Media still repeating false claim that Armitage role in Plame leak exonerates Libby
Following President Bush's decision to commute the prison sentence for former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, media figures have continued to repeat the false claim that former deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage's role as columnist Robert D. Novak's original source for Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative proves Libby was not involved in the leak of her identity. However, as Media Matters for America has previously noted, the fact that Armitage was the original source for Novak's column revealing Plame's identity is not inconsistent with Libby's disclosure of Plame's identity -- specifically, to then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller -- before the publication of Novak's column.
On the July 3 edition of NBC's Today, Weekly Standard editor William Kristol claimed: "Scooter Libby does not deserve to go to jail. I would remind Joe Wilson that Scooter Libby did not leak Valerie Plame's name. Richard Armitage told Robert Novak, we now know, about Valerie Plame's name, so this was an investigation that should never have happened. There was no underlying crime." Kristol was referring to former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, Plame's husband, who reportedly issued a statement saying that "the president's actions send the message that leaking classified information for political purposes is acceptable" and that "Mr. Libby not only endangered Valerie and our family, but also our country's national security."
As Media Matters has previously documented, journalist Murray Waas noted in his book The United States v. I. Lewis Libby (Union Square Press, June 2007), Miller testified on January 30 that Libby had disclosed Plame's CIA employment to her at a July 8, 2003, breakfast meeting at the St. Regis Hotel in Washington, D.C., well before Novak publicly revealed it in his July 14, 2003, column. As Media Matters has also noted, it is likely of little significance whether Libby disclosed Plame's name, as opposed to the identity of Joseph Wilson's wife as a CIA employee, to a reporter.
From the edited trial transcript of Miller's January 30 testimony during Libby's trial, included in Waas' book:
Q: Did there come a time following the publication of [Ambassador Joseph] Wilson's op-ed [July 6, 2003] that you met with Mr. Libby again?
A: Yes.
Q: When was that?
A: July 8th.
[...]
Q: Was there discussion at any time about Mr. Wilson's wife [Plame] on this occasion?
A: Yes.
Q: Can you tell us what you recall about that?
A: Yes. Mr. Libby was discussing what he called two streams of reporting on uranium and on efforts by Iraq to acquire sensitive materials and components. He said the first stream was reports like that of Joe Wilson. Then he said the second stream, and at that point he said, once again, as an aside, that Mr. Wilson's wife worked at WINPAC.
Q: Can you tell us what WINPAC is?
A: Yes, WINPAC is, stands for Weapons Intelligence Non-Proliferation and Arms Control. It's a part of the CIA which is specifically focused on weapons of mass destruction.
On the July 2 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News analyst Kirsten Powers claimed: "This was a complete waste of time. But we knew who leaked -- did leak in the first place. This whole thing has been a charade. It's been a waste of taxpayer money. It's been a waste of time." She continued: "But at the end of the day they knew who did the leak in the first place, and they still spent all this time on this."
From the July 3 edition of NBC's Today:
MEREDITH VIEIRA (co-host): Bill, you described yesterday as a "very good moment" for the president, but he did not grant the pardon that you and many other conservatives were hoping for. So was it a "good moment" for you, or just take what you can get?
KRISTOL: No, it was a good moment. It was an act of justice. Scooter Libby does not deserve to go to jail. I would remind Joe Wilson that Scooter Libby did not leak Valerie Plame's name. Richard Armitage told Robert Novak, we now know, about Valerie Plame's name, so this was an investigation that should never have happened. There was no underlying crime. The jail sentence was way beyond what the appellate -- what the court's own advisory probation committee, which is totally non-political, recommended. The president did the right thing. I would have preferred a pardon, but I think the president did the right thing in commuting his sentence.
From the July 2 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
MALKIN: Thanks for staying with us, I'm Michelle Malkin in for Bill O'Reilly. And in the "Impact Segment" tonight: Late today, President Bush commuted the prison sentence of former White House aide Scooter Libby, sparing him two and a half years behind bars in the CIA leak case. Plus a whole slew of other political stories.
With us now Democratic analysts Laura Schwartz and Kirsten Powers. Both are Fox News analysts. Laura, I'm going to start you on the commutation. What's your reaction?
SCHWARTZ: Oh, it was the right thing for him to do. He had to satisfy his base, and he did that by commuting the sentence, so he gets credit for that. But he didn't do a full-blown pardon, so he's not going to get as much of a hit from the left. And it -- this is during the July 4 recess. It's very good timing for him, politically.
MALKIN: Kirsten, agree?
POWERS: Well, it was -- I mean, setting aside politics, it was just the right thing to do. This was a complete waste of time. The -- we knew who leaked -- did the leak in the first place. This whole thing has been a charade. It's been a waste of taxpayer money. It's been a waste of time.
And you know, I'm sorry to all of the people in the left wing who just have lived and breathed and, you know, are probably hysterically crying right now, but this really was just a complete and utter waste of use of the government.
MALKIN: Right. Some of those far-lefters are still waiting for indictments to come down that are never going to happen.
POWERS: Yes.
MALKIN: But you've got [Sen.] Charles Schumer [D-NY] here now, talking like it's the end of the republic.
POWERS: Right.
MALKIN: Do you think the Democrats, some of these leading Democrats are making a mistake, making a big stink out of it?
POWERS: It's a big political issue. I think that, you know, it does -- it is -- it is just like throwing red meat to the base, and I think it's something that they're very up in arms about, and they believe that this is all really all about the Iraq war.
But at the end of the day, they knew who did the leak in the first place, and they still spent all this time on this, and I have a lot of issues with these type of cases in general, whether it's Scooter Libby or somebody else. This is not -- once you know the truth, you do not spend time, taxpayer money pursuing people to try to get them basically to trick them to lie under oath, and I mean, it's just -- you know, and we've had other cases like this that I had problems with as well.
MALKIN: Right. Well, Laura, one last word on this, so no damage to the GOP on this one?
SCHWARTZ: No, no damage to the GOP. And again, Bush's ratings are going down so low that even his own party, his base is trying to defect from it. And so this is his only chance. He's a lame duck now after immigration. He's got to do something. This is -- was his move.
Again her name is not Plame it is Wilson, why can she not be shown the respect she deserves? Joe Wilson said yesterday on CNNs the Situation Room that her name is Wilson.
Who cares what her name is , she is a liar just like her husband. They make me sick.
Sue, how did she lie? How did Joe Wilson lie?
"How did Joe Wilson lie?"
*YAWN*
Washington Post, 7/10/04: "Plame's Input Is Cited On Niger Mission: Report Disputes Wilson's Claims On Trip, Wife's Role"
Slate.com, 7/13/04: "Plame's Lame Game: What Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife forgot to tell us about the yellow-cake scandal"
Slate.com, 7/18/05: "Rove Rage: The poverty of our current scandal"
Slate.com, 4/17/06: "Clueless Joe Wilson"
There you go!
The only potential lie I see in any of those articles is what Wilson said about the forged documents but in the grand scheme things, this really doesn’t matter. Wilson said he found no evidence to corroborate the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium. Instead of trying to refute that claim, the administration chose to out his wife.
it's the old allegation that plame "got wilson the job". and the job? no pay. a long plane ride to some dusty central african capital. long periods of time sitting around some second rate hotel waiting for meetings with government officials. must be the right wing dream vacation, because i sure can't figure out what the big payoff was for the wilsons.
I know I want a list of people lusting after the nightlife in Niamey
Endless sophistry. You cite Christopher Hitchens as though he was speaking facts, not polemics, and then the report that the late Republican Congress managed to cough up for electoral purposes. It's all trivial at best, and a gross distortion at worst.
It's interesting that the form of discrediting Democratic politicians is so often to say, frankly, that they're wimps who follow their wive's whims. There are crueler words for that. The Wilson's account is that the Vice President asked the CIA to find out about the yellowcake. Valerie was asked if her husband would be willing to go. She said yes. That was the total of her input, she says, and there is no substantial evidence that it's untrue.
One of the very worst legacies of this benighted presidency is the kind of spinning that goes on that creates an alternate reality as vividly as the Communists used to. Thus, Gore says he took leadership in creating the Internet -- which, as a matter of fact, he did -- which a GOP spinner turned into "He says he invented the internet!" Edwards brings out a very good national health plan, and all the right can chatter about is his haircuts.
You should try to get more sleep.
"CHOKE"
You site Christopher Hitchens as your proof? No wonder you yawned. I sleep through him all the time.
Wilson visited Niger in early 2002 on behalf of the CIA to investigate a British report alleging Iraq attempted to buy yellowcake -- uranium ore -- to develop nuclear weapons. Wilson reported finding no evidence to support the allegation.
Novak reported in his July column that Plame suggested her husband for the Niger visit, but officials told CNN Tuesday she had nothing to do with the decision. "She did not recommend him. It was not her idea to send him," said one official.
Bush cited the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium connection in his 2003 State of the Union address as part of the rationale for going to war with Iraq.
What did they lie about? Inquiring minds want to know. Do you even understand what this case was all about?
And it's people like YOU who defend the guilty (Libby) by attacking the victim (Valerie Plame) in order to support right-wing dunderheads that make ME sick.
Get a clue.
Regressives first. Americans last.
Actually such responses to real comments only shows a change of subject as opposed to supporting your point of view. Remember, Ms. Wilson is the woman who laid her life on the line in a clandestine operation to assess the nuke capabilities of our adversaries. Amazing how glib some folks can be, sitting safely at home, criticizing some one so valient. A liar, I think NOT!!!. That sort of comment without any proof or backup is whistling in the dark.
Who cares what YOU think you are a moron and you make most people sick
And people like who who attack the victims in order to defend the guilty make ME sick.
Rita v. United States, No. 06-5754
Victor Rita, convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice, asked for a lighter sentence based in part on his past military service. But the judge gave him 33 months, as suggested by the guidelines. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, based in Richmond, upheld the sentence, saying that penalties within the guidelines are “presumptively reasonable.”
What did defendant Rita do?
He made two false statements to a federal grand jury. The jury was investigating a gun company. Prosecutors believed that buyers of a kit, called a “PPSH 41 machinegun ‘parts kit,’ ” could assemble a machinegun from the kit, and that the company had not secured the necessary permits to import machine guns.
Rita had purchased one of the kits and when he was contacted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, he agreed to let the agent inspect the kit. But, before, meeting with the agent, he sent back the kit and, instead, substituted a kit that did not amount to a machine gun. The government contended that he lied to the grand jury about his actions and he was convicted for making false statements and committing perjury.
Does Rita receive a "get out of jail card" like Scooter?
I'm sure Rita could have worked out some kind of arrangement with Bill Clinton.
Incredibly weak.
Devastating.
I have no idea what you mean, but I do know one thing: anything so short and incomprehensible as your comment MUST be profound. I am considering abandoning all my liberal convictions because of it.
I'll keep you posted on how that goes...
Come on, Leather, you are really giving the Troll business a bad name. You really have to try and float SOME kind of argument (no matter how pathetic). Here, let me help you:
" You can't compare Rita and Libby because Libby was just attempting to defend his country and keep us from getting defeated in Iraq. Libby should be pardoned because he is a true American".
See, that was not too hard....
There is no reason for it. It is politics. Clinton pardoned a bunch of cronies, friends, donors, crooks like Mark Rich, administrators like John Deutsch. Even Nixon got pardoned. This is the way politics has been forever and the president has the power to pardon whoever he/she likes no questions asked. Libby lied and deserved to go to jail. He may have been railroaded in an investigation that Fitzgerald should have ended early when he knew who the leak came from or that he couldn't prove Plame was covert or he couldn't prove any "willingly" to the leaker/s. But Libby lied and he was found guilty. Of course he still has his appeal and I thought Bush should have waited until that was over. But I also thought Libby should not have been in jail until his appeal was over but that's just my opinion. I can't believe any of you would think that if Hillary or Bill Clinton were in the same position that they wouldn't have fully pardoned already. Bush didn't even go that far.
"Libby lied and deserved to go to jail. He may have been railroaded in an investigation that Fitzgerald should have ended early when he knew who the leak came from or that he couldn't prove Plame was covert or he couldn't prove any "willingly" to the leaker/s."
Let me get this straight. Libby was charged with obstruction of justice, right? In other words, it was his actions that prevented Fitzgerald from being able to prove Plame was covert (as if the Toensing law was the only one that could possibly apply, btw...it's still releasing classified information) or who willingly leaked what.
So because Libby obstructed the investigation and lied, Fitzgerald should have dropped the whole matter right then and there, simply because Fitzgerald couldn't do the things Libby prevented him from doing.
Hell of a concept of a legal system you have going there, honestly.
What part of he obstructed and lied and should have gone to jail didn't you understand in what I wrote?
I said I didn't excuse his lying. I am not up on sentencing guidelines but I'm assuming that they could have let him free until the appeal was over.
Others are arguing it should have been over when Armitage admitted he was Novak's leaker. That is not my argument, but alot of conservatives have made it.
How on earth is "should have gone to jail" consistent with "an investigation that Fitzgerald should have ended early"? How would he be prosecuted for anything if the investigation was dropped at the time you say it should have been?
If you think he deserves to go to jail for breaking the law, then there's no way for you to suggest that the case should have been dropped. It shouldn't matter what some conservatives are arguing, since by your own comments you are condemning those arguments. Does that clarify it for you?
If you think he deserves to go to jail for breaking the law, then there's no way for you to suggest that the case should have been dropped. It shouldn't matter what some conservatives are arguing, since by your own comments you are condemning those arguments. Does that clarify it for you?
The only thing it really clarifies is that you're not very smart. He, obviously, said that there were alternative reasons for pursueing the case and that Libby shouldn't have been forced to be in jail while the appeal process continued. What he stated was quite intelligent and you just don't seem to understand. Here's the simpler version; Libby lied, Libby pardoned. There, do you understand the case better?
Damn you people are just so obtuse you're spheres. *Bwing* Your silly LOGIC will not defeat nor deter my beliefs, you libbies!!
Look, just because Armitage *may* or *may not* have done "the original outing" DOESN'T MEAN that Scooter DIDN'T LIE (perjury, a "serious crime" that all you necons bleated about constantly re Clinton, wailing "whut will we tell the chill'un??") and DIDN'T OBSTRUCT THE INVESTIGATION. He wasn't convicted of outing Plame, he was charged with and convicted of obstructing and lying during that investigation.
What you people continue to fail to see is that the charges that Libby was convicted of DO NOT DEPEND on the original charge of outing a covert CIA asset. Let's say that again: Libby was NOT CHARGED NOR CONVICTED OF the Original Crime of outing a covert CIA asset. He committed crimes above and BEYOND the Original Crime. Get it yet??
Libby committed crimes DURING this investigation, and was convicted of them.What Armitage may or may not have done here is IRRELEVANT to what illegal actions Libby took during that investigation, and was convicted for hindering.
Libby and Armitage knew each other from Iran-Contra, of course, just like all the rest of these criminals.
Just another coincidence, I'm sure.
Really, it's just more indefensible criminality from the kings of indefensible criminality, yet here you are, doing what you do.
Someone may have posted this earlier in this long thread, if so, sorry.
But the whole idea that "there was no underlying crime" simply because Armitage may have first leaked Plame's identity is just false.
Armitage probably didn't qualify as someone subject to the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. However, even if he did, it didn't mean Scooter Libby or anybody else in the White House were not guilty of violating the act.
The act requires that an individual with access to protected information willfully disclose that protected information knowing it is protected.
There is absolutely no reason why the investigation into possible violations of the act by others should have been discontinued.
Are all right wing commentators really this ignorant? Or are they just dishonest?
they could have let him free until the appeal was over
Yes, they could have, but it is not an automatic right. When judges find that the appellant's claim is dubious - as they did in Libby's case - they can refuse the appellant's request to remain free during the appeal. Some convictions and sentences don't even permit an appeal bond.
Actually, if you read Fitzgerald's sentencing argument... you'll find that Libby's lies had nothing to do with proving Plame's covert status.
That was evident by statute and by the C-I-A's own initial inquiry request in the first place. This case was never about whether Plame was covert or not, although Fitzgerald said his investigation found that she was.
At the center of the investigation is who leaked a covert agent's status to the media. The "who" is known... Armitage, Libby, and Rove. The kooky-cons want to know why Fitzgerald did not "go after" Armitage, but of course also fail to note he did not "go after" Rove.
The reason for this, which is clear in Fitzgerald brief, is that Libby's lying obfuscated any attempts to get at the extent he, Armitage, or Rove violated the law in blowing Plame's cover.
In short, Fitzgerald says he was not able to find out beyond a reasonable doubt whether or not the principles involved knew at the time they disclosed Plame's name to reporters whether or not she was covert.
However, his brief goes onto explain that Libby's 2-and-a-half year sentence was tantamount to penalizing him for his leak in the first place.
That has now been coerced by the Administration. And I hope Fitzgerald will be able to open the investigation back up again... although it appears that's unlikely.
You just keep repeating the garbage long debunked in the vain hope repeating it enough will make it true dont you? Plame WAS covert that WAS proven. They declassified her job summary and she was covert that isnt even in dispute anymore an only cited now by the most completly brainwashed and those who care NOTHING about reality. A crime can be committed by more than one person, anyone with a functioning cerebral cortex can understand that. Ya got noghin, you never do.
Al Gore's lawyer David Boies says it is an open question whether Plame was covert.
I guess he's got nothing too.
Thats right he has got NOTHING. This argument is OVER. The CIA coughed up her job summary. It showed, that she was covert, that they were taking affirmative actions to protect her identity and that she had travelled as a NOC agent in the previous year several times so she met the specific requirements cited in the law. There is no longer any reasonable argument.
And Gore, this morning, on the Today show, said the commutation was "disappointing," because Libby had knowledge that implicated the vice president and the president but now has a free pass. Thus the commutation represents an obstruction of justice.
Leather, Valerie raised her hand and swore to tell the truth and nothing but the truth and she was not charged, convicted nor sentenced. If Scooter had done the same we wouldn't be talking about him. We would probably would be having impeachment hearing for Dick and Junior but what the hey, that's what pardons are for.
What is often overlooked is that not only was Plames covert status screwed, the CIA operation she was part of was also sent down the pooper as well.
Attention Leather and other shape shifters:
This is NOT about what someone else could've might've done, this is your own semi-elected king George deeds. He has willfully and blatanly usurped the Judicial branch and his part is going to pay on the scale of what Nixon did to his party in the early 70's.
Clinton pardoned Deutsch. Did he? Well, it was after the man had lost his job and been disgraced. The right keeps on yapping about these cases as though there's any comparison. What happened was this: Libby took the fall. His defense, when it started, said he was being scapegoated, and promised (threatened?) to call Cheney to the stand. Suddenly, the defense collapsed, and he did nothing that would be effective until the moment that it became clear that he would do some jail time immediately. The commutation was a quid pro quo, silence for silence. One is sure that a pardon will be coming on the last day of Bush's cursed presidency. Scofflaws covering up a criminal conspiracy to break federal law for political purposes.
It's nice to know that the Clintons would have done something they never did like Bush didn't do.
But playing along, who exactly would the Clintons have pardoned, if they did have to pardon someone in order to save their own or their VPs arses from being having their participation in the outing of a covert CIA operation in order to coverup their lying the nation into a war?
Leather, did you notice "he" in the Rita case?
Bill would have figured that out eventually I'm sure.
I don't think Bill has any problem noticing the difference between he and she I just wondered if you did.
Helmet,
For simply stating that Rita could have asked Clinton for a pardon (a president out of office for almost 7 years) as somehow a worthy defense about Scooter's circumstances,
You have lost all credibility (presuming you had any) in my eyes.
That was beyond weak and very typical of a person having no idea what the heck he is talking about.
By all means keep saying your opinions, they are welcome in here (as nothing more than to be used as a good laugh!)
Out of all these people Meredith, Vieira, Kristol, Malkin, Powers, and Schwartz in the above article not one mentioned obstruction of justice on the part of Libby.
If a Conservative mentioned Libby's obstruction of Justice it would do to them what water did to the wicked witch of the west.
It is nice to know they are so concerned about wasting taxpayers money, they certainly didn't seem to care about that during the Starr witchhunt, I mean investigation. I love the other rational, not that Libby didn't lie under oath, but that he didn't out Valerie Plame to Novak, errgo he didn't committ the underlying crime. If memory service me correctly the case in which Clinton was accused of lying in was also thrown out by the judge, so there was not any underlying crime there either. Not that logic applies to this bunch.
Here's Kristol talking about the irrelevance of that "underlying crime.'
Bill Kristol – In response to a question as to whether perjury was a grave enough crime to remove Clinton from office, Kristol responded "Yes, I think so. Perjury under oath." [MSNBC, 11/5/98]
So perjury concerning a clearly non-criminal act should result in a twice-elected president being removed from office via a political procedure which was opposed by a vast majority of the American people. But perjury concerning a possible criminal violation of a national security statute, involving (at least) wilful mishandling of classified information for political purposes and personal revenge {rightwing euphemism: hardball}, such perjury constituting obstruction of justice making prosecution of said criminal violation impossible, is OK.
Excellent point. Both of the investigations were a HUGE waste of taxpayer money and government resources.
Ken Starr was a joke. Fitzgerald was a joke.
And all you lefties that are screaming mad... I bet you had a double standard for Billy boys perjury and all of his rediculous pardons. How about a little fairness and consistency?
These partisan witch hunts on both sides of the isle are a disservice to us and are money.
Both were wastes of money, because lying about oral sex and covering up for the outing of a CIA agent working on WMD's during a time of war with the Islamofascists are exactly the same thing. Is that about right?
Thank you for that piercing analysis there.
Both were wastes of money because THERE WAS NO UNDERLYING CRIME in both cases.
If you think this joke was worth 10-20 million then we'll have to disagree.
You have NO HOPE of estabishing the truth of your baseless assertion there was no underlying crime. IF Scooter hadnt LIED we might know the truth about that but he did and we dont. YOU just claiming it doesnt make it in any way consistant with reality.
Notice how you say that we might know the truth. So what is the truth Solon and why are you and other posters here so angry at thosethat disagree with you? I'm not angry at you for your opinion?
I think you and I agree and what we agree on is that we don't really know the truth and Plame's staus is the subject of debate.
So libby lies and that hampered the investigation. Berger stole docuumnet sand lied about it and was never charged and we'll never know what was in the docs that he took.
It all sounds like business as usual to me on BOTH sides of the aisle in goodold D.C.
To say that 20 million bucks to get an obstruction charge and perjury conviction isn't a waste to me seems absurd.
I am not angry but I am frustrated. You are IGNORING the FACTS. There is no longer a debate about whether Plame was a covert agent. THAT is over, the CIA declassified her job summary and they showed that she WAS covert, that she DID travel as a NOC agent the year before she was exposed. This is done. Yet you blithly ignore the congressional record of the CIAs OWN records which show beyond any reasonable argument she was covert to say its still in dispute for no other reason than it is what you WISH were true. Just like you use one of the dumbest most completely debunked talking points of all time that since no one was charged that there was no crime comitted because that is what you WISH were true. The truth is pretty evident a crime was almost certainly comitted because Libby and Rove at least exposed Plame in a fit of political pique. However its not what you know its what you can prove and with Libby lying we will never get at that proof..
When communicating like this we dont have tone of voice nor facial expressions to give us clues. I am not only not mad I have no animosity whatsoever toward you, overall I like you and your posts always try to take a reasonable track though often filled with talking points. IF you look at the FACTS objectively there is no possible way to continue to claim that Valerie Plame was not a covert agent.
Valerie Plame Wilson can no longer be a covert agent for the CIA. Likewise, agents using Brewster Jennings as a cover employer can no longer work as covert agents for the CIA, and Brewster Jennings can no longer be used as a cover organization. All operations in which Mrs. Wilson or other agents were involved must be abandoned. The effort and money invested in these operations has now been wasted. Contacts made by Mrs. Wilson and all agents using Brewster Jennings as cover are now worthless, either dead or in hiding.
You don't consider any of this to be an underlying crime. I certainly hope that you're not involved in the security of this country in any way, as your comments show that you obviously don't have the capabilities to be effective.
But Plame outed herself then when she gave $$ to Al Gore and listed her employer as Brewster Jennings. Agents aren't supposed to publically acknowledge fake company names, only if they work for a real company.
Interestingly, David Boies, Al Gore's lawyer says Libby was railroaded because there was no underlying crime.
DAVID BOIES, FORMER GORE COUNSEL: Whether or not she was covert, I think that's an open question. But I think the prosecutor did understand early on that there was not an underlying crime here. From the outside, that's the way it looks.
HANNITY: Right.
BOIES: And under those circumstances, I think it's very troubling to use the criminal justice system to proceed in what is essentially a political case. I thought that way in the Clinton case.
HANNITY: Well, you were wrong then, but you're right here.
(CROSSTALK)
HANNITY: I don't mean to make a joke.
BOIES: This is the same thing. This is the same thing. This is criminalizing the political process. And it's wrong, whether it's done on one side or on the other.
HANNITY: I want you to expand on this, though. When you say criminalize the political process here, I mean, literally no crime was committed until after the investigation began. I mean, is it the type of thing where -- anybody, if you don't have a correct memory on 100 different levels, that you're really...
BOIES: Well, see, that's the problem. That's exactly the problem. People can't remember everything. Now, people have got to tell the truth in front of a grand jury. That's very important.
HANNITY: Sure.
BOIES: And if you're conducting an investigation where you really need to get people's testimony, and they lie, they need to be prosecuted, even if you ultimately conclude there was no underlying crime.
But that's not really the situation here, as I see it, because, from the outside, it looks like the prosecutor knew before some of this testimony was taken that there was not an underlying crime. And then to go forward and try to get people maybe to slip up, make a mistake, so you can bring a perjury or obstruction charge, I think that is what's troubling here.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,257487,00.html
2 things:
It's interesting that you think anyone here would care that Al Gore's lawyer has an opinion on this case that is not supported by any facts. I think we all are smart enough to base our conclusions about her being covert on the facts rather than some baseless opinions. Are we to say, "well, this supposed liberal thinks there was no crime, we must ignore all those facts showing otherwise and believe him because he is on our side". That may be what conservatives do, but not us. There is nothing in your post that refutes the fact that the CIA has proven she was covert UNDER THE LAW and that the judge allowed evidence and testimony that she was covert and the defense allowed it or was unsuccessful in refuting that claim. Also, there was no basis for overturning that decision on appeal. So we now have several members of the court and the agency charged with granting her status all saying she was covert. But, some supposed liberal shays she wasn't with no proof, so I guess we are all wrong.
2nd, I would like to know where you got the notion that an agent cannot use their brassplate company in public. Isn't that why they are there. Are we to believe that the fake company is so poorly represented that it could be discovered as a cover by some FEC investigators or right-wing bloggers? Did you get that from some CIA handbook or just a Robert Ludlem novel?
And he said that in MARCH, but the available evidence CHANGED at the end of MAY when the CIA declassified her job summary to Congress. NOW that is AFTER that there is no longer any reasonable argument
No she didnt. Had she listed her employer as the CIA it would have been exposing her identity using her cover company no matter whether or not she should have MAINTAINED her cover it didnt expose her. You have had nothing but the weakest talking points imaginable most of which dont even come close to making sense from the beginning of this controversy you USED to say she wasnt covert because she hadnt travelled out of the country under cover in the last five years. I told you THEN since her employment was classified you had no way of knowing this was true you NOW know it wasnt true so you just go down the list and look for another discredited talking point.
Didn't you catch the part about the "islamofascists"? That's not my term, you know. It's the right-wingers who are wetting their beds over the threat, and talking about bombing Iran. Well, Plame was working on WMD issues, specifically regarding Iran.
You guys can't have it both ways. You can't tell us every damn day how 9/11 changed everything, how the radicals are trying to destroy America, etc, and then blow off the outing of an agent working on that very issue as being a non-issue. If investigating someone who has hampered our efforts in the war on terror is not worthwhile (underlying crime or not!), then all the rhetoric about how the Iraq war is worthwhile (for any given reason so far) is severely undermined!
Think about it.
No underlying crime? Huh, that's funny, the CIA sure thought so, which is WHY the referred the matter to the DoJ for a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, contacting the DoJ at least 3 separate times. The DoJ then launched the investigation, appointing a Special Prosecutor named Fitzgerald because the AG at the time had to recuse himself. Lot of effort for "no underlying crime", don't you think?
Only a fool wouldn't see the difference between the Starr witch hunt about a bj, and this investigation into an act of Treason.
Let's make it *really, really* simple for you, since you need it simple, apparently:
When the cops come to your house to ask you questions about a crime, it's because A CRIME OCCURRED. That's why they're there, asking you questions about it.
Just because nobody was convicted of the Valentine's Day Massacres, doesn't mean all those men WEREN'T MURDERED. Get it?
Did you realize that only 25% of bank robberies are solved? Does that then mean that only the solved ones occured? That the money stolen from the other 3/4s is really still there?
Duh.
Listen, you *really* need to educate yourself before coming here. STOP watching FAUX Noise, it's doing you a disservice and confusing you, causing you to post nonsense and make an utter fool of yourself.
Your valentine day's massacre analogy wouod be good if we changed it slightly. Here's how we change it. The shooter admits he was the shooter. The police don't charge him but instead charge someone else with a lesser offense. No one ever gets charged with original shooting.
No that doesnt work. First the shooter would have to have shot someone by accident then the charge would have had to have been ANOTHER shooter. Still it does work because everyone knows Capone ordered that killing but he was never charged with anything except tax evasion because it couldnt be proven and yet those people WERE murdered so it is a very good analogy as stated.
So, if a criminal investigation involves something that happens to you. Let's say your mother's wedding ring is missing. Then, this guy comes to your house and keeps obstructing the cop's investigation, he lies a lot, and generally gets in their way. Since no one now can prove what happened to your mom's ring, is there no crime? What about the guy who got in the way? Do you not want him to be charged?
Also, if you believe that there should be no charges for Libby because no one was charged with outing Plame, why don't more people obstruct justice? If they do it in settings where charges cannot be brought after their obstruction, they are not criminals, right?
You are only half right, Clinton was neither convicted or even charged with a crime, perjury or otherwise.
Libby was CONVICTED on FOUR FELONY counts.
Let's see, Kenn Starr started out investigating Whitewater, as land deal and ended up investigating if Bill had sex with a 21 year old adult?
Patrick Fitzgerald starting out investigating who leaked the name of a covert CIA operative, during the time our nation was at war, simply because the administration did not want the country to find out that they lied about the reason that we went to war in the first place.
Yeah they look the same, NOT
To put this entire story into context, this nonsense started because of Richard Armitage. Armitage was the deputy secretary of state under Colin Powell. He spoke casually to Robert Novack about Valarie Plame, a CIA employee. There was no evidence from the conversation that anything malicious took place. It was more careless than anything else. Subsequently, Novack mentioned what Armitage told him in a July 2003 column, which resulted in a major inquiry into whether or not any laws were violated.
After the Valarie Plame inquiry started, Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, was overzealous and exceeded what was required for the investigation. Fitzgerald knew there was no underlying crime; there was no violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Moreover, he continued the investigation after he knew that Richard Armitage was the source of Robert Novack’s story, not Scooter Libby. This is not to say that what Richard Armitage did was not careless, but keep in mind that it has nothing to do with why Scooter Libby was going to jail.
Second, although a jury concluded that Libby lied about how and when he learned that Valerie Plame was a CIA employee, one of the jurors who convicted Libby demonstrated that he did not even know what the Scooter Libby case was about. In fact, after the Libby case commenced, he stated that all the jurors were wondering if they would ever see Karl Rove. He also made other statements proving his abject ignorance about why Fitzgerald was prosecuting Scooter.
This is not to say that Libby’s perjury should not be punished. Perjury is a serious crime, but how is what he did any different from Bill Clinton? In fact, Bill Clinton was investigated for an actual crime of sexually harassing Paula Jones. He even paid Jones $850,000 to settle the case. After Clinton’s misconduct, he decided to remove himself from the roll of attorneys rather than get disbarred. What Clinton did was objectively worse than Libby since Clinton told countless subordinates to lie for him. Since that time, Bill Clinton has made millions of dollars through speeches and lobbying, all while his wife is a United States Senator.
yada yada yada. and poppy bush makes speeches and sits on the boards of companies while his son is president. the bush family is in bed with the saudis. and if you cannot tell the difference between oral sex and the deliberate campaign undertaken by libby and rove to reveal plame's identity to numerous reporters, then there really is no hope for you.
"Fitzgerald knew there was no underlying crime"
What did you base this on?
"Moreover, he continued the investigation after he knew that Richard Armitage was the source of Robert Novack’s story, not Scooter Libby."
Why do you keep on focusing on the Novak story? Even if Novak didn't print her name and occupation it would still be a potential crime. Armitage, Rove and Libby revealed classified information to people not authorize to have that information. Stop focusing on the published story.
“In fact, after the Libby case commenced, he stated that all the jurors were wondering if they would ever see Karl Rove.”
I think the reason why Rove was not indicted is that during his fifth and final Grand Jury appearance he probably said he did not know Plame’s status when he revealed her name to reporters.
“In fact, Bill Clinton was investigated for an actual crime of sexually harassing Paula Jones. He even paid Jones $850,000 to settle the case.”
Paula Jones’ suit was tossed out of court because it had no merit and instead of going away, she said she was going to appeal. Clinton finally gave her what she wanted in the first place ($$$$$$).
“After Clinton’s misconduct, he decided to remove himself from the roll of attorneys rather than get disbarred.”
He was found in contempt of court for disobeying a judge’s order and subsequently his license was suspended.
“What Clinton did was objectively worse than Libby since Clinton told countless subordinates to lie for him.”
No he didn’t.
“Since that time, Bill Clinton has made millions of dollars through speeches and lobbying, all while his wife is a United States Senator.”
Who cares.
"Fitzgerald knew there was no underlying crime"
What did you base this on?
*The fact that the time the DOJ determined there was no crime took place before Scooter was called to the grand jury.
"Moreover, he continued the investigation after he knew that Richard Armitage was the source of Robert Novack’s story, not Scooter Libby."
Why do you keep on focusing on the Novak story? Even if Novak didn't print her name and occupation it would still be a potential crime. Armitage, Rove and Libby revealed classified information to people not authorize to have that information. Stop focusing on the published story.
*This is just wrong. Libby didn't reveal anything. Rove didn't reveal anything. That's not what any of this was about. Libby was called to testify when he knew about Plame, and whether he lied about not remembering when he knew.
“In fact, after the Libby case commenced, he stated that all the jurors were wondering if they would ever see Karl Rove.”
I think the reason why Rove was not indicted is that during his fifth and final Grand Jury appearance he probably said he did not know Plame’s status when he revealed her name to reporters.
*The reason why Rove was not indicted is because the DOJ already knew that Armitage was the one who talked to Novak.
“In fact, Bill Clinton was investigated for an actual crime of sexually harassing Paula Jones. He even paid Jones $850,000 to settle the case.”
Paula Jones’ suit was tossed out of court because it had no merit and instead of going away, she said she was going to appeal. Clinton finally gave her what she wanted in the first place ($$$$$$).
*I thought liberals supported all women who claim to be abused by predators?
“After Clinton’s misconduct, he decided to remove himself from the roll of attorneys rather than get disbarred.”
He was found in contempt of court for disobeying a judge’s order and subsequently his license was suspended.
*What?! An action would be brought by a disciplinary commission of attorneys, and he would be disbarred for lying on the stand.
“What Clinton did was objectively worse than Libby since Clinton told countless subordinates to lie for him.”
No he didn’t.
*It was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he told Monica and others to lie for him. He also submitted a false affidavit to the judge. End of story on this one.
“Since that time, Bill Clinton has made millions of dollars through speeches and lobbying, all while his wife is a United States Senator.”
Who cares.
*Because him and Hillary share bank accounts while he's over in Dubai and other places lobbying.
You are soooo cute! Almost every single debunked talking point is posted, along with the WELL LOOK AT CLINTON distraction. Again, this was not about the Novak column, it was about LEAKING A COVERT OPERATIVES NAME. And more than one person did that. Check the facts, Novak got her name from Armitage, but has also said there was more than one source for his article. So that would leave at least one more leaker. And did you happen to read what Judith Miller said? Yes, she finally (after goign to jail) testified that she got Mrs. Wilson's indentity from.... Scooter Libby! Oh and yes, other reporters mentioned Rove as the source so let's not leave that out. Should I also point out that nice piece of paper Libby had with notes from the VP talking about Plame? So Fitzgerald investigates a crime based on the Novak article and finds multiple leakers. He gets one to flip thus nails Libby. Libby won't flip so he is the fall guy. Fitzgerald rightly tied the Libby case to the underlying crime, which is why the jury wanted to know where Rove and Cheney were. He showed Libby's motive for the crime. He was covering up for others. I know without these important facts it looks like Fitzgerald had no reason to prosecute, but now that the facts are back, maybe you and your bad talking points should be leaving.
Nice rebuttal. It has facts and everything. Not that it makes any difference to Mr. DubiousDissent.blogwhatever.
“*The fact that the time the DOJ determined there was no crime took place before Scooter was called to the grand jury”.
How could they do that without Libby’s testimony?
“*This is just wrong. Libby didn't reveal anything. Rove didn't reveal anything. That's not what any of this was about. Libby was called to testify when he knew about Plame, and whether he lied about not remembering when he knew.”
That’s a lie. This is Fitzgerald sentencing recommendation for Libby. He explains that he learned early on in the investigation that Armitage, Libby, and Rove leaked Plame’s name to reporters but he had to determine several factors (all are in the memo) before he could charge anyone of them with a crime. Libby impeded this and therefore was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice.
“*The reason why Rove was not indicted is because the DOJ already knew that Armitage was the one who talked to Novak.”
That’s a lie. Read the memo.
“*I thought liberals supported all women who claim to be abused by predators?”
Well...you thought wrong.
*What?! An action would be brought by a disciplinary commission of attorneys, and he would be disbarred for lying on the stand.”
His license was suspended for disobeying a judge’s order. If they wanted to disbar him, they could have gone ahead and tried.
“*It was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he told Monica and others to lie for him. He also submitted a false affidavit to the judge. End of story on this one.”
All of them said he didn’t tell them to lie. End of story.
“*Because him and Hillary share bank accounts while he's over in Dubai and other places lobbying.”
Who cares.
My new dvd recorder has a pretty cool "commercial skip" feature that instantly goes past the ads to the start of the show.
Could MMFA provide something similar for CompliantConsent.Blogflop'S posts?These are getting pretty tedious.Funny for a while, like Chia Pet commercials, but after 5 or 6...Yikes.
I really hoped that my "hint" to MMfA about him cutting/pasting his blog columns in this forum ("hosting his website for free", as I put it) would have clued them in to copiousdelusions.blot.con's aspersions without me actually flagging him.
Apparently, MMfA finds him as funny - but not as tedious - as the rest of us.
Clinton, Clinton, CLINTON!!!
So there!! It's all OK now, everything's square.
You people are just "My Team" zealots, laughable. You really think shouting "CLINTON" loud enough excuses everything.
*Not* a Clinton fan here, btw.
*ENOUGH* with Clinton, already, the man hasn't been in office since 2000.
Like Bush I and Ronny Raygun were saints and paragons of honor, yeeesh.
Grow up, get over and off Clinton and address the High Crimes of the CURRENT ADMINISTRATION.
if the release of her name was a crime why was no one prosecuted for it? They know who leaked it. And yet, no charges have been filed.
I've yet to see any proof that Plame was a covert agent. Surely this could have been confirmed one way or the other by now.
this whole thing wqas a joke, just like the Clinton and Ken Star fiasco was a joke.
Don't these people have something better to do with their time and our money?
this has been asked and answered a dozen times on these current threads. maybe you could read those comments.
Fitzgerald determined early on the investigation that Plame was a covert agent under the statute and that Armitage, Libby and Rove all leaked her name to the press. But what you and other conservatives fail to understand is that leaking her name is only one aspect in determining if someone broke the particular law Fitzgerald was looking at. There were several other factors that had to be determined (listed here) before either Armitage, Libby or Rove could be charged with a crime. Libby made it impossible for Fitzgerald to establish if those other criteria were met and therefore he was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice.
yeah, I've seen the point addressed but this group says she was covert and another group said she was not covert. Until (and it won't be) it's proven in a court of law with cross examination of Plame and whatever evidence would be necesary to prove her status then I'm not taking her word for it or Fitzgerald's,
you're saying she was covert as that title applies under the applicable law. This point is in dispute.
Just because it's not disputed by you doesn't make it a fact.
No, the label of "covert" that's being used is the CIA's definition. You have been posting on the thread where I explained this to Leatherhelmet, hopefully you have read it and understand it now.
Right. I guess that's settled then.
Seriously, what do I care what you or anyone here posts about her covert status?
You don't know anymore then I do if she was "covert" as per the law. It's been reported that her covert status had been revealed in numerous ways long before this incident.
Because you want your "covert" operatives showing up for work every day at Langley, right?
Are you really this stupid? It's not about covert per the law. It's about covert according to the CIA, you know, those guys who actually determine who is and who is not a covert operative. How is that not clear to you at this point?
If any concerns about previous leaks or going to work at Langley were relevant, why did the CIA ever refer the case for investigation in the first place? They knew she was covert, by their own actions.
Why are you resorting to calling me stupid? It's entirely about covert as per the law's definition. You're suggesting the law doesn't matter when someone's charged with a criminal offense? Interesting.
And her declassified CIA job summary given in evidence to Congress proves she was according to the law.
the court accepted she was covert. that's why the judge allowed testimony about the damage done by outing an agent.
What is not clear about the CIA referring the matter to the Dept. of Justice for a criminal investigation, at least 3 separate times? The CIA sure thought she was covert, that's why they referred the matter to the DoJ. Get it? Yikes.
This must be new to you, you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
what matters is that the cia submitted a crime report saying that plame's status was classified information before it appeared in novak's column. that's not "this group" or "that group", that's the people who are charged with knowing.
This point is NOT in dispute. The CIA declassified her job summary she is listed as a covert agent, they were taking affirmative actions to protect her identity, she travelled under NOC cover. THIS IS NOT IN DISPUTE.
“Until (and it won't be) it's proven in a court of law with cross examination of Plame”
Why would they need to question her? She’s not the one who determines her status; the CIA determines that.
“and whatever evidence would be necessary to prove her status then I'm not taking her word for it or Fitzgerald's,”
Go do what Fitzgerald did and read statute.
“you're saying she was covert as that title applies under the applicable law. This point is in dispute”
No it’s not. Go read the statute.
“Just because it's not disputed by you doesn't make it a fact.”
It’s a fact. Go read the statute.
Man some people on this thread must be really comprehension impaired. During Plame's testimony before the Waxman committee he read a statement from the DCI saying that at the time of her outing Plame WAS covert. I think the CIA should know better than anyone else who is/was covert than anyone else. My suggestion is to take some reading and hearing comprehension classes.
Hey LaLa, do yourself a favor. Go back to the home page, click on the headline CIA Leak Investigation: Myths and Falsehoods, and read CAREFULLY. It's from back in March, but the FACTS have not changed. Happy reading.
Right because I get all my "facts" from MMFA.
I needed a good laugh. Thanks.
you don't have any "facts". you have talking points you repeat like a parrot.
No one was charged because more than exposure has to be shown. Intent and knowlege of covert status since Libby LIED Fitz couldnt get to the bottom of those elements of the crime. If by now you havent seen proof Plame was covert you have either been in a cave in Sri Lanka or studiously avoiding the information.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/
WASHINGTON - An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame's employment history at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in a court filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates that Plame was "covert" when her name became public in July 2003.
The employment history indicates that while she was assigned to CPD, Plame, "engaged in temporary duty travel overseas on official business." The report says, "she traveled at least seven times to more than ten times." When overseas Plame traveled undercover, "sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias -- but always using cover -- whether official or non-official (NOC) -- with no ostensible relationship to the CIA."
This argument is OVER. There is no longer any reasonable dispute. When exposed she was covert. This is a proven FACT.
I've yet to see any proof that Plame was a covert agent. Surely this could have been confirmed one way or the other by now. lolo
Fitzgerald US Attny, says she was covert, the CIA said she was covert and Valerie testified "under oath" that she was covert. The only thing that would convince you guys of this fact is a hand written note from the God and that probably would not be enough proof.
Again, I will ask you CD,
Why is Bill Clinton your standard bearer on morality?
copiousdissent.blogspot.com:
Scooter WAS CONVICTED IN A COURT OF LAW BY A JURY OF HIS PEERS.
Bill Clinton was put on trial by Congress.
Love how the talking points include the false statement, "Patrick Fitzgerald knew there was no underlying crime." What Patrick Fitzgerald actually said is because Libby lied and obstructed justice, he hindered the investigation. Armitage may have talked to Novak about Valerie Wilson, but apparently he didn't lie to the grand jury about his conversation, as did Libby. Furthermore, most investigations include everybody who was involved. Just because Armitage was Novak's source, it doesn't mean Libby was off the hook. When looking at the big picture, there was a pattern with the Bush Administration to muzzle/punish people who weren't going along with their "plans" for Iraq. General Shinseki is an obvious example. Valerie Wilson was just another.
'Love how the talking points include the false statement, "Patrick Fitzgerald knew there was no underlying crime." '
This style seems to be getting more popular with a few of the Bushie posters here.The mind-reading and telling us what others "know".I hear Rush Limbaugh speak this way, "We all know", "Obviously", other phrases intended to frame BS as facts.
It seems to be used more frequently in direct proportion to the weakness of the argument. this buttressing of the house of cards by implying that it's established fact.
That is complete BUNK. Armitage leaked and convinced Fitz he had no intent to leak, that in NO WAY is a finding that when Libby and Rove ALSO leaked the information THEY had no intent to expose her. Why in the world would you expect anyone with any knowlege of this case to take such worthless drivel as anything but partisan nonsense?
"What Clinton did was objectively worse than Libby". There you have it. A lie about having sex is worse than a politically motivated, vindictive, character assignation and cover up bringing about the dismantling and rendering useless a covert operation to prevent nuclear proliferation and ultimately attacks against this and other friendly countries. I think wingnut.com has a home Fallout Shelter company. Why has no Democrat pushed for an official evaluation of damage or deaths this "outing’ may have caused to the other covert agents? I’m sure our enemies are applauding Libby and his associated traitors having surely damaged the enlistment goals for any new CIA operatives. Lets just write off these poor souls who had the guts to stick their necks out for us off as more headless bodies in a ditch. But why should the Bush admin just wreck the recruitment goals of military services alone? Spread the love around.
Oh give it up already. The "but but but Clinton" crud is getting old. Lying to save a traitorous SOB like Darth Cheney who was less interested in national security or the lives of the CIA agent and all of her contacts and more interested in extracting some sort of revenge against those who DARED to speak against the throne vs about a private matter that affects no one (BJ) and was FOUND NOT GUILTY BY THE SENATE...uh yeah I can see the similarities.
By the way I checked the CNN link....and NOTHING about a juror who didn't know what the Scooter trial was about. Do you always just make things up?
The CIA seemed to think there was a problem with outing one of their agents. Are you going to repeat the story that she, Valerie Wilson ( name per request), was a glorified desk jocky. The link to the jury statement does not support you. Perhaps Newt should have given Bill some pointers on how to keep an affair out of the publics eye, or how to keep you money in your wallet. You'd have probably enjoyed the sexual harassment suit run all the way out, with hot and cold graphic descriptions. Then complained he wasn't attending to the countries business. Anyone have an opinion on how that trial would have ended? Countless subordinates told to lie? A few names would be nice. How is that worse than putting CIA personnel in jepordy. Concentual sex is that big a deal for you? Nobody would pay Bill to speak if his wife wasn't a US Senator? Fill in the blanks please.
Yeah right, "the CIA" which includes employes who think and act lilke many here on this site would have a problem with anything they decided to have a problem with. Playing politics instead of doing their job.
What about de corn smut?
What about reality?
You cry for progress.
I scream for Ice Cream!
So we shouldnt take the CIA's word for who is and who isnt a covert CIA agent. I guess we have to rely on Limbaugh then. Go back to your bridge troll you are worthless
"The CIA's word" just who are you talking about? Which employee of the CIA are you talking about? If the janitor at the CIA said Plame was covert does that make it so. A public investigation of the CIA would need to be held to prove this point, so far it has not been the focus of the investivation....sadly.
If the CIA releases her job description and status, what more investigation needs to be done? Why would they be lying about that? Really, if this whole thing is a scam by the CIA to "get" Bush, then surely there would have been a major bloodbath as a result of it.
Wow the inanity of that post is just off the chart. As Brabantio pointed out they released her official job summary exactly what more do you want? This argument is over only the most comitted propagandists are still even TRYING to pretend this is still in dispute
Both of these quacks (Schwartz and Powers) appeared on the O'Reilly program yesterday, with the title underneath each of them: "Democratic Strategist". What a love fest that had with the vile Malkin. They spent not much more than 1 minute on the Libby situation. But I had to google both of them to make sure that the title Democratic Strategist was not a typo. I thought I was listening to two "good bushies". I will never believe anything Powers or Schwartz say again.
As FOX news understands, presenting complex cases in simple ways (even if your statements can be demonstrated to be false) is acceptable because too many people just don't read and cannot follow simple arguments. Rather than layout out a sequential series of statements defended by arguments leading to a conclusion (which should be in an editorial and not a regular news report - but this is FOX which is ALL editorial), FOX just presents false information knowing their viewers will never check or question. FOX is what it is; a device for selling stuff to viewers and leveraging influence for Murdoc.
My question is how do they find "NewsPeople" to work at FOX? Has the professionalism in the Journalistic field fallen to such a level that ANYONE can self-designate themselves a "NewsPerson" and start talking?
Can we expect to see more of these people on FOX now that the real estate markets are failing? ("Why sell houses when you can be a NewsPerson")
If Libby was the one that "outed" Ms Plame-Wilson, why was he not convicted of same? Why was he only convicted of perjury/obstruction? If "outing" Ms Plame-Wilson is a crime, why is Armitage not under indictment?
And why is OJ not in jail?
Mr. Libby's story that he was at the tail end of a chain of phone calls, passing on from one reporter what he heard from another, was not true," Fitzgerald said.
"He was at the beginning of the chain of phone calls -- the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter -- and then he lied about it afterwards, under oath and repeatedly," he said.
But, didn't NoFacts column beat Ms.Miller's to the street? Is not Armitage at least a co-conspirator? Why has he not been charged? Why was Libby not convicted as the source of the leak rather than perjury/obstruction?
So, what exactly did he tell Novak? "At the end of a wide-ranging interview he asked me, 'Why did the CIA send Ambassador (Wilson) to Africa?' I said I didn't know, but that she worked out at the agency," Armitage says. Armitage says he told Novak because it was "just an offhand question." "I didn't put any big import on it and I just answered and it was the last question we had," he says. Armitage adds that while the document was classified, "it doesn't mean that every sentence in the document is classified. "I had never seen a covered agent's name in any memo in, I think, 28 years of government," he says. He adds that he thinks he referred to Wilson's wife as such, or possibly as "Mrs. Wilson." He never referred to her as Valerie Plame, he adds. "I didn't know the woman's name was Plame. I didn't know she was an operative," he says. He says he was reading Novak's newspaper column again, on Oct. 1, 2003, and "he said he was told by a non-partisan gun slinger." "I almost immediately called Secretary Powell and said, 'I'm sure that was me,'" Armitage says. Armitage immediately met with FBI agents investigating the leak. "I told them that I was the inadvertent leak," Armitage says. He didn't get a lawyer, however
And still the questions go unanswered, why wasn't Libby charged/convicted of the leak? Why only perjury/obstruction? And why did Armitage get a pass?
I'm assuming Armitage claims he did not "knowingly" out a covert agent. That does not however answer your questions. You are asking the same questions I would like to know. Despite Libby's obstruction, Fitzgerald seems to know exactly what he lied about and exactly what he obstructed. So that leaves Libby, Rove and Cheney open to be charged. Yet it didn't happen.
It didnt happen because Libby lied and covered up enough to obstruct the finding of other elements of the crime that needed to be proven to succesfully prosecute the crime
Here it is in foo'ball terms for y'all:
Libby took one for the team!!
Jeez, quit pretending you are that dense!!
leather is unaware that you can think someone commited a crime, but to prove it you must have evidence that will convince a jury "beyond a reasonable doubt". fitzgerald has said over and over that rove and libby were engaged in a organized effort to give plame's identity to reporters.
Because though it was known he lied about being a leaker other elements have to be proven for it to be a crime including intent and knowlege of the covert status since he LIED and covered up those could not be proven.
According to Patrick Fitzgerald he was lied to by Scooter Libby before the rest of the facts about who was the original source of the leak. That was why Scooter was charged with obstructing justice. I believe the statement from Fitzgerald was Scooter "threw sand in the eyes" of the investigators to take them off the track they were on by lying.
Even people who have not followed the story closely aren't buying the right wing cool aid. At the gas station today in my little (somewhat "red" town) the patrons and clerks were talking about the pardon. The take was, the rich and powerful people always get off, the poor don't.
You really can't spin this story and make it look good to anyone but a real wingnut.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!
But at the end of the day, they knew who did the leak in the first place, and they still spent all this time on this, and I have a lot of issues with these type of cases in general, whether it's Scooter Libby or somebody else. This is not -- once you know the truth, you do not spend time, taxpayer money pursuing people to try to get them basically to trick them to lie under oath, and I mean, it's just -- you know, and we've had other cases like this that I had problems with as well.//POWERS
Just not so disturbed about extending the Independant Prosecutor in Whitewater even after his first 18 months of investigations came up with nothing, yet the Republican Congress fired him to hire Ken Starr who was in operation for the balance of the Clinton Administration and beyond!
And what did Ken Starr find? After railroading people like Susan McDougall to prison in an brazened effort to coerce her to lie under oath against Clinton, he found a "dirty dress" virtually hours before his office was to be shut down!
The $50 million dollar BJ that was so serious that we needed to impeach the President for having lied about it!! Do we have the resources to incarcerate, or prosecute everyone who lies about their sex lives? Then Mark Foley should be serving life, but he has not even faced the Ethics Committee!
I wonder if your teenager is watching the news, for if they are I'll bet the next time the issue of taking responsibility for your actions comes up they'll be citing the Republican leadership as a model of good behavior!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Oh that reminds me, I think Bill pardoned Susan McDougal too. I guess refusing to testify gets rewarded too.
That's politics and the founding fathers gave the chief executive the final say.
Oh that reminds me, I think Bill pardoned Susan McDougal too. I guess refusing to testify gets rewarded too.
That's politics and the founding fathers gave the chief executive the final say. / Leatherhead
Susan McDougal served a substantial portion of her sentence for a conviction obtained with perjured testimony from her husband who was the actual criminal while he cooperated with the Starr investigation which dropped him as a witness in Whitewater only after he sent her to jail!
You compare these two situations while presuming to be sincere!
I think you should check your conscience when you compare these two people's cases to be similar as you would insinuate.
If you still think Susan McDougall should be compared to Scooter Libby, then you obviously factored your conscience out of your argument!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
I find it very ironic that the Repugnicans are once again using Bill Clinton to justify their own misdeeds in pardoning a convicted felon. Weren't they supposed to be the party of laws and justice?
However, the real irony is the mentioning of Clinton's now infamous pardon of Marc Rich. And just who was Rich's lawyer?.....that would be one I. Lewis Libby. Libby represented Rich from 1985 to 2000.
Ironic, don't you think?
Maybe Mr. Leatherhelmet will agree with this...since Pres. Clinton lied about a non-crime, then the Republans should be demanding the Clinton be (?) UN-IMPEACHED. Republans logic...no underlying crime, no perjury
Oh my gosh, I just threw up a little bit:
SCHWARTZ: No, no damage to the GOP
This is rock solid, gold plated proof (as if more was needed) that the fairness doctrine is long overdue. To portray this as the conclusion of a "Democratic strategist" is just a giant pile of excrement. She is stratergizing how to minimize the landslide the Democrats are going to have in 08. I ran into our county chairman last night while setting up parking for tonights celebration of independence from king George and we were both just giddy that our own king George would hand us an issue that the republicans have no way of backing away from. This commutation is going to be pounded back at them for years to come.
According to Bob Woodward and other journalists they were approached with the Plame/CIA story too, but they didn't run with it. This suggests at least a small scale conspiracy. Only Richard Armitage successfully managed to leak it, because he found a irresponsible journalist.
Funny how both Robert Novak, and Judith Miller are conservatives.
Funny how Armitage has scandal experience, having taking a role in the Iran-Contra scandal.
Apparently the only media people that weren't approached were Bill Maher and Farfur.
Here are some very simple facts about the V Plame leak investigation that should not be ignored.
1. She was covert and releasing her name was a crime. Even before the CIA released her status, this was clear. J. Miller's lawyer tried to say she was protected by freedom of the press from naming who gave her PLame's identity. Fitzgerald argued that since the crime (outting a covert CIA operative) was so important, she had to reveal her source (who was Scooter Libby). After going through every appeal through several different judges, every judge said that Fitzgerald was correct. All said after seeing the classified information that the crime was too important to National Security. So, the CIA has said she was covert, Fitzgerald who saw all of the information said she was covert. Every judge to hear any of the cases involved in the fiasco said she was covert. Guess what? That means she was covert.
2. There was more than one leaker. Yes Armitage has admitted that he is the primary source (note that primary means there was at least a secondary source) for Novak's column, but he was hardly the only reporter to be given this information before his column ran. Tim Russert, Judith Miller, David Gregory, John Dickerson, Bob Woodward, Walter Pincus, and Matthew Cooper all said they were told by either Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, or Armitage.
3. There was an underlying crime. This has got ot be the dumbest of all of the talking points. If there was no crime, why did all of the judges who saw the evidence in the J. Miller case, the R. Novak case, and the Scooter Libby case say there was? Not to mention the grand jury who said there was. So those who actually decide these things say yes, there was a crime.
Facts are facts. Stop listening to the idiots on the radio or on TV, or people posting here (including me). Look up the court cases. Look up the rulings. It is all there in black and white and no matter how many times these lies are repeated the truth is there in the rulings.
Soory I failed to mention that Ari Fleischer also leaked the info to some of those reporters.
I'm surprised the reichwing aren't comparing Libby to Daniel Ellsberg, and W Mark Felt.
The comparison is not apt but aped.
the apologists positions are always nonsense when examined. Valerie Wilson was just a minor paper pusher but she also had the pull to get her husband a totally unqualified ex ambassador to Iraq appointed. Armitage was not part of the adminsitration and was a war opponent but he was appointed by Bush to a near cabinet level post and he both singed the PNAC letter to Clinton urging an invasion of Iraq and also makes money off his private security firm in Iraq. Rove did nothing to reveal her name and yet he did the last act needed to allow Novak to publish(giving him the necessary confirmation-remember he did not publish until Rove confirmed). We have to keep intelligence information secret and allow star chamber powers to Bush but there was no need for anyone to ask the CIA first if they should reveal the information.
Valerie Plame was a WMD expert at a time when we need expertise on such matters.
Joe Wilson was a foreign service officer and ambassador from 1976 to 1998. He had previous experience in both Iraq and Africa.
Because of this experience when asked, his wife recommended him, but it was her bosses in the CIA that gave him the assignment. When she was later outed, it was the CIA who initiated the investigation.
As for whether or not people knew she worked for the CIA, one that has been exagerrated like Bush's WMD's, and two just because she worked there doesn't mean she was an agent. I was in the Air Force, but I wasn't a pilot. So people couldn't leap to that conclusion until the CIA ordered the investigation of who leaked and endangered her and all her contacts.
Interesting, isn't it, that no one who's identified him/herself as having held a security clearance has shown any patience with the "no underlying crime" canard?
Even if criminal intent is almost impossible to prove, given the wording of the statute, one thing is strikingly clear. All of those involved had a sworn duty to protect classified information. At the very least they were guilty of dereliction of duty. The fact that Rove's clearance has been renewed makes the fact that this crowd can't be trusted with the defense of the nation obscenely obvious.
I should mention that in the Air Force I had a Top Secret clearance, but it didn't mean I wore a tux, sipped martinis, made it with the babes, or drove Aston Martins.
So the only way people could find out that Plame was a covert operative in the CIA was by certain leakers who essentially commited treason.
In Libby's case it appears to be as an accessory after the fact.
A bit off topic but a belated happy 4th everyone. I love this country!
Is it just me or does the picture of the woman in the video clip have a smarmy, arrogant but yet finely chisled look of stupidity on her face.
It seems the art of nuissance litigation is to bring spectacles of preferential justice, if there's going to be internal affairs or accountability, then it will be assured to meet either the standards of fluff and connivance while juxtapositioning the regime or its servants in the role of the victim. Later in the minutia, it isn't clear what's at stake, and that a mountain of a mockery of justice...when you consider the 9-11 gravamen...has displaced crimnal law enforcement with another media circus. The video clip is about as much cheerleading and enthusiasm as you'd expect from mere employees handed nothing to talk about. No need to bash their physical appearance.