Host, I know you're doing a lot of work here, and many of us (me included) appreciate the effort you put into your posts, but Yakk sort of has a point: I think you'd be more persuasive if you put up a series of excerpts with links, instead of long blockquotes. Many of them aren't self-explanatory in gross, whereas if you picked out the most cogent portions, with a link so that people could read the whole thing if they want, it would be much easier to follow your reasoning. I don't mean to make more work for you, please don't think that's not what I'm advocating.

The government "exhibits" are posted each day:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/

Interesting, but not very helpful without following one the blogs tracking the testimony.

Wake me when Cheney testifies!

loquitur, I am responding to your post directly above this one, but I am displaying the quote from your post before that.

Throughout this thread, and (in others before it....), for two years, I have posted a mix of material that I thought was relevant to my own opinions of what this "Plame leak" investigation is about, and where it is going.

I view you as a reasonable person, politically, more so after reading your posted opinion of Hillary Clinton; finding that you have a much more positive and well explained opinion of her than I do.

I've stressed in a number of posts, this analogy of what Patrick Fitzgerald says that the Libby indictment and trial is about:
....and here is what he actually said in his baseball umpire comparison:
loquitur, I think that you are overlooking several things, but I think that you are genuinely interested in satisfying yourelf as to what this is about.

IMO, the white house (including the OVP in that "wh" term) brought the appointment of the special counsel by #2 at the DOJ, Mr. Comey, upon itself.
If you recall, general Ashcroft recused himself, because he was so close to the folks potentially to be investigated by his dept., and designated Comey to be in charge.....for the purpose of the Plame leak investigation, Comey became the US AJ.....

As the Comey supervised leak investigation progressed....into the fall of 2003,
There were accusations in the press that Ashcroft, recused from overseeing the leak investigation was being briefed on it's particulars and it's progress, and was reporting what he learned to the very people who were being questioned in the investigation.....

Since this was an investigation about whether officials in the white house admin. leaked classified info about the identity of a CIA 'operative" as Novak first described her, during a time of "war", the negative press accounts pressured Ashcroft to go even further to convince that he and his department had no conflict. He authorized Comey to pass on all of the authority of the US AJ, in the matter of the leak investigation and any resulting prosecutions, to an impartial outsider, Fitzgerald.

Comey made it clear that Fitzgerald, unlike Ken Starr previously, did not need to receive any approvals from the DOJ during the course of his investigation. He was vested with all of the authority that Ashcroft or Gonzales has, but just for the matter of the leak investigation.

This step was taken only because of press reporting that gave the impression that Ashcroft was not fully recused, as he had claimed. By receiving briefings, there was an appearance of conflict of interests, since he reported to, and interacted with potential suspects in the Bush administration.

loquitur, my point is that your "big fat zero" comment, influences me to believe that you do not accept (or maybe understand ?) that this trial is where the investigation ended up, because Libby blocked the investigation's progress, and then delayed the trial at least 6 months past where it would have been routinely scheduled....to get it past the mid term election of 2 months ago, and to further bolster his "it's been a long time, and I'm very busy, so I don't remember, and neither can these prosecution witnesses", <b>defense.</b>

Once Libby testified before the grand jury, the second time, and Fitzgerald attempted to compare his testimony with that of reporters who he talked to, Fitzgerald ran into the response of the lawyers at the news outlets that the reporters worked for. If Libby had testified in a way that co-operated with the investigation, or if he had taken a plea deal like Ari Fleischer did after he invoked his 5th amendment rights before the grand jury, the investigation could have moved to a conclusion, of to another stumbling block like the one Libby created.

How is the investigation being halted by what Fitzgerald says was Libby's refusal to testify truthfully, supported by Russert, then Cooper, and finally, when she was released from jail, by Judith Miller, and then by Libby's maneuvering to delay his trial, any indication of "a big fat zero"?

What we know we have here is the POTUS himself saying that anyone found to be not telling the truth to investigators will not continue to serve in his administration, changed to anyone convicted of a crime will not be allowed to serve. Then the white house press secretary told the press that he had spoken to both Rove and Libby, received assurances that neither of them had leaked Plame's identity to any member of the press, and that the press secretary believed the denials of these two fine men.

Now we have sworn testimony from a number of news reporters that Libby and Rove discussed Plame's CIA job and her identity with multiple members of the press.


The CIA requested this investigation of a leak of classified material during war time.

I see no indication that the white house, and especially the OVP, want to find out who leaked, ASAP, in the interests of national security. I see the trial as the renewal of the investigation, after Libby effectively halted it's progress.

Would you have had Fitzgerald declare that he would continue his investigation after he nailed Libby? He has been tight lipped during all of this.
The Libby trial will determine what happens next in the investigation. On the surface, there has been a lot of effort to get it to end here. That seems to say to me that people in the administration had something to hide, and they have not impressed me that they want to find the leaker. They seem comfortable that there is no unknown threat to national security. People at the CIA seem to believe that national security was compromised.

In order to discuss this with me....at the risk of how this may read....you have to be "up to speed" about the details of the trial. I don't think a "play by play" from me is the way other people should follow the trial. I anticipated that that would be a further "turn off" to folks who seem to me to be interested, but harboring misconceptions about what this is about, because of the influences of the "spin" they have focussed on, instead of the actual dispatches....like the ones in this post.

Yakk.....I appreciate your frustration. You're in Canada....I give you credit for following this "mess" at all. I'd be glad to share my opinion, and what influences it.....if you have specific questions....

Actually, you're engaging in several layers of speculation, Host. Let's start with something we can agree on: Libby's crime that he was indicted for was created by the investigation - it didn't exist independent of the investigation, can we agree on that?

The question then becomes, what did he block, if block is what he did? Well, I'm sure stuff will come out in the trial, but you might want to have a look at the Senate Intelligence Committee report on this stuff to see what was cooking with former Amb. Wilson, what he reported, how he ended up getting to Niger, etc etc etc. You also may want to read the text of the Intelligence Identities and Protection Act of 1982 and the rules relating to agents, specifically that (if I recall correctly) it's a crime to blow an agent's cover IF the agent was undercover overseas in the previous five years. Ms Plame wasn't. So in terms of the underlying crimes - what technically can be charged as a crime under the applicable statutes - it's not clear there is something there or ever really was. I might be missing something here, and I'm sure Fitzgerald has plenty more we haven't seen yet, but so far that's what I see.

What may have happened here - what appears to me to make sense as a scenario - is that when Wilson surfaced, there was a mad scramble in the administration to find out who the hell is this guy, who sent him to Africa, what his instructions were, what he reported, etc etc etc. And it turned up after a few questions got asked that his wife worked at the CIA. The rules governing what can and can't be discussed, when it can be discussed and with whom and on what terms are not very simple. I once had a case under the Ethics in Government Act (different statute than the one at issue here, but also with contact restrictions and time periods) and it was a bloody mess to analyze. The classification and intelligence secrecy rules can't be any easier than that. Add to that the fluid situation here where the facts weren't all that clear either. Mix into it the press clamoring around for stories, interviews, facts, exclusives. And what this criminal trial is about, I think, is whether <i>Libby believed</i> the info about Plame was classified or not, and if he thought it was, whether he deliberately lied about his conversations.

That's two levels of fact that have to be established in this case. It still doesn't get you to an underlying crime. You really do need to read the actual statutory language and establish that Valerie Plame's status was covered in order to get a crime here. Citing newspaper articles doesn't cut it.

And look, I understand you <i>want</i> the scenario you pieced together to be true, but right now it's very far from established. It's a theory. Maybe it works, maybe not.

Fitzgerald had a very good reputation, so I tend to take his analyses seriously. On the other hand, strange things seem to happen to perfectly reputable people when they become special prosecutors.

Bear in mind, Rove went back there something like five times to testify. So far we don't know what Fitzgerald thinks was blocked from doing, which avenues he thought he'd get to pursue if only he had more time. He sure seems to have been thorough, doesn't he?

Loquitor...according to the indictment:

1f....At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson's affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community.

25. On or about September 26, 2003, the Department of Justice authorized the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") to commence a criminal investigation into the possible unauthorized disclosure of classified information regarding the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's affiliation with the CIA to various reporters in the spring of 2003.

27. Beginning in or about January 2004, and continuing until the date of this indictment, Grand Jury 03-3 sitting in the District of Columbia conducted an investigation ("the Grand Jury Investigation") into possible violations of federal criminal laws, including: Title 50, United States Code, Section 421 (disclosure of the identity of covert intelligence personnel); and Title 18, United States Code, Sections 793 (improper disclosure of national defense information), 1001 (false statements), 1503 (obstruction of justice), and 1623 (perjury).

28. A major focus of the Grand Jury Investigation was to determine which government officials had disclosed to the media prior to July 14, 2003 information concerning the affiliation of Valerie Wilson with the CIA, and the nature, timing, extent, and purpose of such disclosures, as well as whether any official making such a disclosure did so knowing that the employment of Valerie Wilson by the CIA was classified information.

29. During the course of the Grand Jury Investigation, the following matters, among others, were material to the Grand Jury Investigation:

i. When, and the manner and means by which, defendant LIBBY learned that Wilson's wife was employed by the CIA;

ii. Whether and when LIBBY disclosed to members of the media that Wilson's wife was employed by the CIA;

iii. The language used by LIBBY in disclosing any such information to the media, including whether LIBBY expressed uncertainty about the accuracy of any information he may have disclosed, or described where he obtained the information;

iv. LIBBY's knowledge as to whether any information he disclosed was classified at the time he disclosed it; and

v. Whether LIBBY was candid with Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in describing his conversations with the other government officials and the media relating to Valerie Wilson.

Full text of the indictment.

The charge that Libby allegedly committed perjury in his grand jury testimony and providing false information in the FBI investigation would seem to me to potentiallly impede the focus of the investigation (as identified in clauses 27, 28 listed above, making clause 29 material as noted) and not as you stated, "exist independent of the investigation."

But as you said, "The rules governing what can and can't be discussed, when it can be discussed and with whom and on what terms are not very simple."

It seems to be that a participant in those discussion who would allegedly commit perjury and make false statements during the investigation would make it even more difficult to determine if laws regarding disclosure of classified information were broken.

Just my lay interpretation.

Couldn't the same thing be said about Clinton's perjury and later impeachment in the house?

Rekna, that's true of part but not all as to Clinton. Clinton's problems came initially from his deception in his deposition in the Paula Jones civil case. The rest of the stuff mushroomed out of that. OoJ, of course, sort of requires that there be an investigation, so yes, that piece of it and part of the lying charges came out of the investigation rather than out of independently existing conduct. It's kinda interesting: my law partner opined back then that Clinton should have just defaulted in the Jones case and then had a trial about damages (on the theory that there weren't any). That way he would not have had to testify and all this stuff would never have come up.

dc_dux, those sections of the indictment don't say she was undercover overseas during that time, only that her "employement status" was classified. Do you know what that means? I don't. I doubt it means that the fact she worked at the CIA was secret, because she drove her car openly to and from Langley every day. I suspect it means that <i>what her specific duties were at the CIA</i> were classified.

Classification rules are a bit different from "blowing cover", and - as you know - they are routinely disregarded by pretty much everyone: we wouldn't have much news reporting otherwise. But even taking the classification rules at face value, bear in mind that her status was disclosed by Armitage initially.

This does get hard to keep track of after a while. So far, what I see is that there is massive "he said-she said" going on here. I think I mentioned I'm a lawyer, so I find "he said-she said" stuff to be fairly unpersuasive, though if that is all we have to go on in a particular case, we have to make the best of it. Most cases involving organizations aren't like that because people write stuff down. Contemporaneous documents are the most persuasive evidence we have.

IMO, if the observer from slate.com , who's description closely matches what the blogger, "emptywheel" observed in the third quote box, is correct, and you add the citations in my two preivous posts, linked here:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...rs#post2117020
the preceding link contains:
<b>....and now we know that Ari Fleischer admitted leaking Plame's name to NBC's David Gregory, and at least one other reporter....and then went for an immunity deal and will trade away Scooter to pay for it.....</b>

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...rs#post2116486

...it is now my contention that this is over. Libby and his lawyers should be working to obtain a plea deal for him, BEFORE Ari Fleischer testifies.

I predict that won't happen and Libby will be convicted of perjury, based largely on Fleischer's testimony:

sorry, I don't see how all this fits here.
But then, I don't see conspiracies everywhere.

loquitur, you're an attorney, I'm just a lay person with too much time on his hands.....

Here's a link to Judge Walton's 38 page order, in response to Libby's defense team's "graymail" demands:

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/mai...inion_CIPA.pdf

Here is a much better explanation of the defense team's strategy and demands on the government and on the judge:
Libby 's request for classified material was contingent on him taking the witness stand and testifying that he was "too busy" around July 11, 2003, to remember that he had been told, at least a month before, that "Wilson's wife" worked for the CIA.

He later testified before the Plame leak investigation, that he learned it. "as if for the first time", from Tim Russert. Russert gave a sworn statement saying that he never discussed Wilson's wife with Libby.

This week, Libby's attorney tried to work the CIPA material into his opening, and he told the jury that Ari Fleischer would be giving "bargained testimony" against Libby, because he had made an immunity agreement with prosecutor Fitzgerald.

If you are genuinely interested in understanding my point, please go back and read the last quote box in my last post, and then persuade me that Libby is an innocent defendent represented by a zealous defense team that is acting ethically and is trying to avoid pissing off Judge Walton and the prosecution.
How convincing will Libby's "important man, important job....too busy to remember" defense" look to the jury, if he does not testify....to describe the CIPA material that was supposed to be indispensable to properly defend himself, and after Ari Fleischer testifies that Libby discussed Plame's identity with him, 3 days before Libby swore that Russert "told" him, and when Ari describes being so concerned that he committed a crime when he passed along what Libby told him, that he refused to testify before the same grand jury, invoking his fifth amendment rights?

You know what, Host? Ted Wells is a lot smarter than you or me or just about any of the reporters (as to the latter that's not really saying much). Judge Walton is a big boy, he's been around the block, and he knows which requests are real and which are tactical. He's not likely to get pissed off; most of the federal judges I know view this stuff as being all in a day's work. A lot of this stuff, including from the prosecution, is an elaborate kabuki dance, with the jury as the intended audience.

As you know, I'm an attorney, which is why I don't convince myself of stuff early in a case I'm not involved with. I know better. (For instance, it took a good few weeks for me to be convinced OJ really was guilty. After that, though, I was pretty hard to dissuade, and to this day I think that jury in his criminal case didn't decide the case on the facts.)

loquitur,

Joe diGenova & Vic(ky) Toensing were bth smart enough to pass the bar and become federal prosecutors....but they both have less credibility than a broken clock....

Clarice masqerades as an attorney and as a "thinker"......

....I've just named three lawyers who seem to view the Plame leak investigation as an excuse to take stupid pills.....and I'm hoping that all of them STFU when Libby exhausts all of his appeals.....around 2014.....

au contraire, Host, I think you're persuading yourself of stuff that people who know the process and have gone through it know better than to take at face value. IIRC, DiGenova was himself a special prosecutor at one time. I understand you want Libby to hang, but you're jumping to conclusions now based on less than full information. Stupid pills? I don't think so. There's a reason judges instruct juries not to make up their minds until all the evidence is in.

What I can tell you is that, when I worked in the courthouse for a federal judge 21 years ago, one thing I learned fairly quickly is that reporters (even legal reporters, who are supposed to know the process) simply do not and probably cannot get it right. If they get 80-85% they're ahead of the game. It's not malicious; it's a combination of time pressure, lack of immersion, issues of perspective and idiosyncracy.

And that's why it's important to get your news from different sources so that you can filter your inputs. I have no idea what the evidence will show down the road - and neither do you. What I do know is that I have a life and I'm not going to spend it reading trial transcripts in a case I'm not involved in.

The other thing is this: have you decided that Cathie Martin and Ari Fleischer are reliable witnesses? Would your opinion have been different a year ago, before you knew they were going to testify for the prosecution in the Libby trial? Mull over that question and be honest with yourself, then consider the implications of your answer.

I should add something else, and this is politically incorrect. In most criminal trials the defendant is guilty. There are a few reasons for that. (1) Prosecutors have limited resources and don't want to squander them on cases where there is substantial doubt about whether they can get a conviction. (2) The criminal process is set up so that there are levels of proof at succeeding stages of the case. As you go through the process, the chance that the person identified isn't guilty of something gets smaller and smaller.

There are countervailing propositions, though: (1) if a defendant knows he is likely to be convicted he usually can improve his outcome by cutting a deal to avoid trial and give the prosecutors something. (2) Related to this, the more chance a defendant sees of possibly being acquitted due to failure of proof or otherwise (and remember, a prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a high standard), the more likely he'll go to trial. So if the defendant goes to trial and didn't cop a plea, his/her attorney has made a judgment that there is a reasonable chance of punching through the government's proof.

That's the reasoning in a normal case. When there is a special prosecutor the calculation is totally different because the special prosecutor by definition has no other cases competing for his attention, and the target of the inquiry is likely to be high enough in the hierarchy that the chances of a plea go down because there is no one to be offered up in a plea deal. That drives more of the cases to trial, and also means that the evidence is likely to be somewhat thinner. Bear in mind, though, that Fitzgerald declined to indict a lot of others, which means he made a judgment he couldn't get convictions as to them but could get a conviction as to Libby.

I'm pointing all this out because the dynamic of how these things work tends to get lost here. I said up above that I am generally suspicious of special prosecutors because they get married to their missions. That doesn't mean they're always wrong, but you can't make the inferential leap from the existence of evidence for an indictment to sufficiency of evidence for a conviction, especially in a case like this one. Otherwise you have to accept Ken Starr's work, too.

loquitur, I think that I've prevented plenty of support at the two following links for my opinion that both DiGenova, and his wife, Toensing, should neve be allowed in a court room again....they have thrown away their integrity and credibility via blind partisanship with a greed driven dividend:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...8&postcount=36

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...5&postcount=35

<b>IMO, Ari Fleischer's testimony reinforced my suspicion that Clarice Feldman (see above) is correct less often than a broken clock is......</b>

Before you read Ari Fleischer's testimony about Libby and Dan Bartlett, consider that the State Dept. INR :
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the...l_evidence.pdf
that Bartlett was reading on Air Force One on July 7, 2003, described Wilson's wife as a CIA employee, and the word "secret" is handwritten near the top of the document, and that it has "provisionally de-classified, (so that it could be used as evidence in Libby's trial...) later stamped on it, too. See for yourself, at the preceding link.....it seems safe to assume that Libby and Bartlett had to know that this information was classified when they both told Fleischer, without telling him that it was classified info.
<b>Background of trial reporter/blogger, "emptywheel":</b>
http://www.mlive.com/printer/printer...920.xml&coll=2
Blogger to provide Libby trial play-by-play Local consultant expert on the scandal
Monday, January 22, 2007.......

<b>In the immediately preceding sentences, is the testimony of Cheney's current COS, and former Office of VP Counsel, David Addington. The following Jan. 29 morning cross-examination segment of Cheney PS, Cathy Martin, by Libby's lawyer Wells, established that the "Reagan aircraft carrier trip" described by David Addington, is the "July 12. Travel to Norfolk"</b>

.....so we have testimony from Ari Flesicher that Libby took him to lunch for the only time, ever, and told him that "Wilson's wife" was named "Plame", and that she worked in the:
....Fleischer testified that Libby did not say that this information was classified...just that it was "hush, hush"...."on the QT". Fleischer testified that he did not pass this info along to news reporters, until after....a day later, he heard his white house boss, Dan Bartlett, say, out loud, while talking to himself but with Fleischer, nearby, in a small enclosed section on "Air Force One", <b>""I can't believe he or they are saying that the VP sent Amb Wilson to Niger, his wife sent him, she works at CIA."</b>

David Addington's testimony fixed the date (...about Fri., 7/11/03..) that Libby asked him if the president could declassify, classified infromation, and if there were paper records at CIA on employees there who worked "on the Operations or Analytical side".....

Addington's testimony also included his recollection that, after Libby asked his questions of the then OVP chief Counsel, Libby joined Cheney and now NSC advisor, Stephen Hadley, in a closed door meeting in Cheney's office.....

<b>loquitur, if you've gotten this far, would you agree that the corporate press outlets are doing a shitty job of covering this trial, considering the testimony to date, and the fact that Karl Rove still enjoys a high level security clearance that provides access to classified material, is curious....especially during wartime....since he's already an established leaker of Plame's name and CIA employment, to reporters?</b>

Host, couple of observations. First, something isn't true or false based on who says it. Second, waiting until a lot more of the evidence is in before arriving at conclusions is usually a good idea in a trial - and that would be true no matter who said it. For instance, you don't know what the defense's case looks like, do you? I sure don't. There was something about Cheney testifying but I don't know who else might - and I don't think anyone else does, either (except Ted Wells and his people).

Beyond that, though, there was more to my post above, most of which had to do with some trial dynamics that you're just ignoring:

And there is far more here to read than any human being who has a job can follow if that human being isn't cherry-picking stories. See, for example, the Media Bloggers Association's <A HREF="http://www.mediabloggers.org/aggregator/categories/3">news aggregation page</A> on the Libby Trial.

Post in progress.... (not finished yet !)

Seymour Hersh started asking questions much sooner than Joe Wilson's July 6 2003 op-ed piece:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten...030331fa_fact1

http://wotisitgood4.blogspot.com/200....html#comments

On March 23, 2003, it looks like Bush gave Cheney unprecedented authorization to de-classify secret info about Wilson's trip to Niger:
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0414nj3.htm

....this coincides with Hersh's work on his article, published in New Yorker issue dated March 31, 2003......

I'd guess Libby probably won't spend time in jail. Either an acquittal or a reversal on appeal. But then, I've been wrong before.

don't forget the pardon option either.

I wonder how fair a trial that is this political can be. We have all seen people who support a certain party over another regardless of how wrong something they did is. What are the chances of someone like that ending up in the jury pool and the jury coming back hung.

Guilty- one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury and one count of making false statements

Not Guilty - one count of making false statements

Just the latest example in Washington that the cover up (in this case lying to protect Cheney) may often get you in more trouble than the crime.

Does Libby's conviction on 4 of 5 counts, after looonnnnggggg, careful, jury deliberation....in a trial where Libby failed to take the stand to defend himself, in his own words, in a trial where the defense told the court that both Libby and Cheney would testify in Libby's defense.....but never did..... indicate to anyone else that some of us didn't "have this right", during the whole length of this CIA "classified leak" investigation.....or....am I missing something...?

This is good news. Though it is not over yet. They are requesting a new trial if that is denied they will appeal. If that is denied then I expect a pardon as Bush is leaving office.

He obstructed an investigation into a CIA complaint of a deliberate leak of classified info, motivated by political revenge, carried out with the knowledge and involvement of the VP of the US.

He committed these crimes during a "time of war". Wouldn't ten years in prison be a more appropriate sentence?

Not that it really matters anymore....but:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/


One more silly excuse, out the window

Does Fitgerald explain why he did not bring charges against anyone for blowing Plame's covert status? Given the information presented and presumed information, this should be a charge easy to prove and get a conviction on.

Yes it has been explained ace. The law states you must prove intent, not just that the leak happened. Intent is almost impossible to prove in a case like this.

ace, please go down the list of threads on this forum and read what Fitzgerald stated in court at Libby's trial, at the

"Are Supporters of the VP and Libby Aiding and Abetting War Time Treasonous Acts ?" thread....

I think that your POV has been clouded by the republican "noise machine", when it comes to what Fitzgerald has said and done. Now, the excuse from folks like Victoria Toensing, et al, that <b>"no underlying crime was committed"</b>, is gone.

I detailed and supported in the "Aiding and Abetting" thread, that Rep. Henry Waxman's (D-CA) House Committee, elicited testimony from the white house chief of security, that no internal white house investigation was ever launched to attempt to determine who in the executive branch, leaked the details of Plame's CIA employment. Waxman wrote a follow up letter questioning this security lapse to Bush's COS, Josh Bolton.

Fitzgerald has done his job, ace. Libby, by his obstruction, "threw sand in the umpire's face....obscuring the play", as Fitzgerald likened Libby's crimes, in his October, 2005 press conference.

What Waxman now has is proof that there was no backing to Bush's empty, Sept., 30, 2003 rhetoric that leaking classified info:
...because the white house security chief has now testified that neither Bush or anyone else asked him to attempt to find out who leaked Plame's classified employment details.

Fitzgerald has set the stage, ace. He's proved that Libby, Karl Rove, Ari Flesicher, and others...at the white house, all intentionally leaked classified info about a covert CIA agent, during war time.

The "ball" is now in the court of Rep. Waxman's investigative congressional committee, and, from what I can see, his committee is running with the ball.

Stay tuned....

Seems he already has enough to charge the man.....and as Rekna said, this information has become irrellevant.....thus my "not that it really matters".


Dont you trust the CIA Ace?

It seems that that the most important issue, the leak, is being down played for some reason, and it is not clear to me why.

Rekna says this:

And Host says this:

It will be interesting to see what happens next.

Because you asked - No, I don't trust the CIA. I am not saying they are untruthful on the status of Plame, but generally the CIA is in the business of deception.

ace, I think that we now have enough information to justify asking the question, "what have you and others who are, and have been, critical of Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation of the Plame CIA leak, and successful prosecutor of Scooter Libby, been right, or even accurate about"?

Name one thing, ace. Where on earth, do you get the confidence from, that enables you to continue to post your skepticism, your continued questioning of Patrick Fitzgerald's decision making? Hasn't everything that he has so delicately pursued, and spoken so infrequently in public about, come to pass, so far?

I don't think the conviction of Libby was proper, first because of the issue a materiality. If we are going to convict people on the charge of perjury while not persuing the underlying reason for the investigation, I don't like that form of justice. I think it sets a new standard for people to plead the 5th or request immunity rather than voluntarily answer questions during an investigation. I know this is not an issue of me being right, I just know what I would do in the future if I were in a position like Libby. I would plead the 5th, qualify all my answers or say I don't recall the exact details.

Fitzgerald knew Libby was not the source of the leak, the basis of his perjury conviction was one persons word or another's, on the otherhand there appears to be clear evidence of the leak. I find it odd how Fitzerald choice to persue one case and not the other. Again, it not an issue of me being right, but I ask the question.

This matter has not been concluded. Libby will appeal. Plame has filed a lawsuit, and I assume it is possible for other legal action can be taken. So we will see what happens.

I assume Fitzgerald's shit stinks as bad as mine. I don't have a problem with questioning his decision making, or the decision making of anyone else. I don't bow-down to any man.

Did I miss your point?

Do you think Fitzgerald is above being questioned?

Please tell me I missed your point!
Fitgerald is doing his job. I have no problem with that or how he did his job, but he is a "hired gun". He is a paid advocate and would use his skill to argue one side of an argument or the other. He is not deserving of hero worship in my opinion. Just because a case is lost or won does not mean justice was done. However, I have not seen a clear answer to the question about why he did not bring to trial the most important element of the entire investigation.

After millions of dollars spent, what have we really ended up with, an iffy prosecution of Libby - were he may get 0 jail time, win on appeal, or get a Presidential pardon?

Ace the problem with proving intent in a situation like this is you need to have a letter, memo, or confession which says they intended to do it. Otherwise they can claim it was an accident and there is no way to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't.

The investigation was to try and uncover one of those memos or letters. Unfortunately the investigation, like many investigations involving this administration, was stonewalled and the Republican congress aided in that stonewalling.

Host, if you saw the debate last night you probably saw Giuliani comment on the Libby issue. Perhaps, I have no credibility in your book, but what do you say about Giuliani's crdibility and opinion?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/05/us...wanted=11&_r=1

IMO, Giuliani hypocritcally and baselessly attacked special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's motives, falsely claimed that Plame was "not covert", and that no underlying crime was committed, and yet later, he embraced his support for the "rule of law". Sad, deliberatley misleading, embracing of Libby's criminal activity, direct confrontation with Libby jury and with sentencing judge opinion, yesterday. Political pandering at it's worst, from Giuliani, a former prosecutor, himself.

As pointed out on dailykos.com, it isn't hard to understand that one reason there has been no further indictment is that Scooter Libby obfuscated and obscured the evidence, for which he was convicted. To say Libby's conviction is meaningless because the investigation did not bear the fruit originally intended is circular to a ridiculous extreme.

Giuliani may have been a prosecutor, but I don't take him at face value here. He's got a dog in the fight.

Besides, don't we now understand that it is entirely appropriate for prosecutors to support partisan agendas?

Giuliani is dismissed, opinion not valid, he has an agenda.

I bet everyone who disagrees with you guys on the Libby issue will be dismissed.

Here is another, from the editorial pages of IBD.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/e...65936446358094
I am guessing what the response will be,....

The only opinion that counts (and is not influenced by having a political agenda like Guiliani) is that of Judge Reggie Walton:
As to the issue raised in ace's IBD editorial (and all around the right wing blogs) regardind the underlying offense...."There is no evidence in the record here to support a finding that an underlying offense was actually committed by Mr. Libby or anyone else"....even Libby's attorneys acknowledged that is not relevant:
Will the wingnuts next claim be that Walton is a closet liberal?

Oh my! Did DC just dismiss the opinions of everyone in the world other than Walton's? Impressive. I did not guess that would be the response. However, if the trial is appealed the opinions of others may still make a difference. Also, the Presdent's opinion may matter as well if he or she considers a pardon.

And, I wonder if those celebrating this conviction and sentence have considered the long-term implications. Sure there is the obvious implication, that they got someone linked directly to the White House, but what about the issue raised in the article about public service? What about the issue of people cooperating with investigations in the future without immunity, pleading the 5th, or simply being vague for fear of getting the Libby treatment (the Libby treatment could happen to conservative or liberal)? Do these questions not matter? Since everyone's opinion on this is being summarily dismissed, I guess not.

All Libby needed to do was tell the damn truth, or plead the fifth if he would incriminate himself. He did neither....and instead lied under oath.

Book him Danno.

As for the "Obvious Implication", I would hope it is actually....Do Not Lie Under Oath.

He thought he was telling the truth. Do you remember how and when you first found out that Plame worked for the CIA?

The implication of the Libby conviction suggests that if you answer the question in a manner were someone or something contradicts your answer you could face 2.5 years in jail and a $250,000, even when no underlying crime was commited to establish the reason for the question. Whould you take the risk and answer the question?

Underlying crime has nothing to do with it, as dc_dux stated in post #136.

It's obstruction or perjury or it isn't. Otherwise, the incentive would exist to do a GREAT job of obstruction and perjuring to prevent any convictions - then no one's liable.

It is hard to believe Ace....that even with the amount of evidence out there, including this:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=7262723

You still believe Libby was honestly forgetful. I suppose you also think Gonzalez simply forgot everything he claims as well? These men lied in an attempt to cover the misdeeds....it seems quite obvious to me.

A perjury conviction requires materiality. I think it is fair to debate the materiality of Libby's statements during the investigation and the relationship to the underlying crime being investigated.

If for example a federal investigation is being conducted on insurance fraud and they ask you questions about your morgage broker, and you say under oath his name was John but the paperwork says it was Jim, did you commit perjury? On the otherhand, if you are asked about the contractor who gave you an inflated estimate, who you were going to split the insurance proceeds with, and you say it was John but it later proved to be Jim, did you comit perjury? I think there is a difference.

I think I have an understanding of what the White House was trying to do the Plame and her husband.

I also think I have an understanding of what the prosecution of Libby is all about, given the fact that Fitzgerald knew who leaked Plames indentity and took no action agaist that person.

I also think I have an understanding of how after over 8 hours of questioning, anyone can find a basis for perjury against the most honest person in the world given this new standard.

I also think I have an understanding that the penalty for Libby's crime is not directly related to what he was charged with. Part of the penalty is punitive for what could not be proved in court.

To save some of you the effort, yes-I could be totally wrong, yes - my opinion, no - I have not listed 15 links and pages of quotes to support my views, yes-I have biases, yes - I have the nerve to question the judgement of the jury, the judge and fitzgerald, etc, etc,etc.

Ok then...so what your saying is you are aware of the administrations illegal tactics, but take issue with the way they are being prosecuted. Fair enough, and in fact I agree with you. It is indeed a pity no one has been charged yet with the actual crime in question.....but I don't think its quite over yet.

I think things are slowly catching up with Rove as well.

I have written about the administrations tactics several times. I have stated that the tactics were not "nice" and that it is possible that Plame is an innocent victim, although I don't think she is.

Eventhough the tactics of the administration were not "nice" they have not been proved to be illegal.

I have questioned several times on TFP why Fitzgerald never brought charges against the outing of Plame. I think the reason is because the law was not violated, I am not really clear on what you and others think. I know the standard to prove the case is high, but I don't see why that would matter when Fitzgerald has all the resources he would need to bring the case to trial.

Also, why not present the evidence to a jury and infront of a judge, create a judicial public record so everyone can see what the facts are relative to the law. Right now there is alot of speculating going on (I am willing admit when I am speculating), on both sides of this issue.

ace let's not forget that he was proven guilty of perjury by a jury of his peers beyond a reasonable doubt. To claim that he just forgot details is dismissing the opinion of the 12 people who know a lot more about this case than any of us. It was proven in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt that he lied under oath and his defense that his memory was faulty did not hold up in court. Stop with the straw man arguments.

Following that, Rekna, I'd note that an appeal is a completely reasonable and appropriate response. I'm quite interested to see how that goes.

I'm sort of split on the possibility of the judge denying bail and sending him to jail pending appeal. An appeal is part of Libby's rightful recourse, and he's hardly a flight risk or a danger in the meantime. I understand that part of the reasoning may be that the judge understands that this may be a case in which Bush will issue a pardon (and the judge feels this would be inappropriate). If Libby was free during appeal, the pardon could effectively wait until the end of Bush's term, minimizing the political cost of it's use. By sending Libby to jail immediately, the judge forces Bush to choose between not issuing a pardon, letting Libby sit in jail for more than half his sentence before pardon, and assuming the political costs of the pardon immediately.

I'm split because, if used, this tactic seems a little...politically calculated to me, and that is a little farther than I'm comfortable seeing the judiciary go. After all, no matter how guilty or heinous I may think the Bush administration's actions have been, they and their loyalists deserve the full extent of their rights and privileges. The flip side is that the political fallout of the Libby pardon would come from the people, so perhaps forcing that on Bush is a non-political move in that it brings the force of the people's will to bear.

I may not be clear when discussing the potential crime of exposing a covert CIA agent, and perjury and obstruction of justice. Libby was found guilty of the crime of perjury and obstruction of justice. No one in the administration has been found guilty of outing a covert CIA agent. My questions on the second issue are important to me. I have already made up my mind on the Libby issue. I am not sure what you mean by saying I am using strawman arguements. We know just because someone is found guilty or innocent in a court of law doesn't mean they were in fact guilty or innocent.

I hate to bring up Clinton but he wasn't found guilty of any crime either. Neither was OJ. That of course doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed. The point of an investigation is to find out A) was a crime committed and B) who broke the law. It is perfectly fine to have an investigation without conclusive proof that a crime was committed as long as there is reasonable evidence that one may have been committed. In this case there was evidence that a crime may have been committed. Libby decided to lie under oath about what he knew and thus perjured himself. I'm sorry but to say the someone can only be guilty of perjury if someone is found guilty of an underlying crime is hogwash because if people are lying then there is a good chance that no one will be found guilty of a crime! Don't you see the circularness of your argument?

People have been found guilty of crimes they did not commit also.

If you read what I wrote about perjury, I used the word "material". It is not a strawman or circular argument to discuss if Libby's statements under oath were material to the investigation of an underlying crime.

Also, regarding Clinton, what was his punishment for his perjury? By the way (and I have stated this) I did not think Clinton's testimony about Lewinski was material and I would not have found him guilty of that crime if I served on a jury hearing that case.

Well, he was impeached (equivalent to indicted AFAIK) and acquitted in a show trial. If anything, pursuing indictment and letting the jury (of peers or of legislators, as appropriate) try the case shows consistency in my opinion. Let the jury find as it will in the case. It's not like Libby can't/won't appeal, which effectively gives him multiple chances for a favorable outcome. Seems fair to me. If there is really an arguable case for innocence, one of the levels of appeal will say so.

In other words there was no jail time and no fine.

Actually, in other words, a jury found Clinton innocent, which throws a kink in your comparison, as a jury found Libby guilty.

I was wrong for suggesting Clinton was found guilty of perjury.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeach...f_Bill_Clinton

ace....did you take the time to look at any of the evidence that Fitzgerald presented to the jury before you made up your mind?
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/

Did you read the transcript of the trial and the testimony of witnesses?

If not, do you really think you had enough relevant information to make an objective informed decision?

I didn't even realize that's where you were headed with that. Thanks for clarification.

I look at some but not all of the evidence and testimony. Based on what I saw, I did not think the matter should have been tried.

Well apparently a Grand Jury, a District Attorney's office, A judge and 12 juror's felt differently.

If you read the letters of support for Libby, it soon becomes clear, his nature of helping others at his expense. This would include letting others take credit for his labors. It seems ole dead eye Dick, chose his assistant wisely.

The other issue I've found interesting is, the White House (Why Don't We Say Bush?) continues to refuse release of the CIA's damage assessment regarding Plame's outing.

This thread's OP, on page #1:
My response to the above OP, also on page #1:
....and new, today:

Which of your friends were duped, and by whom?

Perhaps I am splitting hairs, but sometimes the details matter. None of the people listed by McClellan were in fact the original source of the leak.

Unfortunately, for me at least, people on the front line who should have known better (not telling lies at the time) have no credibility when they come out after the fact and say they were "duped". From my point of view at the moment Plame was outed, I strongly suspected the administration was involved. I was note "duped", I would have most likely done the same thing in order to send a message to CIA agents using their spouses to undermine the credibility of the administration. If McClellan actually thought no one in the administration discussed Plame or was in-part involved in developing a strategy to address the issue, McClellan was pretty naive. But I actually think he has carefully crafted his words to sell books. I would have actually preferred if he was naive, I strongly dislike sell-outs.

But with all of that, I gusess we should really wait for the book to come out to actually get the quote in full context.