The Plame affair....... - Page 4 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Rekna · 03-06-2007, 09:51 AM

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.

host · 05-26-2007, 12:05 AM

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?

Quote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070525/...cia_leak_trial
By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer Fri May 25, 7:01 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby has shown no remorse for corrupting the legal system and deserves to spend 2 1/2 to three years in prison for obstructing the
CIA leak investigation, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said Friday.
ADVERTISEMENT

Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President
Dick Cheney and an assistant to
President Bush, is the highest-ranking White House official convicted since the
Iran-Contra affair two decades ago.

In court documents, Fitzgerald rejected criticism from Libby's supporters who said the leak investigation had spun out of control. Fitzgerald denied the prosecution was politically motivated and said Libby brought his fate upon himself.

"The judicial system has not corruptly mistreated Mr. Libby," Fitzgerald wrote. "Mr. Libby has been found by a jury of his peers to have corrupted the judicial system."

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton, who has a reputation for handing down tough sentences, has broad discretion over Libby's fate. Walton faces two important questions: whether to send Libby to prison and, if so, whether to delay the sentence until his appeals have run out.

Libby's lawyers have not filed their sentencing documents yet but are expected to ask that he receive no jail time. They have said that if Walton orders prison time, they will ask that Libby be allowed to remain free during appeals.

Libby was convicted in March of lying to investigators about what he told reporters regarding CIA officer
Valerie Plame, whose 2003 exposure touched off the leak probe. Plame was identified in a newspaper column after her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, began criticizing the Bush administration's prewar intelligence on
Iraq.

Libby "lied repeatedly and blatantly about matters at the heart of a criminal investigation concerning the disclosure of a covert intelligence officer's identity," Fitzgerald wrote. "He has shown no regret for his actions, which significantly impeded the investigation."

No one was charged with the leak itself, including the initial source of the disclosure, former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. Fitzgerald was aware early on that Armitage was the original source of the leak.

Libby's supporters have said that proves Fitzgerald's investigation ran amok. Fitzgerald rejected that idea Friday. The
FBI pressed on because it was important to know whether the leaks were approved by others, Fitzgerald said, and Libby impeded that effort.

"Mr. Libby's prosecution was based not upon politics but upon his own conduct," Fitzgerald said.

Libby's supporters wrote letters to the court on his behalf, but Walton has not decided whether to release them. Eleven news organizations filed documents Friday urging Walton not to keep them secret because they were filed in an attempt to influence Libby's sentence and should therefore be part of the public record.

Libby's attorneys disagreed, telling Walton that the writers intended their words to be private. Releasing the letters, attorneys said, would discourage people from weighing in on future cases.

<b>Fitzgerald referenced the letters Friday and, even without the direct quotes, it's clear that some strongly criticized the investigation.

Libby's supporters, Fitzgerald said, have tried to "shift blame away from Mr. Libby for his illegal conduct and onto those who investigated and prosecuted Mr. Libby for unexplained 'political' reasons."</b>

Libby's lawyers have said he deserves to be pardoned, but the White House has been guarded about the issue. Top Democrats have urged Bush not to pardon him.

tecoyah · 05-29-2007, 05:52 PM

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

Quote:

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 summary is part of an attachment to Fitzgerald's memorandum to the court supporting his recommendation that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former top aide, spend 2-1/2 to 3 years in prison for obstructing the CIA leak investigation.

The nature of Plame's CIA employment never came up in Libby's perjury and obstruction of justice trial.

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

One more silly excuse, out the window

aceventura3 · 05-30-2007, 07:27 AM

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.

Rekna · 05-30-2007, 08:36 AM

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.

host · 05-30-2007, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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.

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:

Quote:

......And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.

And so I welcome the investigation.....

...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....

tecoyah · 05-30-2007, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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.

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?

aceventura3 · 05-30-2007, 11:13 AM

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:

Quote:

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

And Host says this:

Quote:

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.

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.

host · 05-30-2007, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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?

aceventura3 · 05-30-2007, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

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"?

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.

Quote:

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?

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!

Quote:

Hasn't everything that he has so delicately pursued, and spoken so infrequently in public about, come to pass, so far?

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?

Rekna · 05-30-2007, 05:45 PM

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.

aceventura3 · 06-06-2007, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

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?

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?

Quote:

MR. GIULIANI: — and he knew a crime wasn’t committed. I recommended over a thousand pardons to President Reagan when I was associate attorney general. I would see if it fit the criteria for pardon. I’d wait for the appeal. I think what the judge did today argues more in favor of a pardon —

MR. BLITZER: Thank you.

MR. GIULIANI: — because this is excessive punishment —

MR. BLITZER: All right.

MR. GIULIANI: — when you consider — I’ve prosecuted 5,000 cases —

MR. BLITZER: I’m trying to get a yes or no. (Laughter.)

MR. GIULIANI: Well, this is a very important issue. This is a very, very important — a man’s life is at stake. And the reality is, this is an incomprehensible situation. They knew who the leak was —

MR. : Say, Wolf, can I explain — (off mike) —

MR. GIULIANI: — and ultimately, there was no underlying crime involved.

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

host · 06-06-2007, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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.

ubertuber · 06-06-2007, 12:00 PM

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?

aceventura3 · 06-06-2007, 12:10 PM

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.

Quote:

Liberate Libby

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted 6/5/2007

Justice: Sentencing Scooter Libby to 30 months in prison for the crime of misremembering three-year old conversations does more than damage an innocent man. It also damages the very idea of public service.

By now, Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff no doubt regrets not taking extensive notes on every conversation he had over the past six years. If he had, he might not be facing the undeserved ruin of his public career.

Sadly, that is why Libby is looking at nearly three years in prison and a fine of $250,000 (on top of the hundreds of thousands of dollars he's been forced to spend for his defense). He committed no crime — at least not one the government could get close to proving.

Though prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald initially said he would show it was Libby who revealed the identity of former CIA agent Valerie Plame, he failed to do so. Not wanting to fail completely, Fitzgerald did the next best thing — he found inconsistencies in Libby's testimony, the kind commonly found when asking people to recall events more than three years old, and pursued a conviction on charges of obstruction and lying .

A technical case was made to the jury — though the jurors later said they felt Libby was a fall guy and shouldn't have to do time. As Libby's lawyers accurately noted, "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."

Meanwhile, more than 150 public officials, academics and others who knew or worked with Libby — including Donald Rumsfeld, Henry Kissinger and Marine Gen. Peter Pace — wrote letters on his behalf to Judge Reggie B. Walton. Some are quite moving, and we commend them to anyone interested in knowing the real Scooter Libby as opposed to the caricature drawn in the gloating mainstream media.

Despite all that, Walton sentenced Libby to 30 months, saying, "People who occupy these types of positions, where they have the welfare and security of the nation in their hands, have a special obligation not to do anything that might create a problem."

With all due respect to Judge Walton, you go to prison in this country not for "creating a problem" but for committing a crime. Our "special obligation" is to obey the law. Period.

As we've said, President Bush should pardon Libby, and the sooner the better. Politics shouldn't determine the outcome of American justice. Libby was found guilty of covering up a crime that neither he nor anyone else was ever charged with committing. This seems to us a Kafkaesque perversion of our justice system.

Sadly, it's also evidence of the bizarre double standard we now have when it comes to official misconduct. Early on, even before he was indicted, Democrats insisted that Libby be fired. They also wanted the head of Bush adviser Karl Rove.

Well, the same day Libby was sentenced, the Justice Department brought a 16-count, 94-page indictment for corruption, bribery and racketeering against Rep. William Jefferson. The Louisiana Democrat was found to have $90,000 of suspicious cash socked away in a freezer at his home. Two of his associates have already pleaded guilty. Yet Jefferson still "serves" in Congress.

By comparison, Libby is a decent man who worked tirelessly to make America safer.

After this travesty, we wonder if any sensible person — Republican or Democrat — would want to serve in a government where raw power and personal destruction hold sway. Ask Scooter Libby.

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

dc_dux · 06-06-2007, 02:02 PM

The only opinion that counts (and is not influenced by having a political agenda like Guiliani) is that of Judge Reggie Walton:

Quote:

Reflecting prosecution and defense arguments, the judge acknowledged Libby’s position in government. Walton also said, however, that there is a “heightened responsibility” for a well-placed government official, when he is notified that there is an investigation. Walton said, “I just can’t buy in on that being good social policy” that a government official convicted of obstruction should get off. “Knowingly obstructing the process,” Walton said, “I think there’s a price to pay. If you know there’s an investigation going on, you come forward, you tell the truth.”
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4646

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:

Quote:

Legal cases cited by the prosecution, the judge and even by the defense apparently establish that successful conviction on the underlying crime does not have to be achieved in a case about obstruction. ....the string of cases (defendant names include McQueen, Arias, LeMoure, etc). Anyway, defense attorney Jeffress acknowledged this point in the sentencing hearing. To say otherwise does not work in court; unfortunately, it carries the day with the noise machine.

Will the wingnuts next claim be that Walton is a closet liberal?

Quote:

Judge Reggie B. Walton assumed his position as a United States District Judge for the District of Columbia on October 29, 2001, after being nominated to the position by President George W. Bush

Judge Walton previously served as an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia from 1981 to 1989 and 1991 to 2001, having been appointed to that position by Presidents Ronald Reagan in 1981 and George H. W. Bush in 1991.

Judge Walton served as President George H. W. Bush's Associate Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy in the Executive Office of the President and as President Bush's Senior White House Advisor for Crime.
http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/walton-bio.html

aceventura3 · 06-06-2007, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

The only opinion that counts (and is not influenced by having a political agenda like Guiliani) is that of Judge Reggie Walton:

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.

tecoyah · 06-06-2007, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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.

aceventura3 · 06-07-2007, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

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?

ubertuber · 06-07-2007, 06:54 AM

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.

tecoyah · 06-07-2007, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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?

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.

aceventura3 · 06-07-2007, 07:32 AM

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

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.

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.

tecoyah · 06-07-2007, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

-snip-

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.

aceventura3 · 06-07-2007, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

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.

Rekna · 06-07-2007, 11:27 AM

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.

ubertuber · 06-07-2007, 11:36 AM

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.

aceventura3 · 06-07-2007, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Stop with the straw man arguments.

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.

Rekna · 06-07-2007, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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.

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?

aceventura3 · 06-07-2007, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

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.

ubertuber · 06-07-2007, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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.

aceventura3 · 06-07-2007, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

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.

ubertuber · 06-07-2007, 12:35 PM

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

aceventura3 · 06-07-2007, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

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.

Quote:

Contempt of court citation

In April 1999, about two months after being acquitted by the Senate, Clinton was cited by Federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright for civil contempt of court for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. For this citation, Clinton was assessed a $90,000 fine, and the matter was referred to the Arkansas Supreme Court to see if disciplinary action would be appropriate.[6]

Regarding Clinton's January 17, 1998, deposition where he was placed under oath, the judge wrote:

"Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false . . . ." [7]

In January 2001, on the day before leaving office, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license as part of an agreement with the independent counsel to end the investigation. Based on this suspension, Clinton was also automatically suspended from the United States Supreme Court bar, from which he chose to resign. [8]

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

dc_dux · 06-07-2007, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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.

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?

ubertuber · 06-07-2007, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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

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

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

aceventura3 · 06-08-2007, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

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 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.

Rekna · 06-08-2007, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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.

mr_alleycat · 06-08-2007, 08:39 PM

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.

host · 11-21-2007, 01:47 AM

This thread's OP, on page #1:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I think many of you know where this would be going, but let me post a bit from the Washington Post of all places.....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101460_pf.html

So its time to say you are sorry for blaming Mr. Rove, Bush, Cheney, and the real killers in the WTC. <h2>You, my friends, were duped.</h2>

My response to the above OP, also on page #1:

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

I regret that some of you boys have gotten into a phenomena in the "news bidnuss" that you might not fully grasp. That's okay....I don't mind guiding you through it, because your posts indicate that you might be in "over your head".
In fairness, I don't expect you to "get it" in just one post with just a limited number of examples, like I display for you below, in this post. I got many more, all specific to recent Washington Post editorials, vs. what staff news reporters....employed by the same paper, relate to us in other pages at the washingtonpost.com website......

Briefly, here's how it works, and here's why us liber-ull adults, navigate through it. <h3>What is written in the Washington Post editorials, is predominately conservative bull shit that would be much more at home in the news pages of say....the Washington Times. Much of what is spewed from the WaPo editorial "side", as our examples below, show, is directly contradicted in that paper's news reporting.....almost as if the editorial writer does not even read the rest of the newspaper.</h3>

Nothing in the editorial in this thread's OP, changes the findings of fact of special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, with regard to his disclosure of his findings in the investigation of the "Plame leak".

What is pleasant, however, is that you boys have now become partial to a small part of what appears in the Washington Post....a very small....and inconsequential portion. If you like, just ask one of us regular readers to guide you further, regarding what is reported in the "open loop", adult news sections of the WaPo, or if you prefer, just come by and visit the "closed loop" editorial page.....just don't mistake the editorials for reality based news reporting....because they aren't!

Quote:

....<h3>Given The Post's reputation for helping topple the Nixon administration, some of those involved in the prewar coverage felt compelled to say the paper's shortcomings did not reflect any reticence about taking on the Bush White House. Priest noted, however, that skeptical stories usually triggered hate mail "questioning your patriotism and suggesting that you somehow be delivered into the hands of the terrorists.".........</h3>

I think the preceding paragraph indicates that some of you don't fully recognize just how much clout you have with regard to what the adult readers of the news reporting of the WaPo get to read.....or not. Just keep that "hate mail", a-comin' !

....and new, today:

Which of your friends were duped, and by whom?

Quote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071120/...leak_mcclellan
Former aide blames Bush for leak deceit

By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer Tue Nov 20, 6:45 PM ET

.....In an excerpt from his forthcoming book, McClellan recounts the 2003 news conference in which he told reporters that aides Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby were "not involved" in the leak involving operative Valerie Plame.

"There was one problem. It was not true," McClellan writes, according to a brief excerpt released Tuesday. "I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest-ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice president, the president's chief of staff and the president himself.".....

aceventura3 · 11-26-2007, 01:25 PM

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.

05-30-2007, 07:27 AM	#124 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	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. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

06-06-2007, 12:00 PM	#134 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	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? __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

06-07-2007, 06:54 AM	#140 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	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. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

06-07-2007, 11:36 AM	#146 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	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. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

06-07-2007, 12:35 PM	#152 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	Actually, in other words, a jury found Clinton innocent, which throws a kink in your comparison, as a jury found Libby guilty. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

03-06-2007, 09:51 AM	#121 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	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.

05-30-2007, 08:36 AM	#125 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	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.

05-30-2007, 05:45 PM	#131 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	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.

06-07-2007, 11:27 AM	#145 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	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.

06-08-2007, 08:39 PM	#158 (permalink)
mr_alleycat Upright	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.

11-26-2007, 01:25 PM	#160 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	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. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."