronomy questions. Same with law.
Let me ask you this then: If you obstruct a criminal investigation to the point where no charges are filed, are you guilty of something or no because there have been no charges filed.
If Libby is innocent because no charges are filed, why don't more people obstruct criminal investigations?
engineered partly by the publicity-seeking former ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife
Wow, what twisted logic is required to make that assertion? Broder is delusional.
I guess you do not read Vanity Fair?
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=[link to www.rogerlsimon.com]AA,
Correct me if I am wrong, but that article was written and the pictures taken after her cover was blown, was it not? I am guessing you linked the article after, but your link did not work.
Here is the link I believe AA was trying to show.
Not that it has anything to do with the topic as you pointed out well.
You're correct. The Vanity Fair item appeared after Plame's CIA employment status was leaked. AA's observation is irrelevant.
"Caught up in the excitement of the case"?
Isn't that part of the job description of a special prosecutor?
So Broder's pissed that Fitzgerald did his job.
We got this piece of trash in our local paper. I was wondering if Media Matters was going to flag it.
Broder is a godawful hack, isn't he?
When it comes to falsehoods, libelous statements, and outright lies, David Broder is as bad as Dick "The Toe-Sucker" Morris.
I wouldn't go that far. Morris was on Hannity the other day. Borders a close second.
Broder wrote that conservatives are "complain[ing]" that Libby's "conviction on felony counts of lying and obstruction of justice was a byproduct of a 'leak' investigation that itself was unnecessary." Broder agreed: "I think they have a point. This whole controversy is a sideshow. ...
Shouldn't that have read: "Broder agreed: "I think WE have a point..."?
"a 'leak' investigation that itself was unnecessary"
I guess if "they" say it was unnecessary, who are "we" to question it.
And the Geneva Conventions are "quaint".
Glenn Greenwald called out Joe Klein for a similarly dishonest column on this issue.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
That is permalinked here in case GG ever gets around to writing today... ;-)
I liked seeing the sub-heading on Greenwald's new book, "A Tragic Legacy". It says "How a Good vs Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency".
Their black-n-white thinking destroyed his Presidency. I don't give a rat's behind about his Presidency. I care about my country, and what his (lack of) leadership has done to my country.
Broder did misrepresent the facts in this case and did distort reality about previous special prosecutors.
He did also admit that it was proper to convict Libby and sentence him like he did. I've read that he is friends with the judge who ruled on this case, and so he might have been trying to placate his friend with that "better late than never" acknowledgement of Libby's guilt.
"Nonetheless, on the fundamental point, Walton and Fitzgerald have it right. Libby let his loyalty to his boss and to the administration cloud his judgment -- and perhaps his memory -- in denying that he was part of the effort to discredit the Wilson pair. Lying to a grand jury is serious business, especially when it is done by a person occupying a high government position where the public trust is at stake."
He should have said "lying to a grand jury about a material matter is perjury and since it likely prohibited Fitzgerald from successfully prosecuting those responsible for the leak in the first place, it's also obstruction of justice", not just "serious business".
In other words, it's a serious matter, but Fitzgerald pursued it excessively by...well, by following through on the matter to its legal conclusion, apparently.
Is it possible to be objective and as self-contradictory as Broder is at the same time? It seems unlikely.
A small point but if the prosecutor already knew who the leaker was, then how did Libby's testimony from "successfully prosecuting those responsible for the leak in the first place"?"
If the leaker is known, and there is no prosecution regarding that leaker, then does it not stand to reason that there was no law broken?
AA,
His testimony was false and he was obstructing the investigation. I am not sure when anyone figured out who the leaker was, but in the course of an investigation into a crime, if someone obstructs that investigation, they are guilty of obstructing justice.
The problem is Fitzgerald claims Scooter clouded his vision as an umpire.
Given Fitzgerald appears to know all the answers that Scooter lied about, I'm not sure why he couldn't still charge someone.
That's why Broder is making the claim. If Rove and Libby outed her before Armitage, why didn't he charge them? He's so cocksure she's covert then that leaves just the "knowingly" part of the law. I can't believe he didn't know enough to charge them with that even with Libby's obstruction. That's why he is being accused of going overboard, because it appears he didn't have a case. I don't necessarily agree with that but that is Broder's point.
You make a decent point, but I look at it like a murder investigation. If one of us clouded the cops' vision so much that charges of murder could not be brought (because it could be self-defense), the person who clouded the investigation would still be guilty of a criminal act.
To put it another way, it might be like getting Al Capone for tax evasion. He was guilty of other things, but there was not enough evidence to prove anything else beyond a reasonable doubt.
"Given Fitzgerald appears to know all the answers that Scooter lied about, I'm not sure why he couldn't still charge someone." --lh
Let me get this straight. You want to suppose pure speculation as a "given" premise? Why would anyone grant you that?
He's so cocksure she's covert then that leaves just the "knowingly" part of the law.
That may be quite difficult, given the requirement for proving guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt."
That's why he is being accused of going overboard, because it appears he didn't have a case.
That's a fallacious argument that deals in irrelevancy.
I don't necessarily agree with that but that is Broder's point.
Hedging just a bit?
The denials are amazing. Why hasn't the question been turned around? I.e., if no crime (of illegal disclosure) was commited, then why did Libby - undeniably - lie and obstruct the investigation?
Your logic assumes only ONE person could be a leaker. That does not follow anymore than thinking that only one person could rob the same bank. Most of the journalists contacted did NOT write stories based on the information there could easily have been several people who broke the law here. It doesnt follow that only ONE could have done so
"If the leaker is known, and there is no prosecution regarding that leaker, then does it not stand to reason that there was no law broken?"
Fitzgerald wrote in the sentencing phase of the trial that in order for a leak to be a crime, the leaker must know that the agent is covert at the time of the leaking. He could not charge Libby with a crime under the statute because he could not determine if Libby knew Plame was covert. All the lying and obstruction by Libby impeded and fogged the case.
I personally think that the law should be rewritten to state that even an inadvertent leak is a crime. Government officials should find out if an agent is covert before they do something as stupid and irresponsible as Armitage, Libby and others did.
I would also like to see a restructuring to cover conspiracy to expose the agent: we have a number of "high-ranking" White House officials who would be scrambling to ex-post-facto the declassification of Plame had the law been so structured. Better yet, we might even get to see what happens to appointed officials so engaged - think Rove; maybe impeachment would no longer appear so unattractive, were he "singing or swinging".
I'm confused on this. Is it Broder's position that Richard Armitage is the one who should be sent to jail? Or is it Broder's position that someone who lies to a grand jury is not guilty--as long as the crime is committed by someoe else (in the same organization)? Or is it Broder's position that outing a NOC CIA agent is perfectly OK?
But of course Broder leaves it nice and vague. 'no underlying crime" in that lovely passive voice.
Mene Mene Tekel Uparshin, Mr. Broder.
PBG, what is to be confused? Obviously Broder thinks there was no crime in leaking the Plame name as evidenced by Fitzgerald not prosecuting the leaker Armitage. What is so hard about that?
It is completely illogical and cannot possibly be supported logically. The law could have been broken by four or five people BEFORE her identity became common knowlege due to publication. Just because ONE of them was judged not to have broken that specific law due to their actions not meeting the requirements of the statute in no way proves anything about the others who also leaked her name. Intent for instance is important for the purposes of this statute. Fitz judged Armitage didnt have it. That in no way proves other leakers also didnt have intent
"PBG, what is to be confused? Obviously Broder thinks there was no crime in leaking the Plame name as evidenced by Fitzgerald not prosecuting the leaker Armitage. What is so hard about that?"
There were three people that we know of who leaked her name: Armitage, Rove and Scooter. Apparently Rove tied up all loose ends regarding his leaking of her name during his fifth grand jury appearance but for some reason (Cheney), Scooter continued to lie.
Amazing. Once again, I am struck by the fact that Conservatives either have no memory or no sense of irony. Maybe it's that Black and White thinking problem...Whenever they trot out this "no underlying crime" dither, I have to laugh.
I also note that they keep throwing out the accusation that Wilson lied, and that he's the one who should be in prison. What, exactly, did Wilson lie about?
Media Matters covered this back in the spring.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200703060008?f=i_related
They called it "Media myths and falsehoods to watch for".
No underlying crime was committed.
There was no concerted White House effort to smear Wilson.
Libby was not responsible for the leak of Plame's identity.
Libby merely "left out some facts.
Libby's leak was an effort to set the record straight.
There is no evidence that the Plame leak compromised national security.
Fitzgerald is a partisan prosecutor.
Fitzgerald exceeded his mandate in investigating violations beyond the IIPA.
Plame's employment with the CIA was widely known.
Now there is an unbiased source.
Then counter them.
An unbiased source for predictions that have come true? Har!
AA, I gotta like you. You're like the Barney Fife of MMFA.
Which time?
One of my favorite Wilson quotes:
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh072004.shtml
So, where's the lie?
Not a lie. A misstatement certainly. We KNOW that his wife was a CIA agent working on this very subject. While we didnt have the original forgeries these documents were well known and causing an uproar in the intelligence community of Europe. The idea that Plame didnt know about them is hard to reconcile. What did SHE tell him about them? We dont know. Did he know things his wife shouldnt have told him? We dont know, we dont know what his security clearance is we dont know what she might have told him. Even given the most generous reading of this situation for you that Wilson mixed up what he found out later with what he knew going to Niger, it is both trivial and not a lie to make such a mistake. So far you have, as with the rest of the rightwing propaganda parrots who make this claim not shown a lie. Daily Howler did NOT call this a lie, they said it was disengenuous.
The documents were not in U.S. hands until 8 months after his trip to Niger.
Powerline? Really? Come on!
the quotes are from the Senate Intelligence Committee report.
Again the fact they were NOT in our hands in no way shows that his wife a CIA agent dealing in exactly this subject didnt know quite a bit about them. Which was one of my points the other being even if he mistakenly conflated the information he got later with what he knew at the time that sort of mistake isnt a LIE. You didnt deal with EITHER of these points.
Yes a whole lot was made out of the trade delegation however what you left out was that the same guy who told us about the trade talks said AFTER the meeting that the subject of Uranium NEVER CAME UP. Also you left out the fact that we have a memo from the Congo that OFFERED Uranium to Iraq and they turned the offer down. Now its hard to understand why they would turn down the Congo'f offer and pursue uranium from Niger when Nigers entire uranium industry from mine to shipping is controlled by an international agency and Niger couldnt according to the very official you cited sell uranium outside this process if they wanted to. There is no there, THERE. There isnt any evidence whatsoever this happened. AND you still havent shown any Wilson LIE.
You are asking us to believe that Wilson and Plame knew about the forged documents and wrote that the U.S. also knew about them based on what? Pillow talk? It is pure conjecture on your part. Your argument falls apart right there.
It is disingenuous on Wilson's part that he would claim that the administration ignored information when it did not have it in hand. How can they ignore it if they don't have it? Your whole argument rests on the fact that Plame would have had to know the information and then disclose it to Wilson for his article.
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't that classified information? Wouldn't that make it illegal for Wilson to disclose?
Your reasoning sounds pretty weak to me.
You act like these documents were some huge secret they were well known in the intelligence community and the fact we didnt have the ORIGINALS doesnt mean we didnt have copies. She was a CIA agent working in this very AREA. It strains credulity that she WOULDNT have known about it. As an ambassador his security clearance would have been pretty high though I dont know exactly what it was and he was GOING to Africa to check out this very charge. Now he shouldnt have spilled that he knew about them before but it doesnt stand to reason that her telling him was in any way a violation of security. All of this is pretty logical and yes it is speculative but it isnt MY claim that this is what happened only what COULD have happened therefore the original claim by Leatherdude that he COULDNT have known and therefore lied cannot be supported.
You might have a point if Wilson had based his initial conclusions on the forged documents, but that is not the case.
"According to the former Niger mining minister, Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998.
leatherhelmet / Tuesday June 12, 2007 05:10:40 PM EST"
His report said Iran tried to buy uranium, not Iraq.
Wilson said that a former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, was unaware of any sales contract with Iraq, but said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq -- which Mayaki interpreted to mean they wanted to discuss yellowcake sales. A report CIA officials drafted after debriefing Wilson said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to UN sanctions on Iraq."
This is not evidence; it's an assumption made by Mayaki.
Wilson may be doing a little parsing here, but I don't see the lie. He's simply narrowing his focus to the particular transaction described in the document. He is, in essence, admitting that he can't prove that Saddam was seeking kuranium elsewhere. The problem for the Bush toadies comes from the fact that they cited this forged document as their evidence.
He claimed he had knowlege of something at a time when there was no possible way he could have knowlege of it since the U.S. did not have the info until 8 months later.
So he couldnt possibly have known about the details of these documents because he didnt have access to the original forgery even though his WIFE was a CIA agent and these documents were already well known in the intelligence community? I hope you are kidding. He could have known all about them he just shouldnt have compromised what pillow talk might have disclosed. You are making assumptions you cannot POSSIBLY show to be true.
"He claimed he had knowlege of something at a time when there was no possible way he could have knowlege of it since the U.S. did not have the info until 8 months later."
The CIA received verbatim text of what was in the forged documents shortly after 9/11 and they determined that it was filled with many errors but they did not discredit the claim of Iraq seeking uranium until they received the documents in October 2002. So it is conceivable that Wilson knew the contents of what was in the documents without actually seeing them.
Then why did he later claim he made an error.
"Then why did he later claim he made an error. leatherhelmet / Tuesday June 12, 2007 06:21:06 PM EST"
Because he made an error in his testimony.
or read Solon's explanation.
"I never claimed to have “debunked” the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa."
Wilson said that he found no evidence to support the claim that Saddam was seeking uranium; he cannot really debunk it. Most of the intelligence the CIA receives is handled in this manner no matter how wacky the claim is. There’s either evidence to support the claim or no evidence to support it.
From Davey Broder's September 10 George Washington Elementary School Gazette column:
My dad found out right after walking into the living room and seeing the baseball on the floor and the broken window that my friend John and my big brother Eddie were playing ball in the front yard, because the old man next door told on us.
My friend John blabbed right away that he was pitching when the ball got batted through the window, but Eddie says he was just sitting on the curb when it happened, so nobody got mad at him.
Even though I was playing 3rd base and I didn't break nothin', I got whupped because I said Eddie wasn't even there, but my stupid sister and her friend ratted on me and said he was. IT'S NOT FAIR!!! My sister's just pissed at me because she hates me, and Dad wants to spank me for ANYthing!
My dad got all pissed-off about the window and came after me with the belt for NO REASON AT ALL!!!! Parents suck.
Davey "Scooter" Broder
Mrs. Fitzgerald's 5th Grade Class
George Washington Elementary
Hilarious!
If pursuing Libby was "relentless", what word describes the pursuit of my good friend, Bill Clinton....I guess the Con answer would be..just doing our job.
Libby lie and obstruction justice to the Grand Jury investigation.
A true sideshow was the Clinton Grand Jury. The conservative screwballs had this to say: it's not about the sex it's about the lie. The lie in Clinton's case was about sex. Sex is not against the law.
In Libby's case outing an agent is against the law and he lied about it. If Broder wants to see the facts all he has to to is go to the National Security Archive website. They have all the facts that was used to convict Libby.
Libby tried to tell the Grand Jury that all the reporters told him who Plame was. All the reporters said it was Libby that told them who Plame was. They both can't be right; somebody is lying.
The conservative's opinion as Broder is saying is that all the reporters woke up one morning called Libby and said, "guess what Plame is a CIA agent." Is that the conservative's story am I right about that? That the conservative's story is that the reporters just out of blue sky just decided to call of all people in this planet Libby and tell him that Plame is a CIA agent.
Why don't you conservatives tell us the real story which is Clinton was your real circus sideshow and you want a real criminal like Libby go scott free because you suck up to a little baby boy Bush who's credibility is zero and will remain zero for the rest of his and your pathetic life.
Did anyone here catch the story recently that Valerie Plame was ,indeed, covert? You'd think this would be a big story, but it seems to have come and gone rather quickly, without much notice. Didn't the troglodytes ASSURE us that she was NOT covert? I'll bet Rush Limbaugh alone repeated this lie a thousand times, along with all the rest of Karl Rove's trained parrots.
Did the coverage of this seemingly significant story get bumped by the wall-to-wall Paris Hilton Circle Jerk? Surely....our vigilant Press Corps wouldn't just...bury it....would they?
Only a court can say whether she was covert or not. So far, her case has never gotten that far.
Maybe the civil lawsuit will revisit the issue.
That's interesting that you know so much about the government classification process, purplehelmet.
I wonder, if I blab something I'm not supposed to here in this forum, do you think the DoD will yank my clearance without due process? Let me know what you think, because they're under the impression that THEY decide what's classified and not the judicial system. And I'm just itching to tell secrets...
You wouldn't say that if you were being prosecuted in a court of law.
Prosecuted for what?
No, only the CIA can say whether she was covert or not, and they did, and she was.
That doesn't cut it in a court of law. The CIA gets zero say.
Help me understand WTF it is that you are talking about.
Let's say Valentino is to be prosecuted for outing a covert agent, you have to go to court, correct?
When you are court, the judge reads the law pertaining to outing a covert agent.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Intelligence_Identities_Protection_Act
You testify, the CIA testifies, everyone you leaked to testifies. Experts testify. Witnesses testify. The judge or jury will have to decide if you a)knowingly outed a covert agent and b) whether or not the agent was covert.
To meet the legal threshold of the term "covert" the judge or jury would add up the relative evidence and make that decision. In the Plame case, it doesn't matter that Fitzgerald claims she was covert, Plame claims she was covert, the CIA claims she was covert, Toensing who wrote the law claims she was not, or that Bob Novak said she's not because he found her name in a Who's Who book. As far as the law goes, the evidence gets presented and the court makes the determination if she was covert under the law.
If the CIA had so much power they would just ship Rove, Scooter and Armitage to GITMO, which I know you guys wouldn't like their rights to be violated.
Fitzgerald never charged anyone so we never got all the evidence put into court on the matter of whether she was covert or not. The civil suit may or may not make a decision but you know Libby, Cheney et al will force all the cards on the table.
True, but your line earlier about Plame and the CIA having zero say is contradicted by your post here.
The CIA can call her covert under their agency standards, they cannot call her covert under the law. The can simply testify as to how their version of covert compares to the legal definition of covert.
Which they did and in Congress and it pretty well establishes she WAS covert.
Exactly, which gives them a say on the matter.
Read your link:
(4) The term “covert agent” means— (A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States;"Bob Novak said she's not because he found her name in a Who's Who book."
It really doesn't matter if he found her name in a book. Did the book mention that she was a covert CIA agent?
What? If the CIA's testimony is irrelevant, how exactly would the court make that assessment?
You and Val echoed exactly what I was thinking. This is a truly bizarre assertion by LH, even by his standards.
I thought about it after I picked my jaw up off the floor. I think what LH is reaching for here is the "Toensing defense:" since Vicky Toensing was one of the people who helped write the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (Title 50, United States Code, Section 421), and Vicky says she's not covert, then she's not covert, QED, end of story, Irv goes free.
The problem is, of course, that even by the relatively narrow definition of the IIPA, Wilson was covert, in that she had a classified identity and served outside the United States within the previous five years.
The confusion I think I am having with LH is that the CIA does indeed have a whole hell of a lot of a say about whether or not someone is "covert;" whether it would have been criminal to reveal her identity had she not been overseas is something I don't know as IANAL. I would be damn surprised, however, if one can out CIA agents willy-nilly without some sort of offense being committed...
Its somewhat analogous to saying the New York Yankees have no say about who is and who ISNT a Yankee
More like asking if Billy Martin was the manager of the Yanks. Depends on what day you asked the question.
Uh not really, no matter what day you asked the YANKEES. THEY would be able to tell you if on that day he WAS a Yankee, that was weak even for you.
Billy Martin was the manager of the Yanks. This is a true statement, no matter what day it is when you say it.
nuh uh... nuh uh...
Billy Martin was the manager of the Oakland A's.
That's true whenever you say it. So stop your lying, you lying liar.
Martin? Wait a minute. Wasn't he the guy that beat the crap out of Jim Brewer, Jimmy Piersall, Clint Courtney (twice), Matt Batts, and Tommy Lasorda? That's how I liketo remember him; but then hockey is really my favorite sport. But if he were still alive I have a list of trolls I'd ask him to "take care of".
Vicky Toensing is a partisan hack. She was a regular on the talking head shows during the Clinton witch hunts....and guess which side she was on....
Vicky Toensing is a partisan hack.
And also - felicitously - completely fracking wrong about the law/
Yes, she is completely wrong about a law she wrote.
And you are calling her a partisan hack.
Vicky was on Hannity talking about a conspiracy at the CIA to bring down the Bush Administration using Joseph Wilson. She is batsh-t crazy!
There are also many many examples of Toensing's misinformation spreading on MMFA regarding issues she should be better informed about.
...she helped write.
I hate when the comment system posts without my intervention. It's like digital Tourette's.
I will agree with this about Victoria. Since she has no way of knowing exactly what service Plame was doing at the CIA without hearing testimony under oath, I don't see where she can claim with 100 percent accuracy that she knows Plame was not covert.
"I thought about it after I picked my jaw up off the floor. I think what LH is reaching for here is the "Toensing defense:" since Vicky Toensing was one of the people who helped write the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (Title 50, United States Code, Section 421), and Vicky says she's not covert, then she's not covert, QED, end of story, Irv goes free."
Toensing claimed Plame wasn't covert because she didn't establish residency outside of the U.S. within the last five years but the statute doesn't require outside residency.
in her testimony under oath before the House Government and Oversight Committee, Valerie Plame Wilson asserted that she was in fact a covert
The conviction of Scooter Libby only intensified conservatives’ efforts to further propagate their lie:
Washington Post editorial: “The trial has provided…no evidence that she was, in fact, covert.” [Washingotn Post, 3/7/07]
Mort Kondracke: “I frankly don’t think since Valerie Plame was not a covert officer that there was a crime here.” [Fox, 3/9/07]
Sean Hannity: “She did not meet the criteria, in any way, shape, matter or form as a covert agent.” [Fox, 3/6/07]
Robert Novak: “No evidence that she was a covert agent was ever presented to the jury.” [Fox, 3/6/07]
Brit Hume: “Whether the woman was covert, Valerie Plame was covert within the meaning of the law, remains at this point, still unclear. Unlikely she was.” [Fox, 3/6/07]
Victoria Toensing: “Plame was not covert. She worked at CIA headquarters and had not been stationed abroad within five years of the date of Novak’s column.” [Washington Post, 2/18/07]
Just look at all the lies above. Tells you something about conservatives doesn't it. We have Plame testifying under oath with no evidence introduced to the House Government and Oversight Committee proving otherwise and yet all look at the numbers of conservatives that will lie. We are in a very sick and sad times indeed.
And Scooter Libby said he was innocent. Do you buy that too?
Plame doesn't get to say whether or not she was covert. She can testify that she believes she is and the person who helped write the law Victoria Toensig can testify she wasn't.
When is the civil suit so we can get them all the witness stand?
If she's not an agent as you claim she would be lying under oath. So why aren't you and the rest of the conservatives pressing on this issue? The answer is because she was covert.
Is easier to just lie in the press. That's the conservative way.
Leatherhelmnut, you're blowing smoke. Libby's assertions were found wanting by the court. That's the way our system works. Tiime to let go of your Dittobot fantasies.
Do you believe that Plame perjured herself? If so, wouldn't a Republican indict her on charges of lying to Congress?
No, she can claim that she believes she is covert. That is not perjury. That is her opinion.
I suppose you can use that justification to say you didn't have sexual relations with that woman. It is just a matter of opinion. Right?
Actually you are not accurate this specific issue WAS judicated in a court. When the reporters used it do deny they ought to be forced to reveal their sources the court said the argument had no validity. So while not QUITE reaching the level of saying outright she was covert it came close. Also in hearings in Congress the CIA said she had travelled overseas undercover in both official and non-official covers that is specified in the law in question. Actually there isnt any real question about this. It exists only as a rightwing propaganda parrot talking point.
Can't these people do anything besides regurgitating the same tired old talking points? This is getting kind of pathetic.
What about the fact that Hayden, the CIA director and a a Bush appointee said that Plame was covert? I mean, did you miss that part. Henry Waxman read from Hayden's statement in the hearing that Plame participated in.
To all of the Broder defenders in this case:
If you believe that Plame was not covert, please answer the following:
1) Was the CIA lying when it declassified the memo to Fitzgerald when he was asking for a sentence?
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070529_Unclassified_Plame_employement.pdf
2) If Plame said she was covert and was not, was has she not been indicted for lying to Congress?
3) There were no leak charges because Fitz would have had to prove that someone "knowingly gave our information about someone covered by a specific law protecting the identities of covert agents." Any idea how hard it would be to prove that anyone "knowingly" would have done this? Fitz did not pursue this charge because of the difficulty of proving it. As a lawyer, you bring cases that you think you can win. He did not feel he had enough evidence to convince a jury that her identity was "knowingly" given. During his investigation, Libby obstructed his investigation into the leak and perjured himself which are crimes.
4) Also, if you do, in fact, believe the CIA was lying, why has the President not removed those who were propagating the lie?
1) Again, the CIA gives its opinion she was covert. Unfortunately,MSNBC was lazy and did not get any opinions from legal experts as whether traveling overseas on temporary business rises to the level of covert under the law. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/
2) Plame can give her opinion that she was covert, that is not lying.
3)It doesn't seem to me that hard for Fitz to charge Libby or Rove if he had any proof they knowingly lied.
4)Again, the CIA gave their evidence in this memo but other evidence to counter it was never produced.
I am not defending Broder because if Libby did lie he should got to prison. Of course, he could go free pending appeal, but that is unlikely I think.
Leather, if Scooter clouded the case so much that Fitzgerald didn't think he could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rove or anyone else "knowingly" disclosed her covert identity, he did the right thing by not bringing charges. This does not mean he didn't think that it happened that way. It simply means that because of Libby's obstruction, there was no way to make his case as effectively as he could have without Libby's interference.
The amazing thing to me is the people who keep screaming that she was not covert have no idea what her role in the CIA actually was. Until that issue is adjudicated, I would think that all members of the CIA that the CIA treats as covert should probably be given the benefit of the doubt in that regard. When the head of the CIA makes a statement that she was covert it is because he is treating her as a covert agent under his understanding of the law. Additionally, the memo given to Fitzgerald should be given equal if not greater weight for the same reason. Shouldn't the CIA be given some deference in the court of public opinion?
Toensig can argue all she wants about what she meant the law to say, but she does not know how the CIA employed Ms. Plame.
I would think, in a time that the Republicans constantly remind us of the threats we face every day, that if there is an ounce of doubt as to whether or not a CIA agent in non-proliferation is covert or not, they would use absolutely their highest discretion not to expose the identity of said agent. Why would they compromise National Security?
Here is the relevant law
6 50 U.S.C. § 426(4) defines “covert agent” to mean:(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present orretired member of the armed forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classifiedinformation, and(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five yearsserved outside the United States; or(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States isclassified information, and—(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informantor source of operational assistance to, and intelligence agency, or(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, theforeign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of theFederal Bureau of Investigation; or(C) an individual, other than aUnited States citizen,whose past or present intelligencerelationship to the United States is classified information and who is a present orformer agent of, or a present or former informant or source of operational assistanceto, an intelligence agency.
Since affirmative actions were being taken to protect her identity by the CIA including maintaining a cover agency, and she HAD worked undercover outside the US in the 5 years previous to her exposure mulitiple times it is hard to see any reasonable argument she was not covert. Not to mention the CIA SAID she was and who in the entire world is better to judge that specific question?
Game, set, match, Solon, I'm buying the first round...
I also wonder what you think about this:
Hypothetically, if Plame is not found to be covert, shouldn't there be a massive turnover at the CIA? It would prove that none of the leaders of the agency knew how to classify their OWN agents.
If the media were honestly covering this story the Bush administration would be laughed out of town whenever it claimed some importance to keeping intelligence(like the illegal wiretapping) information secret. If it were really important to not disclose information about our intelligence systems then neither Rove, Armitage nor Libby would have given out ANY, ANY INFORMATION AT ALL about who was or was not working at the CIA without first asking the CIA if the information should be revealed. As none of them did it, I can only conclude they do not really believe what they have said about how important it is to keep all information secret. Armitage signed the letter to Clinton urging invasion of Iraq and it is not even slightly credible to say he was a critic of the Iraq war. That is like saying a signed of the declaration of Independence was really an opponent of the revolutionary war. Sorry this is a tale for idiots. Novak obviously needed a confirmation to print the story. Rove provided the needed confirmation and did so without first checking with the CIA. His was the last act leading to the disclosure of information. the disclosure could not have been helpful to the war on terror. These people are clearly not sincere about the war on terror or they would have acted differently. If you continue to defend them I think you are either a dolt of the highest order or you are so insincere about the the war and the alleged need for secrecy that you do not care if these reckless folks continue to be the guardians of our intelligence secrets. If you really were sincere about the war on terror you would be demanding their replacement.